Kodak rock closed?

Basically if if takes so much to open trails and and prevent closures we may as well do all we can and accept the possibility that we may not see RML for a long time. Which means we need to start now to prevent future closings and push for new trails. Nothing happens over night but the sooner we start getting everyone on the same page the sooner we catch up with the way things are out west. They have their battles as well but the hobby is much more widely accepted and people work together out there.
If we start now, it may take a long time but Uwharrie can be a better place.
 
^ I agree with the above.Let's stop hashing this out as to why it happened.Concentrate on saving what is left and building from there.Even tho RML was one of the primo trails...I'm gonna change my thought process that we lost that 1.5 miles of trail yet maybe we can build back more else where.It's gonna be hard to place a new trail that isn't gonna run into archy problems but I guess it is poss. with the right amount of foot work.
 
Right now we are kinda working on Lakeview Trail, but it is having issues also. It take a serious ton of stuff to open one from what i have seen, but you are right, it takes nothing to close one. There are people on here with way more knowledge than me on here.

What is the story on the construction of that new trail? I thought it was supposed to be opened some time last year. What can we all do to speed up the opening? There seems to be a high level of energy right now within those who go to Uwharrie. Maybe that can be capitalized on to make things happen for the new trail. I will admit I had been thinking of donating to the FOU for a few weeks or so, but when the closing of RML was posted, it pushed me to do it. Maybe the Lakeview Trail discussion should be a new thread.
 
Something Rodney said that was kind of funny but mostly true was that back when there was indians roaming about, pretty much any flat spot where URE is now, some indian probably set up camp for a while, because this place was lousy with indians.Not to mention all the endangered flowers.
 
What is the story on the construction of that new trail? I thought it was supposed to be opened some time last year. What can we all do to speed up the opening? There seems to be a high level of energy right now within those who go to Uwharrie. Maybe that can be capitalized on to make things happen for the new trail. I will admit I had been thinking of donating to the FOU for a few weeks or so, but when the closing of RML was posted, it pushed me to do it. Maybe the Lakeview Trail discussion should be a new thread.
The other issue adressed in the Dec meeting was they don't see the need to open another trail til the ones we have are brought up to standard and maintained by the user....
 
I challenge someone to find out the true definition of "Arch site" as it pertains to this situation. The FS has their definition that they have to go by. I would like to know what criteria they have to abide by concerning this. When I was involved in the Forest Plan a few years back, we would have to change entire documents because the word "shall" had to be replaced with "will" or visa versa.
So somewhere there is this definition that we should all know. If anyone wants to contact the FS about it you can tell them that you need this info and that you are using the "freedom of information act" and they have to provide it for you. Lol they may not like you but I think we do need to know it.
And before you say that I should do it, I'm not going to, don't have time
 
Ok well where's the "list" of stuff that is needed to be done? Sounds to me like nobody really knew there was a problem with that section of trail till that Dec meeting and 4months later its closed, not a lot of heads up.
The other issue adressed in the Dec meeting was they don't see the need to open another trail til the ones we have are brought up to standard and maintained by the user....
 
I challenge someone to find out the true definition of "Arch site" as it pertains to this situation. The FS has their definition that they have to go by. I would like to know what criteria they have to abide by concerning this. When I was involved in the Forest Plan a few years back, we would have to change entire documents because the word "shall" had to be replaced with "will" or visa versa.
So somewhere there is this definition that we should all know. If anyone wants to contact the FS about it you can tell them that you need this info and that you are using the "freedom of information act" and they have to provide it for you. Lol they may not like you but I think we do need to know it.
And before you say that I should do it, I'm not going to, don't have time

Ok, I will check tonight but I dont think either the FSTAg or the FSORAG cover this. And we would need the tehcnical classification of the site. Arch site isnt the technical classification. If I had to guess, Id put money on it being "A Site of Potential Historical Significance"

This is a stupid catch all, and in fact if it is "suspected" to be of historical significance a temporary closure until a reasonable determination can eb made is often sought. Case law asserts that an investigactive period of 5 years if reaosnable and not excesive.

