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.
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.
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. Again; 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.
Please stop
the destruction of our ODNRA. Please, let’s all get together and rewrite the
management to focus on Restoration, not closure.
No comments:
Post a Comment