Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 91
  1. #51
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post

    And religious issues aside, how is it any different sprayng reclaimed water on ski slopes different than golf courses and school lawns?
    Golf courses and school lawns are artificial environments. Mountains are ecosystems and as far as I understand we aren't quite sure what will happen when we add hormones, antibiotics, and endocrine disruptors to the mix.

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    Golf courses and school lawns are artificial environments. Mountains are ecosystems and as far as I understand we aren't quite sure what will happen when we add hormones, antibiotics, and endocrine disruptors to the mix.
    I don't know, Snowbowl is not that much different than a golf course and I think a lot of golf courses are surrounded by some sort of eco system. But I do agree that we really don't know what will happen introducing this amount of water to the sub alpine eco system around Snowbowl. I have heard that ponderosa trees don't seemed to be affected but spruce and fir often die from reclaimed water. Guess which trees are mainly on the peaks above 9k on a north facing aspect.

  3. #53
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    I don't know, Snowbowl is not that much different than a golf course and I think a lot of golf courses are surrounded by some sort of eco system. But I do agree that we really don't know what will happen introducing this amount of water to the sub alpine eco system around Snowbowl. I have heard that ponderosa trees don't seemed to be affected but spruce and fir often die from reclaimed water. Guess which trees are mainly on the peaks above 9k on a north facing aspect.
    My hope is that the eco system flourishes, I like to look to it in a positive light. Does anyone know how the watering of the vegetation is doing in the Sedona sewar plant project. From the road the ducks swimming in the ponds look to like they are moving on top of the water OK. Are ducks an indication of how other birds are going to survive drinking that effluent?

    Being the eternal optimist, I am hoping for the best outcome.

  4. #54
    Red Rock Roller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    Golf courses and school lawns are artificial environments. Mountains are ecosystems and as far as I understand we aren't quite sure what will happen when we add hormones, antibiotics, and endocrine disruptors to the mix.
    Great point!

    I had lived up there for 5 years about 4 years ago, when the battle was in full swing, and all I was hearing, either there was no problem or it was Sacred land. I guess we will find out in time, lets hope there is an ecologist, and botanist as passionate as some of the forum users here, that will keep an eye on things and let us know of any changes short term or long, negative or no impact.
    Personal quote: "If at first you don't succeed, critically re-think it and do."

  5. #55
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    I don't know, Snowbowl is not that much different than a golf course and I think a lot of golf courses are surrounded by some sort of eco system. But I do agree that we really don't know what will happen introducing this amount of water to the sub alpine eco system around Snowbowl. I have heard that ponderosa trees don't seemed to be affected but spruce and fir often die from reclaimed water. Guess which trees are mainly on the peaks above 9k on a north facing aspect.
    I would say that snowbowl and a golf course are very different. A golf course is man made mono culture that needs to be watered and fertilized to survive. The ecosystem up on that mountain is a complex network of interactions between species and their environment. By adding reclaimed water to that ecosystem we are literally changing the environment up there and that change will have some sort of impact on the ecosystem. I personally think that the changes won't be drastic but there will be changes.

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    I would say that snowbowl and a golf course are very different. A golf course is man made mono culture that needs to be watered and fertilized to survive. The ecosystem up on that mountain is a complex network of interactions between species and their environment. By adding reclaimed water to that ecosystem we are literally changing the environment up there and that change will have some sort of impact on the ecosystem. I personally think that the changes won't be drastic but there will be changes.
    Dang. Science. Nice.

  7. #57
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    Dang. Science. Nice.
    I'm just gonna nerd out a little bit and use as many syllables as I can.

  8. #58
    SamuraiBunnyGuy
    Reputation: longhairmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,346
    realistically,,, in the larger political scope of things, i doubt there is much concern over where and how trails are built. best would be to try and wedge some legislation into page 798 of a larger bill...

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    I would say that snowbowl and a golf course are very different. A golf course is man made mono culture that needs to be watered and fertilized to survive. The ecosystem up on that mountain is a complex network of interactions between species and their environment. By adding reclaimed water to that ecosystem we are literally changing the environment up there and that change will have some sort of impact on the ecosystem. I personally think that the changes won't be drastic but there will be changes.
    I'm not that convinced. Besides, I think you can argue that a golf course in the middle of pristine desert is also have an effect on the ecosystem. Desert ecosystem or high alpine pick your poison. They're both fragile and cause-effect relationships are difficult to discern by the available science.

    My point is that if we're going to pick on snowbowl for the use of reclaimed water then it's use EVERYWHERE should be revisited. For those that are interested there is a panel discussion with some heavy-hitters on this very subject on Friday. Experts convene to discuss Flagstaff water Friday

  10. #60
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I'm not that convinced. Besides, I think you can argue that a golf course in the middle of pristine desert is also have an effect on the ecosystem. Desert ecosystem or high alpine pick your poison. They're both fragile and cause-effect relationships are difficult to discern by the available science.

    My point is that if we're going to pick on snowbowl for the use of reclaimed water then it's use EVERYWHERE should be revisited. For those that are interested there is a panel discussion with some heavy-hitters on this very subject on Friday. Experts convene to discuss Flagstaff water Friday
    The difference is that with the alpine example you are spraying the water directly on at least a somewhat "natural" system where as a golf course is totally unnatural. You can't deny that introducing a new variable on a system will have an effect on that system. I totally agree that tracking cause-effect relationships are difficult to discern in these situations but you can't deny that something is going to change. We might not detect any change but by changing the environment by introducing reclaimed water we are changing the environment and we don't know what will happen. Like I said I don't think the change will be large in our eyes and we might not even detect anything. I think the mountain/golf course comparison is pretty silly. Are you really convinced that a golf course, something totally man made using non native species surround by city and civilization, is the same as the peaks? If you actually had a golf course in the middle of a "pristine" desert than you are talking about a golf course miles away from civilization with no roads going to it. The golf courses in the AZ desert are not in pristine deserts and the comparison to the peaks cannot be made.

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    The difference is that with the alpine example you are spraying the water directly on at least a somewhat "natural" system where as a golf course is totally unnatural. You can't deny that introducing a new variable on a system will have an effect on that system. I totally agree that tracking cause-effect relationships are difficult to discern in these situations but you can't deny that something is going to change. We might not detect any change but by changing the environment by introducing reclaimed water we are changing the environment and we don't know what will happen. Like I said I don't think the change will be large in our eyes and we might not even detect anything. I think the mountain/golf course comparison is pretty silly. Are you really convinced that a golf course, something totally man made using non native species surround by city and civilization, is the same as the peaks? If you actually had a golf course in the middle of a "pristine" desert than you are talking about a golf course miles away from civilization with no roads going to it. The golf courses in the AZ desert are not in pristine deserts and the comparison to the peaks cannot be made.
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I play golf and yes there is pristine sonoran desert adjacent to large golf courses. There's aquatic habitat in nearby creeks and gullies where runoff accumulates. There's all kinds of critters potentially being impacted. The poor little bunnies that eat the grass and get eaten by snakes or whatever. It's all about the food chain. It doesn't have to be the golf course itself but anywhere reclaimed water is in use.

    From a societal standpoint I don't see it being any different than what we are more directly in contact with. If we're worrried about the impacts on an Engleman Spruce at 10,000' than why is not an imporant variable to consider with regard to habitat and ecosystems elsewhere? Not silly at all but rather the Big Picture. Why are we so focused on what happens on one mountain if the water is potentially unsafe?

  12. #62
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I play golf and yes there is pristine sonoran desert adjacent to large golf courses. There's aquatic habitat in nearby creeks and gullies where runoff accumulates. There's all kinds of critters potentially being impacted. The poor little bunnies that eat the grass and get eaten by snakes or whatever. It's all about the food chain. It doesn't have to be the golf course itself but anywhere reclaimed water is in use.

    From a societal standpoint I don't see it being any different than what we are more directly in contact with. If we're worrried about the impacts on an Engleman Spruce at 10,000' than why is not an imporant variable to consider with regard to habitat and ecosystems elsewhere? Not silly at all but rather the Big Picture. Why are we so focused on what happens on one mountain if the water is potentially unsafe?
    I agree with the second paragraph completely. I just have a hard time calling anything in proximity to PHX or any large city for that matter pristine. Cities, roads, golf courses, etc, disrupt game trails, pollinators, soil composition, and a host of other factors that can't be observed from hole 9. The desert next to a golf course is beautiful but its not pristine.

