View Full Version : New Shelter!! - Stover Creek Shelter
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?id=167462
Just randomly saw this in trailjournals, It is the new Stover Creek Shelter. Is the relocation complete? Will everyone now hike past the new shelter? How far is it off the trail?
Lone Wolf
02-25-2007, 19:47
a new shelter wasn't needed in that area.
Is it new or does it replace the old/existing Stover Creek shelter?
Lone Wolf
02-25-2007, 20:53
it is new constuction in a different spot
I suppose one could argue that there's a heavy need for shelters at that particular point in the trail. ;)
Lone Wolf
02-25-2007, 21:09
I suppose one could argue that there's a heavy need for shelters at that particular point in the trail. ;)
i thought folks were hitting the woods to get away from man-made s**t? be self sufficient and all that. too many shelters. LNT is a joke
TJ aka Teej
02-25-2007, 23:44
i thought folks were hitting the woods to get away from man-made s**t?
Isn't the trail itself "man-made s**t" too?
:D
Blue Jay
02-26-2007, 00:10
i thought folks were hitting the woods to get away from man-made s**t? be self sufficient and all that. too many shelters. LNT is a joke
Wrong again shelter breath. If you're worried about man made S**t you get away from the United States all together. Most of the trees will soon be plastic.
briarpatch
02-26-2007, 00:27
Is it new or does it replace the old/existing Stover Creek shelter?
The answer is "yes", its both a new location and a replacement for the existing Stover Creek Shelter.
Its a new shelter on an unfinished trail relocation. The relo will most likely be finished in May, the new shelter will be opened for use, and the old Stover Creek Shelter will go away, either torn down or moved somewhere away fromthe AT.
Blissful
02-26-2007, 11:14
Looks like people are already using it? Is that okay?
John Klein
06-29-2007, 19:48
The answer is "yes", its both a new location and a replacement for the existing Stover Creek Shelter.
Its a new shelter on an unfinished trail relocation. The relo will most likely be finished in May, the new shelter will be opened for use, and the old Stover Creek Shelter will go away, either torn down or moved somewhere away fromthe AT.
I was on the BMT earlier this month and some other hikers told me the shelter and trail relo were done. Does anyone know how many miles the new shelter is from the Springer parking lot?
Nightwalker
06-30-2007, 08:40
Looks like people are already using it? Is that okay?
Here are a couple of views of it. 1 (http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=17001&catid=580) 2 (http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=17002&c=580)
I was lucky enough to walk that section the first day it was open. No real change in difficulty or length. It mainly got some more trail away from the old logging roads.
The new shelter is a modified Nantahala design. There are two floors, and the bottom one is split. It'll probably hold 20 easily.
If anyone wants, an put up a map showing the difference between the old and new sections.
John Klein
06-30-2007, 09:27
If anyone wants, an put up a map showing the difference between the old and new sections.
Yes, please do. Thanks.
Nightwalker
06-30-2007, 09:41
Yes, please do. Thanks.
Let me find my handheld computer. I'll do it today or tomorrow. I have to fix the roof today, yuk. :-)
Nightwalker
07-01-2007, 18:27
Yes, please do. Thanks.
Here you go (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=17398). The dashed yellow over red line is the new part. I prettied it up a little since last night. The background data available is ugly at that zoom, but it's all that is available. The normal zoom for that type mapping is 1":1 mile, but this is more like 1":250'.
gold bond
07-01-2007, 19:42
Lone Wolf wake up!!!! Trail relocation is badly needed in alot of area's on the trail. I know your "set" in your ways but without trail relocation so much ecological damage is done to a certain area that repair would eventually be unable to be done.
The shelter as alot of them need alot of work as well. As long as it is replacing a older shelter and the exsisting shelter is being disposed of properly I personally thank the ATC in that area. Bravo guys!!
Speer Carrier
07-01-2007, 21:54
As a matter of interest, regarding the new Stover Creek Shelter;
Frank Wright of the GATC, and who was the Trails Supervisor the for the club at the time, conceived of the need for a new shelter about 31/2 years ago. As the newly elected Trails Supervisor in October of 2003, he walked the entire Geogia portion of the AT to access its future maintenance and contstruction needs. He concluded that the trail leading south from the Stover Creek shelter was heavily eroded, and the shelter itself, originally built in 1960, and moved twice was in need of replacement. Tent camping had also heavily impacted the creek bank causing silt and pollution.
Frank got approval from the GATC board to begin the process of making the relocation. Marion McLean of the GATC was asked to lay out what was to become the new trail. The USFS did a plant inventory and an archeological survey of the proposed trail corridor. With its approval, the process began.
By this time Frank's term as Trails Supervisor was up, and the new Trails Supervisor, Gary Monk took the reins. Gary secured funding for the shelter, and designed the new shelter with the help of fellow GATC members, Lawson Herron, and Jerry Seabolt. They found a company to build the timber frame, and the Forest Service had the materials Helicoptered in.
