Uwharrie Kodak Update

tsconver

tsconver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Location
Durham, NC
Got this from Terry today

Hi Everyone – Attached is the environmental assessment, cover letter and the legal notice for the Rocky Mt. Loop Trail Segment and Kodak Rock Closure and Rehabilitation Project (also known as the Kodak Rock / Rocky Mountain Loop Trail Closure and Stabilization Project). This is addressing permanently closing and decommissioning the 0.85 miles of Rocky Mountain Loop Trail (TR 92) that is currently closed. The Legal Notice was published in the Montgomery Herald on March 27, 2019 and the 30 day comment period ends on April 26, 2019. Some of you have received this in the mail because you were on the original mailing list for the project and / or you commented on this project during the previous comment period when we initially sent out our scoping letters in August 2016. Feel free to comment on this project following the instructions in the attached documents.



If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Thank you. Bye - Terry
 
where do we leave comments?
 
upload_2019-4-3_15-46-22.png



upload_2019-4-3_15-46-22.png




Seems like a mass mailing is in order..
 
I don't expect it to change anything, but I will send an email.
 
So this is basically the final stages of permanent closure?
 
Not a big surprise. I have been going to Uwharrie since 1990, and have NEVER seen a trail reopened after it was closed.
 
77GreenMachine said:
So this is basically the final stages of permanent closure?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is how they do it. Temp closure with unending timeline so people think there is actually a process happening. Give it a lot of time because it's closed anyway and when fervor has cooled, then do a BS report and close it. Expect more.
Lets see SFWDA get involved and help? Blue Ribbon? Bueller?
I have not had time to read the letters yet but you can bet I'll be sending comments and contacting some of our elected officials about it. If nothing more than to be a pain in the FS ASS!
 
Jason W. said:
Nothing said will change the outcome.
Click to expand...

Exactly true, however I will still express my disgust with how this has been handled by the forest service.
 
Jason W. said:
Nothing said will change the outcome.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I am holding on to hope that creating a bunch of comments on this may (I say may) help in the future to keep the trails open a little bit longer.

Once they closed this section, I knew it would never be re-opened. Kodak Rock was really the best part of the trails. I foresee the entire OHV area closed in 10 years, and that really makes me sad. It also makes me want to pay to play at other areas to help keep this hobby alive as public areas are going to all disappear because of all the dumb @sses that tear things up and give the park service a reason to close the trails.
 
Jason W. said:
Nothing said will change the outcome.
Click to expand...

Dude...let creeper Joe fondle your breasicles and then file a lawsuit. Tell him you'll drop it if he gets the same team that got smollett off to open Kodak and we're golden
 
I'm gonna write them a letter that says just go ahead and close the damn thing and quit wasting my tax money pretending they might keep it open.
:kaioken:
 
Last edited:
I just read it all in detail. The report said "Two emails were received from users expressing opposition to the closure" and another excerpt that two "letters" were received expressing interest in retaining the technically challenging slope between Slab Pile and Kodak Rock.
I know that I wrote emails BUT I did not save them. I am sure Scott Fields wrote one. Did ANYONE save the email that they sent to FS about the closure?
There are holes in every part of this "Environmental Assessment" and I think many are lies made up to make the process easier.

DOES anyone have anything that they sent in opposition to this action?
We need to ask for the TWO emails and letters under the freedom of information act.

I am rambling a bit because I am just trying to digest this info.
If theyre going to close it permanently, lets at least make it hard to do.
 
I want to see the report. And raw data from the research.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
They'll close it regardless of what we have to say, they didn't properly close it in the first place so I have zero faith they will honor any proper counters to the closure.

I skimmed the report and from what I saw it had not data or pictures of the issue areas. It was also one sided and did not even entertain what would need to be done to reopen the section of trail.
 
I would like to see results of any archaeological finds that have been done in the area, the results that the closure has had on erosion, sediment, etc - Basically, you say you closed it because of the effects on XYZ, in order to see how the closure would impact XYZ, now lets see the results! And with those results, there should be options based on them. Option A - continue with closure due to yadda yadda, Option B, reopen and gather new data on impacts from recreation, etc.
 
Sent an email. Probably a fart in the wind, but it's worth trying.
 
NickMaul said:
Oooof. Salt in the wound.

“Forest service will go back and remove all of the guardrail that was put in place to preserve the remaining area”

I hope those are a bitch to get out...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I was up there helping pull this up last year I think it was. Kind of bitter sweet since I was there helping put it in many years ago....... It comes up a lot easier then you think..... I have somewhat given up on Kodak and the Forest.
 
I just spent an hour writing up my letter to Terry Savery, I've may well have lost a friend on this one, but I hope not. It is VERY disappointing that only two emails and two letters were received concerning the initial "temporary" closure. Hopefully more of y'all sent them than that and it was a "didn't meet the requirements" type thing that they were not recorded. I think that this whole closure due to artifacts was manufactured and manipulated and the willing forest service went right along because it's easier not to manage than it is to manage. It was initially reported that the artifacts were "discovered" by Mountain Bikers at the top camping area at Rocky Mount Trail. When have you ever seen any kind of cyclists on the OHV trails? I think if any were found that they were nefariously planted and with no opposition, this whole deal just sailed through.
Erosion on the Kodak Rock Area was not a part of the the initial report but I know that we as a group, and I personally, have offered suggestions to help remedy this situation when I was involved in trail work and the only thing ever done was to put up fence and guardrail.
And I may ruffle some feathers or lose more friends but those who are still members of the SFWDA. Where is Southern on this? Why did they not step in at the beginning? Where are they now? What are they doing about this? This is why I am no longer a member. Losing Tellico may have been a losing battle anyway but it was bungled from the beginning with a shroud of secrecy over the process and then it was gone. I do blame SFWDA for that loss.
If anyone is a member of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, will you contact them about this please? And any other access group you may know of. And what about FOU? Isn't this part of why you were founded? Contact them, forward Terry's emails, invite them here, do something! We, as a group of OHV Enthusaists can not allow our public areas to be taken like this due to the blatant innaction by the group as a whole. TWO LETTERS AND TWO EMAILS?
If you are so inclined to copy and paste I have put together a short message to send to Terry. Please personalize it so it's not a chain letter. But send it as email and a USPS letter please. AND SAVE your email for your records please!

(and each family member including kids, brothers, neighbors, etc., can send a letter)




Theresa Savery, District Recreation Staff Officer
Uwharrie National Forest
789 NC Highway 24/27 East
Troy, NC 27371
tsavery@fs.fed.us

RE: Uwharrie National Forest Kodak Rock OHV Trail Closure

Dear Ms. Savery,

It is with much regret that I read the letter about the closure of the Kodak Rock OHV Trail letter.
I do not believe nor wish that this trail should be closed nor access denied to OHV enthusiasts and that it should be reopened immediately and as soon as any kind of remedial conditions allow.
(PUT SOME OF YOUR OWN WORDS IN HERE)
I would appreciate acknowledgement of your receipt of this letter so I can know that it will be recorded as opposition to the closure of the Kodak Rock OHV Trail Closure matter.

Sincerely,

Sign and write name and address and contact info.
 
Last edited:
I wish I had the time to write a long freaking thesis here.
But we need to take a step back and look at the genesis of the problem.
I am going to simply type a few random stream of conscious thought sand try to pull them together at the end.


The USFS is part of the Department of Agriculture.
THE USFS primary mission is defined, by law, as:
"To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations."

The USFS was initially developed to ensure a steady supply of timber for our wood product needs in the face of deforestation. In fact at one point it was posited that even human existence in the US forest was unheathy and should be banned.

That brings us to MUSYA - 1960 most commonly referred to as the "Multi Use Doctrine" but technically know as the Multiple Use Sustainable Yield Act.
This act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to " develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation and wildlife on the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services"
It goes on to define Multiple use - the "management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people and Sustained yield - "the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.

What is important and unique about MUSYA is that each of the 5 pillars must be valued equally without bias. Further it says if any one use damages 2 others then the greater good is considered. This sint a decision a local ranger gets to make. This is federal law, violate this and go to federal prison shit. Your average Forester making $35k/yr aint sticking their neck out and risking fed time no matter how they feel.

(For anyone who cares to go to masters class we can discuss "Omnibus Parks and Public Land -1996" and how it impacts all this)

That said, just understand the struggle you are up against.
It has been argued and won that motorized vehicle travel is an approved and just form of recreation. That point is still contentious however and there is a large movement that says motorized vehicle travel is NOT a protected form of recreation. Make sure any letters you write address this - that motorized vehicle recreation is a viable and protected use of the forest.
So once they accept that motorized vehicle use is approved recreation, there is no protection for special or high challenge areas. I encourage you to go read MUSYA - it aint there. Again even being able to traverse is controversial, much less challenge areas.
So next you have to make sure that recreation doesnt impact more than 1 of timber, range, water or wildlife. If it does impact 2 of these then the greater good is to restrict recreation in promotion of these activities. AGAIN THIS ISNT MY OPINION THIS IS THE FEDERALLY DEFINED LETTER OF THE LAW. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS MY BELIEF. ....
Now lets take this line by line:
Does vehicle traffic prevent vegitative growth? If yes then it is impacting timber production.
Range isnt applicable in URE we can discount that one.
Water - this is why its so cruical to prevent water impacts. It doesnt say it has to prevent significant impact, but it shouldnt have ANY impact. This is why Tellico lost and it was the hill I died on trying to fight SFWDA and BRC lawyers. They spent thousands trying to quantify and minimize the damage and point out that the reports were exaggerated. The law doesnt define how much it must impact it, if it impact it AT ALL it is a negative.
Wildlife - AHhh the microscopic 10,000 ton elephant in the room. Thanks to ESA1973 (16 USC ch 35 1531...thank you Dr Wood all these years later I still remember that Damned location) Wildlife is now defined as well and it doesnt have to be significant, financially valuable, or ecologically important...its any living member of the flora or fauna....so does your recreation impact a living organism? If you have ever ran over an ant, or killed a mosquito then the answer is yes.

Why do closed trails never open? Because Green Peace, The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, NWF, DOW et al have lawyers on board and all they have to prove is that any 2 of the above have happened and it is legal reason not to re open.


What does all my rambling mean?

This is a hopeless losing battle. One that cant be won. I personally wont waste a breathe of oxygen fighting it, because the law is written and we violate it every day. Want meaningful impact? Get the law changed. I mean I think thats nearly as impossible but its the only hope.
All the red herring about indian artifact and significant historical cultural site and trout and 3 toed tree sloths and warblers etc....all those are the causes needed for an emergency action to create action without an EA (environmental assessment) and EAP (Environmental action plan) ...but they are not necessary for maintaining closure. The MUSYA is the closure king. To further explain the last point....the ONLY reason we still have any legalized vehicle recreation is because of the very bureaucracy of the federal government. The law basically states that current acceptable actions are considered ok and allowed unless some paperwork is done. and EEA and an EAP are two of the more significant pieces of this paperwork. And in typical government fashion these forms are overly long, very complicated and having a qualified firm complete them is very expensive. $4-5k for someone to fill out and stamp the 2 forms. But federal programs are understaffed. Changing things requires, literally, an act of congress. I am not aware of a single case where motorized recreation has won. But there are only so many battles fought.

Enjoy what you have, but PLEASE support private parks. It is the ONLY future/
 
Back
Top