Tellico Letter "Check In" Thread

[DRM]

No discussion here, just a place to check in to say you sent a letter, or how many you sent if more than one.

This is concerning the latest (June 2008) memo on proposed trail closings - not other issues in the past.

The Anderson Creek closure release stated that 365 letters were received on that issue, with the majority sent in favor of closure.

I would like to see that this thread show we can beat that #.

Also please state if you sent an email, or a call.

[DRM]

1 preliminary "quick & dirty" letter sent last week via postal mail

2 drawings my kids did with pre-printed comments about not closing Tellico - sent Tuesday (6-17-08) morning via postal mail

[tnxjjeeper]

One email sent on 6-14.

[TheInkFish]

Check

[dan58]

Sent via email.

[redman_30_06]

Done.

[bigjerm]

sent email.

Wish we would have known about the Anderson Creek issues. A lot of the GA clubs had no clue about it...

[Cj104]

i sent one a couple days ago via e-mail.

[rock-rod]

letter sent last week (by mail).

[Kurtuleas]

I sent two last week via e-mail. More to come this week when I have a little more time.

They can be read here:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8349135&postcount=41

and here:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8349549&postcount=46

I encourage people to PLEASE add into thier letters something along the lines of this:


I would like to bring your attention to this thread on Pirate4x4.com which is the largest 4x4 website in the world:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676594

In a span of just a few hours, nearly 1,000 people voiced thier concerns in a "Virtual, Online Rally" to protest the possible closures of the Tellico OHV area. They have posted arguments against the closures, plus pictures and testaments as to how important the Tellico area is to our community.

In that this process needs public input, I ask that you make that rally thread and all the comments within it as part of the public record and part of this process.

Let's make sure Nick's Tellico Rally is considered a comment.

[Trailworks]

Email sent 15 June , snail mail sent today, will probably send another one in a few days.

[momar]

email sent, if you wanta read it its in the "Bad News" thread

[krawler00]

Emailed out 6-19 and also did the research study and sent out today.

[5keepers]

I've sent numerous emails, mailed a couple of lengthy letters, and sent out the survey today.

[DAMRON QUEENER]

sent via snail mail

[broncomania79]

sent another letter.

[comeonstart]

I sent one today.

[BoneCrusher]

I just finished the survey
Im writing an email
and after that Ill mail my snail mail

[MT4Runner]

Steve Lohr

District Ranger

Cheoah/Tusquitee Ranger Districts

123 Woodland Drive

Murphy, NC 28906



Re: Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Road and Trail System

Road and trail modifications and other management actions





Dear Ranger Lohr,




I am incredibly concerned that portions of the Tellico OHV area are slated for closure. As a responsible motorized user, it pains me to think that there are those who urge closures of areas where families can go to recreate together, particularly where resource damage is controlled and mitigeted, and people's choice of access is practiced responsibly.


Why are we seeing the closure of offroad parks where ethical four wheel-drive use is taught, expected, and practiced; when there are illegal areas where ignorant kids go out and tear things up.

Closing a place like Tellico is ruining an excellent outreach opportunity to educate those who don't know better. It is vital that we work together for our common future access to all the great lands in America.



From the USFS documentation:

As it exists today, the OHV System cannot be maintained adequately so as to limit future edimentation. 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.



As a member of the Big Sky Four Wheelers club in northwestern Montana, we work tirelessly with the local recreation specialists in the Flathead National Forest. We use examples of OHV areas like Upper Tellico as a positive sample of how wheelers recreate responsibly with their families. We also do much of the “heavy lifting” using volunteer labor. Why haven’t the Nantahala NF and Tusquitee RD been receptive to using volunteer labor, equipment, and dollars to perform this necessary maintenance?

I love taking my 4 year-old and 6 year-old daughters out wheelin'. My oldest will ride along with her window down, no matter what the weather--when I first asked her why, she commented:

"Well, because, Dad, I want to smell the fresh air!"

Now she merely rolls down the window and I smile at her.

I love to mountain bike, I love to hike, I love to whitewater kayak. None of my other hobbies allow me to recreate with my young family as much as we can in our 4x4.



