tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30354931222413092442024-02-20T15:45:11.935-08:00save the riders dunesSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-37159079297042131832012-12-03T10:27:00.002-08:002012-12-03T10:27:43.590-08:00<br />
<div>
Subject: RE: Oregon Dunes NRA Management Area 10c Designated Routes
Project</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Dear Mr. Ingersoll,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The five alternatives presented by the Forest Service in their DEIS dated
10/2012 are unacceptable. The Forest Service needs to start from scratch to
develop new alternatives that will provide maintenance of the OHV trail-riding
experience. The value of the trail riding experience is not found by wide
connecting roads (i.e. whoop roads). The preferred alternative (4) closes 62% of
trails (84 miles closed out of 135 miles) --- unacceptable.</div>
<div>
I am a member of Washington ATV Association and find the closures proposed
in this document to directly negatively affect our membership and usage of the
dunes. In the 1972 Act that created the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area
(ODNRA) we had 28,900 acres of mostly wide open sand to ride on.<br />In 1979 that
area was reduced to roughly 14,000 acres for mixed use. We had no problem with
that. It was big enough for all.<br />In 1994 this was split up, 4,455 acres was
basically closed and what is in contention today, 18 years later. This acreage
is called 10C which is “trails only” that is by their definition closed. We are
authorized to ride on 5,930 acres or 21% of the original 28,900 acres.<br />In the
1972 Act; one of the main points was to establish an Advisory Council in order
to receive public input for management of the ODNRA. This is law. They decided
they did not need it.<br />After misguided management, over 80% of the then open
sand of the ODNRA is now nonnative vegetation the USFS planted. We all see it
but most of it is hidden because it is in the area that we do not ride in. Their
main focus, energy and money should be concentrated in managing this tsunami of
invasive beach grass. Restoration should be their only thought, not OHV
closures. OHV is the ONLY defense against this nonnative vegetation. On top of
that we pay them to kill the grass. Even the Greenes agree with us on this
point. They say that our impact is minimal so should not be considered. We say
why would you want to stop anything that will help kill the grass? Restoration;
Restoration; Restoration!<br />In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
they say that the economic impact cannot be measured so it will not be
considered. COOS, DOUGLAS and LANE COUNTIES depend on the ODNRA and economics do
matter. They use some pretty fuzzy math. In less than 50 years there will be no
open sand. Nobody will come to the ONDRA, hikers or OHV if the USFS continues to
focus on OHV closures not Restoration.</div>
<div>
The proposed actions are detrimental to the health of the sports and
economy on the Oregon coast that rely on these areas, not to mention the safety
and enjoyment of the clubs, people, and families that currently use the dunes
for recreation. The trails in question have been around for decades, and while
the 10c management plan calls for "controlled opportunities" for OHV use, the
plan did not accommodate the growth of the various OHV users of the ODNRA. The
Forest Service needs to start over in their assessment to develop new
alternatives to provide reasonable solutions that will accommodate the user
experience and protect the wetlands and vegetation, which may include opening
more "open areas" to OHV use, or formulating a plan for the creation and
maintenance of a designated trail system.</div>
<div>
Respectfully<br />Eric<br /></div>
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-20376453540766064552012-11-15T13:48:00.000-08:002012-11-15T13:52:44.517-08:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Jerry Ingersoll, Forest Service Supervisor
November 14, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">c/o Angie Morris, Recreation Planner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Siuslaw National Forest<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">855 Highway 101<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Reedsport, Oregon 97467<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">RE: ODNRA Designated Routes project<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Dear Mr. Ingersoll, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">As you are likely aware I have been involved in OHV activities to
include safety legislation, funding for law enforcement, as well as for the
Forest Service and other agencies. I
have been supportive and have worked at including all stakeholders in an attempt
to bring them together for the benefit of all.
Sadly I am very disappointed that the OHV community’s efforts to work
cooperatively together are nothing more than naïve disillusionment on our
part. Your process could not have made
that more clear.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let’s go back a few years.
Initially we tried to partner with the Forest Service in getting the
existing trails mapped. We were told the
intent was to map and keep but forbid new trails. Your GPS equipment wouldn’t work at the time
so we used ours – at the FS direction. A
lot of time was spent in mapping all of the areas only to find out from the FS
that you could not use the data.
Ironically I believe you have used this data against us – you have to map
it to close it and close it is clearly what has happened.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Nonetheless, we are the believing public. We chalked it up to a misunderstanding and
moved on. When the committee was formed
we noticed the lack of OHV participants involved and felt it odd that others
would have an equal or greater say to OHV matters. Simply put, why would a mushroom grower (a
commercial grower) have as much or more say on a recreational issue? Consider also their use is part-time, limited
in area, and rarely disturbed by the OHVers.
They use our trails to access their picking areas. This is just one example but there are more….
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Looking at the bigger picture one has to wonder about common
sense. We have the FS dictating a plan
when the FS has failed for years to manage the area. We have the FS looking at environmental
impact statements regarding “damage” done by the OHVers when clearly the biggest
threat to the dunes is the many invasive non-native species the FS intentionally
planted years ago and has neglected to control.
By the FS actions and inactions they have become the biggest risk to the
ODNRA and yet we still allow them to remain in control of the area? Ironically OHV activity is one of the best
tools we have available to save the dunes.
Even environmental groups support OHV activity in this area. We are not the problem – mismanagement by the
FS is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I find the history of the ODNRA just as disturbing. It was initially designed as a recreational
area, because it was not considered at the time to be useful for any other
purpose – including commercial timber.
At some point it was determined non-native and very invasive beach grass
was a great idea. Building a foredune
was included in this master plan with the intent to halt the shifting sands and
protect our roadways and towns. Plant a
little scotch broom and non-native pine and wahlah – we have ourselves another
government idea gone badly. Years pass
and all is considered a success as the dunes are quickly overtaken and
“stabilized”. In the original plan the
intent was to manage and control the invasive species the FS planted. Lack of funding and the fact that the
planners underestimated how difficult and fast spreading the beach grass was, it
rapidly spread to other areas. How many
acres have already been lost by a very poor plan and then a lack to manage it
responsibly? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now we are protecting the invasive species the FS planted that will
eventually be the death of the dunes and rather than looking at how to fix a
problem they have created they look to one of the only successful tools
available and restrict it further? I
would like to see an environmental impact done on the damages to the ODNRA over
the past hundred years as a result of the FS actions, and inaction. You are clearly barking up the wrong tree on
this one….. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Unless this is a political agenda… and then it all makes
sense. We serve a Green God and there is
a huge push to protect the environment.
Okay, then in this case we are all on the same team, right? If the goal is to save the Dunes then two
things need to happen. The first is to
remove these lands from the FS care.
Clearly the FS has not been able to adequately manage them. Additionally, they are not a viable
commercial forest and have been designated recreation. There is a direct conflict. Return these public lands to the State for
management. Secondly, manage the area to
remove and manage the invasive species that were intentionally planted to
include restoration to the dunes original state before the government agencies
came up with their brilliant plan.
Pretty simple really. What we
shouldn’t do is more of the same with the same agencies because it is clearly
not working.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I am certain my remarks have been expressed a hundred ways a
thousand times or more. It falls on deaf
ears. I am also quite aware if it is not
specific to the plan then it will be discarded.
