Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 66

Thread: How bad?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362

    How bad?

    Just wondering how bad a trail has to be before we all agree it is too serious of a resource concern? What is our comfort level or threshold? Black mtn is not the worst trail in Pisgah (there are worse hiking only trails in the Shining Rock Wilderness) and certainly not the worse tail I have ever looked at. But the current conditions do cause for some level of pause for concerns except in only a few it seems, and as it gets worse more join into the too much camp?
    Here are a few photos of some really POS trails I have looked at doing professional lever assessments for the FS in other areas. Do these photos bother you or are you fine with what you see here. here is one from an OHV area with sandy soils, and another from some work I did in Bellingham WA back in 2000.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails How bad?-erosion-nw.jpg  

    How bad?-jeep-trail.jpg  


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Here is one form the Jake and Bull Mountain trail system down in north GA.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails How bad?-jake.jpg  


  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Here are some from an OHV trail system on USFS lands down in GA.
    Attached Images Attached Images       

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    582
    The first pic doesn't bother me near as much as the rest.
    He/she who works the trails does so in their own image.

    Speed just slows me down...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    This certainly helps put the problem into perspective. Some of those pics show problems that are way more severe, and yet still apparently open to traffic. I too can think of some other trails in the region much worse off than black - both closed and open to bikes.

    Yet my main concern is more to do with the politics of it than any true, long-term resource concerns.

    To step back even further for a bit, this didn't need a trail at the bottom of it to happen, after all:
    Attachment 867998

    But let me try one more strained comparison here. Imagine, if you will, a single, natural mass-wasting event - such as the one on Peek's Creek, a few years back. Or one of the small slides that came off the Davidson River "troad" and directly into the Davidson River. (There are dozens of new examples I've come across since I started roaming in the mid 90's).

    Now compare the sheer volume of sediment introduced into those streams during those events to the entirety of all sediment removed from the Black Mountain trail (and likely deposited within a few feet of the tread or farther down the tread in most cases, since it's a ridgeline trail) and you'll see that it just doesn't add up in terms of things that are going to ruin the local environment.

    And yes, I understand that long-term sedimentation and high turbidity caused by an eroding trail feeding into a stream is far worse for the aquatic life overall than a single, natural flash-flood event, which is why the FS frowns upon those. But still...let's not forget that erosion is a natural, normal process in mountainous terrain. In fact there was a LOT more of it happening back when rampant rape-logging was a thing in these mountains. Hell, they used to FLUSH the logs down the streams back in the day by building a dam and then breaking it down! Somehow the fish survived.

    Furthermore, on a lot of the worse-off trails in our region, it would appear to me that the active erosion has stopped - the gulley is either down to bedrock, chock-full of boulders and stones that were exposed over the years, or re-vegetated and covered with forest debris with a narrower tread meandering within a larger, stable depression (such is the case on many old logging road beds). Even after heavy rains, the water runs crystal-clear off some entrenched parts of the Flat Laurel Creek trail/old railroad bed, for example. It's *done* eroding until lichens eat up some more rock. Yet I still hear how those trails "should be closed because they're so eroded."

    I think *those* are the ones we should consider our best "most difficult" trails and leave them as-is. Maintenance free!

    To be clear, I'm not advocating that we don't do anything when the trails are washing away - and clearly Black Mountain is actively eroding. It passes the "needs work" threshold for me.

    But really, all this is to say that the Forest Service's threat of closing "eroded" trails signifies to me something other than a desire to protect fish and water skeeters from sediment. I'm just not sure how pragmatic the Forest Service is willing to be on this issue.