I oppose the reduction in trail miles from 39.5mi to 24mi.
I can support wet weather closures or engineered sediment-settlement systems (ponds or catchment basins) that would keep sediment out of the Nantahala River during the wet weather season
I oppose seasonal closures based on calendar dates and not actual weather/climate-based wet weather closures
I oppose the Status change of Trail 1 to become passable to street-legal vehicles. Without the trail’s current level of challenge, people will not travel from all over the Eastern United States to visit the area and support the local economy.
I oppose closures based on potential sediment contribution. Closures or changes should be made based upon only measureable, verifiable sediment contribution.






Finally, I would like to bring your attention to this thread on Pirate4x4.com which is the largest 4x4 website in the world:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676594



In a span of just a few hours, nearly 1,000 people voiced their concerns in a "Virtual, Online Rally" to protest the possible closures of the Tellico OHV area. They have posted arguments against the closures, plus pictures and testaments as to how important the Tellico area is to our community.




Respectfully,
x

[Tommy70K5]

Sent mine in this morning!

[Muddin]

in

[KyYota]

Snail mail letter on its way.

e-mail going out soon.

[HANO]

Survey Completed.

[DRM]

Using the BRC letter generator - just fired off an email as well.

[KyYota]

Fired off one from the BRC letter generator as well as an e-mail this morinng. I've posted all the information on the local boards as well.

[McCracken]

Survey and 2 emails here so far. I'll fire a few more off today.

Got this:

"Delivery Notifaction: Failure" in the email.

Anybody else get this? Does this mean his box is full? I used the BRC link.

[Georgia Mike]

Used the BRC letter generator. Added my own beginning to it stating what I wanted to say, then I let the form letter that best expressed my feelings on the matter finish it out. I figured if they see the same old form letters over and over, they won't take any interest in reading it.

[brimy311]

Snail mailed one in yesterday, Used the BRC generator for an Emailed one.

[tazmann910]

Survey filled out and sent.

Filled out the BRC form letter with a paragraph or two of my own first and then a form paragraph on the end.

[k9crazy]

Survey and 2 emails here so far. I'll fire a few more off today.

Got this:

"Delivery Notifaction: Failure" in the email.

Anybody else get this? Does this mean his box is full? I used the BRC link.

Don't worry Nick, the email addy on the generator was wrong. I received all the emails so far and will take care of forwarding them on.

[McCracken]

thanks I passed this along to the NC4x4 board so that they know when they get the error message as well.

[JohnnyJ]

I just used the BRC email generator. That's damn cool. Too bad the situation to use it sucks.

[jesster]

e-mail sent.

[YellowSub1962]

BRC Letter sent, and added my own paragraph.



SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON UPPER TELLICO OHV SYSTEM

Dear Ranger Lohr,

I am writing to provide comments on the scoping letter for changes at the Upper Tellico ORV Area in the Nantahala National Forest.

I would like to strongly suggest that the FS consider scoping for reopening and maintaining trails at Tellico instead of closing trails. If the purpose and need for this action is to reduce sedimentation in streams, then that should be the desired outcome of this analysis, not closing trails. If the FS were to change the proposed action to reduction of sedimentation, this would allow the FS to conduct a more comprehensive analysis under NEPA and could provide recreation opportunities to OHV community and reduce sedimentation in the Tellico River watershed at the same time.

It is inaccurate to say the FS has to close trails because of maintenance issues when they are the entity that did not perform the maintenance. SFWDA volunteers have been working for years in cooperation with the FS and now that relationship is being cast aside in an effort to pacify another less involved user group.

I believe that the USFS has not properly evaluated the impacts of closing or restricting the Upper Tellico OHV Area. I believe that the economic impacts to the area have not been considered at all in determining the current proposed changes. I believe that the Forest Service has not considered the rapid, explosive growth of interest in motorized recreation, and has simply wilted in the face of a NOI from an extreme environment group. The FS needs to consider the interests of others besides itself and the few environmental lobbyists and lawyers who represent a small but well-financed group who wants to prevent the public's use of land that rightfully belongs to the public. The FS needs to consider where the OHV operators who currently utilize the Upper Tellico OHV Area will go, and what damage may occur from that shift to other areas. I believe that current plan for Upper Tellico OHV Area is unfair, unwise, and scientifically and economically unsound.