As a funny aside I had a college professor (who was a cool, nice, but eccentirc guy) tell a story about him in the late 80s writing a lengthy proposal to have the federal govenrment sieze and protect about 60% of the state of Ga, on the grunds that Sherman had marched throuh there. This profesor was a noted Civil War re-enactor and huge Confederate history buff (despite being a wildlife biology/PRTM proff) he was well known by the then chiefs of the USFS and the NPS and BLM...eventually he gets what he wanted all along a letter asking for him to provide further causation or the matter would be summarily dismissed. He replied, "Gentlemen William Tecumseh Sherman is the most vile and foul individual to ever disgrace the face of the earth with his presence. The mere fact that we know he stepped foot within a mile radius of these pieces of dirt are sufficient reasoning to forever condemn the land so that future generations not dare tarnish the soles of their shoes by happening upon the same ground." His motion was dismissed but entertaining none the less.

BTW RQ, you can not FOIA request something that is otherwise publically available. If the definition is presented in any public policy manual or other law document they are under no requirement to point it out to you, only tell you it is publically available.

Now...what the exact reasoning for closure is and the intended duration THOSE ARE FOIA requestable. And barring a good response an immediate injuctive reversal could be granted.
 
There are all the 'trail maintenance' issues -- erosion, water quality, cleaning silt traps, repairing off-trail damage, etc. There are the 'policing' issues -- drinking, trash (everything from Bud Lite cans to abandoned cars), driving off trail, speeding, general late-night hooning around, etc.

The Dec meeting was largely dominated by OHV people complaining about a huge variety of problems that they thought the FS should address -- and the FS responding (more or less) that we were going to have to figure out how to solve them ourselves.

Someone was asking for things that needed to be "fixed". I'm sure Shawn wasn't going to a complete and accurate list, but these examples could be used for whatever purpose "they" (the FS?) wants. They could say these things are never done. And they'd be correct.
 
try this RQ

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461) declares national policy to “preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States.” The act authorizes the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks Program. The National Historic Landmarks Program is implemented by regulations at 36 CFR part 65.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470), as amended extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act to State and local historical sites as well as those of national significance, expands the National Register of Historic Places, establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officers, and requires agencies to designate Federal Preservation Officers. 1. NHPA Section 101(d)(2) establishes criteria for designating Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to assume the functions of a State Historic Preservation Officer on Tribal lands. 2. NHPA Section 106 directs all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations at 36 CFR part 800 implement NHPA Section 106. 3. NHPA Section 110 establishes inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for federally owned historic properties.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) establishes national policy for the protection and enhancement of the environment. Part of the function of the Federal government in protecting the environment is to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage.” The act is implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500 1508.

The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) (16 U.S.C. 469) is also known as the Archeological Recovery Act and the Moss-Bennett Bill. AHPA amended and expanded the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 and was enacted to complement the Historic Sites Act of 1935 by providing for the preservation of historical and archaeological data which might be lost or destroyed as the result of the construction of a federally authorized dam or other construction activity. This greatly expanded the number and range of Federal agencies that had to take archeological resources into account when executing, funding, or licensing projects. AHPA also allows for any Federal agency responsible for a construction project to appropriate a portion of project funds for archaeological survey, recovery, analysis, and publication of results.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), (43 U.S.C. 1701), directs the Forest Service to manage National Forest System (NFS) lands on the basis of multiple use, in a manner that “recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands” and that will “protect the quality of …historical…resources, and archeological values.” The act provides for the periodic inventory of public lands and resources, for long-range, comprehensive land use planning, for permits to regulate the use of public lands, and for the enforcement of public land laws and regulations. FLPMA compels agencies to manage all cultural resources on public lands through the land management planning process.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600) directs the Forest Service to develop renewable resource plans through an interdisciplinary process with public involvement and consultation with other interested governmental departments and agencies.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 47Oaa et seq.), as amended, provides criminal penalties (felony and misdemeanor) and civil penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration, defacement, or the attempted unauthorized removal, damage, alteration, or defacement of any archaeological resource, more than 100 years of age, found on public lands or Indian lands. The act includes National Forest System lands in its definition of public lands. The act also prohibits the sale, purchase, exchange, transportation, receipt, or offering of any archaeological resource obtained from public lands or Indian lands in violation of any provision, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit under the act, or under any Federal, State, or local law. No distinction is made regarding National Register of Historic Places eligibility. The act establishes permit requirements for removal or excavation of archaeological resources from Federal and Indian lands. The act further directs Federal land managers to survey land under their control for archaeological resources and create public awareness programs concerning archaeological resources. Uniform regulations and departmental regulations at 36 CFR part 296 implement ARPA.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001) provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items – human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony – to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional excavation and unanticipated discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and Tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. The act requires agencies and museums to identify holdings of such remains and objects and to work with appropriate Native American groups toward their repatriation. Permits for the excavation and/or removal of “cultural items” protected by the act require Tribal consultation, as do discoveries of “cultural items” made during activities on Federal or Tribal lands. The Secretary of the Interior’s implementing regulations are at 43 CFR part 10.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of December 8, 2004, (REA) (16 U.S.C. 6801-6814) permits Federal land management agencies to charge modest fees at recreation facilities that provide a certain level of visitor services. REA also permits fees for specialized recreation permits necessary when recreation activities require exceptional visitor safety measures, extraordinary natural and cultural resource protection, or dispersal of visitors to ensure that good experiences are sustainable. REA includes provisions that require the use of Recreation Resource Advisory Committees to provide the public with information about fees and how fee revenues will be used. The primary goal of REA is to enhance visitor facilities and services to provide a quality recreation program.

Other Acts such as Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531) and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) (17 U.S.C. 1600-1674)) include authorities that establish national forest management direction and thereby may affect Heritage Program activities.
 
ARPA will be the big enemy here.
Is a NCFS or USFS knows a site might contain historically signifiant items AND they do not protct that site and then you drive over it, even if you dont harm anything, they and you have potentially committed a federal crime.
 
ARPA will be the big enemy here.
Is a NCFS or USFS knows a site might contain historically signifiant items AND they do not protct that site and then you drive over it, even if you dont harm anything, they and you have potentially committed a federal crime.

Except the government can't commit a crime.
 
No but an individual employed by the government can.
Let something get destroyed and the NAHPS come at the USFS in a suit and they will sarifice one of their own in a heartbeat.
 
I have been trying to follow this so I can find out when I need to have the jeep there to help move the rail and work the bobcat if needed. I will be at the Jamboree this weekend and some of you know me. Those of you that were at the ice work day I was the nut with the 4 pieces of guardrail strapped to the roof of what is left of my xj. That being said, if I know when you need me to move the rail I'll make it a point to come on the work days as much as possible to help get this done. Unfortunately from what I'm reading its a waiting game right now? Who besides Scott, I know him have worked with him a few times now, do I need to make a point to meet and give my number to?
 
Thanks Ron. That's great info and very informative. Looks like the opposition has a lot of good loopholes.
 
So how was Telico labeled as being shut down because of Forest Service negligence, and now Uwharrie being partially shut down "Kodiak Rock Area" because of our negligence and lack of upkeep? I fully realize and understand what has been said, just drawing a bigger picture comparrisom.
I believe in trying to save our recreation areas, but damn looks like were the labeled nancy this go round! The only positive is "if" the forest service allows us to proceed and correct the problem. This instead of funding the other means and pressures that failed us in the Tellico Battle. Tellico had a much greater public following throughout the country and still failed, so we better use that as lesson learned. Uwharrie has far less reaching advocates.
IF not Kodiak and Uwharrie will = Tellico...
 