    I don't think Black Mountain is beyond repair nor an environmental disaster by any means; however, it may still be more effective to leave the existing corridor in certain places - or leave the trail alone completely - if the Federal Standard is to have a trail that, with regular maintenance, stops all (or nearly all) erosion from happening.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snototter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    293
    mtbwnc: Well said and it is really cool(and healthy) looking at this issue from different angles. Thanks for sharing!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Some of may recognize this one. This section directly above a river down below.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails How bad?-lower-trace.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    92
    In response to Woody's question: Absolutely. Any heavily eroded trails bothers me a lot especially when the solution is so simple. I've been riding and hiking in Pisgah for more that 30 years and remember what these trails used to look and ride like on my fully rigid. These eroded gullies are nothing like they once were. Here's the deal, every single trail that we ride in Pisgah was man-made and I'd bet that the men and women who built the trails we ride today would not be happy if they saw the condition of today's Black Mountain, Farlow Gap, Avery Creek, Trace Ridge, etc. All these trails were originally sweet, single track. It's total bull**** to complain that fixing a trail is "taking away something". Fixing the trails will help with erosion which is not good for water and wildlife. The problem is the majority humans driven by their egos, high stress x-game lifestyles and "me first" materialistic attitudes, are apparently unable to put away their personal interests long enough to be open to fully understand the problem and accept compromise. I wonder how many of today's Pisgah riders even know who John Muir was, or even care.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbwnc View Post
    In fact there was a LOT more of it happening back when rampant rape-logging was a thing in these mountains. Hell, they used to FLUSH the logs down the streams back in the day by building a dam and then breaking it down! Somehow the fish survived.

    Well, actually NO, the fish didn't survive. Did you know that there was once trout larger than what comes out of the hatchery at elevations nearly up to 5,000 ft??? Yes, the old tales tell of catching dozens of big trout in a day on the upper parts of Daniel Ridge, Kiesee, Chestnut and Courthouse Creeks. Then they logged it all.

    Now you're lucky to find fingerlings up that high....
    many gears, some pies

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jerry68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by radred View Post
    In response to Woody's question: Absolutely. Any heavily eroded trails bothers me a lot especially when the solution is so simple. I've been riding and hiking in Pisgah for more that 30 years and remember what these trails used to look and ride like on my fully rigid. These eroded gullies are nothing like they once were. Here's the deal, every single trail that we ride in Pisgah was man-made and I'd bet that the men and women who built the trails we ride today would not be happy if they saw the condition of today's Black Mountain, Farlow Gap, Avery Creek, Trace Ridge, etc. All these trails were originally sweet, single track. It's total bull**** to complain that fixing a trail is "taking away something". Fixing the trails will help with erosion which is not good for water and wildlife. The problem is the majority humans driven by their egos, high stress x-game lifestyles and "me first" materialistic attitudes, are apparently unable to put away their personal interests long enough to be open to fully understand the problem and accept compromise. I wonder how many of today's Pisgah riders even know who John Muir was, or even care.
    Truth.
    Pisgah Area SORBA

    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    ... your idea of technical may be much different than other peoples idea of technical.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,100
    Thanks radred for posting that's super well said.

  12. #12
    ready to ride
    Reputation: mattnmtns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by ridn29s View Post
    Well, actually NO, the fish didn't survive. Did you know that there was once trout larger than what comes out of the hatchery at elevations nearly up to 5,000 ft??? Yes, the old tales tell of catching dozens of big trout in a day on the upper parts of Daniel Ridge, Kiesee, Chestnut and Courthouse Creeks. Then they logged it all.

    Now you're lucky to find fingerlings up that high....
    Thank you!

    There are very few native fish in our waters in NC. I guess I should say natural of native stock. All rainbows and browns are not native and I would almoste consider them an invasive speicies. We do have a handful of streams that still hold the southern spec. While being a subspecies of Salvelinus fontinalis is still up for debate. Not really sure why since they have proven a genetic difference from the other eastern brook trout. Those hold out where mainly in areas that where too rugged to completely harvest and only at high elevelations as they need colder and cleaner water that the rainbows and browns.

    Our forest where for ever changed, both by logging and by the chestnut blight. We don't have the giant trees and that choked the light and allowed for less ground clutter. I can only imagine what it once was.

    Let just hope that future generation do say the same thing because of the mismanagement of our resources.

    That said as mtbwmc (sorry not trying to single you out) said errosion is a natural process. Trails aren't natural. Do I want to close trails? Hell no. These trails are 90% of the reason I chose to live here along with out streams too. I selfishly wish these resources to be at my disposal for sometime to come.

    If our trails are dumping sediment into our streams that is a huge problem. I think everyone knows what the French Broad looks like after a rain. It shouldn't be that way. Now most of that isn't our trails fault. More to do with lack of ripparian buffers. But in some cases our trails are a contributing factor. Eventually it all runs down hill and into something. That something might be your water source, habitat for all kinds of aquatic life, and others who have different recreational outlets.