So let’s hit the specifics with regard to this
plan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Specifically I firmly believe the FS has intentionally misled the
public using deceptive practices. One
example is with terminology. The OHV
public, as well as the public in general, defines trails as what you refer to as
“user created trails”. Then you define
authorized trails as what we would consider roads. It is referring to a “freeway” as a single
dirt road. Very misleading and I believe
very intentional. I have been riding
with my family since about 2003 in the Northern riding area. We did not participate in OHV activity until
then. I would consider us a very law
abiding family. We follow the
rules. We stayed on the trails and
stayed off of those signed closed. We
have ridden those trails with law enforcement and have never been told they were
off-limits. No tickets were written, no
signs ever went up on those trails. Now
other trails were posted so it would leave the common person to believe if well
used trails didn’t have a sign posted then it was legal to ride there. Many of these trails have also been
maintained – possibly by the FS themselves and are considered to meet Trail
Class 2 standards (Page 140 “Little input was needed because all designated
routes proposed are <b>existing
user-developed routes needing little, if any improvement to meet Trail Class 2
Standards</b>”). Trees fall and yet the
downed trees are cut up and removed from the trail. So for years millions of visitors to these
areas have been riding these trails without event. New trails that are started are quickly
posted closed. The message was – these
are open, these are closed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">BUT – now the FS refers to these trails as illegal user created
trails and identifies only the roadways (that you deceptively call trails) as
the only legal avenue for travel. Then
you post a sign, about a year ago, on one of these roadways that instructs
riders to stay on the trails. Very
deceptive and the timing is suspect.
Basically what it appears you have done is to mislead the public once
again. They are staying on the trails
but what you haven’t said, or enforced, or defined well for the public is that
you meant roads, I mean trails, or you know, user created trails are illegal but
you can stay on the trails that really are roads.. oh, it gets so
confusing. Meanwhile people continue to
ride on the trails as they feel it is legal.
It also makes this process much easier for you. By your definition you are not closing trails
– only user created trails. To the
public it simply means you are closing all of the trails and they can only
legally travel on the roads that you call trails. (page 68 “Currently, the public are not
reasonably aware that travel through MA 10C is permitted on designated routes
only.”) Since
1994?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">That brings us to Alternative 1 – this clearly shows the deception
to the public. It says no action will be
taken. It will remain as it is. Many in the public will be ecstatic with this
option BUT it is because no change for them means they can legally continue to
ride on all the trails they have been riding on for years but just can’t create
new ones. For the FS it means they go
back to the 1994 plan that was never implemented or signed and all “trails” will
be closed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">That brings me to my second point.
10-B was open for riding meaning you could ride cross-country, create as
many dang trails around the plantation pine and clumps of invasive grass as
desired. Now that it has grown in with
invasive specie’s we have to protect it and there is an accusation that the
trails were made illegally by the riders?
This makes no sense. The entire
area was open to riding – the mismanagement by the FS to not contain the
invasive species is the issue. You are
taking away an area based on your mismanagement? You are banning OHV use in areas where it is
literally needed? Those trails that you
close – do you expect them to revert to sand or grow over with more invasive
species? It is the free flowing sand
that needs protected. So clearly
Alternative 1 would be the worst option for the OHVers and the
environment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Converting 10B to 10C – That opens up a huge can of worms for the
FS. To protect the dunes the reverse
would be most beneficial. Open up more
areas for travel not less. (page 129,
etc. “<b>Designating additional routes
would lessen the magnitude of resource impacts</b> on nearby currently
designated routes by distributing OHV use in the riding area.”) Travel keeps the invasive species at
bay. As far as impact from OHV activity
– clearly when you are talking about changing what was open to OHV use to
restricted access because of the flora and fauna you must consider if we were
such a negative impact then these areas wouldn’t have allowed the flora and
fauna to thrive. ( Page 73 – “The effect
of all alternatives on TES botanical species <b>is no impact</b> and further discussion is
not needed”) OHV use has not been enough to keep those areas open – why would
you then exacerbate the problems by banning a “tool”?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">With regard to the other options:
Basically all the options are to close and offer no solution to the
actual problem at hand. This is in part
by starting with Alt. 1 suggesting to the public there will be no change when in
fact it is a total trail closure. I can
stress how deceptive this is. When your
starting point is flawed it makes it nearly impossible to take a comprehensive
appraisal of the other alternatives.
This document and its supporting evidence was not made in a way that the
public can understand or reasonably comment.
Most will be discouraged and confused.
Was this intentional misleading or an unintentional act simply due to
your depth and understanding of the topic?
Either way, it is your responsibility to insure it is easy enough for the
public to understand so they can make an informed comment. I do not believe you have
succeeded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Clearly most in the OHV world will opt for Alternative 5. It appears to give the OHV community
something when it is really simply still taking a massive amount away. It is the only option that allows access to
the lake. As I understand it the FS in
managing this area is instructed to manage for a variety of recreational
uses. This is the only option that will
allow my family to continue to swim, fish (page 113 “The direct and indirect
effects are not measurable….”), boat, and relax by the lake. We spend many hours there at each visit and
swim there year round. Clearly, by the
many remarks received, other families heavily use this area as well. I was disappointed that our remarks seemed to
have been ignored.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Obviously when only given these choices I too would pick
Alternative 5. It is like picking
between bad or worse and I feel that this whole process has been flawed and
misleading from the start. Clearly the
outcome is what I had expected based on the Land issues in other areas. The FS saved the most heavily used for last
so they wouldn’t bring attention to the less used and easier to close
areas. The benefit to the OHV riders at
the ODNRA is the outrage being expressed currently by all outdoor
recreationalists affected by the massive closures of public lands is leading
into legislative and legal changes. I
believe the FS will be temporarily effective in implementing their chosen option
but feel the public will at some point have their fill and we will see a change
to this process and access. Do I feel I
have any course of action – that my comments will make any difference
whatsoever? Clearly no. Likely it is a
waste of time and likely that is what the FS hopes to accomplish. You are required to take public input but
that doesn’t mean you have to consider it.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Sadly I feel there is a solution to the actual threat to the ODNRA
that will never be explored. Without
legal intervention the public will be left out of the process then restricted
from PUBLIC lands. Who then will be held
accountable when the dunes are no more?