The FS should evaluate the detrimental effect on the local economy this unjust closure will have. People travel from all over the country and make Tellico a destination, spending 10's of thousands of their hard earned dollars at the local small businesses annually. The people of Tellico depend on lawful OHV use and proper FS policies as an important part of their livelihoods.

Sincerely,

Peter S. Di Primo,
xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Simi Valley, CA, xxxxx-xxxx



:usa:

[Georgia Mike]

Don't worry Nick, the email addy on the generator was wrong. I received all the emails so far and will take care of forwarding them on.

I just got the same message.

[k9crazy]

We are up to 291 comments from the BRC site! Keep it up everyone!!!!

[EarlKann]

Letter sent. Cross posted on our Rock Brawler board.

[jhnyct]

Letter sent using the generator this morning.

[TSEJEEPERS]

Letter sent also posted it on local board.

[Kurtuleas]

I just sent another one. :D

[edglock21]

Email sent - posted link to letter generator on Pavementsucks, as well

[nlatto]

Sent one out 6-26-08

[k9crazy]

We are up to 359 comments as of this morning! Keep it up!

[ftoy507]

Done
email and snail mail

[McCracken]

3 snail mail letters last night :grinpimp:

[k9crazy]

Up to 572 letter!

[cdazzle]

Survey Sent.
Letter to follow shortly.

[k9crazy]

Total online letters sent through BRC: 664

As folks have said over and over, please personalize your letter and make it substantive. If you have an idea about how they should make the area better and keep it open, include it in your letter!

[Kurtuleas]

I sent another in real quick tonight thru normal e-mail:

Dear Mr. Lohr,

In your scoping letter, I would like to direct your attention to this sentence under the proposed action:


"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."

To begin, what is the definition for a high-challenge rock-crawler? Is this a vehicle with larger tires, lower gears and lockers? The Environmental Assessment must contain an EXACT description of the vehicles. At what point does my vehicle become a "high-challenge" rock crawler?

Also, in your scoping letter, it seems to infer and take as a fact that this type of motorized recreation is leading to the damage. It ties "heavily eroded" with extreme rock crawling when there is no proof that the vehicles did that damage, only an assumption. What studies done by a neutral party can tell us what effects different types of vehicles have on different terrains?

There needs to be an exact description of the activity and a study done on just how much damage (if any) is done by different types of vehicles on different terrains. Mother Nature is the number one culprit in many cases.

I think you will find that a vehicle with bigger tires, lower gears and lockers will do considerably LESS damage than a normal vehicle will open differentials that spins the tires more. Plus more ground clearance makes it less probable that a vehicle will high-center and spin tires. The more "extreme" a vehicle, the less damage to the environment.

What exactly do you mean by "high potential"? Can you measure how much sediment would be dumped by one of these vehicles traveling thru Upper Tellico?

As for rehabilitation, can you insure and prove that sediment will no longer be dumped into the streams if the routes are closed? The roads will still be there and will still be exposed to mother nature. Would there be much difference between leaving the trails there without traffic or there with traffic? In the final assessment, it needs to be shown using studies that the absence of vehicles will definately stop sediment from entering the streams.

[k9crazy]

My letter is in the mail. 11 pages long.

Ranger Steve Lohr
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

July 3, 2008

Dear Ranger Lohr:

I am writing to provide you with my comments to the proposed action involving the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Road and Trail System (OHV System). These comments are provided as requested in your Scoping letter dated June 9, 2008.

My comments are below:

1) The purpose of this action stated in your scoping letter states an unproven connection between erosion from the trails in the OHV System to the cause of turbidity in the Tellico River and its tributaries. The presented studies did not use the correct procedure to determine if the OHV System is responsible for sediment in the Tellico River. Please address the cumulative impacts of development and logging in the watershed as part of your analysis.

2) The initiation of this proposed action was caused by the threat of suit by Trout Unlimited and other special interest groups in an effort to protect their native brook trout. I request that the proposed action be to conduct a watershed-wide study to assess the population condition and habitat of the brook trout.

3) The proposed action is to modify the existing OHV System with user limitations and closures. I respectfully request that you modify the proposed action to support open access to the trails and proper implementation of the existing management plan for the area.

4) As a point of fact, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), who completed the monitoring of the wild trout population in the Tellico River watershed, did not call for closure of trails in the OHV System, but rather recommended that actions be taken to “Design and implement a study to determine cause-and-effect relationships of environmental factors, both natural and man-caused on wild trout populations in the Tellico River watershed. The study should be designed to identify impacts to trout recruitment and be fully integrated to include measurements of sediment loading (sources, rates, and timing) and other water quality parameters”. I request that the proposed action be changed to the recommendation suggested by the NCWRC.

Proposed Action

5) You state in your scoping letter that you 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.”

I respectfully request that the proposed action statement be changed to not predetermine closure of trails. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) is charged with the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ regulations, specifically Section 1500.1 state that the “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.” In this instance, your office has changed the purpose and need for an action from protecting brook trout to closing the OHV System. This change is in direct opposition to the intention of the CEQ regulations where it clearly states that the NEPA process must be conducted before decisions are made and actions are taken.


6) You stated in your scoping letter that “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.”

There is no definitive proof that these trails are responsible for sediment in nearby streams. The methods for collecting samples of water were flawed in that only a downstream sample was obtained and tested. In order to prove that the OHV System is contributing to the sedimentation of the Tellico River and its tributaries, it would be necessary to take both up and down stream samples and then compare the samples. I request that the USFS conduct valid sampling that considers the cumulative impacts of human impact throughout the watershed, and the impact that impact has on aquatic species.

7) “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.”

Studies within the watershed have not been completed to determine if the habitat or populations have been impacted specifically by the OHV System. In addition, your analysis takes into consideration only one issue that is impacting native trout. The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture also cites Climate Change, Acidic Deposition, Water Temperature, Urbanization, Invasive Species, and Habitat Degradation and Fragmentation (including physical barriers to breeding areas and chemical pollution). I request that the analysis of impacts to native trout include all relevant parameters and be completed. At this time, closing trails on the area without this analysis is unfounded.

8) 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….”

This can be done with mitigation methods and preventative maintenance that the USFS has deferred for many years. The lack of implementation of a viable maintenance plan in the area has allowed for some degradation of the area that can be remedied. I respectfully request that you consider the maintenance of the area to reach a sustainable balance while remaining open for use. I also request that you provide an economic analysis of the amount of volunteer time and money, and grant time and money that could be available for this effort.

9) Please see the following table for comments to table of “trail specific finding from the condition surveys along with my proposal based on these findings” that appeared in the June 9, 2008 Scoping Letter.

(In the letter this is a table, and much more impressive, but I only included the comment here because I can't paste a table)

Trail 1 – In your analysis, please include an analysis of the potential increase in traffic over a newly created paved road.

Trail 2 – Tipton Knob - I strongly opposed the removal of this section from the OHV System. The FS states that they are going to close this section of trail because they do not know how to properly maintain it for use as an OHV trail. Grant money, volunteer labor, and expertise are all available to the FS to maintain this area properly. I contend that the FS is not considering all viable options to closure. Specific alternatives for this section of trail should include a binding agreement with local volunteer organizations to effectively maintain this area. The FS should also include analysis of an alternative that would harden the trail up to the “rock garden” and then creation of a less challenging access trail to be built for ATV bypass. It is my opinion that the silt trap at the base of the “rock garden” is effective in preventing silt from traveling offsite. In addition, your analysis should consider hardening of the Upper part of Trail 2 and closure of the area to ATV’s.

Trail 3 - Bearpen - No substantive comments.

Trail 4 – Fain Ford - I oppose the closure of Trail 4 as proposed. It is my belief that the area in question can be stabilized and maintained for continued OHV use with appropriate engineering methods including and anchored gabien wall system, surge stone, and proper sloping of the roadbed. I support trail maintenance and rerouting to reduce potential impacts when the fundamental nature of the area is not compromised by the proposed action. I respectfully request that the FS include alternative routes, maintenance plans, and their specific analysis in the NEPA document.

Trail 5 – Tellico River - I support trail maintenance and rerouting to reduce potential impacts when the fundamental nature of the area is not compromised by the proposed action.

Trail 6 – State Line Loop - I support trail maintenance and rerouting to reduce potential impacts when the fundamental nature of the area is not compromised by the proposed action.

Trail 7 – Peckerwood Connector - I support trail maintenance and rerouting to reduce potential impacts when the fundamental nature of the area is not compromised by the proposed action.

Trail 8 – Bob Creek - It seems the only reason for closure of Trail 8 south of the intersection with Trail 7 is due to the closure of Trail 4 in that area.

I oppose the closure of Trail 4 and Trail 8 in this area. It is my belief that the area in question can be stabilized and maintained for continued OHV use. Please include and engineering, environmental, and economic study to explore maintenance options at this location.

Trail 9 – Mistletoe Connector - I disagree with the assessment and believe that qualified engineers can devise a way to mitigate any potential damage to streams from Trail 9.

I strongly opposed the removal of Trail 9 from the OHV System. The FS states that they are going to close this section of trail because they do not know how to properly maintain it for use as an OHV trail. Grant money, volunteer labor, and expertise are all available to the FS to maintain this area properly. I contend that the FS is not considering all viable options to closure. Specific alternatives for this section of trail should include a binding agreement with local volunteer organizations to effectively maintain this area.

Trail 10 (ATV Only) – Round Mountain - Please consider an alternative action to repair the trail and open it to full size OHV use. This is a low gradient trail that would be maintainable if accessible to equipment.

Trail 10A (ATV Only) Round Mountain Spur - Please consider an alternative action to open it to full size OHV use. This is a low gradient trail that would be maintainable if accessible to equipment.

Trail 11 – Chestnut Mountain - I support trail maintenance and rerouting to reduce potential impacts when the fundamental nature of the area is not compromised by the proposed action.

However, this is not one of those cases. The challenge areas are the focus of these areas and should remain for those that desire more difficult terrain. I support the construction of bypasses and request that representatives from SFWDA be included in the process to determine feasibility and construction of the alternative routes.

Trail 12 – Hawk Knob Trail - I disagree with the assessment and believe that qualified engineers can devise a way to mitigate any potential damage to streams from Trail 12. In addition, please consider an alternative that would reroute the bottom of Trail 12 along the top of a small ridge that crosses Trail 3 on the Trail 10 side of Trail 12.

I strongly opposed the removal of Trail 12 from the OHV System. The FS states that they are going to close this section of trail because they do not know how to properly maintain it for use as an OHV trail. Grant money, volunteer labor, and expertise are all available to the FS to maintain this area properly. I contend that the FS is not considering all viable options to closure. Specific alternatives for this section of trail should include a binding agreement with local volunteer organizations to effectively maintain this area.

10) “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.”

The unspoken implication of this paragraph is that the FS is suggesting the permanent closure of trails, the seasonal closure of trails, and the weather dependent closure of trails as a way to manage costs of maintaining the area. The motorized recreating public will not accept monetary constraints as an excuse for trail closures, especially at the Upper Tellico OHV System. The Southern Four Wheel Drive Association (SFWDA) has been on the ground working with FS personnel for over 20 years to maintain and improve the trails at Tellico. There are several grant and volunteer programs available, and the OHV community is committed to help provide the tools to address legitimate concerns about route maintenance. Therefore, my comment is that you address any legitimate maintenance concerns by incorporating a training protocol into your plan that would train agency staff on how to apply for grants, use the available ICE-T Money, effectively manage volunteer programs, and learn about and apply for other funding sources. In addition, you might consider MOUs or other similar agreements with recreational groups, such as the SFWDA.



11) Your scoping notice states:

“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.]

As I have written in the above specific comments, I would request that your proposed action be modified not to “manage OHV use,” but to manage sedimentation occurring in the Tellico River and tributaries and to assess potential impact of that sedimentation on trout species in the waterbodies. If the perceived problem is an impact to fish species, then the appropriate action is to determine if there is an impact, and the cause(s).

In addition, I am opposed to your proposed actions 1, 2 and 4 above for these specific reasons:

1. Please provide evidence that this approach will reduce the amount of sediment and benefit the native brook trout population in the upper reaches of the Tellico River watershed. If that evidence is not available, then seasonal closures are not appropriate at this time.

2. Please provide evidence that this management approach will reduce sedimentation in the waterbodies in the area. Short term wet weather closures will make planning to come to the area impossible for those that travel to get there. It will be costly and difficult to schedule a vacation to the area if people have no idea if the trails will be open. In addition, it will be increasingly difficult to schedule special events (fund raisers, work days, clean up days) that benefit the area.

3. Please be specific about removal of camping. Which areas would be removed? How many campsites would these removals effect? The FS recently improved the Stateline Campground at a great expense. How much money would be wasted if that campground was closed?

4. Please define OHV. Is that full size OHVs (like Jeeps) or ATV’s and UTVs? How to you propose to reduce the impact of motorcycles with their narrow wheels and knobby tires?

11) Your scoping notice states that 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”.

Please explain why, if you are proposing to change the language on Pg. III-11: a. from “Designate routes that will:- provide easy to moderate levels of challenge;…” to “Designate routes that will: - provide “various levels of challenge:,” you are eliminating all “challenge areas” that would provide anything other than easy to moderate levels of challenge.

In addition, you are proposing removal of the language in the Forest Plan from “Provide opportunities in response to identified needs to an approximate density of 2 miles per square mile in any management area unit.” You go on to explain that “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.”

Please provide justification of your calculation that the trail density is 4.2 miles of trail per square mile for “most” of the area. Also please define “most” in acres. Page III-54 of Amendment 5 of the LRMP for the Forest states that Unit 1B (where the OHV System is located) is 38,498 acres. In the NCWRC document entitled “A Summary of Wild Trout Population Monitoring in the Tellico River Watershed, 1994-2006” it identified the area s 2,023 hectares (approximately 5000 acres). It is my understanding that there are no other approved OHV Systems in the management unit and therefore the density would be well under the threshold, for either of these area measurements. Again, please explain your reasoning and provide your calculation and justification of these numbers for public comment.

12) You stated that the decision criteria for the proposed action and any alternatives will be especially important in deciding on a course of action. I agree with that and ask the following regarding those specific criteria.

1. The road and trail system cannot continue to contribute additional visible sediment to the Tellico River and its Tributaries.

In order to make this a decision criteria, first there must be proof that the OHV System is the cause of “visible sediment” over the background. Please provide scientific evidence that this is the case. In the event that you can not provide this evidence, please revise criterion #1.

2. The road and trail system cannot repeatedly incur excessive maintenance and reconstruction costs.

Please provide a detailed accounting of all the user fees, grant money, and internal budget for the maintenance of the Upper Tellico OHV System. In addition, please provide a listing of the deferred maintenance and the reasons for the deferrals. Also, please provide the requests that have been made of SFWDA and any other user groups to assist with maintenance at the OHV System. Finally, please provide the completed assessment of current and future needs of the OHV system. It is unacceptable and presumptive at this stage in the NEPA process to make statements that assume non-availability of assistance from private partner groups.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for your time to review my comments. I am looking forward to participating in the NEPA process.


Sincerely,


Heather Royston
XXX Sunset Drive
Norcross, GA

[Kurtuleas]

I respectfully request that the proposed action statement be changed to not predetermine closure of trails. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) is charged with the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ regulations, specifically Section 1500.1 state that the “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.” In this instance, your office has changed the purpose and need for an action from protecting brook trout to closing the OHV System. This change is in direct opposition to the intention of the CEQ regulations where it clearly states that the NEPA process must be conducted before decisions are made and actions are taken.



:smokin: OMG Heather!! Puuuuurrrrfect!


I am gonna borrow a few ideas from you.

[McCracken]

Theif!!!

4 Snail Mails out the door bitches :flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2:

[k9crazy]

:smokin: OMG Heather!! Puuuuurrrrfect!


I am gonna borrow a few ideas from you.

Thanks Kurt and knock yourself out.

Anyone can feel free to borrow from my letter, but I do have one request. Please don't copy anything word for word. Try to put your own spin on any ideas. We need to create more alternatives and more ideas, not say the same thing over and over again.

[GSW]

First letter is in route....and it is extremely substantive.

I'm shooting for 2 letters per day for the rest of the week. :grinpimp: I've got most of my research out of the way at this point. Oh yeah, those TU d-bags read these forums. :blackflipoff:

[GSW]

Ranger Lohr:

This letter is in reference to the scoping letter for changes at the Upper Tellico ORV Area in the Nantahala National Forest. I am including my specific comments on the proposal.