    It not just about gnar, and killer drops, sweet single track, and killer downhills. Yes I like them all but in all the pictures woody posted pose some serious run off and errosion issues.

    I think we have several issues. One is virtually no maintenance done be the land mangers. At least that I am aware of other than some of the contract awarded as part of the stimulus package. Another is we have more people using these resources than we ever have before. We are basically loving it to death. I also think part of the problem is that we have to few trails. Sure we want wild and scenic areas. Have to be careful with that wording as I don't really agree with Wilderness areas per se. There are a small number of hardly ever used trails, some legal some not. Those that get very little traffic tend to be in pretty good condition regardless of grade, fall line, and improper draining.

    In the end all user groups are the problem. I applaud the mountain bike community for taking up the task to maintain and defend our trails. Other user groups in my opinion are short sighted when it comes to the work they do. TU, might be the exception, but they will be more likely to fight to close a trail than try to repair. Not always the case, but close it to the user group or groups that are creating the sedimentation issues. Very disappointed in the hiking clubs I have seen out doing "trail work". Not even sure they where sanctioned. More interested in clearing small trees from the trail and scattering fire rings. I have never seen a single equestrian club or ground do any trail work. Maybe they do and I just don't know.

    Ok, I obviously need the days to get longer and drier so I can ride in the evenings. Answer to the question all the pictures are bad, and a lot of our trails are in bad condition and need a lot of work.
    Sent via my heady vibes from the heart of Pisgahstan

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by ridn29s View Post
    Well, actually NO, the fish didn't survive. Did you know that there was once trout larger than what comes out of the hatchery at elevations nearly up to 5,000 ft??? Yes, the old tales tell of catching dozens of big trout in a day on the upper parts of Daniel Ridge, Kiesee, Chestnut and Courthouse Creeks. Then they logged it all.

    Now you're lucky to find fingerlings up that high....
    Perhaps, but the old timers are pretty notorious for their fish tales I was under the impression that the brook trout were our only native variety, and they just don't get very large. And they are restricted to their uppermost ranges now due to competition from (introduced) species such as Rainbow Trout. Which are regularly dumped into the lower streams by the tens of thousands.

    But despite any trail erosion or logging that may have happened now or in the past...they're still there.

    In fact, I see invasive species as a MUCH bigger problem on the whole than trail erosion. Just look at the hemlocks - the trails in Pisgah have always looked eroded to me, but hiking Black again today, the biggest difference I noticed from the last time I did it a few years back was the absence of those cool, dark hemlock groves. How's that increase in water temperature going to affect the native fisheries?

    I'm not a fisherman, a biologist or anything like that so I'm willing to admit I could be completely wrong.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by mattnmtns View Post
    There are very few native fish in our waters in NC. I guess I should say natural of native stock. All rainbows and browns are not native and I would almoste consider them an invasive speicies.
    Right, that's what I was thinking and what I've read about them. I don't think their restriction has much to do with any kind of erosion, trail or otherwise. Invasive species are the worst. This is another case where we've directly and severely restricted, and continue to threaten, a native species in the face of recreational activities (fishing).

    I've got nothing against sport fishing, I'm just pointing it out as a tradeoff we're willing to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattnmtns View Post
    That said as mtbwmc (sorry not trying to single you out) said errosion is a natural process. Trails aren't natural. Do I want to close trails? Hell no. These trails are 90% of the reason I chose to live here along with out streams too. I selfishly wish these resources to be at my disposal for sometime to come.

    If our trails are dumping sediment into our streams that is a huge problem.
    No worries, and I mostly agree, *especially* where it can be reasonably prevented. Those pictures all bother me. What I saw *today* bothers me.

    As we were hiking today, I posed this question as a high water mark: If it could be proven that the erosion from Black, which can be easily observed dumping directly into the stream in Thrift Cove (Thrift Cove Creek?) in multiple locations, was indeed impairing its ability to support native species downstream, and there was no reasonable way to prevent the erosion on the trail's current alignment, would we support closure of the trail?

    Regrettably, I think my answer is yes!

    But before I get flamed for that, those are two huge assumptions. First, I think the erosion problem *can* be mitigated to a large degree after hearing from the pro trail builders today (with a **** ton of work that will undoubtedly piss a bunch of people off), and second, I'm not convinced that any remaining erosion after even a suboptimal mitigation would be disastrous to the stream. I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong on the second point but it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

    This is an interesting read if you have the time, but it's about all I could find after 10 minutes of halfhearted googling:
    http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/3055.pdf

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Now it could be that the Forest Service is just really pessimistic about their ability to stop erosion on trails (who could blame them?), but that's why I think there's something more to the trail closure issue than just "ur trail is eroding into the stream." That just sounds like a convenient excuse.

    And honestly, I think it's just institutional laziness. (I'm not calling out any individual here and I know there are some great, competent, hardworking folks in the FS). But pure and simple, after all things considered, it's just *easier* to close trails!

    I'm hoping that my paranoia about trail closures is just that, but until we hear something official about that I'm keeping on my tin foil cap.

  15. #15
    drunken pirate
    Reputation: driftwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,414
    Quote Originally Posted by radred View Post
    In response to Woody's question: Absolutely. Any heavily eroded trails bothers me a lot especially when the solution is so simple. I've been riding and hiking in Pisgah for more that 30 years and remember what these trails used to look and ride like on my fully rigid. These eroded gullies are nothing like they once were. Here's the deal, every single trail that we ride in Pisgah was man-made and I'd bet that the men and women who built the trails we ride today would not be happy if they saw the condition of today's Black Mountain, Farlow Gap, Avery Creek, Trace Ridge, etc. All these trails were originally sweet, single track. It's total bull**** to complain that fixing a trail is "taking away something". Fixing the trails will help with erosion which is not good for water and wildlife. The problem is the majority humans driven by their egos, high stress x-game lifestyles and "me first" materialistic attitudes, are apparently unable to put away their personal interests long enough to be open to fully understand the problem and accept compromise. I wonder how many of today's Pisgah riders even know who John Muir was, or even care.
    Best Post Ever on this forum.
    More Trails, Not Less

    Adventures in Pisgah

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by radred View Post
    I'd bet that the men and women who built the trails we ride today would not be happy if they saw the condition of today's Black Mountain, Farlow Gap, Avery Creek, Trace Ridge, etc. All these trails were originally sweet, single track.
    Disagree, those were originally bulldozer-wide roads built to zero standards except "get as much timber out of here on them for profit as we can". Those boys wouldn't give a **** and probably raced their dozers up the streams for fun. Hell Woody pointed out some stream crossing structures today that I'd seen before but not really registered in my mind as such. They look like they were built to be temporary, to withstand a few months of timber extraction and that's it. 50+ years later these piece-of-**** log-mud bridges are finally failing and causing the road prism to fall into the stream, but "historic" and unable to be modified lest we be chided for whatever infraction that is.

    Impressive as it is that they (and the roads they connect to) have lasted as long as they have, the FS needs to get its priorities straight.

    And that does NOT include starting up more unprofitable timber sales.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by mattnmtns View Post
    Trails aren't natural.
    One last thing - sorry. The current trails aren't natural, but *trails* are. I'm 100% certain that native bison, elk, and other large mammals in the area formed fall-line trails during their wandering and migrations which have eroded into streams for time immemorial. Whatever evolved in our area's streams *had* to have evolved to withstand that, at least in smallish doses.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    181
    Slightly off topic but germane to it:
    I would be more sympathetic to the Forest Service's concerns if they applied the same standards and levels of concern to logging operations as they do to the impact of trail use in general, and mountain biking in particular. I grew up here and have witnessed first hand the effects of bad logging over several decades, and not just the sediment runoff. Even with the new techniques that are suppose to be used today the environmental impact of even small parcel logging looms over recreational trail use impact. It aggravates me no end that they are so quick to point the finger at a particular user group, all the while providing what is little more than corporate welfare to a few select private companies, allowing them to continue to log under minimum, and often un-inforced, regulations. To threaten trail closures as a "solution" to stream damage while logging goes on is just an attempt to divide and divert the attention of well meaning people. Until the business community that profits from the recreational use of the forest begins to work with user groups in a more vocal and more supportive fashion the perceived bigger money wins. Unfortunately it is all about the Benjamins.
    (Guess I need some coffee.)

  19. #19
    ready to ride
    Reputation: mattnmtns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    837
    Mtbwnc, thank you for your response and opinion. I think for the most part we are on the same page.

    For the trout, yes invasive species is definitely a huge factor. Several streams in the smokies have been eradicated of the invasive with wild stock being successfully reintroduced. Sadly this is a huge issue across the country. The one that has me most concerned is the Yellowstone cutthroat. Rainbows can interbreed with them, and well the out look isn't good. That's whole other can of worms, but does give an example where natural erosion is a huge part of the cycle and environment. Although the soil composition is totally different from what we have in the south east. Acid rain also plays a big factor in several ways. It's a combination of a lot of factors but our native brook trout do require very clean and cold water to thrive and reproduce in. Canopies where cuts which both raised the temperatures and caused sedimentation. There are a few hold out streams but almost all are smaller streams that can't support the food supplies that the streams of old once could. There are pictures out there of huge native brook trout that pushed 20 inches. Those we fairly common before the area was logged out and non natives where introduced. Sadly I don't think our streams will ever be like they once where.

    So when it comes to water quality there are many factors, but they can all add up. Case in point I read in the Citizen Times that the EPA designated the French Broad as impaired water way. Brings new meaning to the hippster soup we see floating down the river in warmer months. While it isn't the deciding factor by a long stretch, turbidity is one of the issues. What's upstream? Yep the Davidson and Mills rivers watersheds.

    I also agree that most of it can be mitigated through the repair of out trails. Also we need better regulations and enforcement of ripparian buffer zones. I'm vaguely familiar with the Coweeta report but more familiar with the Tellico ORV report and subsequent closures. I think we have to keep in mind that these ORV areas are just that. The damage machinery can cause, especially when the drivers are purposely destroying the trails is exponentially more damaging. Plus there was also oil and other toxic fluids flowing into then streams.

    As for the FS stance. I don't think it is so much laziness as it is lack of money and resources. Along with the priority of the resources they do have. So unfortunately fixing a lot of our resources are going to fall almost solely on user groups and volunteers.

    I knew the natural trails would come back to bite me. Yes I will agree that there are "natural" migratory trails etc. I would say though that I am quite certain none of those fall in to the category that we ride on. I could be wrong though. Certainly wouldn't be the first or the last time.

    I'd also agree that I wish they would hold their own practices to the same scrutiny. But hey, their own NEPA reports say its all good so it must be right?

    It is a bit refreshing that we seems to have a fair amount of interest in trying to repair Black mountain. We also need to remember that us forum members are but a small microcosm of the mountain biking community. PAS needs to make sure they try to get the message out to the rest of the community and hopefully gain their support in terms of either volunteerism or donations.

    Cheers,
    Matt
    Sent via my heady vibes from the heart of Pisgahstan

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Agreed. But we do need to "clean up our house" before we go pointing fingers and continuing to ask them to clean up their house. We can monitor the upcoming logging projects. We have new tools available to us to monitor and share that info. We have cameras, video, Facebook and social media. We can work with the enviro community to turn some thumb screws. The roads in Pisgah are way larger in foot print and are having a large impact on water quality, most reports note that. But again, that is not an excuse for our trails to erode and dump sediment into water courses.

    Quote Originally Posted by pisgahrider View Post
    Slightly off topic but germane to it:
    I would be more sympathetic to the Forest Service's concerns if they applied the same standards and levels of concern to logging operations as they do to the impact of trail use in general, and mountain biking in particular. I grew up here and have witnessed first hand the effects of bad logging over several decades, and not just the sediment runoff. Even with the new techniques that are suppose to be used today the environmental impact of even small parcel logging looms over recreational trail use impact. It aggravates me no end that they are so quick to point the finger at a particular user group, all the while providing what is little more than corporate welfare to a few select private companies, allowing them to continue to log under minimum, and often un-inforced, regulations. To threaten trail closures as a "solution" to stream damage while logging goes on is just an attempt to divide and divert the attention of well meaning people. Until the business community that profits from the recreational use of the forest begins to work with user groups in a more vocal and more supportive fashion the perceived bigger money wins. Unfortunately it is all about the Benjamins.
    (Guess I need some coffee.)
    Last edited by Woodman; 02-10-2014 at 03:59 PM.

  21. #21
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073
    One mans washed out gully is another mans next challenging section to clean.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by mattnmtns View Post
    Case in point I read in the Citizen Times that the EPA designated the French Broad as impaired water way...What's upstream? Yep the Davidson and Mills rivers watersheds.
    It's an entirely different ballgame downstream of cities, residential areas, and agricultural areas.

    And Woody thanks for pointing out that the beloved road system is a bigger culprit than the trails. Let's inventory more roads!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Do these photos bother anyone? I tracked this source up to one trail on public lands. What do our trout fishermen here have to say about this?
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    A few more, but a different place on USFS lands.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  25. #25
    Fence guru
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by man w/ one hand View Post
    One mans washed out gully is another mans next challenging section to clean.
    Truths

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    181
    I second that!
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbwnc View Post
    Let's inventory more roads!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    181
    This should bother the heck out of anyone. You mentioned public lands. This sure resembles agricultural runoff. Agricultural runoff next to large swaths of forest lands sometimes goes unnoticed as the true source of sedimentation and it gets blamed on other users that have far less impact. That is a whole other ball of wax that needs to be addressed in a complete fair study. Again, more perceived Benjamins.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Do these photos bother anyone? I tracked this source up to one trail on public lands. What do our trout fishermen here have to say about this?

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by pisgahrider View Post
    This should bother the heck out of anyone. You mentioned public lands. This sure resembles agricultural runoff. Agricultural runoff next to large swaths of forest lands sometimes goes unnoticed as the true source of sedimentation and it gets blamed on other users that have far less impact. That is a whole other ball of wax that needs to be addressed in a complete fair study. Again, more perceived Benjamins.
    No ag run off here mate. Way back on USFS lands, no ag fields anywhere near (other than the trees, It is the Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    No ag run off here mate. Way back on USFS lands, no ag fields anywhere near (other than the trees, It is the Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service.
    Yes, these definitely bother me - a lot - especially since it appears the bad weather is long gone in the second set. (I've seen "muddy" streams in pristine sections of the Smokies with zero trails, roads, or clearings upstream in heavy enough rains - usually takes on a darker, loamy or tea color than clay color though). Good examples.

    In general, we should check closely for point sources within the entire watershed, even on FS or Park Service land, before blaming trails, though. Even a single "homestead" inholding with a crappy driveway or lawn/garden area can soil an entire reach of stream downstream. See: North Harper Creek.

    You said you identified a trail as the source for that waterfall photo. Has it been remediated successfully?

    I think an interesting project would be to photograph and identify point sources (if possible) for every muddy stream seen on FS property. I bet 9 times out of 10 it'd lead back to roads, logging activity, "wildlife openings", or private inholdings.

  30. #30
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073
    Just thinking out loud, but.....given the type of rain fall, (typ. drenching), we have been experiencing across the lower 48, I don't think the amounts of money we could put into these cascading falls that are created w/almost every bit of rain we get, will even start to cover what is looming on the horizon. I ride in the Grandfather district weekly and I see "trail evolution" everytime I ride. These holes/gullies that are "eaten out" by these mini-water falls can easily get 2-4 or 6 inches deeper from one wk to the next. You have to be very careful not to take for granted that it had not changed.
    Don't get me wrong I personally love this kind of riding & seek it out, however there are those who see this evolution as a bad thing. I don't think we can stop it we may be able to guide it, but stopping it...I think that is futile.

    I just wonder what the grand canyon looked like before it got so deep?!?
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Took these photos today. Climber access "trails" at Rumbling Bald. Is this OK?

    State is in the process of building better alignment access trails now and these will get check dams and stabilized.
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  32. #32
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073
    The warmer our atmosphere gets, the more rain we get. Not hard to figure out how this will play out over time. Look out west at the snow pack that is very low this yr.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Indeed. We are having a micro level impact (trail based erosion) and a macro level impact (climate change, which with more rainfall will increase out micro level impact).

    That is the point here. We had record rainfall amounts last year, over 100" in all areas of Trans county with many places at 120-140". That coupled with record use levels and the effects are somewhat predictable when we recreate on poorly designed trails (really old extraction corridors). WE need to kick start a new paradigm strategy for trails management, purpose designed and built trails. Spent a fair bit of time in the UK in 2009. Many of the ride centers there are in places that get 150" of rain yearly and 250K users or more each year. Sustainable, fun, and challenging trails there.

    Quote Originally Posted by man w/ one hand View Post
    The warmer our atmosphere gets, the more rain we get. Not hard to figure out how this will play out over time. Look out west at the snow pack that is very low this yr.
    Attached Images Attached Images      

  34. #34
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Indeed. We are having a micro level impact (trail based erosion) and a macro level impact (climate change, which with more rainfall will increase out micro level impact).

    That is the point here. We had record rainfall amounts last year, over 100" in all areas of Trans county with many places at 120-140". That coupled with record use levels and the effects are somewhat predictable when we recreate on poorly designed trails (really old extraction corridors). WE need to kick start a new paradigm strategy for trails management, purpose designed and built trails. Spent a fair bit of time in the UK in 2009. Many of the ride centers there are in places that get 150" of rain yearly and 250K users or more each year. Sustainable, fun, and challenging trails there.
    I realize that these pics represent what needs to be done to keep certain areas from being lost permanently, but its like riding a section of busted up sidewalk. Just not appealing to me.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by man w/ one hand View Post
    I realize that these pics represent what needs to be done to keep certain areas from being lost permanently, but its like riding a section of busted up sidewalk. Just not appealing to me.
    there's a site here in charlotte if'n you're into that kind of thing. otherwise, see ya somewhere in the woods NW of Morganton

  36. #36
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    I am going to guess that rock armor like that is never going to happen on Black Mountain at least not with volunteer labor and no heavy equipment.

    That being said, I would also imagine that contracted trail work with the possibility with that heavy equipment and machine work is a greater possibility the longer people b!tch about it and don't do anything.

    FYI, I like climbing the rock armored section at the bottom of Jim Branch.
    I still find it a challenge. Going down it can be entertaining too when it is covered in ice.

    Burnt Mountain Can also be fun to go down. No way do I have the ability to climb it though. lol
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  37. #37
    Fence guru
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    739
    I am way more disturbed by those paved looking trails from my homeland than those washed out pics.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by man w/ one hand View Post
    I realize that these pics represent what needs to be done to keep certain areas from being lost permanently, but its like riding a section of busted up sidewalk. Just not appealing to me.
    "Rock armor" = "cobblestone pavement". Paving of trails should be limited only to where necessary.

    Edit: or "setts" perhaps, if the rocks are more rectangular. Still pavement.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    582
    Like anything else there is a full spectrum to the degree of armoring that occurs on trails. These pics were more on the sidewalk end of the spectrum , versus say the "Natural" armoring is Pisgah where the trail eroded away and the rocks "floated" to the surface.

    I know its not natural and these rocks don't float.

    But somewhere in the middle, is a nice mix of stabilized somewhat naturalized looking armoring. It may not be what we want on all trails, but on some it is the best option between lots of traffic, steep terrain, 100+" rainfall totals, and enjoyable and more technical trails.

    It would be nice to have some huge all weather (including the freeze thaw) loops.
    He/she who works the trails does so in their own image.

    Speed just slows me down...

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: -Mueller-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    Like anything else there is a full spectrum to the degree of armoring that occurs on trails. These pics were more on the sidewalk end of the spectrum , versus say the "Natural" armoring is Pisgah where the trail eroded away and the rocks "floated" to the surface.

    I know its not natural and these rocks don't float.

    But somewhere in the middle, is a nice mix of stabilized somewhat naturalized looking armoring. It may not be what we want on all trails, but on some it is the best option between lots of traffic, steep terrain, 100+" rainfall totals, and enjoyable and more technical trails.

    It would be nice to have some huge all weather (including the freeze thaw) loops.
    Meehhh...It seems to me that talking trails has become a lot like talking politics or religion. You're not going to change anyone's mind. The work looks great to me but there is room for all types of trail in my mountain bike experience.

    No point in letting this turn into another poo flinging mess like so many other threads on here. Why hate on someone else's hard work to turn what was probably a mud-bog into a hardened trail that can be enjoyed most days of the year?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    582
    Agreed, Mueller
    He/she who works the trails does so in their own image.

    Speed just slows me down...

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    100
    yep, and for the record, armoring doesn't necessarily have to dumb it down. go spends sometime in British Columbia. There are a ton of armored trails that are down right nutty. they know how to build em up north.

  43. #43
    Fence guru
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by -Mueller- View Post
    Meehhh...It seems to me that talking trails has become a lot like talking politics or religion. You're not going to change anyone's mind. The work looks great to me but there is room for all types of trail in my mountain bike experience.

    No point in letting this turn into another poo flinging mess like so many other threads on here. Why hate on someone else's hard work to turn what was probably a mud-bog into a hardened trail that can be enjoyed most days of the year?
    Because this is a mountain bike forum what else are we going to talk about?

  44. #44
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by -Mueller- View Post
    Meehhh...It seems to me that talking trails has become a lot like talking politics or religion. You're not going to change anyone's mind. The work looks great to me but there is room for all types of trail in my mountain bike experience.

    No point in letting this turn into another poo flinging mess like so many other threads on here. Why hate on someone else's hard work to turn what was probably a mud-bog into a hardened trail that can be enjoyed most days of the year?
    Yup, well said and I agree.

    Used to be in the car business and we would say that there is a butt for every seat.
    In our case, there is a trail for every rider.

    They all have their place and I like them all. Even the ones I have to get off the bike for.....except Farlow, not a big fan of Farlow. Can we pave that?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jerry68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    453
    One of my favorite armored spots is the tree stump rock garden after the creek on lower Wolf Branch. It is tricky, especially when wet, but seems to do a really good job keep the trail from washing downstream.
    Pisgah Area SORBA

    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    ... your idea of technical may be much different than other peoples idea of technical.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    210
    All true. Armoring is a great technique and should be used where appropriate, and I agree it makes for some great trail, but it should generally be limited in extent in our area.

    Two of my favorite stretches of armored trail are not bike trails: sections of the MST below Potato Knob in the Blacks, and a long section of the Profile trail on Grandfather Mountain (named "perigrine's flight" by the trail builders).

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by supercusty View Post
    I am way more disturbed by those paved looking trails from my homeland than those washed out pics.
    Do these photos also disturb you? These photos are of 2,000 year old rock work from your "homeland". You did not get specific on where from, these are from Wales and Roman built. Lots of rock over there, why not use it? Lots of rock in our mountains, why not use it? 2,000 years is not a bad lifespan for a trail. You can not see the artistry and craftsmanship that went into to building these, not to mention the durability factor?
    Attached Images Attached Images       

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: -Mueller-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    128
    Beech Mountain bike park has some great examples of durable and extremely technical rockwork. Mike, Chris, and Danny armored the approaches to the road crossings to keep the trail from dumping sediment onto the road and gettting all ditched out. They accomplished both, and are fun to ride. Believe it or not, most of the "pro track" rock garden there is actually man made too.

    Next time you ride Pilot Rock, the top of Laurel Mountain, or Squirrel Gap, take a minute to hop off your bike and get inspired by some of the epic rock crib-walls built by the CCC and other builders back in the day. Some of them are 10ft+ tall and are quite impressive. Most are holding up great and created some of the technical trails that people on here think are "natural". We were admiring some particularly impressive ones up on Woods Mountain last week.

  49. #49
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,649

    How bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Do these photos also disturb you? These photos are of 2,000 year old rock work from your "homeland". You did not get specific on where from, these are from Wales and Roman built. Lots of rock over there, why not use it? Lots of rock in our mountains, why not use it? 2,000 years is not a bad lifespan for a trail. You can not see the artistry and craftsmanship that went into to building these, not to mention the durability factor?
    Not at all. Let's do some of that. I'll help.

  50. #50
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073
    Quote Originally Posted by -Mueller- View Post
    Meehhh...It seems to me that talking trails has become a lot like talking politics or religion. You're not going to change anyone's mind. The work looks great to me but there is room for all types of trail in my mountain bike experience.

    No point in letting this turn into another poo flinging mess like so many other threads on here. Why hate on someone else's hard work to turn what was probably a mud-bog into a hardened trail that can be enjoyed most days of the year?
    No hatin' here. I said it has no appeal to me as a trail & I prefaced that by saying I understand it may have been necessary in that case.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •