Overmountain Shelter update

[mountain squid]

Only a few more days to make comments. 2/11 is the final day. So far 62 comments have been submitted. I've made some tally marks for specific comments found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing.

As can be expected most want to save/repair or replace The Barn while recognizing it is unsafe and has turned into a party spot. Many think it is iconic or historic and have fond memories of staying overnight.

Picnic pavilion was probably a poor choice of words. I think cooking pavilion might be a better phrase. Either way that is not a favorite idea.

The importance of the privy has not been overlooked.

See you on the trail,
mt squid

[Tennessee Viking]

Only a few more days to make comments. 2/11 is the final day. So far 62 comments have been submitted. I've made some tally marks for specific comments found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing.

As can be expected most want to save/repair or replace The Barn while recognizing it is unsafe and has turned into a party spot. Many think it is iconic or historic and have fond memories of staying overnight.

Picnic pavilion was probably a poor choice of words. I think cooking pavilion might be a better phrase. Either way that is not a favorite idea.

The importance of the privy has not been overlooked.

See you on the trail,
mt squid

Something similar to Craggy Gardens and other CCC pole shelters was my comment.

[earlyriser26]

Plenty of people willing to donate to fix / replace shelter, so money is not an issue. ATC is the issue.

[wornoutboots]

The ATC is a JOKE, there's a spring, a privy in place, and Incredible level area for camping overflow, incredible views, and plenty of wood on the current barn itself to repurpose into a beautiful shelter. What is the question here

[Traveler]

Opinions abound on this, but there there are some hard facts to address on an issue with many variables:

The structure is in the Piscah National Forest, which is under NFS management, overseen by the Department of Agriculture. The ATC is involved in terms of maintenance and volunteer assistance, but the NFS, under USDA (Department of Agriculture) is shouldering this effort. The ATC does not have much control over this particular action, though is a valuable partner for the NFS in carrying out whatever decision is made. Frankly, I don't see where the ATC is to blame for anything outside of seeking help with a failing structure in NFS controlled land.

The major concern here is the structural engineers report which very clearly states the structure is unsound and cannot be safely occupied. Looking at the videos and photos of this structure one does not have to be an engineer to quickly see the structure has a distinct downhill lean. Several vertical support posts are resting above the ground surface on small rocks jammed under them. The main second floor support beam has failed as a result of the slope movement. Nails can be seen working their way out with building motion from weather and rot. Succinctly, this structure is going to fail likely favoring downhill from a heavy snow and/or high wind loads at some point in the near future. From a liability standpoint, now that two of the four tenets of negligence have been met (constructive and active notice), the NFS cannot let the structure be used and is pretty much forced to condemn it.

Compounding the structure problem, the "flat spot" is actually on a slope that is slowly moving downhill, adding to the instability of the structure and would start to impact a new structure over a few years time. Anchoring slopes in difficult terrain is hugely expensive and will not guarantee the "flat spot" will remain where it is.

Photographs do show a lot of dimensional lumber that on the surface appears to be relatively sound material, but isn't. As most anyone with a barn or outbuilding can attest, boring insects from ants to bees can usually be found in these old timber structures, making most of this material worthless in a structural sense that cannot be seen until one starts working with the material. There would be serious concern using wood that likely has insects in it on a new structure.

The shelter is an attractive nuisance, easily accessible by a short easy walk from a road so the local party yahoos can come and go, usually leaving a mess when they leave. Eventually one of these yahoos will light a match to the old barn and up it will go along with some forest around it, or be hurt falling through the barn floor that will trigger a law suit, that will be lost due to the engineering report.

One of the plans being suggested call for shelter removal and a covered picnic table be installed. The area around what is now the shelter will be used for camping, though there is a question if the pit privy would remain. I would vote no on that, as it encourages the party yahoos to visit.

Other ideas include moving the shelter to a new location or expanding the Stan Murray shelter 2-miles up trail make sense. Tent camping would then be allowed at this view point and would actually be a nice camping area with a dry cooking area if the covered table is included.

A complicated issue with a lot of variables and considerations that are needed. However, though the ATC does have some input, its the NFS/USDA who has the final word. I would presume the liability exposed by the structural engineers report is the death knell for this shelter, but stranger things have happened.

[stephanD]

Traveler, thank you for a constructive and elaborate response, this clears many things up. People are quick to blame the ATC for everything they don't like on the trail forgetting that many sections are managed by state and federal agencies. A covered area for socializing, cooking etc. may be the best solution.

[rhjanes]

Yes, thank you Traveler for a well thought out and written examination. And you didn't even touch on the multiple state and federal agencies and all the sets of "Rules" which would be accommodated.
I do Orienteering at both State Parks and also on a National Grasslands. We work with the rangers so they know of our events and it's always interesting to find out what agency is doing something and yet some other agency is doing something completely different. Like when the FS Rangers removed all the fencing at the National Grasslands near me. That would let them have more open range. And by the next year the BLM, who manages putting cattle on the property, put up cattle pens. I mentioned it to the head FS Ranger and he laughed and said "Yeah, we heard on a Friday that on the next Monday, they'd be putting in the pens". I know the State Park Ranger told us he is lucky to get a weeks notice of a controlled burn....

[blue indian]

Tear the shelter down, sure.

But people will continue to visit/camp/party at this spot regardless. For that reason, I think a privy should be left in place. Unless we want more toilet paper and human waste to ruin this spot; then sure tear down the privy too.

It is also an important habitat for the golden-winged warbler if memory serves me correctly. Another reason to protect this beautiful little pocket

Rebuild/Add onto Stan Murray shelter? Waste of money IMO. That site isnt great to begin with. Its right on trail on wooded ridge. I remember there being like 2 spots to set up a tent and the water source was way way down a hill. Making this the only shelter around will create more impact on an already small site that doesnt get alot of use (for a reason).

Tear down the old shelter, leave the privy. A covered area of some sort seems like a nice middle ground.

[HankIV]

I’d rather see a bona fide shelter that provides reasonable rain protection or nothing and spend the time and effort on trail maintenance. It would take 90% of the effort a shelter would and provide 10% of the utility.

Shelter or no, agree on the need for a privy. And I can’t image a privy being a big party crowd draw.

[illabelle]

To clarify, when I suggested reusing the wood from the barn, I wasn't talking about the structural members, which I agree would be unsound and unsafe to use. I was simply suggesting to use the siding materials, so that a new structure can carry the look and the memory of the old.

The old structural members might be useful somewhere to line a tent pad, or as waterbars, or just left to rot.

[OPIE]

I won't be hiking down that side trail to camp again, not worth the elevation/distance, only went once and tented outside to say I did.
Much prettier places to spend the evening along the Roan Highlands. I won't ever stay at the Stan Murray shelter either unless a blizzard hit me unprepared(doubtful).
I usually always tuck away into the scrub on Grassy Ridge, with a great water source just ahead on AT, or in the open between little hump and big hump, reliable water lower to the right. If you need protection, tuck into the trees on the right of Doll Flats if you have to push to low elevation and road access.

It was the spot to take your 10 noobie backpacking friends and a full liter of booze, or meet up with clumps of NOBOs to have a mini trail day overnight. Sometimes the locals or hunters crashed it with cases of beer, looking to "spook" a hippie hiker, or better yet a girl hiker.

It's a recent build, and this gives the opportunity to return this area to a more natural state, let the site heal for a few years and see where everyone starts gathering or stopping at.

[HankIV]

I generally support the ATC, and recognize their multi-jurisdictional challenges.

Still it sticks in my craw that the reason there can’t be a shelter at Overmountain is it’s proximity to a road, and then read this article….

https://appalachiantrail.org/trail-u...k-gap-shelter/

…this is literally right at a parking lot.

[wyclif]

A picnic pavilion is being proposed to replace the shelter.

Why not a high-quality proper shelter instead of a picnic pavilion?

[TJ aka Teej]

…this is literally right at a parking lot.

It's literally not. And that's not the only reason the NFS, the local maintaining club, and the ATC, all agreed the barn shouldn't be replaced.

[Lone Wolf]

I generally support the ATC, and recognize their multi-jurisdictional challenges.

Still it sticks in my craw that the reason there can’t be a shelter at Overmountain is it’s proximity to a road, and then read this article….

https://appalachiantrail.org/trail-u...k-gap-shelter/

…this is literally right at a parking lot.

yup. a dumb rebuild for sure

[HankIV]

It's literally not. And that's not the only reason the NFS, the local maintaining club, and the ATC, all agreed the barn shouldn't be replaced.

I was referring to Rock Gap shelter, just to be clear. It IS within sight of a parking area--I recalling thinking as I went by that it didn't seem like a great location for that reason.

Regarding Overmountain, most of the time in the USFS link was devoted to the structural issues of the barn. I can see the issue there and can imagine restoration is probably not practical. Probably neither is reusing much of the existing material.

The ATC guy in the video references the distance from a road rule, which seems to be more honored in the breach than in the observance. Rock Gap here being an example in the extreme. He doesn't say any other reasons that a shelter can't be at this sight, just offers up that there is the Stan Murray shelter not far away. Stan Murray is pretty small esp relative to Overmountain. Has no "viewshed" and no water to speak of. No one else comments on why there can't be any shelter at the Overmountain site. And during the online public hearing I didn't hear much else either. Jennifer Barnhardt implied that shelters just aren't part of modern hiking. While I completely agree no one should hike without a tent or some shelter of their own, shelters seemed pretty popular in 2021 during my hike.

Somewhere, at some point, there was a brief mention of threatened bird that uses the area. I'd be willing to hear that out, but can't see how a picnic pavilion or mowing the current large tenting area is any less intrusive to bird habitat.

I haven't heard other reasons a new build shelter couldn't be in this location, in either the video or the public hearing. Most (not all for sure) comments posted to the USFS were pro-shelter in one form or another. The Rocky Gap is but one of many shelters within two miles of a road between Springer and Overmountain, just check the Farout App. I didn't have time to go further north. Several of those have been recently maintained or rebuilt.

Is there now a policy at the ATC to let the shelter network attrit by obsolesence? Fine, but make that clear. I wouldn't agree, but would at least know the rationale here.

Is building a new shelter beyond the ability of TEHCC? I could completely understand if it was, but just say so and perhaps the means would be found.

Why am I hanging on to this like a pitbull? The first night on the AT with my daughters we stayed at this shelter. It was a magical place to watch the sunset and the sunrise (although I was the only one to observe the latter), from the shelter itself. I would like others to have that same opportunity.

Teej, while it is clear we seem to be in disagreement on this topic, I am very grateful for your guidance to SOBOs, which I think did get me off to a good start. And your commitment to the AT and Baxter/Katahdin in particular is very clear. So thanks for that.