Save Tellico - Official Thread

[CandyPants]

Trail 1 is a FS road with a road number. TU is saying that the FS has rules on how many roads you can have in an area (we are not sure what rule they are refering to is and if it applies) and they are saying that the Tellico trails have such heavy usage that the are roads and not trails so the come under the road rules.

Oh, and I did a little research and I know where the road density number comes from.

The Management Plan (amended 3/18/94) includes the OHV area in managment area 2C. The standards to which they are to manage (according to the plan) are to "provide opportunites in response to needs to an approximate density of 2 miles per square mile in any managment unit."

Management Unit 2C = 37,680 acres = 58.875 square miles

OK, that being said, then 2 miles per square mile means that we should be allowed a total of 117.75 miles within that managment area.

 

[Kaderabek]

How many miles of trails are there? How much of that is trail 1?

TJK

 

[DSLTOY]

Total trail mileage is 38.5 miles and trail 1 is 5.3 miles, this is from the FS management plan some maps show slightly different mileage.
Trail 2- 3.2 miles
trail 3- 3.9
trail 4 -4.8,
trail 5-1.6,
trail 6-2.3,
trail 7-0.5,
trail 8-5.8,
trail 9-0.7,
trail 10 (ATV only) is 6.5 miles,
trail 11-2.7
trail12-1.2.
.

 

[TRchieD]

I happened to be up in North Carolina looking at a piece of property weekend before last and decided to take a drive from the Tennessee side along the Tellico River and back to Murphy via Trail #1. As I traveled along the Tellico River I witnessed a trout fisherman approaching the River with his fly rod in a pair of wadders. Approximately 5 feet from the waters edge he lost his footing and slid down the bank pushing leaves and mud into the river. Upon entering the water, flailing about like a broken winged bird, he took five or six unbalanced steps stirring up all kinds of sediment prior to getting his footing. He then proceeded to his "spot" leaving behind a trail of stirred up sediment and proceeded to cast his fly out over the open river. I did not have time to witness his return to the bank.

Shouldn't the trout fishing (and for that matter the kayaking, tubing, and canoeing) be closed on the Tellico River for the same amount of time any trail is closed?

 

[CandyPants]

Total trail mileage is 38.5 miles and trail 1 is 5.3 miles, this is from the FS management plan some maps show slightly different mileage.
Trail 2- 3.2 miles
trail 3- 3.9
trail 4 -4.8,
trail 5-1.6,
trail 6-2.3,
trail 7-0.5,
trail 8-5.8,
trail 9-0.7,
trail 10 (ATV only) is 6.5 miles,
trail 11-2.7
trail12-1.2.
.

Good info Roger. Do we know how many other roads are in that managment area? ALL roads count, not just those in the ORV area.

 

[CandyPants]

I happened to be up in North Carolina looking at a piece of property weekend before last and decided to take a drive from the Tennessee side along the Tellico River and back to Murphy via Trail #1. As I traveled along the Tellico River I witnessed a trout fisherman approaching the River with his fly rod in a pair of wadders. Approximately 5 feet from the waters edge he lost his footing and slid down the bank pushing leaves and mud into the river. Upon entering the water, flailing about like a broken winged bird, he took five or six unbalanced steps stirring up all kinds of sediment prior to getting his footing. He then proceeded to his "spot" leaving behind a trail of stirred up sediment and proceeded to cast his fly out over the open river. I did not have time to witness his return to the bank.

Shouldn't the trout fishing (and for that matter the kayaking, tubing, and canoeing) be closed on the Tellico River for the same amount of time any trail is closed?

Interesting thought Archie. I'll bring it up to the legal eagles.

 

[DSLTOY]

Good info Roger. Do we know how many other roads are in that managment area? ALL roads count, not just those in the ORV area.

I don't even know what area the management area includes, the OHV area is 9200 acres and the current trail system is located on 5000 acres.

 

[CandyPants]

I don't even know what area the management area includes, the OHV area is 9200 acres and the current trail system is located on 5000 acres.

Roger, I'll send you the maps I have and you can take a look. I'll also see if I can get topographic maps with FS roads on them in the area.

 

[tellicorob]

Shouldn't the trout fishing (and for that matter the kayaking, tubing, and canoeing) be closed on the Tellico River for the same amount of time any trail is closed?

You're talking apples and oranges here. The trail closure idea is to help prevent disturbing the trail bed during the freeze/ thaw cycle. Now the point that could be pushed here is that the NOI from SELC cites the clean water act under dredge/fill in the stream crossing. If you were going to push this point to the extreme you could say that ANYONE entering the water was violating the dredge /fill regs. This would be exaggerated, but would be about as much BS as what SELC is claiming. There is, however, a good point about the freeze /thaw problem. This could be taken care of by hardening the problem areas on the trail. We (SFWDA) have already begun this process.

