Bump. FYI, today is the last day letters / comments will be accepted from the public.
Trail Closures Proposed at Tellico!
- Thread starter CandyPants
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Sent...
I'm good.
FWIW, TU has a big push to get comments in by today (which is what reminded me)...
In a somewhat related update, "the other side" as Marshall termed it above, took further action at the Outer Banks last Thursday; ironically a day after the Tellico trail closure public comment period was over.
As a common tie to this thread, the SELC is firmly entrenched and aggressively driving both measures.
As a common tie to this thread, the SELC is firmly entrenched and aggressively driving both measures.
Here is what i wrote:
U.S. Forest Service
Nantahala National Forest
Tusquitee District Ranger
123 Woodland Drive
Murphy, NC 28906
December 4, 2007
RE: File Code : 2350-5/1950
Supervisor’s Orders on the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area
Dear District Ranger,
My name is Alex Field and I am writing to express my concerns about the above-referenced Supervisor’s Orders addressing vehicle use of the Upper Tellico OHV Area.
My understanding of the September 17, 2007 letter is that the Forest Service intends on enacting two new Supervisor’s Orders that will close the Upper Tellico OHV Area during the winter months, and will close specific trails (Lower#2, 7 and 9).
Trails Lower#2, #7, and #9 should not be closed. From your letter and from the research that has been conducted, there is no scientific evidence that the Tellico trail system or any one trail in particular, have any impact on streams in the area. The streams that were sampled originate above the OHV area, and samples were only taken down stream of the OHV area. In order to demonstrate that sediment load is coming from a specific area, it is necessary to sample the stream/river both upstream and downstream of the area.
With respect to seasonal closures of the entire area, your agency did not provide and I have not seen any proof that demonstrates the time of year is directly tied to increase potential for impacts. There is no data provided by your agency to suggest that sedimentation from January 1 to March 31 occurs at a higher rate than sedimentation during other months of the year, which makes a winter-time closure unfounded.
My off-road club and myself regularly schedule trips to the Tellico OHV for group trail rides, family building activities and trail clean-up/maintenance. We are very sensitive to the needs and values of the surrounding ecosystem. The land contributes to our passion of conservation and exploration. Considering that I am a graduate of Western Carolina University with a degree in Natural Resources Management, with a concentration in forestry, I can understand the pressure you all are under from the environmentalist. However, you are doing the taxpayers and responsible users a total injustice to close this park without concrete scientific data to back-up your closures. Remember that the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the Resource Managers are not just environmental extremist who wish to close all forested lands from use, but in fact are average citizens with good intentions.
Based on my education in stream turbidity and land use throughout the entire country, I would venture to guess that there is not one single stream in this country that does not have some amount of sediment introduced from land development or bad management practices. With this in mind and the mentality being used for the Tellico OHV, we would be closing every national forest, every land development project and pretty much stopping future development.
I think the best resolution for this case is to put the best management practices we can into affect to manage the situation instead of trying to lock everyone out of our land.
The OHV community is willing to support reasonable management prescriptions, but the Proposed Orders are not rationally connected to the proposed riding restrictions. A well-conceived and thoughtful planning process should be conducted rather than hastily-prepared Orders in response to closure demands of anti-access special interests. My intent with this letter is to show my strong opposition to these and any trail closures and to request my contact information be added to any further communications regarding the Tellico ORV area.
Regards,
Alex Field
Vice President
Commercial Carolina
Member Of The Cushman & Wakefield Alliance
Phone: 336.442.0744 (Cell)
Phone: 336.722-7878 (Office)
Fax: 336.722.5552
U.S. Forest Service
Nantahala National Forest
Tusquitee District Ranger
123 Woodland Drive
Murphy, NC 28906
December 4, 2007
RE: File Code : 2350-5/1950
Supervisor’s Orders on the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area
Dear District Ranger,
My name is Alex Field and I am writing to express my concerns about the above-referenced Supervisor’s Orders addressing vehicle use of the Upper Tellico OHV Area.
My understanding of the September 17, 2007 letter is that the Forest Service intends on enacting two new Supervisor’s Orders that will close the Upper Tellico OHV Area during the winter months, and will close specific trails (Lower#2, 7 and 9).
Trails Lower#2, #7, and #9 should not be closed. From your letter and from the research that has been conducted, there is no scientific evidence that the Tellico trail system or any one trail in particular, have any impact on streams in the area. The streams that were sampled originate above the OHV area, and samples were only taken down stream of the OHV area. In order to demonstrate that sediment load is coming from a specific area, it is necessary to sample the stream/river both upstream and downstream of the area.
With respect to seasonal closures of the entire area, your agency did not provide and I have not seen any proof that demonstrates the time of year is directly tied to increase potential for impacts. There is no data provided by your agency to suggest that sedimentation from January 1 to March 31 occurs at a higher rate than sedimentation during other months of the year, which makes a winter-time closure unfounded.
My off-road club and myself regularly schedule trips to the Tellico OHV for group trail rides, family building activities and trail clean-up/maintenance. We are very sensitive to the needs and values of the surrounding ecosystem. The land contributes to our passion of conservation and exploration. Considering that I am a graduate of Western Carolina University with a degree in Natural Resources Management, with a concentration in forestry, I can understand the pressure you all are under from the environmentalist. However, you are doing the taxpayers and responsible users a total injustice to close this park without concrete scientific data to back-up your closures. Remember that the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the Resource Managers are not just environmental extremist who wish to close all forested lands from use, but in fact are average citizens with good intentions.
Based on my education in stream turbidity and land use throughout the entire country, I would venture to guess that there is not one single stream in this country that does not have some amount of sediment introduced from land development or bad management practices. With this in mind and the mentality being used for the Tellico OHV, we would be closing every national forest, every land development project and pretty much stopping future development.
I think the best resolution for this case is to put the best management practices we can into affect to manage the situation instead of trying to lock everyone out of our land.
The OHV community is willing to support reasonable management prescriptions, but the Proposed Orders are not rationally connected to the proposed riding restrictions. A well-conceived and thoughtful planning process should be conducted rather than hastily-prepared Orders in response to closure demands of anti-access special interests. My intent with this letter is to show my strong opposition to these and any trail closures and to request my contact information be added to any further communications regarding the Tellico ORV area.
Regards,
Alex Field
Vice President
Commercial Carolina
Member Of The Cushman & Wakefield Alliance
Phone: 336.442.0744 (Cell)
Phone: 336.722-7878 (Office)
Fax: 336.722.5552
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
National Forests in North Carolina
Nantahala National Forest
Tusquitee Ranger District
123 Woodland Dr.
Murphy, NC 28906-3145
828-837-5152
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
File Code: 2350
Date: June 9, 2008
Dear Interested Parties:
I am seeking comments on a proposal to implement a series of road and trail modifications and
other management actions for the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Road and Trail System
(hereafter, the OHV System). The intent would be to greatly reduce the amount of soil leaving
the road and trail system and entering the Tellico River and its tributaries as well as provide an
OHV trail system. This outcome depends on three categories of activities: modifying the current
road and trail system so that it can be maintained in the future without extraordinary maintenance
costs; an intense period of initial heavy maintenance and some rerouting to fix existing problems;
and managing the conditions of OHV use so as to reduce the potential for future soil loss.
This proposal is a starting point for discussion among people with an interest in and knowledge
of the Upper Tellico area. We expect many other ideas to surface and alternatives to this
proposal will certainly be considered.
The OHV System is located in Cherokee County North Carolina, about 13 miles north of
Murphy. The 39.5 miles of existing roads and trails that comprise the system are concentrated
within an area approximately 6,000 acres in size. The area borders Monroe County, Tennessee,
and the OHV System is accessible from both states.
Proposed Action
MODIFYING THE OHV SYSTEM AND MANAGING ITS USE
The proposed action would reduce the trail system from its current 39.5 miles (all mileage figures are approximate) to 24 miles and would implement use-management techniques including seasonal and wet weather closures to reduce damage to the trail surfaces and thereby reduce sedimentation potential and long term maintenance costs. Over five miles of the 15.5 mile reduction in the proposed system are simply due to a status change to what is now known as Trail 1 (a.k.a. Davis Creek Rd. or Tipton Creek Rd.). It would be improved to
become suitable only for street-legal vehicles. Another three miles of the length reduction is due to a status change for Trail 2 (see details below). Other proposed changes: Trails 9 and 12 would be closed completely; Trails 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 would remain open at least in part; Trails 10A and 11 would stay on the system conditionally, to be re-evaluated in two years. Many of the trail segments that are popular for high-challenge rock-crawler opportunities are
heavily eroded, have high potential for contributing sediment to nearby streams, and are therefore proposed for closure and rehabilitation. This proposed action would require amending standards in the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan) that specify approximate trail densities and difficulty levels for OHV systems. There is a need to stem the flow of sediment from the roads and trails that is entering the Tellico River and its tributaries. The Tellico River flows from its headwaters in Cherokee County North Carolina through the area that encompasses the OHV System and on into Tennessee. In April 1994, Cherokee National Forest issued a draft Wild and Scenic River Study that found a 22.8 mile segment of the Tellico River from its headwaters to be eligible and suitable for designation as “recreational” under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s 1991 classification of the North Carolina segment as
“Wild Trout Waters” was pivotal to this suitability finding. The self-sustaining wild trout populations, native brook trout in particular, are an “outstandingly remarkable” fishery value as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act study protocols. USDA Forest Service policy is to manage eligible river segments so as to protect or enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (Bureau of Land Management, 1999). Sediment, or particles of soil and other material that settle out in streams, is a major concern in forested watersheds in the Southeast (Coats and Miller, 1981). Excess fine sediment in stream systems fills interstitial space between larger rocks and can smother fish eggs and the aquatic insects they feed on. This can also deprive small fish of cover from predators, since their hiding places among the small rocks become filled by sediment. Unpaved dirt and gravel roads and trails can be a primary contributor to stream sedimentation
The Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan)
standard for soil and water management states: “Prevent visible sediment from reaching perennial and intermittent stream channels….” Comprehensive condition surveys in November of 2007 and March of 2008 revealed numerous instances of sediment from the OHV System reaching the Tellico River and its tributaries. In many cases the sediment could be visibly tracked either directly entering a waterbody from the road or trail, or through the woods to a waterbody or to another trail that transported the sediment to water. For most sections of the trail system the potential for stream sedimentation could
be greatly reduced with additional drainage features and standard engineering techniques such as: construction of rolling dips and silt traps; proper location and installation of appropriately sized culverts; occasional large stone added to trail surfaces; and frequent maintenance. Some sections of trail, such as deeply entrenched sections, would be more difficult to fix. Deeply entrenched areas of trail can be responsible for transporting an inordinate amount of sediment. When it rains, these entrenched areas act like chutes funneling runoff. The
runoff may gain speed and pick up whatever loose soil it encounters. This fast flowing water ruts the trails and scours banks, thus exposing more soil to eventually becoming sediment in streams. It is virtually impossible to remove the water from deeply entrenched trail sections using standard road and trail engineering or drainage structures. If the trail becomes worn down to bedrock it may also expose springs that add to water flow and thus the potential sedimentation issues. Several trail sections on the OHV System exhibit this deeply entrenched condition, making it difficult to manage the runoff
without closure and rehabilitation. With a loop system such as in the Upper Tellico, if a reroute or bypass of a closed area is not feasible from an engineering and cost perspective, the entire trail may have to be closed.
Following are trail-specific findings from the condition surveys along with my proposal based on these findings.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
Trail 1 – Tipton Creek
The switchbacks (survey stations 6,400 ft.
through 8,000 ft.) cannot be maintained
adequately as an aggregate surfaced road.
Repeated reconstruction has failed to resolve
the issues associated with the steep grade. The
switchbacks make it very difficult for ordinary
vehicles to traverse the road and nearly
impossible for vehicles with trailers. Stretches
are in close proximity to Tipton Creek. With the
high traffic volumes and unauthorized high
speeds, along with wheels spinning to gain
traction through the switchbacks, Trail 1 is a
potentially high sediment source. Hardening the
road surface such as with pavement would
alleviate much of this potential. The drawback,
however, is that ATVs are not compatible with
paved surfaces. So an alternate way for ATVs
to access the system from State Line parking
area would be required.
Harden road surface with pavement or other
appropriate surface material to eliminate
sedimentation potential and reduce
maintenance needs. Add trail system access for
ATVs at the northern entrance near the NC-TN
state line (if Trail 1 is paved ATV’s could not
use it to access the system). Remove Trail 1
from the OHV System but retain as an open
through-road from North Carolina into
Tennessee for street-legal vehicles.
Trail 2 – Tipton Knob
The section from its northern intersection with
Trail 1 for about 3/5ths of a mile is all draining
into the adjacent Jenks Branch. It would require
extraordinary engineering design at high cost to
fix this, since it involves the area known as the
Rock Garden, and the cost of long term
maintenance of such extreme installations is
unknown. The remainder of the trail is in poor
condition and has some deeply entrenched areas
but is less of a potential sediment source due to
its location on a ridgeline. While it would be
expensive to repair and maintain for continued
Remove from OHV system. Close and
rehabilitate the segment north of intersection
with FS-402 (known as the Rock Garden). Add
remainder of Trail 2 (from intersection of FS-
402 south to Harshaw Gap) to forest road
system. Gate at Harshaw Gap and Jenks Gap
(this section would be available only for
administrative use and landowner access to
private inholdings.) The section from Jenks
Gap to FS-402 would be open to street legal
vehicles and would be maintained for high
clearance vehicles from FS-402 to FS-24.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
OHV traffic, this segment accesses private
property so it would need to remain available
for the use of the private landowners.
Trail 3 - Bearpen
Though part of this trail runs parallel to a
Tellico River tributary, the condition of the trail
would allow routine engineering and heavy
maintenance to alleviate the sedimentation
potential. Scouting of possible reroute locations
found them more problematic than the trail’s
present location. Part of the sedimentation
potential is actually the result of sediment
coming from Trail 12. Reducing or eliminating
soil loss from Trail 12 would address this.
Retain as part of the OHV System. Perform
heavy maintenance including installation of
additional drainage structures.
Trail 4 – Fain Ford
A stretch of Trail 4 runs parallel to Peckerwood
Creek, and condition surveys located numerous
instances where sediment could be seen
entering the creek. Within this stretch, another
location exhibits fill-slope failure and has
landslide potential. Fixing this segment would
be very expensive with limited potential for
long term success. The remainder of Trail 4 is
fixable with normal engineering and heavy
maintenance.
Retain as part of the OHV System from
southern access point to intersection with Trail
8 at Fain Ford. Close and rehabilitate section
north of this intersection with Trail 8, to the
intersection with Trails 6 and 7. [The previous
decision to construct a bridge across the
Tellico River at Fain Ford would go forward.]
Trail 5 – Tellico River
Two areas of high-sediment-potential exist near
the intersection with Trail 4, as sediment is
accumulating from a “trail stacking “ situation
where Trail 12 is dumping sediment onto Trail
4 and then running along with additional Trail 4
sediment down to Trail 5 and into the Tellico
River. There is also a series of springs in this
area adding to the runoff.
Retain as part of the OHV System with a
reroute to a new intersection with Trail 4. This
reroute of approximately 3,500 feet would use
an existing old road template. Close and
rehabilitate a section that currently intersects
with Trail 4.
[Also see Trail 12 proposal]
Trail 6 – State Line Loop
One short stretch is a major sediment source for
this trail. Installation of oversized culverts on
this stretch along with heavy maintenance of
the whole trail would alleviate much of the
sedimentation potential.
Retain as part of the OHV System. Install
several oversize culverts at a bad stretch of trail
(between surveyed stations 3,458 ft. through
6,888 ft.).
A new connector would be constructed off
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
Trail 6 from State Line parking area to Trail 5
to facilitate access to trail system by nonstreet-
legal vehicles. This new access would
take this traffic off Trail 1.
Trail 7 – Peckerwood Connector
Not only sediment but other contaminants
associated with motor vehicles are making their
way into Peckerwood Creek from the
“challenge” area on Trail 7. Stabilizing this trail
segment would require extraordinary
engineering design and be very expensive.
Follow-up maintenance requirements would be
unknown.
Retain as part of the OHV System from
intersection with Trail 6 to a point in the
vicinity of Peckerwood Creek. Construct a
reroute of approximately 1,500 feet from this
point to Trail 8 to bypass the “high challenge”
area. The proposed reroute follows an existing
old road bed for 900 feet, leaving 600 feet of
new construction. Close and rehabilitate the
trail east of the reroute, including the “high
challenge” area.
Trail 8 – Bob Creek
This first 1.5 miles runs parallel to the Tellico
River and it is evident that the adjacent
tributaries do at times overtop the trail and even
turn the trail itself into a stream of sorts. In
addition, three bridges are rotted out, an old
wooden culvert needs replacing, and a new
bridge is needed at one point on the trail. For
the most part these problems could be fixed
with the installation of about a dozen oversize
culverts, four or five new bridges, and a shift in
the road surface upward. Fixing Trail 8 would
entail more cost that most of the other trail
work but it is a major loop in the system. The
fixes are within the scope of normal
engineering and heavy maintenance.
The short piece of Trail 8 that runs south from
the Trail 7 intersection contains a stretch worn
down to bedrock that can funnel water down to
Trail 4 and then straight into the Tellico River.
Attempts to find a suitable reroute location
were unsuccessful.
Retain in part and close in part. Keep the trail
open from its intersection with Trail 4 at Fain
Ford eastward, making a counterclockwise
loop to its intersection with the Trail 7 reroute.
Close the short section south of its intersection
with the Trail 7 reroute. Trail 8 would require
heavy maintenance, some reconstruction and
possible minor rerouting. Due to proximity to
the Tellico River this would include minor
road shifts away from the stream course and to
minimize the entrenchment. Some hardening of
the roadway with rip-rap would also occur.
Construct four to five bridges and install
numerous large culverts along with other
standard drainage features. Restore Mistletoe
Creek into its original channel.
Trail 9 – Mistletoe Connector
Steep grades, areas of deep entrenchment mixed
with numerous springs coming out of the
bedrock area and close proximity to streams
make Trail 9 among the most difficult and
Remove from the OHV System. Close and
rehabilitate.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
expensive to repair.
Trail 10 (ATV Only) – Round Mountain
Condition surveys identified three especially
problematic areas on this ATV-only trail. The
first, at the northern end of Trail 10, is a steep,
deeply entrenched stretch of about 800 feet that
is dumping onto Trail 8 and rapidly filling a
sediment trap there. The second is a stretch of
about 500 feet where the stream is actually
running in the trail. The third is at the
“challenge area” where extensive soil
movement has occurred immediately adjacent
to the creek. Possible trail relocations were
scouted but were not deemed suitable. The main
trail has deteriorated to where users have
created bypasses on poor locations. From an
engineering perspective any fixes would be
difficult to maintain in part due to the highimpact
ATV traffic.
Retain segment from intersection with Trail
10A west to intersection with Trail 3 (the
southernmost section). Remove the remainder
from the ATV system; close and rehabilitate.
Trail 10A (ATV Only) Round Mountain Spur
While this trail parallels the Tellico River for
the majority of its length, good grades and lack
of entrenchment make it a good candidate for
engineering fixes to the drainage features and
initial heavy maintenance.
Retain open to ATVs with reevaluation at the
end of two years. Reevaluation would result in
continuation of open status or closure
depending on effectiveness of drainage
features in stemming sediment flow into the
Tellico River.
Trail 11 – Chestnut Mountain
While there are some steep, rocky areas and
some entrenchment and exposed bedrock, the
trail is far from water and condition surveys did
not track sediment reaching water. However
there are three “challenge areas” that not many
users can traverse, thus limiting the capability
of the trail to be used by ATVs and others
looking for a ride of moderate difficulty.
Bypasses around the challenge areas could
make the trail more useable if suitable locations
are found.
Retain as part of the OHV System contingent
on successful construction of challenge area
bypasses. If bypasses are not successful, close
trail and rehabilitate.
Trail 12 – Hawk Knob
Trail 12 begins with a long stretch of deep
entrenchment followed by exposed bedrock.
Remove from the OHV System. Close and
rehabilitate.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
The trail is visibly broadcasting sediment-laden
runoff through the woods down to Trail 3,
across this trail down to Trail 4 and then Trail
5, ending up in the Tellico River. The steep
mud chute, unstable side-walls with
undermined trees and root-wads, narrow
entrenched sections, and high terraced bedrock
ledges make Trail 12 a poor candidate for
normal engineering fixes. Terrain features limit
possible reroutes.
There is a need to manage the use of the road and trail system to limit stream
sedimentation well into the future.
When and how OHVs use the system can influence the potential for erosive runoff to
reach the Tellico River and its tributaries. Vehicles on trails after rain events will churn
up more mud than vehicular traffic during dry times. Similarly, traffic during the winter
period of freezing and thawing of the road surface can increase sedimentation potential
and damage the trail surface. Two-wheel-drive use of the system can churn up soil when
tires spin to gain traction. Eliminating wet weather use, winter use, and two-wheel-drive
use would hopefully allow the system to stay in acceptable condition much longer than is
currently the case, thus reducing annual maintenance costs from what they would be
otherwise.
Following are the proposed actions to manage OHV use:
1. Seasonal closure of the entire OHV System from January 1 through March 31 each year.
2. Short term closures as necessary following high rainfall events.
3. To facilitate temporary closures, camping adjacent to the trail system would be
eliminated.
4. OHVs (other than vehicles with two wheels) must have 4-wheel drive locked in.
[Motorcycle and dirt bike use remains the same as now.]
AMENDING THE FOREST PLAN
Currently, the Forest Plan standards for OHV trail “levels of challenge” and “miles per
square mile” (trail density) are inconsistent with both the existing trail system and the
proposed trail system. To remedy this inconsistency, the proposed action would change the
Forest Plan language as follows:
Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language
Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will:
- provide easy to moderate
levels of challenge;…”
Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will:
- provide “various levels of
challenge:”
Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in
response to identified needs to an
approximate density of 2 miles per square
mile in any management area unit.
REMOVE LANGUAGE
Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in
response to identified needs to an
approximate density of 2 miles per square
mile in any management area unit.
REMOVE LANGUAGE
Need For Amending the Forest Plan
Changing the language in regard to challenge level: The degree of challenge provided by
any OHV trail is extremely subjective according to the type of equipment and skill of the
user. Therefore, the phrase “various levels of challenge” is more accurate than the phrase
“easy to moderate levels of challenge” when describing the opportunity the Forest Plan
intends.
Removing the OHV opportunity density standard: The current Upper Tellico OHV
System trail densities are approximately 4.2 miles of trail per square mile for most of the
area. The proposed action would reduce those densities to approximately 2.8 miles per
square mile. This still exceeds the Forest Plan standard of approximately 2 miles per
square mile. By removing the density standard we can tailor the density for a given trail
system to a wide variety of site-specific resource- and user-related variables, such as
habitat for particular species, proximity to water, topography, vehicle types and
seasonality of use. A standard density is not an established measure of trail system
success either regionally or nationally. The proposed Forest Plan change would achieve
greater consistency with national guidance on OHV trail system management.
Decision Criteria
As we proceed with analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and any
alternatives, two criteria will be especially important in deciding on a course of action:
1. The road and trail system cannot continue to contribute additional visible sediment to
the Tellico River and its Tributaries.
We have an obligation to meet the Forest Plan soil and water standard which is derived from
North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality. I will be weighing
each alternative in light of how likely it is to meet the “no visible sediment...” standard.
2. The road and trail system cannot repeatedly incur excessive maintenance and
reconstruction costs.
A multi-billion dollar nationwide road and trail maintenance backlog on National Forest
System lands has been recognized by the Federal Office of Management and Budget
(Welcome to OMB). The future of the OHV System depends on whether or not it
can be maintained with available resources – both money and people to do the work.
As it exists today, the OHV System cannot be maintained adequately so as to limit future
sedimentation. The money and people available to do the maintenance are severely limited.
While current user fees and volunteer efforts make an important contribution, they do not
meet the current or projected need. The resources to do the work must increase dramatically,
the long term maintenance requirements must decrease dramatically, or some combination of
both must occur to financially maintain the Upper Tellico OHV System. I will be weighing
each alternative OHV system in light of how likely it is that we will be able to maintain it in
future years.
I Welcome Your Comments
An interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists will complete an Environmental
Assessment over the summer. This assessment will analyze the ecological, social, and economic
impacts of a proposed action as well as some alternative management schemes we will develop
with your input.
I know many of you have intimate knowledge of the area and ideas for making changes and
improvements. I look forward to hearing from you. Please make your comments as specific as
possible along with supporting reasons why you believe your comments should be considered.
Please include your name and address in any correspondence.
Your comments may be sent to Tusquitee District Ranger, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC
28906. Comments may also be sent via email to comments-southern-north-carolina-nantahalatusquitee@
fs.fed.us. We would appreciate receiving your comments by July 9, 2008.
We will be hosting an open house from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM on June 28, 2008 at the First Baptist
Church in Murphy, NC. See the enclosed announcement for details.
Thank you for your time and interest in our management activities on the Tusquitee Ranger
District.
Sincerely,
/s/ Steve Lohr
STEVE LOHR
District Ranger
Cheoah/Tusquitee Ranger Districts
National Forests in North Carolina
Nantahala National Forest
Tusquitee Ranger District
123 Woodland Dr.
Murphy, NC 28906-3145
828-837-5152
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
File Code: 2350
Date: June 9, 2008
Dear Interested Parties:
I am seeking comments on a proposal to implement a series of road and trail modifications and
other management actions for the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Road and Trail System
(hereafter, the OHV System). The intent would be to greatly reduce the amount of soil leaving
the road and trail system and entering the Tellico River and its tributaries as well as provide an
OHV trail system. This outcome depends on three categories of activities: modifying the current
road and trail system so that it can be maintained in the future without extraordinary maintenance
costs; an intense period of initial heavy maintenance and some rerouting to fix existing problems;
and managing the conditions of OHV use so as to reduce the potential for future soil loss.
This proposal is a starting point for discussion among people with an interest in and knowledge
of the Upper Tellico area. We expect many other ideas to surface and alternatives to this
proposal will certainly be considered.
The OHV System is located in Cherokee County North Carolina, about 13 miles north of
Murphy. The 39.5 miles of existing roads and trails that comprise the system are concentrated
within an area approximately 6,000 acres in size. The area borders Monroe County, Tennessee,
and the OHV System is accessible from both states.
Proposed Action
MODIFYING THE OHV SYSTEM AND MANAGING ITS USE
The proposed action would reduce the trail system from its current 39.5 miles (all mileage figures are approximate) to 24 miles and would implement use-management techniques including seasonal and wet weather closures to reduce damage to the trail surfaces and thereby reduce sedimentation potential and long term maintenance costs. Over five miles of the 15.5 mile reduction in the proposed system are simply due to a status change to what is now known as Trail 1 (a.k.a. Davis Creek Rd. or Tipton Creek Rd.). It would be improved to
become suitable only for street-legal vehicles. Another three miles of the length reduction is due to a status change for Trail 2 (see details below). Other proposed changes: Trails 9 and 12 would be closed completely; Trails 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 would remain open at least in part; Trails 10A and 11 would stay on the system conditionally, to be re-evaluated in two years. Many of the trail segments that are popular for high-challenge rock-crawler opportunities are
heavily eroded, have high potential for contributing sediment to nearby streams, and are therefore proposed for closure and rehabilitation. This proposed action would require amending standards in the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan) that specify approximate trail densities and difficulty levels for OHV systems. There is a need to stem the flow of sediment from the roads and trails that is entering the Tellico River and its tributaries. The Tellico River flows from its headwaters in Cherokee County North Carolina through the area that encompasses the OHV System and on into Tennessee. In April 1994, Cherokee National Forest issued a draft Wild and Scenic River Study that found a 22.8 mile segment of the Tellico River from its headwaters to be eligible and suitable for designation as “recreational” under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s 1991 classification of the North Carolina segment as
“Wild Trout Waters” was pivotal to this suitability finding. The self-sustaining wild trout populations, native brook trout in particular, are an “outstandingly remarkable” fishery value as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act study protocols. USDA Forest Service policy is to manage eligible river segments so as to protect or enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (Bureau of Land Management, 1999). Sediment, or particles of soil and other material that settle out in streams, is a major concern in forested watersheds in the Southeast (Coats and Miller, 1981). Excess fine sediment in stream systems fills interstitial space between larger rocks and can smother fish eggs and the aquatic insects they feed on. This can also deprive small fish of cover from predators, since their hiding places among the small rocks become filled by sediment. Unpaved dirt and gravel roads and trails can be a primary contributor to stream sedimentation
The Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan)
standard for soil and water management states: “Prevent visible sediment from reaching perennial and intermittent stream channels….” Comprehensive condition surveys in November of 2007 and March of 2008 revealed numerous instances of sediment from the OHV System reaching the Tellico River and its tributaries. In many cases the sediment could be visibly tracked either directly entering a waterbody from the road or trail, or through the woods to a waterbody or to another trail that transported the sediment to water. For most sections of the trail system the potential for stream sedimentation could
be greatly reduced with additional drainage features and standard engineering techniques such as: construction of rolling dips and silt traps; proper location and installation of appropriately sized culverts; occasional large stone added to trail surfaces; and frequent maintenance. Some sections of trail, such as deeply entrenched sections, would be more difficult to fix. Deeply entrenched areas of trail can be responsible for transporting an inordinate amount of sediment. When it rains, these entrenched areas act like chutes funneling runoff. The
runoff may gain speed and pick up whatever loose soil it encounters. This fast flowing water ruts the trails and scours banks, thus exposing more soil to eventually becoming sediment in streams. It is virtually impossible to remove the water from deeply entrenched trail sections using standard road and trail engineering or drainage structures. If the trail becomes worn down to bedrock it may also expose springs that add to water flow and thus the potential sedimentation issues. Several trail sections on the OHV System exhibit this deeply entrenched condition, making it difficult to manage the runoff
without closure and rehabilitation. With a loop system such as in the Upper Tellico, if a reroute or bypass of a closed area is not feasible from an engineering and cost perspective, the entire trail may have to be closed.
Following are trail-specific findings from the condition surveys along with my proposal based on these findings.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
Trail 1 – Tipton Creek
The switchbacks (survey stations 6,400 ft.
through 8,000 ft.) cannot be maintained
adequately as an aggregate surfaced road.
Repeated reconstruction has failed to resolve
the issues associated with the steep grade. The
switchbacks make it very difficult for ordinary
vehicles to traverse the road and nearly
impossible for vehicles with trailers. Stretches
are in close proximity to Tipton Creek. With the
high traffic volumes and unauthorized high
speeds, along with wheels spinning to gain
traction through the switchbacks, Trail 1 is a
potentially high sediment source. Hardening the
road surface such as with pavement would
alleviate much of this potential. The drawback,
however, is that ATVs are not compatible with
paved surfaces. So an alternate way for ATVs
to access the system from State Line parking
area would be required.
Harden road surface with pavement or other
appropriate surface material to eliminate
sedimentation potential and reduce
maintenance needs. Add trail system access for
ATVs at the northern entrance near the NC-TN
state line (if Trail 1 is paved ATV’s could not
use it to access the system). Remove Trail 1
from the OHV System but retain as an open
through-road from North Carolina into
Tennessee for street-legal vehicles.
Trail 2 – Tipton Knob
The section from its northern intersection with
Trail 1 for about 3/5ths of a mile is all draining
into the adjacent Jenks Branch. It would require
extraordinary engineering design at high cost to
fix this, since it involves the area known as the
Rock Garden, and the cost of long term
maintenance of such extreme installations is
unknown. The remainder of the trail is in poor
condition and has some deeply entrenched areas
but is less of a potential sediment source due to
its location on a ridgeline. While it would be
expensive to repair and maintain for continued
Remove from OHV system. Close and
rehabilitate the segment north of intersection
with FS-402 (known as the Rock Garden). Add
remainder of Trail 2 (from intersection of FS-
402 south to Harshaw Gap) to forest road
system. Gate at Harshaw Gap and Jenks Gap
(this section would be available only for
administrative use and landowner access to
private inholdings.) The section from Jenks
Gap to FS-402 would be open to street legal
vehicles and would be maintained for high
clearance vehicles from FS-402 to FS-24.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
OHV traffic, this segment accesses private
property so it would need to remain available
for the use of the private landowners.
Trail 3 - Bearpen
Though part of this trail runs parallel to a
Tellico River tributary, the condition of the trail
would allow routine engineering and heavy
maintenance to alleviate the sedimentation
potential. Scouting of possible reroute locations
found them more problematic than the trail’s
present location. Part of the sedimentation
potential is actually the result of sediment
coming from Trail 12. Reducing or eliminating
soil loss from Trail 12 would address this.
Retain as part of the OHV System. Perform
heavy maintenance including installation of
additional drainage structures.
Trail 4 – Fain Ford
A stretch of Trail 4 runs parallel to Peckerwood
Creek, and condition surveys located numerous
instances where sediment could be seen
entering the creek. Within this stretch, another
location exhibits fill-slope failure and has
landslide potential. Fixing this segment would
be very expensive with limited potential for
long term success. The remainder of Trail 4 is
fixable with normal engineering and heavy
maintenance.
Retain as part of the OHV System from
southern access point to intersection with Trail
8 at Fain Ford. Close and rehabilitate section
north of this intersection with Trail 8, to the
intersection with Trails 6 and 7. [The previous
decision to construct a bridge across the
Tellico River at Fain Ford would go forward.]
Trail 5 – Tellico River
Two areas of high-sediment-potential exist near
the intersection with Trail 4, as sediment is
accumulating from a “trail stacking “ situation
where Trail 12 is dumping sediment onto Trail
4 and then running along with additional Trail 4
sediment down to Trail 5 and into the Tellico
River. There is also a series of springs in this
area adding to the runoff.
Retain as part of the OHV System with a
reroute to a new intersection with Trail 4. This
reroute of approximately 3,500 feet would use
an existing old road template. Close and
rehabilitate a section that currently intersects
with Trail 4.
[Also see Trail 12 proposal]
Trail 6 – State Line Loop
One short stretch is a major sediment source for
this trail. Installation of oversized culverts on
this stretch along with heavy maintenance of
the whole trail would alleviate much of the
sedimentation potential.
Retain as part of the OHV System. Install
several oversize culverts at a bad stretch of trail
(between surveyed stations 3,458 ft. through
6,888 ft.).
A new connector would be constructed off
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
Trail 6 from State Line parking area to Trail 5
to facilitate access to trail system by nonstreet-
legal vehicles. This new access would
take this traffic off Trail 1.
Trail 7 – Peckerwood Connector
Not only sediment but other contaminants
associated with motor vehicles are making their
way into Peckerwood Creek from the
“challenge” area on Trail 7. Stabilizing this trail
segment would require extraordinary
engineering design and be very expensive.
Follow-up maintenance requirements would be
unknown.
Retain as part of the OHV System from
intersection with Trail 6 to a point in the
vicinity of Peckerwood Creek. Construct a
reroute of approximately 1,500 feet from this
point to Trail 8 to bypass the “high challenge”
area. The proposed reroute follows an existing
old road bed for 900 feet, leaving 600 feet of
new construction. Close and rehabilitate the
trail east of the reroute, including the “high
challenge” area.
Trail 8 – Bob Creek
This first 1.5 miles runs parallel to the Tellico
River and it is evident that the adjacent
tributaries do at times overtop the trail and even
turn the trail itself into a stream of sorts. In
addition, three bridges are rotted out, an old
wooden culvert needs replacing, and a new
bridge is needed at one point on the trail. For
the most part these problems could be fixed
with the installation of about a dozen oversize
culverts, four or five new bridges, and a shift in
the road surface upward. Fixing Trail 8 would
entail more cost that most of the other trail
work but it is a major loop in the system. The
fixes are within the scope of normal
engineering and heavy maintenance.
The short piece of Trail 8 that runs south from
the Trail 7 intersection contains a stretch worn
down to bedrock that can funnel water down to
Trail 4 and then straight into the Tellico River.
Attempts to find a suitable reroute location
were unsuccessful.
Retain in part and close in part. Keep the trail
open from its intersection with Trail 4 at Fain
Ford eastward, making a counterclockwise
loop to its intersection with the Trail 7 reroute.
Close the short section south of its intersection
with the Trail 7 reroute. Trail 8 would require
heavy maintenance, some reconstruction and
possible minor rerouting. Due to proximity to
the Tellico River this would include minor
road shifts away from the stream course and to
minimize the entrenchment. Some hardening of
the roadway with rip-rap would also occur.
Construct four to five bridges and install
numerous large culverts along with other
standard drainage features. Restore Mistletoe
Creek into its original channel.
Trail 9 – Mistletoe Connector
Steep grades, areas of deep entrenchment mixed
with numerous springs coming out of the
bedrock area and close proximity to streams
make Trail 9 among the most difficult and
Remove from the OHV System. Close and
rehabilitate.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
expensive to repair.
Trail 10 (ATV Only) – Round Mountain
Condition surveys identified three especially
problematic areas on this ATV-only trail. The
first, at the northern end of Trail 10, is a steep,
deeply entrenched stretch of about 800 feet that
is dumping onto Trail 8 and rapidly filling a
sediment trap there. The second is a stretch of
about 500 feet where the stream is actually
running in the trail. The third is at the
“challenge area” where extensive soil
movement has occurred immediately adjacent
to the creek. Possible trail relocations were
scouted but were not deemed suitable. The main
trail has deteriorated to where users have
created bypasses on poor locations. From an
engineering perspective any fixes would be
difficult to maintain in part due to the highimpact
ATV traffic.
Retain segment from intersection with Trail
10A west to intersection with Trail 3 (the
southernmost section). Remove the remainder
from the ATV system; close and rehabilitate.
Trail 10A (ATV Only) Round Mountain Spur
While this trail parallels the Tellico River for
the majority of its length, good grades and lack
of entrenchment make it a good candidate for
engineering fixes to the drainage features and
initial heavy maintenance.
Retain open to ATVs with reevaluation at the
end of two years. Reevaluation would result in
continuation of open status or closure
depending on effectiveness of drainage
features in stemming sediment flow into the
Tellico River.
Trail 11 – Chestnut Mountain
While there are some steep, rocky areas and
some entrenchment and exposed bedrock, the
trail is far from water and condition surveys did
not track sediment reaching water. However
there are three “challenge areas” that not many
users can traverse, thus limiting the capability
of the trail to be used by ATVs and others
looking for a ride of moderate difficulty.
Bypasses around the challenge areas could
make the trail more useable if suitable locations
are found.
Retain as part of the OHV System contingent
on successful construction of challenge area
bypasses. If bypasses are not successful, close
trail and rehabilitate.
Trail 12 – Hawk Knob
Trail 12 begins with a long stretch of deep
entrenchment followed by exposed bedrock.
Remove from the OHV System. Close and
rehabilitate.
CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION
The trail is visibly broadcasting sediment-laden
runoff through the woods down to Trail 3,
across this trail down to Trail 4 and then Trail
5, ending up in the Tellico River. The steep
mud chute, unstable side-walls with
undermined trees and root-wads, narrow
entrenched sections, and high terraced bedrock
ledges make Trail 12 a poor candidate for
normal engineering fixes. Terrain features limit
possible reroutes.
There is a need to manage the use of the road and trail system to limit stream
sedimentation well into the future.
When and how OHVs use the system can influence the potential for erosive runoff to
reach the Tellico River and its tributaries. Vehicles on trails after rain events will churn
up more mud than vehicular traffic during dry times. Similarly, traffic during the winter
period of freezing and thawing of the road surface can increase sedimentation potential
and damage the trail surface. Two-wheel-drive use of the system can churn up soil when
tires spin to gain traction. Eliminating wet weather use, winter use, and two-wheel-drive
use would hopefully allow the system to stay in acceptable condition much longer than is
currently the case, thus reducing annual maintenance costs from what they would be
otherwise.
Following are the proposed actions to manage OHV use:
1. Seasonal closure of the entire OHV System from January 1 through March 31 each year.
2. Short term closures as necessary following high rainfall events.
3. To facilitate temporary closures, camping adjacent to the trail system would be
eliminated.
4. OHVs (other than vehicles with two wheels) must have 4-wheel drive locked in.
[Motorcycle and dirt bike use remains the same as now.]
AMENDING THE FOREST PLAN
Currently, the Forest Plan standards for OHV trail “levels of challenge” and “miles per
square mile” (trail density) are inconsistent with both the existing trail system and the
proposed trail system. To remedy this inconsistency, the proposed action would change the
Forest Plan language as follows:
Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language
Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will:
- provide easy to moderate
levels of challenge;…”
Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will:
- provide “various levels of
challenge:”
Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in
response to identified needs to an
approximate density of 2 miles per square
mile in any management area unit.
REMOVE LANGUAGE
Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in
response to identified needs to an
approximate density of 2 miles per square
mile in any management area unit.
REMOVE LANGUAGE
Need For Amending the Forest Plan
Changing the language in regard to challenge level: The degree of challenge provided by
any OHV trail is extremely subjective according to the type of equipment and skill of the
user. Therefore, the phrase “various levels of challenge” is more accurate than the phrase
“easy to moderate levels of challenge” when describing the opportunity the Forest Plan
intends.
Removing the OHV opportunity density standard: The current Upper Tellico OHV
System trail densities are approximately 4.2 miles of trail per square mile for most of the
area. The proposed action would reduce those densities to approximately 2.8 miles per
square mile. This still exceeds the Forest Plan standard of approximately 2 miles per
square mile. By removing the density standard we can tailor the density for a given trail
system to a wide variety of site-specific resource- and user-related variables, such as
habitat for particular species, proximity to water, topography, vehicle types and
seasonality of use. A standard density is not an established measure of trail system
success either regionally or nationally. The proposed Forest Plan change would achieve
greater consistency with national guidance on OHV trail system management.
Decision Criteria
As we proceed with analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and any
alternatives, two criteria will be especially important in deciding on a course of action:
1. The road and trail system cannot continue to contribute additional visible sediment to
the Tellico River and its Tributaries.
We have an obligation to meet the Forest Plan soil and water standard which is derived from
North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality. I will be weighing
each alternative in light of how likely it is to meet the “no visible sediment...” standard.
2. The road and trail system cannot repeatedly incur excessive maintenance and
reconstruction costs.
A multi-billion dollar nationwide road and trail maintenance backlog on National Forest
System lands has been recognized by the Federal Office of Management and Budget
(Welcome to OMB). The future of the OHV System depends on whether or not it
can be maintained with available resources – both money and people to do the work.
As it exists today, the OHV System cannot be maintained adequately so as to limit future
sedimentation. The money and people available to do the maintenance are severely limited.
While current user fees and volunteer efforts make an important contribution, they do not
meet the current or projected need. The resources to do the work must increase dramatically,
the long term maintenance requirements must decrease dramatically, or some combination of
both must occur to financially maintain the Upper Tellico OHV System. I will be weighing
each alternative OHV system in light of how likely it is that we will be able to maintain it in
future years.
I Welcome Your Comments
An interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists will complete an Environmental
Assessment over the summer. This assessment will analyze the ecological, social, and economic
impacts of a proposed action as well as some alternative management schemes we will develop
with your input.
I know many of you have intimate knowledge of the area and ideas for making changes and
improvements. I look forward to hearing from you. Please make your comments as specific as
possible along with supporting reasons why you believe your comments should be considered.
Please include your name and address in any correspondence.
Your comments may be sent to Tusquitee District Ranger, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC
28906. Comments may also be sent via email to comments-southern-north-carolina-nantahalatusquitee@
fs.fed.us. We would appreciate receiving your comments by July 9, 2008.
We will be hosting an open house from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM on June 28, 2008 at the First Baptist
Church in Murphy, NC. See the enclosed announcement for details.
Thank you for your time and interest in our management activities on the Tusquitee Ranger
District.
Sincerely,
/s/ Steve Lohr
STEVE LOHR
District Ranger
Cheoah/Tusquitee Ranger Districts
Last edited:
Southeast Overland
Get lost! Go explore!
- Thread starter
- #30
Yeah, that was sucky news yesterday.
The upshot of the whole thing is a reduction of 15.5 miles of trails. Here's the summary:
1) Schoolbus GONE
2) Slickrock GONE
3) Lower 2 GONE
4) If Helicopter Pad bypass cannot be successfully bypassed... GONE
5) The Ledge at Peckerwood GONE
Now is the time folks. S**t or get off the pot, cause we ain't foolin' around anymore. Please read up here: Upper Tellico OHV Area and send in your comments!
Here is the info for sending comments:
"Your comments may be sent to Tusquitee District Ranger, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC28906. Comments may also be sent via email to comments-southern-north-carolina-nantahalatusquitee@fs.fed.us. We would appreciate receiving your comments by July 9, 2008."
Please take action, and ask your friends to do the same. The more comments the better.
The upshot of the whole thing is a reduction of 15.5 miles of trails. Here's the summary:
1) Schoolbus GONE
2) Slickrock GONE
3) Lower 2 GONE
4) If Helicopter Pad bypass cannot be successfully bypassed... GONE
5) The Ledge at Peckerwood GONE
Now is the time folks. S**t or get off the pot, cause we ain't foolin' around anymore. Please read up here: Upper Tellico OHV Area and send in your comments!
Here is the info for sending comments:
"Your comments may be sent to Tusquitee District Ranger, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC28906. Comments may also be sent via email to comments-southern-north-carolina-nantahalatusquitee@fs.fed.us. We would appreciate receiving your comments by July 9, 2008."
Please take action, and ask your friends to do the same. The more comments the better.
As proposed, the trail system becomes literally worthless. I want to be able to assume that the authoring Ranger is trail knowledgeable - but several statements led me to believe otherwise.
I don't want to believe that an affordable solution doesn't exist for Schoolbus? The distances from flowing water systems seem to allow for some form of engineered solution in the key spots.
The bypass at Helipcopter is smooth as silk. The bypass at Gaurdrail is fairly easy as well.
Slickrock - hiked it last month, agree to an extent there's just too much of a stream and bedrock watering to solve that one perhaps.
Peckerwood - sad to say I've not made it over there in years - my loss.
Lower 2 - with the lack of usage, and the backfilling to get the equipment in for the rain catches - it looks like a highway, well at least for bigger tires
Conclusion - comments regarding inability to secure successful bypasses is an odd take - if you don't have a winch, gear, skill to use such, or a properly equipped vehicle to get you over a trail - then don't take it - bypasses? Why? I thought an OHV system was broken down for Jeep trails, moderate vehicles up to more hardcore. It's not Disney - you don't have to make it accessible to everyone?
Simply disappointed that the FS is so negative - the simple solution is to topo the entire area, and consider opening additional trail networks that don't have the potential to create the issues that Lower 2 and Slickrock so obviously have. Failure to be more forthright about this (other than mention of need to create new access where 1 would be paved) shows that there is a quite possibly an alterior motive involved to force out OHV recreation - regardless of any real or perceived environmental degradation. To any opposed to new trail creation - ask them to simply look at existing conditions and point out all of the the existing graded logging trails that anyone can see with a simple hike off the existing trail network - there's hundreds of others...
So in summary - my suggestion to the FS is to go take a hike, open their eyes, and see that there might very well be a compromising solution at hand. Just takes a different tack - eye for an eye (new trails of equal caliber in exchange for trail closures).
That's my vent/rant for today having a minor professional background in environmental/development related issues - and without concrete science to analyze, have to assume somebody up there does and knows how to read it. Till then - I'll try and think of a tactful way to express my suggestion for a solution when I write in.
Sad day indeed.
I don't want to believe that an affordable solution doesn't exist for Schoolbus? The distances from flowing water systems seem to allow for some form of engineered solution in the key spots.
The bypass at Helipcopter is smooth as silk. The bypass at Gaurdrail is fairly easy as well.
Slickrock - hiked it last month, agree to an extent there's just too much of a stream and bedrock watering to solve that one perhaps.
Peckerwood - sad to say I've not made it over there in years - my loss.
Lower 2 - with the lack of usage, and the backfilling to get the equipment in for the rain catches - it looks like a highway, well at least for bigger tires
Conclusion - comments regarding inability to secure successful bypasses is an odd take - if you don't have a winch, gear, skill to use such, or a properly equipped vehicle to get you over a trail - then don't take it - bypasses? Why? I thought an OHV system was broken down for Jeep trails, moderate vehicles up to more hardcore. It's not Disney - you don't have to make it accessible to everyone?
Simply disappointed that the FS is so negative - the simple solution is to topo the entire area, and consider opening additional trail networks that don't have the potential to create the issues that Lower 2 and Slickrock so obviously have. Failure to be more forthright about this (other than mention of need to create new access where 1 would be paved) shows that there is a quite possibly an alterior motive involved to force out OHV recreation - regardless of any real or perceived environmental degradation. To any opposed to new trail creation - ask them to simply look at existing conditions and point out all of the the existing graded logging trails that anyone can see with a simple hike off the existing trail network - there's hundreds of others...
So in summary - my suggestion to the FS is to go take a hike, open their eyes, and see that there might very well be a compromising solution at hand. Just takes a different tack - eye for an eye (new trails of equal caliber in exchange for trail closures).
That's my vent/rant for today having a minor professional background in environmental/development related issues - and without concrete science to analyze, have to assume somebody up there does and knows how to read it. Till then - I'll try and think of a tactful way to express my suggestion for a solution when I write in.
Sad day indeed.
bumping this thread for some news a GarnerFJ40 found today.
you and I must be in the same business, since we log onto the FBO site regularly at my office. Good catch on this...downloading docs now and will read through them. For those that don't know, FBO.gov is the website used to bid on any Federally funded contract (from purchasing batteries for flashlights to major construction projects). The link Brian put above is for a Federal contract to "obliterate" the trails of Tellico OHV system.
[edit] just scanning through the drawing set and it appears bad. I cannot say definitively without reading all the specs but they are resculpting sections of each trail where there is a culvert and taking the "road" away. I'm attaching a sample page of the drawing set. You can see a cross section in the inset drawing of what they want to do at each culvert.
you and I must be in the same business, since we log onto the FBO site regularly at my office. Good catch on this...downloading docs now and will read through them. For those that don't know, FBO.gov is the website used to bid on any Federally funded contract (from purchasing batteries for flashlights to major construction projects). The link Brian put above is for a Federal contract to "obliterate" the trails of Tellico OHV system.
[edit] just scanning through the drawing set and it appears bad. I cannot say definitively without reading all the specs but they are resculpting sections of each trail where there is a culvert and taking the "road" away. I'm attaching a sample page of the drawing set. You can see a cross section in the inset drawing of what they want to do at each culvert.
Southeast Overland
Get lost! Go explore!
At first glance that appears to be a full decommissioning which is pretty much what I expected the FS to do at this point. They are going to continue moving forward with implementing their decision until an injunction or suit is filed.
Yeah, I talked to Heather last night and this was always the FS plan. They are just "fixing" the problem areas and will just let the rest of the roadways become overgrown. Doesn't look like they are going to haul in any dirt, but simply "cut & fill" with existing dirt at each culvert. The contract reads like they are only hiring heavy equipment operators and the FS will manage the tasks. About 2 dozen contractors signed up to bid on it and it's ARRA (Recovery Act) funded.
This really pisses me off. So they say the price of the work to return Tellico back to the land is going to be a "Price range: Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000" but yet they could have used that money to actually fix the current trails to a tune of 2 million dollars all the while still allowing people on the trails for years to come.
So in a nutshell they tell the people it is too expensive to fix the problem for the people to enjoy. Instead they decide to spend even more money to take it away from the people. Best yet we all get to pay for the privilege of not getting to use it. Wooohooo!
So in a nutshell they tell the people it is too expensive to fix the problem for the people to enjoy. Instead they decide to spend even more money to take it away from the people. Best yet we all get to pay for the privilege of not getting to use it. Wooohooo!
Yeah, hoping this is ammo for the impending lawsuit.
- Thread starter
- #37
Me too. I passed it on to Blue Ribbon and hope that they will be able to do something.
I submitted this as a cost cutting idea on the Eric Cantor "you cut" web site and stated how it has hurt the local economy. Maybe we can flood his site and get some positive attention.
- Thread starter
- #39
Well, at least the RFP did do something and BRC and the crew filed suit. Now we'll see what the courts have to say.
This was actually posted on the NC4x4.com website, so I was just cross posting, so I can't take credit for the find! Between Tellico and the Outer Banks, we're slowly losing spots to drive. This comes from the state with the most state maintained roads outside of Texas. At least Uwharrie National Forest is tapping into the state funds for maintenance of OHV trails that gos along with our "highway use tax"...