The shelter was errected in the summer of 2006.
Many GATC member volunteers, along with students from Georgia Tech, North Georgia College, and the University of New Hampshire contributed hours of work on the shelter, privy and trail.
The Konnarock crew arrived in May of 2007 and spanned the creek in two places, with a bog bridge and rock steps.
The relocation was open to the public on Memorial Day 2007
This information was summarized from an article by Frank Wright in the July edition of The Georgia Mountaineer, the newsletter of the GATC
jonesat11
07-06-2007, 15:06
a new shelter wasn't needed in that area.
i forgot you know everything ha ha
Lone Wolf
07-06-2007, 15:10
yeah that's right ha ha
Nightwalker
07-13-2007, 04:35
Isn't the trail itself "man-made s**t" too?
:D
Absolutely. The second we change it, it isn't wilderness anymore. People like to have their illusions, however...
YoungMoose
02-13-2009, 14:36
they didnt need a new one at a whole different area
I really like the new shelter, the old one was past it's prime to say the least :)
Lone Wolf
02-13-2009, 15:47
I really like the new shelter, the old one was past it's prime to say the least :)
but they coulda rebuilt on the same site instead of rippin' down forest for a new one
You've got a good point there, the old shelter was near a very nice spot along the stream, wonder why they didn't use the old site?
That would have made more enviromental sense :)
papa john
02-13-2009, 16:28
From post #17
Frank Wright of the GATC, and who was the Trails Supervisor the for the club at the time, conceived of the need for a new shelter about 31/2 years ago. As the newly elected Trails Supervisor in October of 2003, he walked the entire Geogia portion of the AT to access its future maintenance and contstruction needs. He concluded that the trail leading south from the Stover Creek shelter was heavily eroded, and the shelter itself, originally built in 1960, and moved twice was in need of replacement. Tent camping had also heavily impacted the creek bank causing silt and pollution.
mtnkngxt
02-13-2009, 16:37
Shelters suck! :banana So do tents :banana Hammocks Rule :D Seriously though if you want to sleep in a cabin go to Gatlinburg. You shelter wussies would leave less of an enviromental impact if you just didnt hike.
:welcome To my World!
daddytwosticks
02-13-2009, 16:51
Here we go again.......
Pedaling Fool
02-13-2009, 17:08
Great!...more posts about the ohh so %$#@* fragile %$#$% environment.:datz
Weather systems will knock down those mountains before any number of hikers will. Some of you'll must really feel guilty walking on the AT.
hurryinghoosier
02-13-2009, 20:57
Is there a sign directing hikers to the new shelter?
max patch
02-13-2009, 21:32
Yes
Dances with Mice
02-13-2009, 21:42
they didnt need a new one at a whole different areaYou do know you're replying to a post written TWO YEARS AGO, don't you?
YoungMoose
02-13-2009, 21:59
Shelters suck! :banana So do tents :banana Hammocks Rule :D Seriously though if you want to sleep in a cabin go to Gatlinburg. You shelter wussies would leave less of an enviromental impact if you just didnt hike.
:welcome To my World!lol
YoungMoose
02-13-2009, 21:59
You do know you're replying to a post written TWO YEARS AGO, don't you?yeah i do. i look up the campsite. so dont say i dont know something just becuase im a younger kid.
Dances with Mice
02-13-2009, 23:01
I never noticed your age.
Both the trail and the shelter needed relocating for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons were also explained two years ago on this thread. Now instead of a shelter that resembled a broken toolshed stuck off to the side of an old road immediately beside a stream, a larger and sturdier shelter is situated in a protected hardwood cove near a stream but far enough away to not impact it. There is a privy at the new site and designated tentsites to mitigate damage to the area. Both the shelter area and the trail leading to it are major improvements compared to the original situation.
But you expressed an opinion and I'm interested: Why do you think it should not have been relocated?
max patch
02-13-2009, 23:08
The original area was prettier and always had water.
Dances with Mice
02-13-2009, 23:18
The original area was prettier and always had water.Uh, Max? You're aware that the new shelter site is on the same creek as the old site? The name might be kind of a clue? Maybe 1000 feet away as the crow flies? If the old site always had water then new site will also always have water.
YoungMoose
02-13-2009, 23:19
I understand that your saying it wont really impact everything. But why not just clear the old spot and make a good shelter to make it better. There is no need for the whole rebuilding. Although its nice to be in a new shelter.
Dances with Mice
02-13-2009, 23:43
Sometimes shelters are placed carefully. Sometimes they aren't. The old shelter was hauled along an old FS road and dropped beside it because that was the best that could be done at that time. The new shelter was located more carefully. These days shelter planners can choose their sites without having to worry about road access because helicopters drop in building materials.