The more I think about the forest service closing Kodak rock the more I think we should put it on the back burner and focus on other areas in the park. If Kodak was shut down with little warning because of our (un)known negligence then whats to say they don't do the same thing to other areas.
 
The more I think about the forest service closing Kodak rock the more I think we should put it on the back burner and focus on other areas in the park. If Kodak was shut down with little warning because of our (un)known negligence then whats to say they don't do the same thing to other areas.
Yep. I agree.
 
The more I think about the forest service closing Kodak rock the more I think we should put it on the back burner and focus on other areas in the park. If Kodak was shut down with little warning because of our (un)known negligence then whats to say they don't do the same thing to other areas.
i agree that we need to focus on getting other areas in check, but its too hard to just let go of kodak.....its the best part of ure.....it would be like goin to an amusment park and all the best rides are shut down...sure ill go and ride the others, but it just wont be as fun.
 
i agree that we need to focus on getting other areas in check, but its too hard to just let go of kodak.....its the best part of ure.....it would be like goin to an amusment park and all the best rides are shut down...sure ill go and ride the others, but it just wont be as fun.
I'm sorry but Kodak rock isn't the only "fun"spot in the trail system or in the area in a whole.Might need to think of this as a wake up call...tough love. We have the time and man power to hopefully get things straight. The time for bitchin was last week.This week is plannin and get our heads straight on what to do. April 20th is the start on fixin things.
 
So how was Telico labeled as being shut down because of Forest Service negligence, and now Uwharrie being partially shut down "Kodiak Rock Area" because of our negligence and lack of upkeep? I fully realize and understand what has been said, just drawing a bigger picture comparrisom.
I believe in trying to save our recreation areas, but damn looks like were the labeled nancy this go round! The only positive is "if" the forest service allows us to proceed and correct the problem. This instead of funding the other means and pressures that failed us in the Tellico Battle. Tellico had a much greater public following throughout the country and still failed, so we better use that as lesson learned. Uwharrie has far less reaching advocates.
IF not Kodiak and Uwharrie will = Tellico...

Tellico was shut down because of water issues. The forest service there did not want us there and used it as an excuse to shut us out. The rangers at URE are just the opposite. This is coming from their higher ups. The big picture is that the argument used to shut down Tellico can shut down even the private parks. It has already happened to some. Right now its a wait and see what they tell us to do game.
 
Kodak hasn't been closed because of negligence. It was shut down because they MAY have found some Native American stuff. None of us put any "artifacts" there. Well, maybe folks riding off trail exposed the artifacts, but that's not a maintenace issue.
 
Tellico was shut down because of water issues. The forest service there did not want us there and used it as an excuse to shut us out. The rangers at URE are just the opposite. This is coming from their higher ups. The big picture is that the argument used to shut down Tellico can shut down even the private parks. It has already happened to some. Right now its a wait and see what they tell us to do game.
Regrettably the URE rangers and USFS personal don't have any real authority as evidenced by the trail closing last work day. It came down to them without warning and they had to implement the decision. I do think they are a buffer and advocate for us and I really appreciate what they do to help us but ultimately major decisions are not theirs to make.
 
This is a "ONE CREW, ONE SCREW" situation. If you don't like and don't follow the USFS rules at URE then don't come out there, find somewhere else where you can make up the rules. The rest of us are trying to keep it open and your going to screw the rest of us. I've stayed out of the talk for a while and it amazes me at the attitude a couple of you seem to have. It's not about what we want or think makes sense, it's about how to keep the USFS happy. What the USFS says goes, no if's and's or but's, otherwise they will take URE and close it completely.

End Rant
 
Last edited:
I don't see anyone advocating breaking the rules???

Let's get down to it.

What can we do? What can we actually/physically do?
 
Back
Top