The city of Harrisonburg plans to close Dry River
- Thread starter mcm4090
- Start date
BigAl
Expedition Leader
I was there last summer for the first time. Dry Run isn't a trail, it is a maze. So many people have gone off trail that there is no way to tell where the trail is. There are literally 10 different ways to get to any point on the trail. The area was completely thrashed. If you could make people stay on one trail, you could have one nice muddy semi challenging trail, but i don't think you could ever keep people on one trail. I bet driving thru the river is only a small contibutor to the problem. Most of the land between the river and rt 33 is devoid of vegetation from the hundreds of trails. When I saw it last year, I thought it wouldn't be long before it was closed.
Clark White
Explorer
Where exactly are they talking about? I was just camping up there a couple weeks ago, and though there are some trails that I know should not be there, it's not THAT bad. I was off of Dry Run Rd. though, that's a ways south of the reservoir, so is that still the are they are talking about? While we were camped there some HS kids pulled up on the other side of the river, drank a bunch of beer and they split, leaving their cans all over the place and even the box floating int he river. We went over and cleaned up, but I really wish I would have payed closer attention to them and noticed their trash before they left, could of called them on it.
Clark
Clark
H
Hank
Guest
This is kind of an old story. That report ran on December 17, 2008.
I called and chatted with Lee Foerster about the DNR article. Lee is the Director of Parks and Recreation for Harrisonburg City.
Lee outlined for me what was “planned”, or, what was going to be proposed. Of course, all this lies in the hands of the Harrisonburg City Counsel.
Lee was not familiar with the area much at all. You really can’t blame him for that as it’s not his job. So it goes without saying that Lee is not educated on OHV use or why the salt shed area has become so popular. The only thing Lee and his colleagues see is the erosion and threat to the City’s water supply.
What Lee wants to see is a limited access to the area. He’s not interested in shutting the area down to OHV use, but there are some areas that need direct attention. We could probably all agree to that.
In the scope of their plan, Lee says that tree management will be stage 1; some of the revenue from the timber sales will be put back into the area to limit access. Lee stopped short of saying what would be “closed”, but he did mention that driving up and down the river was a priority. In his talks with Trout Unlimited, Lee has learned that Dry River is one of the longest stretches of water housing Native Trout, and Lee would like to work with Trout Unlimited to keep it that way.
Lee also mentioned that the Forest Service wanted to keep people out of “certain” places of the Forest, and that people were accessing that area from the City’s property. I’m not real sure what he was referring to, but nevertheless, it’s a problem that reflects back on us [OVH users].
Again, Lee is not the person who will call these shots. It’s in the hands of the City Counsel. Lee seems to want to work with everyone and has no intentions to “close” the area. He only wants to see some areas restricted that directly impact the water quality. If you live in the County and object to their plans, you may as well yell at a tree in your front yard. Comments to the counsel would probably need to come from a City resident.
The reason that area has become what it has is because of all the traffic that's been diverted, or concentrated, or funneled, to that one spot. That's not our fault.
They'll never, ever, admit to it, but the problem lies in the hands of the forest service. Maybe not totally, but a majority off the end affect is due to the closing of trails in the area and not replacing them.
I'm not sure how familiar you guys are with the area, but we've lost a lot over the last 5-10 years. At the same time, OHV users have increased. All of these OHV users have been forced to travel on less-and-less trails resulting in increased traffic, advanced erosion, and more "wear-and-tear". If there were more trails in the area, Salt Shed would not be in the condition it's in today.
I called and chatted with Lee Foerster about the DNR article. Lee is the Director of Parks and Recreation for Harrisonburg City.
Lee outlined for me what was “planned”, or, what was going to be proposed. Of course, all this lies in the hands of the Harrisonburg City Counsel.
Lee was not familiar with the area much at all. You really can’t blame him for that as it’s not his job. So it goes without saying that Lee is not educated on OHV use or why the salt shed area has become so popular. The only thing Lee and his colleagues see is the erosion and threat to the City’s water supply.
What Lee wants to see is a limited access to the area. He’s not interested in shutting the area down to OHV use, but there are some areas that need direct attention. We could probably all agree to that.
In the scope of their plan, Lee says that tree management will be stage 1; some of the revenue from the timber sales will be put back into the area to limit access. Lee stopped short of saying what would be “closed”, but he did mention that driving up and down the river was a priority. In his talks with Trout Unlimited, Lee has learned that Dry River is one of the longest stretches of water housing Native Trout, and Lee would like to work with Trout Unlimited to keep it that way.
Lee also mentioned that the Forest Service wanted to keep people out of “certain” places of the Forest, and that people were accessing that area from the City’s property. I’m not real sure what he was referring to, but nevertheless, it’s a problem that reflects back on us [OVH users].
Again, Lee is not the person who will call these shots. It’s in the hands of the City Counsel. Lee seems to want to work with everyone and has no intentions to “close” the area. He only wants to see some areas restricted that directly impact the water quality. If you live in the County and object to their plans, you may as well yell at a tree in your front yard. Comments to the counsel would probably need to come from a City resident.
The reason that area has become what it has is because of all the traffic that's been diverted, or concentrated, or funneled, to that one spot. That's not our fault.
They'll never, ever, admit to it, but the problem lies in the hands of the forest service. Maybe not totally, but a majority off the end affect is due to the closing of trails in the area and not replacing them.
I'm not sure how familiar you guys are with the area, but we've lost a lot over the last 5-10 years. At the same time, OHV users have increased. All of these OHV users have been forced to travel on less-and-less trails resulting in increased traffic, advanced erosion, and more "wear-and-tear". If there were more trails in the area, Salt Shed would not be in the condition it's in today.
H
Hank
Guest
Clark White said:
The "Salt Shed" area is directly off Rt.33. It spans from about where you first enter the GWNF (at the big, brown sign) to Dry River dam. Except where otherwise marked with red markings on trees, the City of Harrisonburg owns a right-a-way between Rt.33 and the river, and in some places on both sides of the river. This is, basically, a pipe-line for the City's water coming out of Switzer Dam. The water is pumped from the Riven Rock Park area.
The area got it's name "Salt Shed" because at one time there was a VDOT Salt Shed located just off the road where these trails started. The salt shed has since fallen down, but you can still see it from Rt.33.
I've been camping and driving in that area since the day I got my drivers license (litterly, the very day I got them) and it's a nightmare today. At one time, there was one road that lead to "Green Hole", a swimming hole, and then back out to Rt.33. It was a loop. Today, it's a mess. There is a mud hole in there that will swallow a tank, and there is countless "driveways" into the river.
The area is a poster child.
H
Hank
Guest
Heard on the radio just now....
Someone died at Riven Rock Park yesterday (Sunday, 1/4/09). This will not be good as it's only going to draw more attention to the area and raise liability concerns from the City.
Someone died at Riven Rock Park yesterday (Sunday, 1/4/09). This will not be good as it's only going to draw more attention to the area and raise liability concerns from the City.
H
Hank
Guest
Well, I disagree. A "double hump", or tank trap, is a universal sign of closure. Sure, many of us can drive right over them, but that's not what they're intended for. They're not obstacles.
As for signage, that would be great......if people would stop stealing the signs.
A lot of it is common sense. If an area looks off limits, it probably is. Like the Switzer Dam lake.....you do not drive in the lake, no matter how low the water is. I mean, it's the water supply for the City, for god's sake... Yet, people do it:
Then, of course, there's the splashing in the rivers http://s39.photobucket.com/albums/e197/slick_73/GWNF 110808/
I don't get it, personally, and it reflects a bad image on all OHV users.
.....and people wonder why they close the trails???
As for signage, that would be great......if people would stop stealing the signs.
A lot of it is common sense. If an area looks off limits, it probably is. Like the Switzer Dam lake.....you do not drive in the lake, no matter how low the water is. I mean, it's the water supply for the City, for god's sake... Yet, people do it:
Then, of course, there's the splashing in the rivers http://s39.photobucket.com/albums/e197/slick_73/GWNF 110808/
I don't get it, personally, and it reflects a bad image on all OHV users.
.....and people wonder why they close the trails???
mcm4090
Explorer
HARRISONBURG - Temporary signs will be posted on city land along both banks of Dry River from Riven Rock Park to Switzer Dam that tell visitors that the use of motor vehicles is prohibited.
On Tuesday, Harrisonburg City Council approved posting the signs to show the boundary of what council members designated as the Watershed Protection Area.
Posting the signs is a temporary measure until a plan spelling out the proper uses of the land is developed.
Council wants the plan to protect the 1,450 acres the city owns near Switzer Dam, which is a major source of the city's water supply.
City Land
Motor vehicles already are prohibited from the property, Mayor Kai Degner said on Wednesday. The intent of the signs is to warn drivers to keep their cars and other vehicles out of the designated area, Degner said.
"It's city property and that use is not sanctioned," he said.
The signs also will delineate what's city property and what's state forest land.
The city, Degner said, is looking into whether there are any homeowners who live near the property who depend on access to the land to get to their residences.
Along with posting the property, the council also moved ahead with a staff recommendation to cut 80 to 100 acres of mostly hemlock trees damaged by an insect, the hemlock woolly adelgid.
The trees are to be harvested and the lumber sold. City officials anticipate getting $125,000 from the sale of undamaged wood.
And the council moved ahead with developing a recreational plan that would designate the proper uses of the land.
The plan, Degner said, offers the opportunity to develop the area to its fullest potential as a recreational area while protecting the watershed.
http://www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=36222&CHID=2
On Tuesday, Harrisonburg City Council approved posting the signs to show the boundary of what council members designated as the Watershed Protection Area.
Posting the signs is a temporary measure until a plan spelling out the proper uses of the land is developed.
Council wants the plan to protect the 1,450 acres the city owns near Switzer Dam, which is a major source of the city's water supply.
City Land
Motor vehicles already are prohibited from the property, Mayor Kai Degner said on Wednesday. The intent of the signs is to warn drivers to keep their cars and other vehicles out of the designated area, Degner said.
"It's city property and that use is not sanctioned," he said.
The signs also will delineate what's city property and what's state forest land.
The city, Degner said, is looking into whether there are any homeowners who live near the property who depend on access to the land to get to their residences.
Along with posting the property, the council also moved ahead with a staff recommendation to cut 80 to 100 acres of mostly hemlock trees damaged by an insect, the hemlock woolly adelgid.
The trees are to be harvested and the lumber sold. City officials anticipate getting $125,000 from the sale of undamaged wood.
And the council moved ahead with developing a recreational plan that would designate the proper uses of the land.
The plan, Degner said, offers the opportunity to develop the area to its fullest potential as a recreational area while protecting the watershed.
http://www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=36222&CHID=2