Max liked the old area better, that's his opinion. I like the wide open look of the new site better than a dense rhodie thicket in a narrow creek valley. That's my opinion.
Lone Wolf
02-14-2009, 07:00
I never noticed your age.
Both the trail and the shelter needed relocating for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons were also explained two years ago on this thread. Now instead of a shelter that resembled a broken toolshed stuck off to the side of an old road immediately beside a stream, a larger and sturdier shelter is situated in a protected hardwood cove near a stream but far enough away to not impact it. There is a privy at the new site and designated tentsites to mitigate damage to the area. Both the shelter area and the trail leading to it are major improvements compared to the original situation.
But you expressed an opinion and I'm interested: Why do you think it should not have been relocated?
rationalization
Dances with Mice
02-14-2009, 08:45
rationalizationThanks! I haven't been called rational in a long time!
daddytwosticks
02-14-2009, 15:06
Thank you to all the fine people who set up this new shelter, re-routed the trail, and dismanteled the old structure. Your effort has been much appreciated! :)
Stayed there in October, it is done, great shelter, water source was dry, but stream was close southbound, it is 1.9 miles north of parking area.... two sets of bear cables, privy, fire pit, lot of camp sites, about .2 mile off trail, would recomend it highly, enjoy!
Ox97GaMe
02-16-2009, 02:01
There are several factors that went into the new Stover Creek Shelter relocation. Here is food for thought for all those folks that deemed it unnecessary to build/relocate the new shelter.
a) The old shelter held 6 hikers. Due to the increased number of thru hikers, a larger shelter was needed. The new shelter will accomodate 18-20 hikers. Additional tent pads around the shelter will accomodate another 10-12 hikers.
b) The trail leading to and from the old shelter had severe erosion issues. Approximately 1800 ft of trail were deemed as needing to be relocated. To conform with the latest trail building guidelines (% of grade, side hilling, switchbacking, etc), the best relocation plan was to bring the relo close to its current location. An additional 1000 ft of trail would have had to be built to join it up to the old shelter and back onto the old logging road.
c) Building a privy at the shelter. The old shelter did not have a privy. The old shelter location was in a ravine, near the water, not very high above the water table. THere is very little flat ground near the old shelter that would be suitable for privy construction. Installing a privy in this area would have likely contaminated the creek and water supply. The new shelter / privy is on a knoll. It is far enough from the creek and high enough above the water table to eliminate the contamination issue.
d) The old shelter is near an area of Hemlocks that are being affected by the insects. AS the hemlocks die out, there would have been an additional threat of these trees falling on (or at least near) the shelter. The new shelter location is in a hardwood forested area.
ColdFire
02-17-2009, 01:11
Thanks! I haven't been called rational in a long time!
HAHA yea I would take that as a compliment also! :banana
Lone Wolf
02-17-2009, 09:33
No need for 3 shelters in less than 8 miles. i don't care what the "maintanance experts" say.
jersey joe
02-17-2009, 10:39
This shelter looks pretty sweet. Does it have internet access?
max patch
02-17-2009, 10:49
No need for 3 shelters in less than 8 miles. i don't care what the "maintanance experts" say.
4 shelters in 9 miles if you include Black Gap on the approach.
Dances with Mice
02-17-2009, 12:01
Stover is meant for Springer overflow.
And Springer does overflow.
Stover is meant for Springer overflow.
And Springer does overflow.
hey is that new crapper full yet?
Lone Wolf
02-17-2009, 12:28
Stover is meant for Springer overflow.
And Springer does overflow.
23 years ago it was there and there was no overflow. there was hardly anybody hiking. what was the excuse then?
cowboy nichols
02-17-2009, 14:18
i thought folks were hitting the woods to get away from man-made s**t? be self sufficient and all that. too many shelters. LNT is a joke
L W I have a question---If you hate shelters so much why go on the A T ? There are 1000's of miles of trails where you will never see a shelter.
Lone Wolf
02-17-2009, 14:24
the AT ain't all about shelters
Dances with Mice
02-17-2009, 14:29
23 years ago it was there and there was no overflow. there was hardly anybody hiking. what was the excuse then?Hell if I know. I have enough trouble keeping track of my own damn excuses. I can't go around giving out excuses for everyone else. If I start doing that I'll run out of excuses.
Nightwalker
02-17-2009, 15:43
yeah i do. i look up the campsite. so dont say i dont know something just becuase im a younger kid.
Don't sweat it. People argue on the internet because it's more entertaining than TV. :)
PatrickONeill
02-18-2009, 15:37
yeah that's right ha ha
Dude, you are a monster!
Averaging 9.2 posts a day since you joine in nov of 2002!!!
When do you have time to hike?
Lol!
:eek: