If you bothered to write a letter and actively fight for Tellico then you should have gotten this email.

For others it is not too late, send your feedback now. This matter is done in 30 days and we will all have to live with their decisions forever.

Dear Interested Party:

The USDA Forest Service is seeking comments on two proposals regarding management of the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) System:

1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the long-term management of the Upper Tellico OHV System. You may download a copy of the EA and related graphics at http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/tellico. If you would like to receive a paper copy of the EA, please e-mail your request to: comments-southern-north-carolina@fs.fed.us or call (828) 257-4817, and one will be mailed to you. For questions concerning the project or the EA contact Candace Wyman, Project Coordinator, at 828-257-4816.



2. A temporary closure of the Upper Tellico OHV System for resource protection, effective April 1, 2009. This closure would prohibit possession or use of a motorized vehicle on a road or trail within the Upper Tellico OHV System, with the exception of highway-legal vehicles on 420-1 and certain other exceptions described in the closure order until a final project decision is implemented.

The Upper Tellico OHV System is located on Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Cherokee County, NC. In June 2008, we publicized a proposal for long-term management of the System, designed to greatly reduce the amount of soil leaving the System and entering the Tellico River and its tributaries, while still providing an OHV trail system. This proposal is referred to as the “proposed action” or Alternative B and is described in detail in Chapter 1 of the EA. We received around 1,500 public comments on the proposed action. Alternatives to the proposed action were developed in response to the comments and environmental issues identified by the Agency. A wide range of comments was received, so six alternatives are analyzed in the EA, identified as Alternatives A through F. We would now like your review and comment on the alternatives and analysis before making a final decision on long-term management of the System.

The following is a brief description of the alternatives analyzed in detail in the EA. Please refer to the EA, Chapters 2 and 3, for more information about each alternative.

* Alternative A is the “no action” alternative that reflects the existing trail system with 2007 management and funding levels.
* Alternative B is the “proposed action” that was released in June 2008 for public comment. It was developed to address the problems initially identified in trail condition surveys conducted in 2007-2008.
* Alternative C closes the OHV System, but maintains over 10 miles of existing Forest system roads in the area, open year-round or seasonally, to provide for public highway-legal vehicle access for hunting, fishing and other recreation uses. It was developed in response to public concerns that the proposed action (Alternative B) did not go far enough in eliminating trails on sensitive soils and trails near water.
* Alternative D was developed in response to public concerns that the OHV Trail System should meet current trail density and challenge level standards, and not require a Forest Plan amendment.
* Alternative E was developed in response to public concerns that the proposed action (Alternative B) would eliminate too many high challenge OHV experiences.
* Alternative F was developed in response to public concerns that the proposed action (Alternative B) would eliminate too many OHV trail miles.



The environmental concerns that initiated the proposed management changes are described in the EA, as are the projected direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of each of these Alternatives.

The EA shows that the Upper Tellico OHV System has extensive damage and contributes unacceptable levels of sediment into the Tellico River and its tributaries. Sediment is leaving the OHV System from more than 2,000 locations along the trails. The Agency is in violation of North Carolina state water quality standards because of the conditions on Upper Tellico OHV System. Since the Upper Tellico River watershed is located in an area of steep terrain, highly erosive soils, and high rainfall, maintaining an OHV trail system without causing significant environmental damage is extremely difficult.

While I understand how important the Upper Tellico OHV System is to OHV users, the impacts to water quality are so significant that I cannot recommend keeping the System open at this time. After careful consideration of the environmental effects of the alternatives as presented in the EA, my preferred alternative is Alternative C, which closes the OHV System. Alternative C would maintain over 10 miles of existing Forest system roads (currently also OHV trails), open year-round or seasonally, to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation uses. Trail 1 (FS Road 420-1) would be paved and kept open as a through route for highway-legal vehicles.

I want to emphasize that a final decision has not yet been made. This public review period is an opportunity for you to give us constructive feedback. I encourage you to review the environmental assessment and provide us with any information that you think we have not considered adequately. Your comments need to be as specific as possible and you must provide the following information: 1) Your name and address; 2) Title of the project; 3) Specific substantive comments on the proposed action, along with supporting reasons that I should consider in reaching a decision; and 4) Your signature or other means of identification verification. For organizations, a signature or other means of identification verification must be provided for the individual authorized to represent your organization.

Comments must be postmarked or received within 30 days beginning the day after publication of this notice in The Asheville Citizen-Times. Comments may be mailed electronically, in a common digital format, to: comments-southern-north-carolina-nantahala-tusquitee@fs.fed.us; or by regular mail to: National Forests in North Carolina, Attn: Candace Wyman, 160 A Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801, or faxed to 828-257-4263. Hand delivered comments must be received within our normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Thank you for your continued interest in management of the National Forests in North Carolina and the Tusquitee Ranger District.

Sincerely,



MARISUE HILLIARD
Forest Supervisor


The correct web Addy for option 1 and other pertinent documents is:

http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/tusquitee/tellico.htm


One day there will be nowhere left for any of us to wheel. Please consider taking action to help preserve the access for the OHV community.

okay per the letter that they sent out they state water levrls are bad but per the ea the water is listed as great and can sustain all trout, they also try to say that it would cost almost 5 million to repair the land while the sfwd associations independant report states it would take half that to fix, there are a lot of things that the facts are showing but for some reason they are being ignored

Already done. Its easy to do and only took a few minutes.

they also try to say that it would cost almost 5 million to repair the land while the sfwd associations independant report states it would take half that to fix, there are a lot of things that the facts are showing but for some reason they are being ignored

2.5 or 5 million..where would the money come from and who would manage the work? Many of the existing trails are 'beyond' recovery, yet I've seen no mention of creating new ones to replace the ones that are 'shot' and to alleviate the traffic pressure on the others existing that could be repaired/maintained.

SFWDA has done great work over the years with limited funds and volunteer efforts to try and maintain, even improve, the existing trail system. However, the degradation of many trails in Tellico has outpaced the ability of FS and SFWDA to deal with it. The problem for the Forest Service is how to repair and fully maintain the system with their very limited resources, especially when under such pressure to simply close it by various environmental groups..including the trout association.

Simply telling the Forest Service that 'we' want it to say open as the OHV park it has always been does not get to the heart of the issues that are making keeping it open so diffcult. Of course the FS knows that off-road enthusiasts like us want it to remain as an OHV resource...but the question is how?

Audra is right and i think you all trying to diagnose the details now in the 11th hour is a waste of time. Myself and others here in Fl as well as on Pirate have responded to this ealier when we got it. You really need to follow up officially if you havent. If you have then great and thanks.
and you do see the forest manager recomends shutting it all down right?

Audra is right and i think you all trying to diagnose the details now in the 11th hour is a waste of time. Myself and others here in Fl as well as on Pirate have responded to this ealier when we got it. You really need to follow up officially if you havent. If you have then great and thanks.
and you do see the forest manager recomends shutting it all down right?

You lost me..what did you mean by "trying to diagnose the details now in the 11th hour is a waste of time."?

2.5 or 5 million..where would the money come from and who would manage the work? Many of the existing trails are 'beyond' recovery, yet I've seen no mention of creating new ones to replace the ones that are 'shot' and to alleviate the traffic pressure on the others existing that could be repaired/maintained.

i appologize if i am misunderstanding your comments. I read them as you want /need answers to the details of how and who and so on. I didnt want others to read and think due to the substantial challenges ahead they dont need to waste time writing in as it wouldnt help.

and this by CB
"okay per the letter that they sent out they state water levrls are bad but per the ea the water is listed as great and can sustain all trout, they also try to say that it would cost almost 5 million to repair the land while the sfwd associations independant report states it would take half that to fix, there are a lot of things that the facts are showing but for some reason they are being ignored"

these are all very valid points but to me (IMHO) they just distract from the OP's call for action.

OK..I got that Bob. I have been following this issue for a long time and have been wheeling Tellico a lot longer. It was once my favorite venue. My problem is that I tend to focus on realities and the reality I see is that only a well-managed and expensive reconfiguration of the area would suffice to make it viable again..and much more $$ annually to keep it viable. Not seeing that as a real option in the mix of 'option's being 'considered' I see the whole 'public input' effort as nothing but boilerplate on a foregone conclusion..the easiest way out for the under-manned and underfunded Forest Service - to close it down. That said..IMHO no amount of 'keep it open because we need a place to wheel' responses and input will make the funding and management resources appear out of thin air, much less break loose the apparent (if unstated anywhere I could ever find) moratorium on developing new trails.

I have watched with dismay as the place got trashed over the last decade..some of the trail carange simply amazing if you saw it over a ten year period; what once were trails are now 'tunnels'. And I never understood why on earth the FS never tried to raise the miniscule user fees or try and catch up with the damage through other funding means. Other than a couple of 'big' projects to eliminate the water crossings..what else has ever been done? Tellico has not been managed to match the traffic it gets.

The responses should be sent..man, many have. It is not my intent to belittle those who have responded in support of keeping Tellico open. This is only my own opinion..and my opinion is that closure is a foregone conclusion and has been for quite some time.

I choose to not think in terms of foregone conclusions and instead to continue writing letters expressing my concerns of the economic impact, environmental impact, and loss of natural recreation opportunities.

I choose to fight even foregone conclusions because I absolutely hate knowing that in my lifetime there will be nowhere public left to wheel.

We all make our choices.

very true audra, i have written several letters, but on the good side of the coin the lawsuit can be restarted, the single guy incharge isn't paying attention to the real problems, everything that he has sighted in his own letter is non exsistant im not saying that the trails don't need any help they do but in comparison to now vrs what they were a year ago a lot has changed up there, this whole thing was started by trout's unlimited and a bunch of tree huggers i am not apposed to having the daily fee increased, or anything like that, if they look back on the last few years attendance and do the math they would have had enough to pay for it all repairs. I personally hate politics as i'm sure as a majority of you do, I just hope that when this fs guy is called on why he isn't reading the unbias report correctly, he isnt looking at ways to deal with it.

i actually got a package in the mail, with a letter, proposed maps, etc. haven't looked at it in detail yet. assume i received it because i wrote them a formal letter way back when.

i actually got a package in the mail, with a letter, proposed maps, etc. haven't looked at it in detail yet. assume i received it because i wrote them a formal letter way back when.

Any way you could get a copy of the proposed maps posted, Dave? I'm assuming that this includes new trails?

it more or less the removal of trails and possible bypasses

it more or less the removal of trails and possible bypasses

Oh..that one I've seen. Thanks.

How recently did you receive that? I need to go drive by my old house for sale and see if it is in the mailbox. I actually mailed them formal letters and sent emails.

everything they have sent out is pretty much the same as the original proposal for trails, i'll see if i can find where i put it, i have so much crap around this place its not funny

I am to the point I just wish they would make their mind up on what they are going to do.:madder

I am to the point I just wish they would make their mind up on what they are going to do.:madder

I hear ya ths has been going on long enough.......lets see there are more offroaders going through that town and bringing a pretty decent amount of money to the community........hmmmmmmmmm and then you have the fisher men only up there for a short season..........hmmmmmm :twak