    For example someone could hike 30 miles into our forest up here in flag not following a trail and be very far away from any human settlement. They could look around them at all the pondos and think that they are in a pristine forest and they would be dead wrong. The forest is beautiful but its not pristine. Pristine means original or unchanged/natural. Our forests have way way way too many trees in them due to harvesting practices and a century of fire prevention. If the forest was pristine a single pine could fall in any direction without hitting another tree. Our forests are way too dense because we didn't understand the system we were changing 100 years ago and now we have to pay the price of devastating crowning fires.

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    I agree with the second paragraph completely. I just have a hard time calling anything in proximity to PHX or any large city for that matter pristine. Cities, roads, golf courses, etc, disrupt game trails, pollinators, soil composition, and a host of other factors that can't be observed from hole 9. The desert next to a golf course is beautiful but its not pristine.

    For example someone could hike 30 miles into our forest up here in flag not following a trail and be very far away from any human settlement. They could look around them at all the pondos and think that they are in a pristine forest and they would be dead wrong. The forest is beautiful but its not pristine. Pristine means original or unchanged/natural. Our forests have way way way too many trees in them due to harvesting practices and a century of fire prevention. If the forest was pristine a single pine could fall in any direction without hitting another tree. Our forests are way too dense because we didn't understand the system we were changing 100 years ago and now we have to pay the price of devastating crowning fires.
    I don't think I have a concrete opinion either way on the Snowbowl snowmaking discussion, I am not a scientists and I think this is a basically a test run to see what the effects might be but as far as designated public lands go the areas surrounding the ski area are labeled as wilderness. That might mean something to someone.

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    I don't think I have a concrete opinion either way on the Snowbowl snowmaking discussion, I am not a scientists and I think this is a basically a test run to see what the effects might be but as far as designated public lands go the areas surrounding the ski area are labeled as wilderness. That might mean something to someone.
    True enough but it took a polarizing issue like Snowbowl to even put it on the radar screen. An excellent outdoor laboratory exists in the Rio De Flag downstream from the Wildcat treatment plant. It's a mini oasis of riparian habitat that exists primarily as a result of the influx of reclaimed water. For years the water was not used by the community and just dumped into the Rio. Until recently it wasn't even A+ grade, it was of lesser quality before the upgrade to the treatment plant. The main percentage of the water goes to NAU and golf courses in the summer but practically none of it is used in the winter.

    It seem to me there's been plenty of opportunity for years to study the impacts of reclaimed water on the aquatic foodbase, amphibians, and riparian plant species. Perhaps Ranger can walk down the hall and ask some of his colleagues why the Rio De Flag isn't crawling with MS and PhD students?

  15. #65
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    True enough but it took a polarizing issue like Snowbowl to even put it on the radar screen. An excellent outdoor laboratory exists in the Rio De Flag downstream from the Wildcat treatment plant. It's a mini oasis of riparian habitat that exists primarily as a result of the influx of reclaimed water. For years the water was not used by the community and just dumped into the Rio. Until recently it wasn't even A+ grade, it was of lesser quality before the upgrade to the treatment plant. The main percentage of the water goes to NAU and golf courses in the summer but practically none of it is used in the winter.

    It seem to me there's been plenty of opportunity for years to study the impacts of reclaimed water on the aquatic foodbase, amphibians, and riparian plant species. Perhaps Ranger can walk down the hall and ask some of his colleagues why the Rio De Flag isn't crawling with MS and PhD students?
    Exactly! You only care about something when it impacts your $, religion, or your recreation.

  16. #66
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    Exactly! You only care about something when it impacts your $, religion, or your recreation.
    You can be replaced with we.

  17. #67
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    True enough but it took a polarizing issue like Snowbowl to even put it on the radar screen. An excellent outdoor laboratory exists in the Rio De Flag downstream from the Wildcat treatment plant. It's a mini oasis of riparian habitat that exists primarily as a result of the influx of reclaimed water. For years the water was not used by the community and just dumped into the Rio. Until recently it wasn't even A+ grade, it was of lesser quality before the upgrade to the treatment plant. The main percentage of the water goes to NAU and golf courses in the summer but practically none of it is used in the winter.

    It seem to me there's been plenty of opportunity for years to study the impacts of reclaimed water on the aquatic foodbase, amphibians, and riparian plant species. Perhaps Ranger can walk down the hall and ask some of his colleagues why the Rio De Flag isn't crawling with MS and PhD students?
    The outdoor lab you reference is, like a golf course in the desert, a completely unnatural life zone and has little to do with the peaks.

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    You can be replaced with we.
    Actually I was trying to foster discussion of the effects without invoking religion or recreation. Quite the opposite. In the bigger picture, I'm more concerned about it being sprayed on school grounds or ball fields and the effects on our children. If it is indeed an issue? I'm not sure; there haven't been hardly any studies and I don't believe any of the biased reporting in The Noise.

    While I enjoy recreating at snowbowl and have two kids on Ski Team, my personal view is that we should be pumping it back into the aquifer. But even that is objectionable to some.

    If I have offended you it was not my intent.

  19. #69
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    The Noise.

    While I enjoy recreating at snowbowl and have two kids on Ski Team, my personal view is that we should be pumping it back into the aquifer. But even that is objectionable to some.

    If I have offended you it was not my intent.
    The noise is exactly that. You can't offend me with science! I'm proven wrong all the time and I love the back and forth with people that know what their talking about. If I'm wrong I expect to be called out like TD.

  20. #70
    Mtn Biker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    22
    [QUOTE=rockman;10095771]Quite a few spelling errrors in his new book as well. A good read from a safety break POV but the present trail situation in Sedona is only an afterthought in the last chapter.

    And religious issues aside, how is it any different sprayng reclaimed water on ski slopes different than golf courses and school lawns?[/QUOTE

    In most cases, golf courses are both private and a grass ecosystem which is not particularly diverse in comparison to the Flag Snowbowl...which by the way has a desert lupine that has kept mountain bikers off of it unless there is snow cover....

    BTW, my spell check did find a spelling error in the book this morning when I checked it again...incedent should have been spelled incident....but there may be others and you guys could be way smarter than my computer...

    as far as being incomprehensible...let me state my point a differnet way...when it comes to money the FS seems to look the other way when Native American artifacts are concerned...Also when it comes to doing some project like a parking lot that the FS wants to do, they also seem to look the other way when it comes to Native artifacts

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,742
    [QUOTE=SedonaGnarlyCrew;10099684]
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Quite a few spelling errrors in his new book as well. A good read from a safety break POV but the present trail situation in Sedona is only an afterthought in the last chapter.

    And religious issues aside, how is it any different sprayng reclaimed water on ski slopes different than golf courses and school lawns?[/QUOTE

    In most cases, golf courses are both private and a grass ecosystem which is not particularly diverse in comparison to the Flag Snowbowl...which by the way has a desert lupine that has kept mountain bikers off of it unless there is snow cover....

    BTW, my spell check did find a spelling error in the book this morning when I checked it again...incedent should have been spelled incident....but there may be others and you guys could be way smarter than my computer...

    as far as being incomprehensible...let me state my point a differnet way...when it comes to money the FS seems to look the other way when Native American artifacts are concerned...Also when it comes to doing some project like a parking lot that the FS wants to do, they also seem to look the other way when it comes to Native artifacts
    Ha, there's way more spelling errors than that Good read though

    I'm not sure anyone posting in this thread is qualified to compare the biodiversity of sonoran desert to high-alpine in the SF Peaks. I would argue the former is more diverse in both plants and animals but I'm no biologist. I'm not sure what your last point is regarding the SF Peaks and lupine keeping bikers off?

    What surprises you about the FS doing what they want when they need to? They're the FEDs. But it's hard to tell whether they looked the other way or had the archeolgoist examine the area and sign off on it. Perhaps a good question to ask is whether they need to do NEPA compliance or can use a Categorical Exclusion like they have for the trails? Are parking lots and trails subject to the same level of scrutiny?

  22. #72
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,521
    Hahahaha, funny thread, you have all fallen into TDs silk web again, TD congrats in being a master-baiter, once again you have not disappointed, this is why i always love a TD thread, lots of action.

    TD does the groundwork in his first post that will enable the thread to lead right into his hands lol, im all over the classic TD modus operandi, love your work TD
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    Hahahaha, funny thread, you have all fallen into TDs silk web again, TD congrats in being a master-baiter, once again you have not disappointed, this is why i always love a TD thread, lots of action.

    TD does the groundwork in his first post that will enable the thread to lead right into his hands lol, im all over the classic TD modus operandi, love your work TD
    That isn't what is going on. It's more like people have been hi jacking all of his threads and turning the discussion into something else because we just don't care any more to here about bs Sedrama. Have a vegemite sandwich or something.

  24. #74
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,521
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    That isn't what is going on. It's more like people have been hi jacking all of his threads and turning the discussion into something else because we just don't care any more to here about bs Sedrama. Have a vegemite sandwich or something.
    LOL, is that what you thinks going on....
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  25. #75
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    Hahahaha, funny thread, you have all fallen into TDs silk web again, TD congrats in being a master-baiter, once again you have not disappointed, this is why i always love a TD thread, lots of action.

    TD does the groundwork in his first post that will enable the thread to lead right into his hands lol, im all over the classic TD modus operandi, love your work TD
    Tone:

    How does an A Hole like you get a rep point of 119. You are constantly harassing me and I do appreciate it. You know exactly what I am up to. You can't ask the FS these important questions at the RTCA Trail Planning Process meetings.

    I would love to ask them when are we going to be able to work on the trails part of the process. At the next meeting the hydrologist is going to show up unless she calls in sick after reading this post.

    When I went out with Jennifer's friend Doug McPhee who is a mountain biker and contract hydrologist to the FS he showed me the CHART OF SEDONA SOILS. Doug is a great guy and enjoyed showing him five or more user built trails. All of those trails have been adopted at this point.

    While we were hiking the trails Doug would have his trusty go to Sedona Soils Chart As Related to Trail Construction in his pack. This chart indicates were different types of soil are located in Sedona. The chart indicated not sustainable to sustainable soils with about three different types in between.

    So I am assuming at the meeting the hydrologist is going to explain why certain new trails CAN"T BE BUILT in certain areas. For example let's say some stupid mountain biker wanted a trail on the side of a sand dune, No Way Charlie.

    With the recently adopted user built trails a number of those were built in unsustainable soil areas, but they did get adopted. If those trails had never been there to begin with it would have been, No Way Charlie also.

    So now we have about 70 miles of un-adopted trails left in inventory and we need to see if they are sustainable and not routed over arch sights. IMHO those trails are more sustainable then the ones that have been recently adopted, so no problem we are home free.

    Whoa Charlie not so fast , there may be a whole new motivation going forward. We know it's possible to adopt anything close to being sustainable, just look at Chuck Wagon, Easy Breezy, Slim Shady, Made in the Shade and Highline.

    So my question to the hydrologist at the meeting is which of the above trails would have never been built from scratch if they weren't already in place? With a trail in place you can actually go out and see how the trail is holding up under heavy user use. If it is a piece of crap trail several years old, it is pretty obvious that it isn't going to hold up longterm.

    Then again the FS has adopted Highline which all us higher skilled riders love to ride. There is noway the backside is sustainable, but hopefully it is maintainable. Hopefully guys like Plumber Phil and Lars are going to adopt that trail to keep it in OK condition, otherwise long term the backside is not going to hold up IMHO.

    On a go forward basis, how many NEW non-user built maintainable, but not sustainable trails is the FS going to be willing to be built. It will certainly be based on how the backside of Highline turns out. That fractured rock on the backside is going to constantly break out one chunk at a time multiplied by a lot of riders is a lot of dislodged chunks. After Phil and Lars get old like me who is going to step up and take their place???

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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