 

[tellicorob]

Roger why could they not make trail 1 a road? Would this not solve a lot of the problems?

I had a talk with one of the FS Engineers who was doing bridge inspections. He said that all of the trails are currently listed as roads, and are on the USFS road inventory. He said that it would be better if they were listed as trails. Part of TU's arguement over this is that they say that the USFS defination of trail lists light useage and that our trails are not light useage due to the amount of traffic. I'm not sure about this as I have not actually seen the official defination.

 

[mpeagan]

erosion

As far as the freeze/thaw option, if you had a source of geotech matting, say the type they use in stream restorations, it could be used to "harden" those extreme areas of erosion. On the other hand Andrew Simon (Andrew Simon is in the USDA-ARS Channel and Watershed Process Research Unit) has done extensive work on this issue and what trees stabilize banks and at what rates banks erode. This info may be applicable in response to the NOI. I do not think it is a freeze/thaw question though, it seems they are more vocused on what happend during storm events. Background influx of sediments into the system need to be determined prior to any determination of what limits the system is demonstrating. As has been documented ablve, there is no such data. In addtion, the reference areas are pristine and not representative of the ORV area and therefore are not a valid comparison. Bottom line is it is more of a sociological issue rather than a logical scientific arguement.

 

[tellicorob]

Do you have contact info for Andrew Simon? Any other info or studies we can find to improve the way that we are doing the BMP's will help. You're right about the rain events being the major issue. Where the freeze thaw come in is that it combined with traffic makes the raodbed significantly looser so that the rain water has a greater effect. Of course it doesn't help that the months with the freeze thaw are also some of our wettest ones. PLEASE feel free to chime in with any ideas or info you have to help us out. It is REALLY appreciated. ROB

 

[mpeagan]

Rob,

Try this link for information on Simon's research.
http://ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=5187

 

[CandyPants]

Update 11/20/07

From www.SFWDA.org

November 19, 2007

We attended a meeting in Asheville, North Carolina with the Forest Service. Originally, this meeting was billed as the meeting they would tell us what their upcoming decisions would be regarding the Forest Supervisor orders that were published on September 17. In summary, these proposed orders are:
Prohibiting motorized vehicles on Lower Trail # 2, Trail # 7, and Trail # 9
Prohibiting winter-time motorized vehicle use on the Upper Tellico OHV Trail System from January 1 to March 31 each year
In short, according to the Forest Service, no decision has been made. They may announce a decision by December 1, but they may be delayed beyond that.

These actions would be in the form of a Forest Supervisor order that is "temporarily" in effect for one year. None of this is acceptable to us - hard experience with the Forest Service in other southern forests has shown us that most (if not all) "temporary" closures are forever. Whatever repairs or maintenance that they intend to do during the closure period will usually not get done due to one reason or another. We remain in close consultation with our lawyer on these issues.

For SFWDA, the attendees were Jay Bird (President), Gunnar Byrd, Rob Theurer, and Roger Theurer. For Blue Ribbon Coalition, the attendee was Greg Mumm. There were several Trout Unlimited (TU) attendees including Michael "Squeak" Smith and George Lane and DJ Gerkin for Southern Environmental Law Center. Deborah Walker was the facilitator for the Forest Service. Marisue Hilliard is the Forest Supervisor in North Carolina and she will be making the final decisions.

The Forest Service did not announce any decisions regarding trails lower 2, 7, and 9 or the winter closure. Furthermore, the participants did not agree on a statement of principles that the Forest Service had developed. We felt that the pre-written "statement" assumed problems exist that have never been proven (or even satisfactorily shown) to exist. TU would also not agree to any statement.

Note on Trail 8: Three bridges on trail 8 are closed due to sagging. Two bridges can be replaced with culverts and one bridge needs to be rebuilt. A section of trail 8 is closed from the bottom of the intersection with trail 9 to approximate where the old skidder (near turn to #10) is resting next to the trail. This means you cannot complete the loop on trail 8. We volunteered to do the work, but the Forest Service engineer seemed in no hurry to get the work done - maybe by next summer. Argh.

The rest of the meeting was similar to the previous Stakeholder meetings we have attended, where the Forest Service updated us on actions taken on their list of Tellico options:

Summary of status as of
November 19, 2007
Short Term:
completed
not yet initiated
18 miles have been looked at
design is 80% completed
pending
not initiated - perhaps one year

Longer Term:
completed
no status
not started yet
no status
under way
no status
on-going
no new actions

 

[DSLTOY]

Other than the fact that we all took a day off work and drove several hundred miles to attend a meeting where no decisions were announced and no completed data or plan was presented there were two things that frustrated and aggravated me:
First the FS has had a maintenance plan for Tellico for the last 7 years but the district has not been given the funds to complete the maintenance. Now they have put together about $670,000 from the USFS’s NC Forest and Regional budgets to fix the problems that have built up over the last 7 years. Sounds good but about $570,000 is being used to survey the area to decide what work needs to be done, prioritize the work and develop a new maintenance plan. So here we go again another plan and not enough money left to complete it.
Second they claimed that 95% of our daily use fees are going back into the area, yet the little money that has been available for maintenance has come from RTP grants from NC. Our daily use fees have apparently been use to pay salaries for the people who have not been managing the area or have been used for projects outside the OHV area.

 

[lowtideride]

Is there any new updates or anything new we can do to help out?

Will the trails 2,7,9 be closed for good?

 

[DSLTOY]

There is no word yet, the FS said they would announce their decisions around 1 December, so we expect to hear by 1 Jan.or so. Trails lower 2,7,9 and 10 have a winter closure that went into effect last year, from 1 Jan. to 31 Mar. We expect them to implement the temporary closure of trails lower 2,7 and 9 to evaluate and conduct NEPA closure studies on 1 Jan., believing this will keep TU from filing a lawsuit for now and by doing it during the regularly scheduled winter closure and by promising an answer by 1 April they can keep us from suing. But as always with the FS anything can happen.

 

[CandyPants]

Tellico Closure Order

DECISION MEMO

​

Forest Supervisor’s Orders for the​

Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Area​

USDA Forest Service Southern Region​

Nantahala National Forest​

Tusquitee Ranger District​

Cherokee County, North Carolina​

​

DECISION


I have decided to put into force two Forest Supervisor’s Orders for the Upper Tellico Off-Highway (OHV) Area on the Tusquitee Ranger District of the Nantahala National Forest. This decision is based on information gathered during a recent condition survey of high risk trail segments, and on public comments received during the scoping period. The Orders implement the following management measures:

1. A one-year closure of Lower Trail 2 (from the intersection with Road 420 west to Road 402), Trail 7, a portion of Trail 8 (from the intersection with Trail 9 to the intersection with Trail 10A), and Trail 9 in the Upper Tellico OHV area which prohibits operating motor vehicles on these trails during the closure period and sets penalties for violating the provisions of this Order.

2. A seasonal closure of the Upper Tellico OHV Area which prohibits operating motor vehicles on trails within the Area during the period between January 1 and March 31 each year and sets penalties for violating the provisions of this Order.

The following persons are exempted from these orders:

· Persons with a permit from the Forest Service specifically authorizing the otherwise prohibited act or omission.
· Any Federal, State, or local officer, or member of an organized rescue or firefighting force in the performance of an official duty.
· Owners or lessees of land in the Closure Area are exempt from the prohibitions listed above to the extent necessary to gain access to their land.
· Residents in the Closure Area are exempt from the prohibitions to the extent necessary to gain access to their residences.



PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION


Direction in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala National Forest (Amendment 5, 1994) identifies the lands within the Upper Tellico OHV Area as existing in Management Areas 1B and 2C. The description for these management areas state “These lands are managed to provide opportunities for public enjoyment of the Forest through motorized recreation – driving for pleasure in conventional and four-wheel-drive vehicles as well as machines commonly classified as ORV’s. While these uses will be encouraged on appropriate roads and trails, use will not be allowed to damage the Forests’ environment.” (MA 1B, p. III-57). Also, “Provide opportunities for vehicles commonly classified as ORV’s on designated routes primarily within designated ORV areas... if such use does not adversely affect other resources.” (MA 2B, p. III-67). These actions are needed to correct ongoing impacts to area waters and aquatic resources caused by sediment from the Upper Tellico road and trail system.

In October and November of 2007, the Forest Service conducted an initial condition survey of Upper Tellico roads and trails identified as “high risk” for sedimentation due to steepness or close proximity to water (about 16.5 miles of trail were evaluated). Drainage features constructed to remove water from trails were assessed - 61 % of these drainage features were properly functioning during the assessment. All trail segments assessed were contributing sediment to nearby streams to some degree. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) computer model was used to compare trail management alternatives to the current condition (WEPP Software). The sediment reductions projected to occur based on the closure of various trail segments (and the seasonal closure) were evaluated. These projections indicated that closing the proposed trail segments would maximize sediment reduction while also maintaining a viable trail system.

All trail bridges in the Upper Tellico system were also assessed for safety. Three trail bridges on Trail 8 were determined to be unsafe for OHV traffic and a portion of the trail was closed under an emergency order. Since it will not be possible to complete repairs to these bridges during the emergency closure period, this portion of Trail 8 was added to the year-long temporary trail closure order.

Scientific studies addressing the impacts of a winter seasonal closure were also reviewed. Multiple past studies have shown the degree of soil compaction and rutting, and therefore erosion potential, on a road surface is related to the number of freeze-thaw cycles, as well as the amount and type of traffic present. In areas where soil moisture is already high, there is increased potential for erosion (Halvorsen et al. 2001). Frequent freeze-thaw cycles typically occur during the winter months in the Southern Appalachian Mountains (Williams 1964). Also, during winter months, soil structure and function change (Sulkava and Huhta 2003) and most vegetation is dormant, which reduces natural buffer ability to assimilated eroded soil. And additionally, estimated increases in winter water yield resulting from the loss of hemlock from the forest (due to the effects of the hemlock wooly adelgid) approach 30% (Ford and Vose 2007). These known and potential increases in sedimentation of local streams during winter months affect aquatic habitat at a critical time for many aquatic species, including native brook trout (Schmitt et al. 1993).

Proposed Action 1, closure on Lower Trail 2 (from the intersection with Road 420 west to Road 402), Trail 7, a portion of Trail 8 (from the intersection with Trail 9 to the intersection with Trail 10A),and Trail 9, is needed to provide immediate resource protection measures. These trails have been identified as contributing to sedimentation in the Tellico River system. The closure will allow time for further evaluation of the resource condition associated with these trails, planning for long-term resource protection, and needed repairs to correct impacts to the area waters and aquatic resource.

Proposed Action 2, seasonal closure of the OHV Area, is needed for the purpose of preventing resource damage during a period when the area is most vulnerable to resource damage, and to allow for intensive maintenance of system trails. Seasonal closures have already been implemented at other all other mountain OHV areas on the National Forests in North Carolina.

The actions will be implemented pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50 (b) which states, “The Chief, each Regional Forester, each Experiment Station Director, the Administrator of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and each Forest Supervisor may issue orders which close or restrict the use of any National Forest System road or trail within the area over which he has jurisdiction.”

REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION

These actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and therefore, are categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The specific category, identified in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 “Environmental Policy and Procedures” is Section 31.12 Category 1: Orders pursuant to 36 CFR Part 261 – Prohibitions to provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and safety.



FINDING OF NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES


No extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. The District interdisciplinary team screened these actions for the presence of any one of the extraordinary circumstances identified in Amendment No. 1909.15-2007-1 to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. Section 30.3 paragraph 2 lists the following resource conditions that were considered:

• Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species;
• Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds;
• Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas;
• Inventoried roadless areas;
• Research natural areas;
• American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites;
• Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.

SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The purpose of scoping is to determine the issues and concerns related to the proposal. Public involvement began on September 17, 2007 when a letter was mailed and emailed to groups and individuals known to be interested in management of the Upper Tellico OHV Area. The “scoping letter” requested comments on the proposed Forest Supervisor’s Orders. As a result, approximately 200 responses from individuals, groups, organizations and other government agencies were delivered to us by mail, emailed, phoned in or by personal visit to the District office. These responses conveyed numerous issues, and are summarized in the Response to Public Comments, in the project file.
Additionally, approximately 700 form letters were received by email from those people who supported any and all closures of the trail system. And approximately 400 form letters were received from people who favored trail repairs and reroutes, but not trail closures.
In the 30 day scoping period that began on September 17 newspaper articles were published in the Asheville Citizen-Times, The Cherokee Scout, and the Clay County Progress.


FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS


Forest Plan Consistency – The actions in this decision are consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Forest Plan) and all Amendments to the Forest Plan.

​

Endangered Species – Implementing the actions in this decision will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or result in loss of any other species’ viability, or create significant trends towards Federal listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act.

Cultural Resources – The actions in this decision will not adversely affect any sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historic resources.


NOTICE, COMMENT AND APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

These actions are not subject to legal notice and opportunity to comment (36 CFR 215.4(a)). This decision is not appealable (36 CFR 215.12(f)).





/s/ Marisue Hilliard_____________ 12/18/07 __ ___

MARISUE HILLIARD DATE
Forest Supervisor
National Forests in North Carolina