I suggest the FS should focus on returning the ODNRA to its pre 1930’s
condition. If OHVs are not a threat and
the FS is then who should really be the one restricted? Do your jobs and clean up the mess you have
created. The OHV community is an asset –
not a liability. We should be treated as
a partner rather than a pest.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Lastly I have one request for a response. The data was not listed and likely not
studied but I feel it is imperative to any decision made. What is the NEPA data for leaving things with
the current use to include all user created trails. There should have been an option for this as
well rather than or in addition to the Alt. 1 where no action would be
taken. If no action would be taken then
you need to take into consideration the continued use without change. This process is incomplete without that
information. It too should be an option
for the public to comment on. I await
your reply and ask that my comment be made a part of the legal record.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Thank you, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Linda Minten<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">37733 Robinson Dr.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Scio, Oregon 97374<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">503-394-2180<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-12854082294745181932012-11-06T12:57:00.000-08:002012-11-06T12:57:06.198-08:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">After taking a look at the final 1994
and dissecting the 2012 DEIS plan, we have come to the conclusion that the
Forest Service is NOT overseeing the entire ODNRA properly and is leading our
beautiful national treasure into extinction.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">Looking from the outside in, there is
not much difference between the 2 documents, just the dates. The main issue of
non-native vegetation still has not been addressed. What is the plan to control and/or remove
non-native? We would not be having such
issues if the Forest Service had not originally planted the Shore Pines or the
very invasive European Beach Grass. The spider web trail system (our beloved
trails) that are destined for closure would not exist as you have seen over time
from previous photos. Most of the spider
web trails go thru what the Forest Botanist mentioned on page 70 of the DEIS
document “<i>shore pines planted on
previously unstabilzed sand which has grown into forest that has little of the
plant diversity that you would expect in a natural woodland”. </i>Since 1972 when the Government
recognized the dunes as an Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, the dunes have
been dying a slow death and you, the Forest Service, have done NOTHING to stop
it and, if anything, have accelerated the problem.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">In the DEIS, we have seen nowhere
near what the economic impacts to the countries (Lane, Douglas & Coos) would
be. Did you consult with all 3
counties? If so, we would like to see
the document you sent to the counties and what their response was. In the DEIS the FS said that there was little
economic impact. We would like to know who or where you got your information
from. We have tried to search out your
resources to no avail but I did find this on the working group’s final draft
page 80. “<i>As discussed in the
“Recreation Capacity” issue narrative, OHV use levels in the south coast region
and on the ODNRA have increased steadily over the years. There have been a
number of studies and analyses of the contributions to local economies that this
use represents. In 1999, OSU published results of the Oregon Off-Highway Vehicle
User Survey, undertaken to provide a reliable estimate of the economic impact of
motorized recreation in Oregon. In estimating economic impacts, the study
identified the jobs and income that are the result of OHV recreation and
assessed the revenues generated from motorized recreation in the
state</i>.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">In your DEIS report on page 137,”<b><i>traffic
counts of vehicles entering the primary access corridors into the ODNRA indicate
that recreation use and visitation to the ODNRA has remained essentially flat
for the past decade.” </i></b>The
working group’s document and the DEIS were both prepared by you with two
different economic impacts? On the same
page, <b><i>“A
2011 Forest Service economic analysis concludes that OHV use at the ODNRA
contributes about 2.5 million annually to the three counties within which the
ODNRA is located (Coos, Douglas and Lane).
It accounts for about 82 jobs within the three-county
area”.</i></b> Seriously, a
handful on larger ATV shops will contribute that 2.5 million annually to the
ODNRA just by themselves.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">This document is heavily flawed
beyond usability by cantering towards your bookend only which does not meet the
OHV community’s interest what-so-ever.
It needs to be discarded and revisited with more <b>RESPECT</b> to
the taxpayer’s bookend with data and science that is current and
<strong>CORRECT</strong>. This is why we
feel this DEIS booklet is simply the first card dealt into the poker
game…..certainly not the last one.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Lance
and Barbara Rowland</span></o:p></span></span></div>
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-30626526130828045642012-11-06T12:34:00.003-08:002012-11-06T12:34:44.734-08:00<span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;"> Heidi Murphy </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;"> 3621 NW 131</span><sup style="line-height: 18px;">st</sup><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;"> St.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;"> Vancouver, WA. 98685</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Mr. Jerry Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor and Ms. Angie Morris,
Recreation Planner</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;">855 </span><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;">Highway 101</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;">Reedspo</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">rt,</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">OR. 97467</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">November 5, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> I am commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Oregon
Dunes NRA Management Area 10 C Designated Routes Project document released on
10/26/12. I work within government and
produce reports based on fact and data.
I understand the great amount of time that goes into writing the report,
analyzing the data, and vetting it amongst all stakeholders and those within
the agency. However, I have noted
multiple discrepancies and conclusions based on either incorrect or no data at
all, which I will describe. NEPA policy requires agency decision makers to make
informed decisions [1502.24 Methodology and Scientific Accuracy]. It states that agencies shall insure the
professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and
analyses in environmental impact statements.
I have also found multiple instances in which the Forest Service is not
following NEPA policy, which I will detail.
These, in combination, lead me to distrust the validity of this entire
document. I am asking the Forest Service
to rewrite this plan, considering the relevant data, and redo their “Oregon
Dunes NRA Management Area 10 C Designated Routes Project” document. I advocate for a plan which calls for the
restoration of the dunes, to include areas that are currently designated as 10
C to be reallocated as 10 B. In the
Forest Service document, “Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designated Routes Working
Group Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area” dated October, 2010, Siuslaw
National Forest</span>, t<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">he
Forest Service states, “It appears that there are areas where eliminating
non-native vegetation such as European beach</span> <span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">grass and restoring historically open sand areas would be a reasonable
management objective” (page 71). Let’s
proceed on this path stated by the Forest Service, of dunes restoration. Both OHV riders AND the environmentalists are
already aligned on this goal.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> The Forest Service must follow NEPA (National Environmental Policy
Act)/Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) policy. I will further describe how the Forest
Service has failed to follow this policy:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -0.25in;"> ·</span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 9px; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-indent: -0.25in;">A</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -0.25in;">lternative 1 (page iii of the DEIS) states, “No
Action; no additional routes designated and enforcing all user-developed routes
as closed.” </span></div>
<div class="ListParagraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="ListParagraph">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> A no –action alternative is required by CEQ (40
CFR 1502.14(d). This alternative forms
the basis of comparison between meeting the project needs and not meeting the
project needs. This alternative provides
baseline information for understanding changes associated with the action
alternatives. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span>However, we are not presented with a no-action alternative in the DEIS
dated 10/2012. A no-action alternative
would entail no closures. The Forest
Service is aware of how to write a no-action alternative. This is evidenced in their Record of
Decision, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Management Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement, written by the USDA Forest Service, dated
7/12/1994. In this document on page 21,
Alternative C, provides a “no action” alternative that states, </span><i style="font-size: 12pt;">“Alternative C would continue management
under the existing NRA management plan. It is the "no action"
alternative. Management would continue to focus primarily on recreation
resources with approximately a 50/50 mix in ORV and non-motorized opportunities</i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">”...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The DEIS provides no baseline
information for understanding the changes associated with the action
alternatives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">·</span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 9px; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">Economics and safety are removed from scope per page 12 of the DEIS
document dated 10/2012. The DEIS states
that “of the eight issues, six were believed to be directly related to the
decision to be made and measurable among the various alternatives, such that
differences between the alternatives for that issue could be readily and
clearly displayed.” The two issues that
were removed from scope include economics and safety. Comments from the public cannot be removed as
“out of scope” on these topics and reasons are as follows:</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"> Congress used the phrase “human environment” in NEPA, so when an EIS
is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental
effects are interrelated, the EIS should discuss all of these effects per
1508.8 [40 C.F.R. 1508.8] The DEIS
clearly does not discuss effects of safety nor economics, while NEPA mandates
that they do. “The agency has the responsibility
to make an informed judgment, and to estimate future impacts on that basis,
especially if trends are ascertainable or potential purchasers have made
themselves known. The agency </span><b style="font-size: 12pt;">cannot
ignore </b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">these uncertain, but probable, effects of its decisions.”</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> Economics</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">: on page 15 of the DEIS,
it states, “The alternatives being considered in this action only indirectly
affect local economies, primarily through their effects on ODNRA
visitation.”</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"> According to the report entitled, The Economic Impacts of Off-Highway
Vehicle (OHV) Recreation in Oregon, Main Report, prepared by Oregon State
University, Sept. 4, 2009, 81.4 million is spent on OHV trip expenditures on
the South Coast, rather than the 2.5 million the DEIS states. OHV trip expenditures account for 829 jobs
within the three-county area rather than the 82 jobs reported in the DEIS. This is quite a staggering difference and
something that I’m quite certain the three counties would want and required to
be informed about (as noted that they were informed on page 144 of the DEIS). These counties now need to be informed with
the </span><b style="font-size: 12pt;">correct</b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> information. The Forest Service is quite aware of this
research. The document is cited on page
97 of the “Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designated Routes Working Group Oregon
Dunes National Recreation Area” dated October, 2010, Siuslaw National Forest
document, however, not cited within the DEIS.
In a personal conversation with the OSU Library on 11/5/2012 with Victoria
Heiduschke, Learning Commons Coordinator, The Valley Library, I found that OSU has conducted no further
economic studies with a later date than Sept. 4, 2009 nor had any other
entities, which makes it clear that no newer data was used, and that the data
is cited incorrectly as to appear as less of an economic impact to the three
counties.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"> <b>Safety</b></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">: on page 14 of the DEIS,
it states, “Currently, there is no accurate, reliable way of tracking injuries
to OHV riders within the riding areas at the ODNRA.” In fact, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA),
Injury Prevention and Epidemiology Program does just that. In my professional capacity as a Research
Analyst with the OHA Injury Prevention and Epidemiology Program, I presented at
the Oregon ATV Law Enforcement Conference held in Redmond, OR during April of
this year on ATV safety data for the Oregon Dunes. The ODNRA is within the sentinel area (Coos
Bay, Winchester Bay, Florence, and Sand Lake) and data does, in fact,
exist. Instances of both injuries and deaths
are submitted to the OHA by local law enforcement within each jurisdiction
among other data collection methods. So,
in fact, there is a baseline to consider the alternatives against. The DEIS further states that “Past history at
the Dunes seems to indicate that even in popular, most congested areas of the
ODNRA vehicle on vehicle accidents are rare and most rider injuries occur in
lower density areas, due to people operating machines beyond their
skill/competency level, and not from crashing into one another.” This is obviously not based on data, since it
was stated that “no data exist.” The
DEIS further states on page 14 that “Rider density can be a partial detriment
to rider safety…” According to the
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Visitor Survey, Robert Burns, March 2008,
the majority of 2006 visitors felt that the number of people they saw (crowding
acceptability) was unacceptable, 75% of those surveyed. With preferred alternative four, 84 miles of
riding area would be closed. Page 67 of
the DEIS states that 46% of the dunes are open to motorized use. However, upon review of the breakout on page
8 of the DEIS, it illustrates that actually only <b>40</b>% of the dunes are open to motorized use as follows: 10(B)
Off-road vehicle open 21% 5,930 acres, 10 (C) ORV on designated routes 15%
4,455 acres, and 10 (D) Developed Corridors 4% 1,050 acres. The sum of these three is actually only 40%
of dunes open to motorized use rather that the 46% stated on page 67. Concentrating riders into a smaller area
within this acreage only adds to the problem of crowding.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">· <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">NEPA does not mandate closure.
All alternatives proposed within the DEIS mandate some level of closure.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">·</span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -0.25in;">The Forest Service did not follow the working group’s recommendations
when stating the “preferred alternative” within the DEIS. The working group’s recommendations were most
closely aligned with Alternative 5 in the DEIS.
In the Forest Service document, “Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designated
Routes Working Group Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area” dated October,
2010, Siuslaw National Forest, the Forest Service states, “It appears that
there are areas where eliminating non-native vegetation such as European beach grass
and restoring historically open sand areas would be a reasonable management
objective” (page 71). Other key issues
discussed by the working group included favoring plans that called for
“Dispersing use in this area would enhance rider safety” (page 42).</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> ·</span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 9px; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 9px; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">The Forest Service does not use their own data when referring to the
“Trail riding experience.” On page iii
of the DEIS it is stated that “Open sand, largely unrestricted riding, had been
and remains the primary draw for OHV recreationists to the Oregon Dunes ODNRA.”</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="ListParagraph" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ListParagraph" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> Trail riding is only
marginally lower than open dune riding (open dunes riding preferred by 36.4 %
of respondents, trail riding, 31.8%).
This is data directly from the Forest Service, “Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area Visitor Survey”, Robert Burns, March, 2008, page 43. Again, the Forest Service clearly knows about
this data. It is referenced in the “Off
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designated Routes Working Group Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area” dated October, 2010, Siuslaw National Forest, yet not cited in
the DEIS.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> ·</span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 9px; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">Federal law, R.S. 2477, passed by Congress in 1866 states that any
travel route (Prescriptive Easement Roads) that was in use before the federal
government took an action that changed how the land along that route is
managed—must remain open to public use, to ensure the public has access to
roads that predate the creation of the Forest Service in 1905. They could be deemed, by a vote of the
commissioners, as public rights-of-way under R.S. 2477. See definition of “Prescriptive Easement
Roads” below.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #4BACC6 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #4BACC6 1.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 160; width: 90%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #4BACC6 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: solid #4BACC6 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="color: #31849b; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">6.Prescriptive Easement Roads. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid #4BACC6 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: solid #4BACC6 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="color: #31849b; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">These roads created are created by public use over time
without the permission of the landowner. No deed or easement document signed
by the landowner would exist on the county records. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> So, in conclusion, thank you for your time
and efforts in preparing the DEIS.
However, due to the reasons I have outlined in detail above, the DEIS is
not a trustworthy document. I request
that the document be re-written and that the overall goal shall be dunes
restoration, by way of reallocating 10 C land to 10 B.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Best Regards,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Heidi Murphy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">A Line in the Sand<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">360-901-8489<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-80582568635603167262012-11-06T12:02:00.000-08:002012-11-06T12:02:07.748-08:00 <span style="line-height: 115%;">The ODNRA is
a very special place. We all agree. Each one of us has a different perspective
on how to manage this special place. We do all agree that the dunes as we know
them are being destroyed by man planted European beach grass, scotch broom and
shore pine; all non-native vegetation.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"> The 1994
plan is flawed for so many reasons. The single biggest is the fact that the
USFS is not looking holistically at the ONDRA. They only look at 4,455 acres
vs. the entire 28,900 acres. The second is the funding they had or perceived to
have to restore some of the open sand was either used somewhere else or never
there. Their “do nothing and close to OHV” policy is wrong. Even the
environmental groups feel the same way about their do nothing policies. Please
start managing the 28,990 acres and quit closing the only economically viable
way to kill the grass. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"> Either way,
we are entering the final phase of the 10C process, for me we are simply asking
the wrong questions. Questions raised by the 1994 Plan that continue to kill
the open sand of the ODNRA, its beauty for all, and its economic viability.
Will anybody come to this area if there were no dunes??? We do not believe so.
That includes ALL visitors to this area. They will simply drive through without
stopping. All the research, maps, pictures and boots on the ground agree that
the open sand is quickly disappearing. The true question that needs to be asked
is how we save the 28,900 acres we call the ODNRA from certain and quickly
looming destruction. We are all losing and are either too stupid or unwilling
to do anything about it. It reminds me of Winston Churchill’s battle with the
British public about entering another war with Germany. We either do it now at
a whole lot less cost or wait until it is too late and the cost is unbearable.