First of all, trail closures are not the answer. The first step should be an extensive education and outreach program that informs the public and involves them in the preservation of the Upper Tellico area as a recreational destination. Without this step, trail closures will be perceived as pandering to wealthy special interest groups and promotion of exclusivity in our national forests, which is in direct contradiction to the USFS Mission Statement.

However, there are two aspects of the proposal that I believe should be enacted concurrently with the above ntoed educational initiative. "Trail One" should be improved to promote safety on that heavily travelled roadway. This will effectively remove over five miles, as noted in your proposal, from the trail system and will be an effective compromise.

And the proposed requriement for the use of four wheel drive should also be enforced immediately. These two steps will obviously require funding and I would propose that user fees (trail passes) be increased to at least twenty ($20) dollars per day to assist in this process.

Off roaders have a long history of good stewardship of the environment and they should not be ignored and excluded in the process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding my proposal.


Sincerely,

[McCracken]

Do they have to be post marked by July 9th or be there by July 9th? I've got to send a couple more and was wondering what the verdict was on that.

[Never Monday]

email + 2 UT surveys

Dear Ranger Lohr,

I am writing to provide comments on the scoping letter for changes at the Upper Tellico ORV Area in the Nantahala National Forest.

The Forest Service scoping notice does not comply with the law and will not adequately provide recreational opportunities or access needs. The purpose and need statement is flawed. The FS should be reopening and maintaining trails at Tellico instead of closing more trails. If this action is motivated by an effort to reduce sedimentation in streams, then that should be the primary purpose of this analysis, which would result in a broad range of management alternatives, not just closing trails.

Regardless of the official purpose and need, the FS must generate a robust range of alternatives rather than the closure-focused options suggested by the scoping notice. Every reasonable effort should be made to preserve access to the "challenge" sections that make Tellico famous and a destination icon for off-roaders. There exist numerous management options short of closure that would preserve some level of access to these treasures.

The Tellico ORV area, Like The famous Rubicon Trail in California. Are national treasures to be guarded and maintained for public enjoyment. In the current proposal by the FS. There appears to be an action to homogenize the Tellico ORV area into and open forest. If this is done the numbers of visitors will increase. As will maintainance and supervisory costs.
Enacting a volunteer trail patrol for unofficial policing in the Tellico ORV area. Would be a better alternative than closing one of Americas great trail systems.

[TabooCustoms]

Email sent

[floridazj]

email/letter sent

[k9crazy]

BUMP! Tomorrow is the deadline for comments.

We have over 800 letters through the BRC generator, but we need more! Please be sure to personalize the letters and give the FS something to think about.

[McCracken]

I'm up to 7. My goal was 10. I have 3 more to go. Come on folks give them ideas!!!

here's one for free.... stop fishing all together in Wild Trout waters!!! Ask them how much they really care then. Save fish or take away a fishing spot. Then we'll see who gets really pissed.

[yellowxj]

True. My last letter suggested that they stop stocking the rainbow trout and stop the fishing to preserve the brook trout. If its about saving the brook trout.

[McCracken]

Everyone needs to read this. This is what SFWDA sent in and I think it's good. The first alternative is the best :smokin:

http://www.sfwda.org/forum/index.php?topic=118.0

[Kurtuleas]

I don't think that's supposed to be public Nick

[k9crazy]

Everyone needs to read this. This is what SFWDA sent in and I think it's good. The first alternative is the best :smokin:

http://www.sfwda.org/forum/index.php?topic=118.0

I don't think that's supposed to be public Nick

It's OK. It's already in and is FOIA-able. No worries.

*Edit, did someone take it down, I can't find it on the site?

[McCracken]

I don't think that's supposed to be public Nick

They posted it up on the internet :confused:

[Kurtuleas]

They posted it up on the internet :confused:

LOL! Not any more!

[McCracken]

it's still there. you have to look in the sig area and it's highlighted in green. doesn't matter though. I printed it out :p

[Never Monday]

WOW...congrats to way outside the box thinking!!!

[MDMIKE]

Sent mine :mr-t:

[Cochese]

1- E-mailed on-line letter
2- Completed Tellico OHV survey for University of Tennessee and land mailed
3- Donated $$$ to www.sfwda.org (bought some stuff)

[McCracken]

Thanks for all the help :beer:

[MossMan]

I sent one.