|
|
10-21-2009, 09:23 AM
Check out this article, and vote in the left hand blue column. Also read the captions on the right hand blue column below the pictures.
http://cherokeescout.com/articles/20...4994576184.txt
10-21-2009, 09:50 AM
Decent article. It represented both sides and raised a good point about the logging issue.
Voted.
10-21-2009, 10:38 AM
I voted as well.
10-21-2009, 12:35 PM
Just voted too, this has me so confused how 4-wheel drive can do so much damage.
10-21-2009, 01:13 PM
The confusing part is that the closure really wasn't about the trout, or even erosion. The FS has been laying the groundwork for this hypocrisy for a long time.Originally Posted by Schwarttzy
For years, we thought that the massively-oversized bridge across the trail 5 water crossing was only a huge waste of government resources. Someone challenged the bridge in their letter, and it was answered in the FS' Responses to Comments...
The thing to focus on is that they built the bridge to carry a HS20 truck... Why? According to the US DOT, here's the load ratings for an HS20 trucks...4-20.Representative Public Comments on the Bridge at Rough Crossing
Bridge at trail 5 crossing is hundreds of times oversized and is an example of the gross mismanagement and wasteful practices of the USFS. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent on this "bridge to nowhere" that would have been spent to maintain the trails.
While the forestry service waists money over doing projects, like the bridge on trail 5, a proper bridge could have been built and the money saved spent someplace else, like trail maintenance.
The bridge on trail 5 – a great idea but overbuilt – a management plan like that isnot sustainable and seems excessive if not indulgent.
Also request that the FS step up and do there share in maintaining the OHV system and stop wasting money. Such as the vastly over sized bridge on trail 5. This shows the current FS Supervisor’s inability to properly manage money, resources, and especially an OHV system. The bridge on trail 5 could have, and should have been, much smaller and cheaper, designed for the OHV traffic an OHV system.
Response: The "rough crossing" bridge was constructed in 2006 by Phillips and Jordon Construction for the amount of $220,000. The project was funded with a combination of appropriated funds and grant funding awarded through an RTP Grant. The structure is designed in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Bridges, 17th Edition. Bridge design live load - HS20 truck.
There are four standard classes of highway loading, H20, H15, HS 15 and HS 20. The rough crossing bridge was designed as a HS 20 bridge to accommodate construction equipment accessing the trail system. HS 20 is the standard bridge design class of loading for all bridges designed and constructed on National Forest Routes (Trail 5 is a dual designation Forest Road/Trail).
Apparently the "construction" efforts they had planned for trail maintenance were going to require trucks weighing 72,000 lbs? Yeah right. They just needed a way to get the logs out.
10-21-2009, 01:26 PM
I'm not an ecology major, but wouldn't the water conditions have cleared up (at least somewhat) already if OHV's supposedly caused so much water sedimentation?
I see how mucky the waters at the local creeks and rivers are after rainfall -- and how quickly they clear up after a day or two. So wouldn't there be a significant decrease in sedimentation since there hasn't been any dirt "moved" by OHVs in the past 9 months?
My point is that if it hasn't cleared up -- that seems like pretty big proof that OHVs weren't impacting the water...
Last edited by SirFuego; 10-21-2009 at 02:24 PM.
Originally Posted by SB406
10-21-2009, 01:57 PM
I agree
10-21-2009, 02:10 PM
I have been reading the comments off and on all morning. The comments written by OHV recreationalists are responded with very condescending remarks, while those written by anti access people or trout fishermen have much kinder responses. The FS doesn't seem to be able to tolerate anyone challenging them.
The loggers appear to be the big winners. Why? The majority of the revenue from logging stays in the Forest, and does not decrease the Federal dollars the Forest receives.
10-21-2009, 02:20 PM
x2, the FS did not try very hard to hide its bias.
Bingo. The FS has turned tellico into a revenue generator to fund its pet projects elsewhere.
10-21-2009, 02:27 PM
Where are these comments you are reading? I'm not seeing any comments section in the article posted...
Originally Posted by SB406
10-21-2009, 02:30 PM
Yeah, it's funny how you are allowed to log (which I don't oppose) and cause errosion but you can't off road and cause errosion. The only difference is that logging revenue goes to the controller of the land (FS) and revenue from tourism (OHV) mainly goes to the community.
Hippycrits
I wonder how long it will be before some asshat decides to ban errosion causing mother nature from Tellico.
10-21-2009, 02:32 PM
The confusing part is that the closure really wasn't about the trout, or even erosion. The FS has been laying the groundwork for this hypocrisy for a long time.
For years, we thought that the massively-oversized bridge across the trail 5 water crossing was only a huge waste of government resources. Someone challenged the bridge in their letter, and it was answered in the FS' Responses to Comments...
The thing to focus on is that they built the bridge to carry a HS20 truck... Why? According to the US DOT, here's the load ratings for an HS20 trucks...
Apparently the "construction" efforts they had planned for trail maintenance were going to require trucks weighing 72,000 lbs? Yeah right. They just needed a way to get the logs out.
Gov't at its finest.
10-21-2009, 02:33 PM
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/tu...ents_09_09.pdf
btw, those are pulled from letters that WE wrote. So if you sent in a letter (email or written), you might recognize some points you made.
10-21-2009, 02:44 PM
ohhhh! Sorry, I thought Ken was referring to a "comments" section as part pf the article -- not the public comments.
I was pissed off by their explanation as to why diesel concentrations were so high, but gasoline concentrations weren't (table 3.1.1.1.1 or something like that?).
I sorta skimmed the comments when they were released and one thing I noticed -- outside of the comments by OHV users and some obvious ones from TU, I don't really see any other groups of people commenting on this closure.
In other words, those comments made it pretty obvious that this is a battle between FS/TU with OHV users. I didn't see much of anything to suggest that the Sierra club or any other greenie organization did anything to influence the decision.
Originally Posted by SB406
10-21-2009, 03:16 PM
One thing to note in the Forest Service comments was that they considered all letter-generator generated comments as ONE comment rather than individual ones times whatever number they received. I have heard this many times from government agencies. In order to be counted the comments need to be unique. So take the time to write.
10-21-2009, 03:49 PM
Just for Tellico, I worte personal letters to my state legislators and US legislators. A lot of us on our local board did, still didn't seem to help
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Thread Information |
Users Browsing this ThreadThere are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests) |