Even now for some of the ONDRA it is too late. Let’s not make the rest die
before we do something. Does the Forest Service not see this? Does the Forest
Service know how to manage open sand? They seem to want to manage it the way
they manage forest. Way different management techniques and if that is the case
then the state or the counties should manage it. This is our home. Our love for
the dunes and for many our jobs depend on keeping the ODNRA open sand dunes,
not forest. We do not want to be harsh on the Forest Service or go into the
blame game but we must start asking the right questions. I know their heart is
in the right place but it is time to get out of the box of policy, procedures
and bias and move in the direction and focus of restoration, not closure.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"> We need to
redraw the line in the sand. The book-ends of the Alternatives are too close
all the 4,455 10C acres (Alt 1) or open up some of it based on most of the
recommendations of the 2009 Work Group (Alt 5). We need to redraw that line.
The first book end needs to starts with Alt 5 and end with open up all the 10C
to 10B and get away from the silliness of closure to areas that are clearly
non-native vegetation. Even on page 53 of the DEIS the Forest Service admits
that all the 10C is non-native vegetation. Of all the confusing language of the
document this ‘High” rating of ‘Risk of introducing or spreading invasive
species via the reallocation from MA 10C to MA 10B stands out as the most
telling argument of the whole document. They are saying that they need to close
10C so we cannot ride in it because when we leave 10C the non-native vegetation
there will attached to our tires and we will introduce non-native vegetation to
10B open sand thereby killing the open sand. We get confused just explaining
it. One needs only to look at the maps and the pictures to know that the
non-native vegetation spreads much faster in areas of the ONDRA that has been
closed to OHV. My God, this is so obvious that even a child can see it. OHV is
not the problem, non-native vegetation is. A<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3035493122241309244" name="_GoBack"></a>gain; OHV is
the only economically viable killer of non-native vegetation. OHV will even pay
to kill the non-native vegetation. Anything to stop the destruction of open
sand should be the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of managing the ONDRA.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"> Please stop
the destruction of our ODNRA. Please, let’s all get together and rewrite the
management to focus on Restoration, not closure.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-69970614785972286072012-04-04T14:58:00.000-07:002012-04-04T14:58:30.127-07:00Monumental Event<div class="MsoNormal">4/4/2012</div><div class="MsoNormal"> Yesterday, for the first time in the history of the Oregon Dunes, an environmental group; Wildlands CPR and an OHV group; Save the Riders Dunes (STRD) sat down with the Forest Service to discuss the future of the Oregon Dunes National Recreational Area (ODNRA). We all agreed we are losing the ODNRA to the unchecked growth of beach grass, scotch broom and shore pine. Restoration to open free flowing sand is our only hope to keep the ODNRA from certain death. All stake holders agreed that we can share the dunes. We also all agreed that we can work together and in doing so keep the areas most important to each of us healthy and manageable.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> The ODNRA will never be open free flowing sand again. The area is too big and unwanted vegetation too widespread to eradicate it no matter how much money is available. The beach grass is just too tenacious. We need to focus our efforts of restoration on specific areas that will achieve 4 main objectives: Snowy Plover habitat, Open OHV areas, native plant communities and the visual beauty of the dunes themselves. </div><div class="MsoNormal"> There were discussions on exactly how to accomplish these goals but first we need the organization and some basic knowledge to start the process. There needs to be two main groups initiated. One would be the stakeholders themselves. This would look similar to the 10C Work Group. Examples would be Enviros, OHV, USFS, BLM, Counties Corp of Engineers etc. The second group would be what is called the “Ologist”. (Biologist, Ecologist, and Botanist). They would begin to collect data like where is the native plant communities and where would be best to start foredune removal. We have set a goal to meet in mid-July time frame to keep the process moving. More information about who will be in the groups will be forthcoming. </div><div class="MsoNormal"> We also need to look at creating an unbiased group like “Friends of the Dunes” or “Friends of the ODNRA” that can act as a non-profit to request grants and collect funds for restoration. </div><div class="MsoNormal"> Specific to OHV are areas that are now open but heavily vegetated. In a few years there will be so much vegetation that we will not be able to ride there even though we are allowed to. The area just south of Spinreel and west of the open dunes is a good example. I call this area the “hidden dunes”. We must keep these areas designated 10B and OPEN. To do that we may have the ability to go in and pull shore pine, ride on beach grass and scotch broom. Basically restore these areas to open sand. It is a daunting task but we need to start somewhere.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> All of us must thank Sarah Peters from Wildlands CPR for reaching across the aisle and be willing to work with us to restore the dunes. She came out a few weeks ago to meet STRD to get our side of the story. That took some serious courage to come into the enemy’s camp. We will all benefit. Together we will help the FS focus on the restoration of the ODNRA so all of us will have a say in how we can keep our riding areas open for future generations. For me personally that will always be my number one priority. In a few years I will see my Great-Grandchild riding a quad with me. Now that will bring tears to my eyes!</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> Thanks, Jody Phillips President, STRD</div>Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-81271548883225861792011-08-25T11:36:00.000-07:002011-08-25T11:36:51.115-07:00letter #6 latest letter sent to FSMr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
Siuslaw National Forest Service Supervisor file code 1950<br />
<br />
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area<br />
<br />
I have been pondering over this proposed scoping letter since I 1st laid eyes on it in June. The Forest service pretty much closed every trail that was not thru to open dunes and you also wanted everyone to tell you the Forest Service which trails we as riders wanted left open and to be specific, I see one problem with that, you the Forest Service didn’t give us the tools, i.e. trail numbers or names to correlate to the trails we (riders) want left open. <br />
<br />
I / we as OHV riders feel that you the Forest Service caused these trail to exist, and now you want to close them, the Forest Service planted a very aggressive noxious weed (European Beach grass) and you also planted shore pines for stabilization, that you have let literally almost swallow up the open dunes and nearly put an endangered bird into extinction (snowy plover) and now you are having to mechanically remove the beach grass to open up nesting spots.<br />
<br />
I /we as riders feel we should have everything opened back up to us that was available in 1972. The only areas that should be closed off completely in the NORTH riding area should be the 5 native tree islands and the rest should be opened back up, to help the Forest Service eradicate the Scotch broom also a noxious weed and the European beach grass. The Middle riding area should have all the existing trails left open thru the Native forested areas, and all the area to the south of the 3rd parking lot be left opened up again to help the Forest Service eradicate 2 noxious weeds. The South riding area should again be left completely opened up except for the native forested areas (leave existing trails open) and to also have all the areas that you have listed as wetland remove from wetland status as to they were not originally wetlands, but due to the mismanagement of the Forest Service they are now non native wetlands.<br />
<br />
My conclusion is the Forest service NEEDS to do their job of enforcement, instead of closing off areas saying that we the riders don’t follow the rules, we as riders do follow most of the rules, except for a few bad apples and it is up to the Forest Service to educate or fine those particular bad apples instead of doing nothing, which has been the case. We as riders want all trails left open, and for the Forest Service to finally manage the dunes not mismanage them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
my info went here<br />
<br />
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-22648849215166960682011-08-09T07:15:00.000-07:002011-08-09T07:15:28.322-07:00Jerry Ingersolls email address<a href="mailto:Comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-centralcoast@fs.fed.us">Comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-centralcoast@fs.fed.us</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-52648299795714602392011-08-09T06:59:00.000-07:002011-08-09T06:59:23.383-07:00Letter 5Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
Siuslaw National Forest Service Supervisor file code 1950<br />
<br />
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
My family and others ride these 103 miles of “user created” trails that you are proposing to close, these would not be user created trails if the Forest Service had not planted these area for stabilizing the dunes, we would still have open dunes, but now that you the Forest Service have provided use riders with this unique opportunity you the Forest service is wanting to take it away because of a select few environmentalist shame on you.<br />
<br />
The mushrooms are another issue this is a recreation area not an agricultural commercial business, and yet you the Forest Service have provided a commercial business opportunity to mushroom pickers that really only happened because you the Forest Service wanted to stabilize the dunes.<br />
<br />
<br />
Name <br />
Address <br />
<br />
Your CommentsSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-88819842522416413672011-08-09T06:58:00.000-07:002011-08-09T06:58:02.913-07:00Letter 4Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
Siuslaw National Forest Service Supervisor file code 1950<br />
<br />
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
With all the letters that you have posted at the staging areas nowhere does it mention anything about closing 103 miles of trails, what you do say is your opening up 287 acres of NON useable riding area. Why don’t you come clean and put in writing exactly what you the Forest Service is doing and that is to eventually close the dunes to OHV, well most of us are noting going to let that happen.<br />
<br />
These trails need to be left open for OHVer’s to try and do what the Forest Service has failed to do for many years and that is to control a noxious & invasive species that the Forest Service had planted to stabilize open dunes, well now these open dunes are just about extinct.<br />
<br />
I along with 1000’s of OHVer’s hope you the Forest Service does the right thing and scrap this proposal that’s on the table and start over and go back to the 1979 plan or even better lets go back to 1972 and open the dunes all up.<br />
<br />
<br />
Name <br />
Address <br />
<br />
your commentsSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-72708206012971165362011-08-09T06:56:00.001-07:002011-08-09T06:56:38.576-07:00Lettter 3Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
Siuslaw National Forest Service Supervisor File code 1950<br />
<br />
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area<br />
<br />
The trails within the ODNRA (Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area) need to stay as trails, if you were to close off 103 miles of trails that many families enjoy at the slower pace when teaching the kids how to ride. This would put more riders into a smaller concentrated place with higher speeds; higher speeds plus new riders would/will cause more injuries.<br />
<br />
The Forest Service is saying that they are giving us OHVer’s 287 acres, well how much of that 287 acres is ride able maybe 10% due to all the overgrown vegetation that we were not allowed to ride due to you mismanagement/ hidden agenda of the 1994 plan.<br />
<br />
These are the #’s off of your own website<br />
<br />
10 (A) – Non-Motorized Undeveloped – 7,830 acres (27%) <br />
<br />
10 (B) – Off-Road Vehicle Open – 5,930 acres (21%) <br />
<br />
10 (C) – ORV on Designated Routes – 4,455 acres (15%) <br />
<br />
This is very misleading…we have approx.3.92 miles of designated routes thru this area which is NO more than 5 acres, so in reality 4,450 ACRES CLOSED to OHV riding<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
10 (D) – Developed Corridors – 1,050 acres (4%) <br />
<br />
Another bogus number maybe 500 acres is more like it<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
10 (E) – Snowy Plover Habitat – 1,010 acres (3%) <br />
<br />
10 (F) – Plant, Fish and Wildlife Habitat – 3,120 acres (11%) <br />
<br />
10 (G) – Wetlands Emphasis – 2,540 acres (9%) <br />
<br />
10(F) & 10(G) continue to grow into larger acreage every year due to the winter rains<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
10 (H) – Wildlife and Fish Viewing – 315 acres (1%) <br />
<br />
10 (J) – Recommended Wild and Scenic River – 1,090 acres (4%) <br />
<br />
10 (K) – Research Natural Area – 1,190 acres (4%) <br />
<br />
10 (L) – Noise Control Buffer – 370 acres (1%)<br />
<br />
So by calculations <br />
<br />
OHVer’s ride able area (acres) 6,435<br />
<br />
Closed to OHV use (acres) 22,415<br />
<br />
And you are wanting to take away another 103 miles of trails…NOT GOOD<br />
<br />
<br />
Name <br />
Address <br />
<br />
Your CommentSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-47599869803421451322011-08-09T06:54:00.001-07:002011-08-09T06:54:51.290-07:00Letter 2Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
Siuslaw National Forest Service Supervisor File code 1950<br />
<br />
Oregon Dunes National Recreation area<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It has come to my attention that the Forest Service is proposing to close 103 miles of trails within the ODNRA (Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area) also referred to as “user created trails.” The reason these trails exist today is because of mis-management from the Forest Service. These areas/trails that you are proposing to close only exist because of the Forest Service wanting to stabilize the sand from movement by introduction of a very aggressive European beach grass plus you have also let a noxious weed (scotch broom) take over the dunes. <br />
<br />
The best way and the most economical way to control these invasive species are to let OHVers continue to travel these areas/ trails. Just look at the areas that you have closed off and how the invasive species have run rampant to the north of South Jetty road to the Siuslaw River.<br />
<br />
Please reconsider the proposal that the Forest Service has put on the table and start off with a new one, that doesn’t have a hidden environmentalist agenda.<br />
<br />
<br />
Name <br />
Address <br />
<br />
<br />
your commentSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-89376848160414540072011-08-09T06:53:00.000-07:002011-08-09T06:53:11.779-07:00Letter 1Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
Siuslaw National Forest Service Supervisor file code 1950<br />
<br />
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Regarding the ODNRA (Oregon Dunes Recreation National Recreation Area) our family wants to see ALL trails, including the “user created trails”, kept open. We have been riding these dunes for several decades and have seen the loss of open dunes due to areas being closed and now they are covered with beach grass & scotch broom. <br />
<br />
I have just recently seen the pictures from 1960 before these dunes became ODNRA and have seen how much open sand we had at that time, and what we have as of today, within the next 60 years we will have NO open sand.<br />
<br />
Forest Service please do the right thing and go back to the table and come back with a better proposal, this is OUR PUBLIC LANDS to use.<br />
<br />
<br />
Name <br />
Address <br />
<br />
your commentSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-78936141727361367722011-07-30T08:10:00.001-07:002011-07-30T08:10:34.200-07:00another great letter..Riding ATV`s at these dunes has been a person hobby of mine since I was very young. They have had a huge impact on my entire life. What these people need to understand is that to us riders, this is not just a sport but a lifestyle choice. Most of my most fond childhood memories are that of which were made at the Oregon Dunes with my family, and in my adulthood the fond memories I have with friends. Many of whom I would have not had the amazing opportunity of knowing if it weren't for meeting them at the Dunes of riding trips, or sharing the unique love for riding ATV's. The sand makes riding the fun experience it is. If they are to take away a majority of this space, this sand that we love every spec of... Then they are taking away the one thing that means the most to so many people! If they were to go through w/this it would not only make many people disappointed and saddened but I believe it could also have many serious affects as well. One for example being (Taking into considering this is a hobby of thousands of people) taking away a majority of where we ride would confine all these ATV`s and motorcycle`s (not to exclude those who choose playing in the Sand with Vehical`s other than those previously mentioned, via side by sides, etc..) into a much more concentrated area. This would cause many saftey issues. The saftey issues would not stop at that. There are many different types of riders. Ranging anywhere between Vetran riders who like the adrenaline of going fast and doing hard climbs, to beginners such as CHILDREN (Due to this being a lovely family sport). These trails they are talking about closeing off, some of them have way less traffic which make it perfect to take your children or even anyone else who would just like a relaxing slow paced (FUN!) ride or to teach a beginner how to ride. All this by doing so not having to put them out where the possibility of them being hurt could be hire. Now imagine if people didnt have that right. Would they like to put their children into a high concentrated high traffic environment where due to so many people around and so many things going on an accident could very well happen? I don't think so. PLEASE see that to US this is like any other hobby.. You like golfing, great, how about someone takes away half your course... You like bowling? How about we shut down half the lanes. Fishing? Lets close down half the river. You're talking about taking away something we LOVE. You're taking away our lifestyle. You're taking away our happiness. PLEASE do not do this!!! Everyone has that something in their life that they can go to, to escape a bad week at work, a special place they have and make a tradition with their family's to vacation at, or just the one place they can truely kick back, relaxing, fully enjoy themselves and be able to have fun!! Serving the people!? I REALLY hope you decide to do just that. Whether or not you care about riding or not I hope you can see how many people are truley passionate about this lifestyle and how much you doing this would absolutly break thousands of peoples hearts. I am urging you, PLEASE make the right decision. <br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you!Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-77794273594092762502011-07-19T15:41:00.001-07:002011-07-19T15:41:33.447-07:00more comments to copy, edit or add your own verbage toMr. Ingersoll, <br />
<br />
<br />
Hey, I know you are probably receiving a lot of emails and this may not get read, but I thought I should at least try. <br />
<br />
My family and I ride the dunes several times a year. It is a lot of fun; and it brings revenue to those communities that we ride at. With gas, food, firewood, and even the occasional liquor store purchase :) We usually spend 200-300$ every time we go. And it is one expense that we haven't cut out because of our budget because of the fun that the entire family has. <br />
<br />
We used to ride the Joshua Lane Dunes in Florence, but those were closed. My two kids 9 and 10 were crushed when this happened. The adults are pretty upset to, it just seems like a waste to not be able to have some sort of accesses to them. Can it be opened as a day use park, and we will pay you to use it? <br />
<br />
Now I hear talk of closing more dunes? I just don't understand. Isn't that part of living here in beautiful Oregon. To be able to leave town and drive a few hours and ride the sand, play in the ocean, and camp out with friends and family. Riding ATV's is a true passion for people here in Oregon, and we are really hoping that there can be some compromise on why the trails and dunes need to be closed. People will pay to ride, so charge, charge, charge! Oregon can make some money and people can continue to ride and have a break from life.<br />
<br />
Thanks for taking the time out to read this. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Angie CoxSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-64032987529085048662011-07-13T10:32:00.001-07:002011-07-13T10:32:44.847-07:00history of the 1972 to dateComments on recent events in the Oregon Dunes<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The 1972 ODNRA Act<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_007083.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1994 Dunes Management Plan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_007084.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This is in response to the June 9, 2011 ODNRA Scoping letter. First off I’d like to thank the Forest Service for pushing this process though public involvement, even though this was already a signed decision. I’ve read through the proposed actions and I feel that there are some excellent changes to the original 10c lands base. With that said I’d like to highlight some other issues that haven’t been addressed with the proposed action.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On March 23, 1972 Congress passed the Act declaring the ODNRA into existence, this act was signed by President Nixon on the 24th. I read through this document and noticed some fairly strong language in Section 12 about an Advisory Council being established by the Secretary of Agriculture. It was fairly specific about the make-up of this council and it appears that they wanted a local body to assist the Forest Service with the direction of these lands. I’ve have spent several hours trying to find any meeting minutes or notes. I question why this council was never established.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Another thing I’d like to point out is how out of date the current plan is. The plan states that it is to be revised every 10 years but no more than 15 years between revisions. This plan is over 17 years old and the 10c designated trails has not been implemented. I ask why now? There are far more important goals outlined within this plan such as an active vegetation management plan implementation. The plan lists this as a higher priority and specifically identifies more funding to accomplish removal of beach grass, scotch broom, and plantations. Remember before the plantations and invasive vegetation these areas were open sand riding areas and not trails; so I question the validity of calling these trails now, instead of dunes where OHV traffic has benefited the ecosystem by hindering the establishment of invasive vegetation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There is also some other issues with the plan; it seems that the land designations aren’t consistent from one area to the next. There are two similar invasive vegetation created wetland areas one in the north and one in the south that that are listed under two separate land designations, while being very similar. Maybe this is because during the process of this plan the land base was evaluated by aerial photo interpretation instead of being verified on the ground. That would also be why the majority of 10c lands are plantation, beach grass, or other invasive vegetated lands and not globally significant plant communities. In fact OHV traffic will slow the invasive vegetation from overtaking more open sand lands.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To sum this up the Forest Service should seriously be looking at rewriting a management plan with the input of and advisory council before any implementation of trail closure. I think that the closures will cause more ecological damage than the existing situation. The Forest Service should be working with the State of Oregon to come to some sort of agreement about the obliteration of the foredune and filling in the wetlands so that the natural sand migration can once again continue. OHVs are a very small impact to the dunes ecosystem, the real threat is the invasive vegetation and plantations that were planted in the area during the jetty and town construction. The sad thing is that even if the Forest Service closed the ODNRA 100% to OHV use it won’t matter in the next 20 years anyway if there are no measures taken to control the vegetation and reestablish the natural processes of this ecosystem. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The OHV user group is willing and able to assist with whatever is needed to stop this invasion and help return the dunes to their natural state. The forest Service needs to repair the relationship with this group caused from the 94 Dunes plan with education and supportSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-15203577121279325582011-07-09T12:50:00.001-07:002011-07-09T12:50:47.436-07:00more commentsIn all the decades that area has been open for ATV / OHV access, go to it even just a couple of weeks after a MAJOR weekend of riding and it's hard to tell people have even been there.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next, what a way to help an area that has already been in recession for over 20 years...no joke, OHV /ATV tourism is a huge help to a struggling economy of Oregon coastlands.Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-87254122055883610062011-07-09T12:49:00.001-07:002011-07-09T12:49:27.739-07:00more commentsManage Definition: The organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance with certain policies and in achievement of defined objectives. There are generations to come the should have the opportunity to enjoy all that this state has to offer. We once were an abundant state with lots to use and share. Now we are becoming a lock it up and preserve it state. Only to rot and decay and become a hazard to everyone. I say USE IT - not lose it!!!Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-63926680520572035332011-07-09T12:47:00.001-07:002011-07-09T12:47:19.600-07:00more comments to copy, edit or add your own verbage toTHE ROUTES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AMONG THE ONLY REASONS WE AS A FAMILY COME TO THE OREGON DUNES TO CAMP AND RECREATE WITH MOTORIZED USE. tHE DEMANDS FOR THESE TYPES OF ACCESS ARE GROWING AS SEEN IN ATV/UTV SALES. NO OTHER TYPE OF USAGE IS GROWING AS FAST IN THE AREAS OF SALES AND USE. THIS MAKES ADDING ADDITIONAL CLOSURES A WRONG HEADED APPROACH TO SERVING THE DEMANDS AND CHOICE EXPECTATIONS OF THE TAX PAYING PUBLIC. KEEP THESE ROUTES/TRAILS OPEN AND PLEASE INCLUDE ME IN ANY FUTURE SOPA'S. THANK YOU.Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-19970009372260784642011-07-08T15:05:00.001-07:002011-07-08T15:05:52.823-07:00Another letterThe 10 trails that are noted for proposed use are Banshee Hill and a combination of nine trails into one beach trail. This will constrict all OHV traffic into only open areas and these designated trails. Trail use is the major part of the attraction to the ONDRA and eliminating them will cause further damage to tourism and the economy of the coastal towns. More than half of the ONDRA has been put aside for environmental uses and closed areas to protect habitat. Don't let this proposal pass.Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-52064580760662271292011-06-29T09:15:00.000-07:002011-06-29T09:15:36.960-07:00Here's some more wording you can copyPlease do not adopt this aggressive plan. My family loves Oregon and the public lands available to us. Riding the dunes is a family activity that we all enjoy and we are responsible riders that respect the laws and land. We also bring our money into the areas we ride in, from camping fees, fuel, groceries, restaurants and other services and goods. If we are unable to fully utilize the dunes, we may be forced to seek dunes in other states, even though we would much rather our money stay within Oregon.Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-78168625255862685892011-06-29T07:01:00.000-07:002011-06-29T07:01:41.873-07:00Here's another one that you can add to, edit and add your own touchOHV's provide huge revenue for states through licensing, events and fuel taxes ect, Revenue for highways, local economies and other programs that are vital to our state's budgets. It is time that the people in the OHV community also benefit from these funds in the form of Land and Trail Management, not closure. To me, Management means working for the betterment and enjoyment of the people who use and largely pay for these lands, not legal fees to stop frivilous law suits generated by groups that don't have any interest in usng the land. In economic times lke this, I think that tax payer monies could be more effective by expanding responsible land use programs and Land Management technics.Save The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-16882446690888879382011-06-28T18:27:00.000-07:002011-06-28T18:27:29.305-07:00Here's another one that you can add to, edit and add your own touchThe closure is a crime, in a time of need and economic crisis camping and riding are a couple of the cheapest ways to go on vacation. With the closure of the trails those members of our family who cannot ride well enough to go out in bigger dunes are robbed of the experience in the dunes that they most enjoy and in the end we will stop going if not everyone can have fun.The money that is brought in to surrounding businesses is irreplaceable and the dunes should be exploited in a way to help the community instead of being closed. There are so many more optionsSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-48684097764133853342011-06-28T16:47:00.000-07:002011-06-28T16:47:23.895-07:00another letter to copy, edit and add your own touchesRE: 10C Designated Routes Project #34220<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Siuslaw National Forest District Planners,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I am writing you today to voice my concern and strong opposition to closures and reductions in OHV recreational opportunities the Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor’s Office has proposed for many areas under their jurisdiction. Specifically, we strenuously object to further restrictions being placed upon OHV recreational access and activities at the ODNRA. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Although my family resides in California we have many relatives in the Coos Bay and Florence areas who have informed us of the recent proposals made by the NFS, which have the potential of closing over 100 miles of trail, basically the entire trail system. Closing existing trails is not a solution! <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Our family and relatives are avid OHV enthusiast so during the riding season we spend several weeks visiting them and most of our time in the vicinity of Florence. Our relatives there have a modest home so we usually stay in local motels and dine frequently at the nearby restaurants so as not to inconvenience them. We often all gather and camp in the much improved facilities at both the North and South locations of the ODNRA, spending our time away from camp with our ATVs and Side-by-Side UTVs enjoying the opportunities and beauty that the dunes there provide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
While camping we frequent many of the nearby local business for various supplies and dining needs. We are concerned that local businesses are not being adequately represented or considered in the decision process, many local Legislators aren’t even aware of the planning process you have undertaken. It is important that the entire community be represented and have their voices heard in all aspects of this proposal. We fear that given the current economic climate our Nation faces your decisions may negatively impact the very sector that is capable of helping to turn around this financial crisis. It is the wrong place and time to reduce the tourism and local visitation attributable to the Dunes by further restricting the areas available for OHV use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Lost in your current proposal is the issue of those whose mobility is impaired, including Veterans like myself who incurred disabilities while serving our country and the elderly who cannot walk into or nearby most of the Dune areas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We in the OHV Community generally support the idea of travel being limited to designated roads, trails and areas. We are also in support of a thorough environmental review and analysis during the route designation process, as well as ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the OHV infrastructure. In many cases we have voluntarily taxed ourselves in order to provide funds to agencies so they can actively and effectively accomplish these tasks. What our family and the OHV community in general cannot support is being presented with Alternatives that fail to adequately address the need to provide for motorized recreation. Our methods of travel are a legitimate use of National Forest lands.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There are many local groups willing to step up and volunteer their time to assist the NFS in performing trail maintenance and cleanup. They are willing to be self enforcing in issues such as OHV noise reduction, remaining within allowed OHV boundaries, safety compliance, education of bad actors and a host of other matters which are currently a cause of concern.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The OHV Community would in turn like to point out that these Dunes are not National Parks or Wilderness Study Areas, they are lands administered by the Siuslaw National Forest Service as a National Recreation Area and should be managed as such.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Regarding management of this National Recreation Area and the possible missed opportunities for OHV access, we would like to suggest that your agency address any legitimate maintenance, resource and environmental concerns by incorporating a training protocol into your travel plan that would train agency staff on how to effectively manage volunteer programs, apply for grants, use the challenge cost share program and learn about and apply for other funding sources.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Siuslaw National Forest needs to provide information and educational opportunities for users so that their expectations and understanding of the area’s uses are clear. If there is an obvious opportunity to re-direct a hiking or equestrian trail where it may coincide with an established motorized route then we believe there could be an opportunity to enhance the experience for all parties concerned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
OHV use continues to increase in popularity with the American public and National Forest visitors. There is a need to provide for this legal and popular activity. Motorized use is a legitimate use of public lands yet the agency is proposing significant closures. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The agency has responded to the increase in motorized uses by proposing drastic reductions in that use, this is totally unacceptable.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you for your time and consideration.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
FYI . . . sent it here too!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-ce...oast@fs.fed.us<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Forest SupervisorSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3035493122241309244.post-4240864169210438902011-06-27T13:55:00.000-07:002011-06-27T13:55:23.025-07:00Letter to Jerry IngersollSend comments to email below<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="mailto:Comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-centralcoast@fs.fed.us">Comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-centralcoast@fs.fed.us</a><br />
<br />
Mr. Jerry Ingersoll<br />
<br />
Forest Supervisor<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Project 34220<br />
<br />
Designating motorized vehicle routes in the 10C Management Area of the Oregon Dunes NRA<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Forest Service has been working on this plan since 1990 and then updated it with the new 1994 Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Plan and again doing a update for 2012. Since that time the ODNRA has more than twice as many users and you are shrinking the area in which we have available to ride. <br />
<br />
Take a look at the 1960 photo that was shown at these 10c meetings and the photos that the Forest Service is showing now and you can see for yourself how much open sand has been smoothed out by noxious weeds ie. scotch broom & beach grass. Every time you close an area the more dunes we lose, eventually there will be no more Sand Dunes within the ODNRA. Each year following the winter rains and the water recedes in the deflation plain we also lose more open riding area.<br />
<br />
The Forest Service has plans to take away 103 miles of trails that they say are user created, at least half were created well before the 1990 or 1994 plan, all of those trails should be allowed to stay as user created trails.<br />
<br />
The motto of the Forest Service is “Caring for the Land and serving the people”<br />
<br />
The people you are serving are NOT the OHV user.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Name<br />
<br />
Address<br />
<br />
Phone # optional<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You may copy my letter or use part of it and add your own ideas and thoughts and what closing the trails & the dunes means to your family<br />
<br />
BarbaraSave The Riders Duneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10427773786651303925noreply@blogger.com0