Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    453

    Brushy Ridge (aka Mills River) Logging Project Update

    The FS has completed their environmental assessment of the Brushy Ridge logging project. Please take the time to look at it and comment. I have not had the time to give it a good read but a cursory look does not look good. I will post my comments here once I do.

    http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/Pi...y_ridge_ea.pdf

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snototter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    234
    Thanks for the link. Nothing is simple with the USFS is it?

  3. #3
    Gabe.....
    Reputation: Smokebikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,182
    Lots of details.....................start on page 133-135 for per$pective. Dang, democracy is expensive but the alternative is?
    "Roll your own..........." http://smokebikes.com/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by Snototter
    Thanks for the link. Nothing is simple with the USFS is it?

    No kidding. They can generate some paper for sure. All part of their snow job.

    Don't be turned off by the 150+ pages though. The meat of it is in the first 20 pages. Basically there is the proposed plan (B) and 3 other alternatives (C, D , E). I think we should be lobbying for a combination of D and E as they call for the least amount of logging and some other restorative actions in the forest.

    I think we talked about it at the meeting last year but I have forgotten what is involved in the "Crown Touch and Release" action. Can anyone elaborate.

    They are OUR woods. Your input is needed. The proposed actions are bad and call for turning parts of some of our favorite trails into roads (Trace Ridge, Spencer Gap, Bear Branch). Not to mention severely limiting our access to Mills River for a significant yet undetermined amount of time.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TrailZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    378

    Crown Touch and Release...

    ...found this definition in another USFS doc: "All competing stems less than 8 inches diameter at breast height with crowns touching the crop tree and that are at least 50 percent of the height of the crop tree would be manually cut." The process is done to enhance stands of commercially valuable trees (the 'crop tree')--see

    http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/gr...ee_release.pdf

    for more detail...

    TZ
    Geriatric mountain biker and trail maintainer... ...with digital braking!

  6. #6
    Thread Killer
    Reputation: crossboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    470
    GT Drew, appreciate the link. However, the way I read it, Option B has already been chosen, based on feedback from last summer. Am I missing something?

    Check out page 69 as well, and the maps at the back. I don't doubt this is going to be a major PITA, but except for reconditioning the very bottom of Trace Ridge Trail (already planned, by the way), it looks to me as if most of Trace and Spencer Gap are preserved -- the logging/reconditioning is downslope, and the access points are already roads anyway. (Albeit almost-singletrack roads, much more fun to ride ...) And, as noted, we won't have access to the intersection of Spencer and 5000, nor lower Trace, nor Wash Creek Trail. And yes, it's always more fun to ride somewhat neglected 2-track than graded logging roads, but I didn't see that any singletrack is going to be re-designated?

    Bear Branch is going to suck for a long time, I'm afraid. I've been out 5001 all the way over the ridge to 5001B, and there's going to be a lot of heavy lifting to get that road going for this project. Which will suck. Not to mention, then, the logging traffic itself.

    What kind of concerns me is the use of 5050 and 5051 on the other side of Mills River as access points. Yellow Gap Trail (which doesn't go to Yellow Gap, by the way) isn't the most popular, but there isn't much downslope access to the river on that side -- and once you get down there, it'll need to be a boulevard. This will also mean major traffic through NMR campground area and out to and up 5050.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plume's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,538
    ride it while it's there. and drag your brakes around every corner.
    My one says BRAP!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,770
    All of the logged area must have been been scoped, right?

    I'm wondering if clubs elsewhere have used this to ease the construction of new trail, after the logging is complete. I know that a lack of scoping has been mentioned as a deterrent when it comes to re-routing unsustainable sections of trail (Black Mtn).

    For whatever reason, the logging doesn't bug me so much. I'm just wondering if there's a way to make lemonade.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by crossboy
    GT Drew, appreciate the link. However, the way I read it, Option B has already been chosen, based on feedback from last summer. Am I missing something?
    From my understanding, and it may be totally flawed, the other options are still on the table. Obviously, the Forest Service, has made their pick but we are still given a chance to influence the process. Most of B will happen but if we don't voice our opinion C could happen which is much worse and involves much more logging.

    Hopefully, someone else can chime in that has a more thorough knowledge of the process. The document itself would lead you believe that the decisions have already been made but I do not think that is the case. All part of the snow job.

    It's not like they are 'our' woods or anything.

    edit: Just reread section 1.2. Alternative B is the 'proposed' action. This is the public's chance to offer their comments on the 'proposed' action. We only have 30 days. Get commenting!
    Last edited by gtdrew; 11-21-2010 at 03:37 AM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailZen
    ...found this definition in another USFS doc: "All competing stems less than 8 inches diameter at breast height with crowns touching the crop tree and that are at least 50 percent of the height of the crop tree would be manually cut." The process is done to enhance stands of commercially valuable trees (the 'crop tree')--see

    http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/gr...ee_release.pdf

    for more detail...

    TZ
    Don't know what to think about this. The 700 acres that are going to receive this 'treatment' will be relatively unchanged for now but basically on the cutting block for future logging.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TrailZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    378
    I spent some time this afternoon reading the EA. Section 3.10 (beginning on page 68) deals with the various alternatives' impacts on recreation. As you read this section, focus on the impacts of Alternative B, the proposed alternative. My original letter (10 July '09) requested that trails, like streams, be provided a trail corridor buffer zone for protection. While this specific request is not addressed in the EA, it appears that impacts on recreation are generally well-addressed and are given a high priority by the USFS. That doesn't mean that they aren't gonna screw up some trail segments with this project, but their long-term intent is that trail damage be repaired after the project... Yep, it's gonna look like sh*t for a few years, but that's typical of extractive management versus recreation management. I do not personally plan to write a follow-up letter addressing the EA because the effort will just whiz me off and waste my time.
    TZ
    Geriatric mountain biker and trail maintainer... ...with digital braking!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •