Tellico Update

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Threads
348
Messages
3,273
Location
Manchester.TN
Yesterday we met in Asheville NC with the Forest service and Trout Unlimited to discuss the future of Tellico. From our side we had Jay Bird, Pres. SFWDA, Gunner Byrd SFWDA, Greg Mumm Blue Ribbon Coalition, Rob and I. The Presidents of the NC and TN chapters and two lawyers from SELC represented TU. The Forest supervisor and her staff presented the initial data from the Trail condition survey for the first 18 miles of trail closest to the river and their immediate plans.

Their surveys showed what we expected, the trails need work, 7 years of the FS not doing routine maintenance has taken it toll on the trails. I was initially impressed with the funding; they have put together $670,000 for the project. This money is from the NC FS budget and from the regional budget. Then we went into the details and after they fund the surveys, the design work and the short and long range planning there will be about $100,000 left for actual trail work. This will not begin to cover the work the engineers are planning, so they will be asking us (SFWDA) to do a lot in the next year or so.

They are still working on the short term NEPA to determine if they should implement a winter closure and temporary closure of trails lower 2, 7 and 9. The results of this are expected 1 December. The cost of this study is $90,000.

Three bridges on trail 8 were determined to be unsafe. Trail 8 is currently closed from the bottom of trail 9 to trail 10 (the loading crane). They estimate the replacement of these bridges will cost $100,000 to $350,000 (funding has not been requested). Before they can complete the decision on bridge repair they must decide is trail 8 needs to be moved away from the river (TU has requested this be done) . I believe it will be at least 2 years before these bridges will be replaced unless they decide to let SFWDA install culverts. I have requested that they change the closure order to move the lower end to the first bridge so there will still be access to the camping area in the pines.

The design work for the bridge at Fain’s Ford is 80% complete, estimated cost of the bridge is $350,000 to $520,000. It will be a 40-ton bridge just like the one at Rough Water (trail 5). The FS engineer insists that these bridges must be designed to handle logging trucks as some day they may log the area. This funding has not yet been requested.

TU and their lawyers insist that they only want clean water and good habitat for the brook trout and do not want to close the area but many of us believe that closing the area is their ultimate goal. These lawyers recently filed suit against the National Park service to close access to the beach areas of Cape Hatteras to motorized vehicles.

We will wait until December to make a decision on GSMTR, with half of trail 8 closed, if they close trails lower 2, 7 and 9 we may want to relocate.
 
Roger,
Thanks for the update and all the time you and Rob are putting into supporting Tellico.

I am jumping the gun here, but mentioned the use of culverts to replace the bridges on trail 8. I am assuming that the culvert option that would be proposed would be traditional round metal or plastic ones. These are not cheap, but they are reasonably transportable for this application. I was pricing 42 inch round for a ditch at my house and that runs ~$50/ft. However if the FS would not accept round culverts, would precast concrete ones be viable as a more affordable option over building multiple trail 5 bridges on trail 8? Functionally as bridges the FS & TU could not object to culvert like this that are adequately sized. However, could the logistics of transporting precast concrete culverts (not to mention a crane or something to lift them into place) through the trails be handled? This link is to a company that does offer concrete culvert in their product line (under misc., http://www.modcon.com/catalog_index.html); certainly there are other companies offer these products if they could be used.
 
We will have to see what the FS overengineers decide. One issue with culverts is the fish people question wether during low water the fish will migrate through them. There is an open bottom culvert, Though I have never seen one.
 
Thanks also, for the update, and what you do... As many of us know, land is getting harder and harder to find to use as ORV area.

For some reason Tree Huggers, get more news time.... Than the actual people out there doing good to save these areas.

If people would stop abusing their Freedom and Rights, all would be well... Speaking from a Guy who caught pochers on his property, that killed 3 deer, and thru them in the trunk of a car.

Thanks Roger
 
Roger,
An open bottom culvert (i.e., non-closed cell) would not have the structural strength as a culvert with a bottom. If the culvert were sized to allow for a gravel/rock layer to accummulate on bottom of the culvert without reducing water flow capacity, I would expect the resulting culvert environment would be equivalent to the stream bed before it & after it. This would probably add to the size/cost/transportation logistics for the culvert, but we would need the stream bed requirements so we can run-the-numbers.

I have never stopped to measure the width and depth of the creek crossings on trail 8, but they seemed to be fairly small. Also since the wood planks (I hate to call them bridges) over the creeks on 8 have remained in-place without being washed during flood conditions, these creeks probably should not be subject to a huge flow rate increase during flooding. This should support the viability of culverts for these applications.

Is it possible get the requirements from the FS "overengineers" early? On all engineering projects, requirements tend to creep in late which only drives cost and delays. It is important to define and document the requirements early, then manage to these requirements to hold cost and schedule.
 
Roger,
I need to eat some crow here. The following web site outlines the basic criteria for crossing a fishery stream and advocates the bottomless culvert option that you mentioned.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/streamcrossings/index.htm
At the end of the presentation, it has the option to download it and this may be useful if we need to build a proposal to the FS for an action plan.

Thanks
Larry
 
After the email I received I had to ask an inevitable question. I got an answer. Here is my exchange with Roger:

In a message dated 11/20/2007 7:27:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, Icatchum writes:

Was there any good news?

Chris

REPLY

Yes, I kept my cool through all the BS and did not get arrested for assault.
Roger


I can't blame him. I have been a Park Ranger and consider myself an environmentalist to a point but when the fanatics catch hold we will always loose. When I get some free time from work and sundries I will lend a hand. My wife will show to shovel as well.
 
I have never stopped to measure the width and depth of the creek crossings on trail 8, but they seemed to be fairly small. Also since the wood planks (I hate to call them bridges) over the creeks on 8 have remained in-place without being washed during flood conditions, these creeks probably should not be subject to a huge flow rate increase during flooding. This should support the viability of culverts for these applications.

Is it possible get the requirements from the FS "overengineers" early? On all engineering projects, requirements tend to creep in late which only drives cost and delays. It is important to define and document the requirements early, then manage to these requirements to hold cost and schedule.

The current bridges have cables to hold them down as they have tried to float away during floods. the first bridge is leaning as part of its supports washed out in the 2004 flood, thats the one when they closed the OHV area and camping on the TN side due to the heavy rains the week before GSMTR. The FS has a program to size culverts based on size of drainage area.

Unfourtantly we are at the mercy of the FS Engineer, until he approves the plan we can't do anything.
 
Roger,
Can we tap into the available expertise and skill within the off-road community to do some of the work? For example, if we had licensed surveyors, they could do the site surveys and hand completed surveys to FS engineers as a basis to start the sizing & design for these mater crossings. This could help reduce cost and time because we just do it for the FS. The same could be done with the engineering if we have any civil engineers. Moreover, they could be engineering students that are majoring in civil, because this could be a student design project that they need for graduation which then would be handed over to the FS engineers as a design package that they 'redraw' as their design to ensure it meets their office/department standards. My PE license is useless here because it is in mechanical design and from Illinois. If it was in civil and useful to us, I could readily pay the fees and TN/NC/GA would recognize it & license me there too. Similarly if we have PEs in other states that are licensed civils, then the same steps could be taken to get them licensed here to as required.

We do not have the monetary resources that the anti-access organizations do, but we have a community base with a broad spectrum of skills, educations and talents that could be utilized. Could we check with the FS to find out what they would allow the community to do for them? If they are receptive to the concept, we could do a skill and interest survey to find the staff to get the job done.

Thanks
Larry
 
Larry
We might have been able to partner with them on the engineering if we had know earlier this year what was coming but I am believe it is to late now. They have already surveyed 18 miles of trail and plan on completing the rest by March and have the recommendations done by April. they are bringing in FS enginers from other areas to get the work done and said they do not plan on using non FS help.
 
Roger,
Thanks for having already checked that line of action. I should have expected as much; sorry for stating the obvious. Since this option has already been offered to the FS, they could still come back open to our help (especially when every government budget seems too small to get the job done). If they do, hopefully we will make them glad that they do.
 
Bob, that makes me chuckle...yeah, sweet tea...thats what we have in the cup...sweet tea!!! :beer:
 
Just got this email from Roger. I assume he did not post it here because he went somewhere to get drunk:

Merry Christmas from The USFS
Just received the order implementing a winter closure (Jan. 1- Mar.31) of the Tellico OHV Area and a temporary closure of trails lower 2, 7,part of 8 and 9 for 1 year to evaluate them (order is attached). The FS caved to the demands of TU in an attempt to avoid a law suit. In my experience 9 out of 10 trails closed temporary never reopen, so now we (SFWDA) must raise the money for our own lawsuit.

The question for you all is what do we do about GSMTR, we need to have it and make money to support the Rescue Tellico effort, but with this many trails closed, will we get enough attendance to cover expenses and make a profit? We were already expecting a tough year with high fuel prices and based our budget on 90 registered trucks.

We are considering moving to another location, but I have concerns that this sends a message to TU/FS that we are giving up and I am not sure how many people come to GSMTR because it is at Tellico and will not follow the event to a new location.If we are going to change location we must decide soon, so we can change our AD in the Jan/Feb issue of Toyota Trails.

I have scheduled a club ride for MLK weekend at Royal Blue area (north of Knoxville around I-75 exit 144 ) to evaluate that area as a potential event site. Any of you that can make the run please come join us.

Please let me know what you think.

Roger

I replied:

As I stated at the work day, being government myself, they just want us to go away and you are right that it would send them the message they won, but at what cost to us if we decide to have the event on the one open trail at Tellico if (when) the USFS fails to reopen the rest. I think it should be moved in hopes of raising the money. Maybe the local economic impact will also cause an effect. Maybe an all out boycott? I dunno.

Keep the faith.
 
Didn't get drunk,though that sounds like a great idea, I got side tracked answering PM's and e-mails.
The actual closure order is posted in the TLCA Land Use Forum.
 
We need to join togethor and build a large tract of private land for wheeling. Maybe include some lots for sale or something like a 4X4 park with Time shares. I'm in. How can we get it going???
Henry Ga. Cruisers.......A sad day indeed ! I told my two sons ,who have been bouncing around those hills in both Sunshine and Freezing Snow since before they could walk. My oldest is 18 now and has just been accepted to Emory University. He wants to study Law. We can only pray he can one day help preserve our rights.
 
Hate to see this happening. Was really looking forward to this after several years of not being able to attend.
 
Hate to see this happening. Was really looking forward to this after several years of not being able to attend.

If you are refering to GSMTR , we are still going to have it at Tellico this year as long as they keep the area open, we are just checking out other places in the event they close more trails.
 
Back
Top Bottom