Winter

[seenvic]

Dec 2, 2008 22:04:19 GMT -5 Timothyjames said:

i guess the question revisited is, should we recommend that the trails not be ridden during these months or is it a judgment call of the rider. you choose and be prepared to deal with the consequences of the damage you cause when the next work party goes out to repair. No biggie, just wanted suggestions so we don't hurt the place we love.

There is a disconnect here. Similar to the disconnect between idealism and realism.

The above is idealistic. Not realistic.

The people who ride FATS when wet on a regular basis, did not come help volunteer to build FATS, do not volunteer to maintain any trails and only ride (and usually not very well).

The people who will have to "deal with the consequences" are the ones advocating riding other trials, and not riding FATS when wet. Prevention is the best method of trail maintenance - especially at a place with 35 miles of trail. Cleaning out drains is great...and needed. But the amount of traffic FATS sees, combined with a soft/wet tread surface will create too much work for any number of volunteers to manage. This is reality.

I gave some thought to TJ's new bike. About the worst thing you can do to a bike is ride it when it's wet....alot. It gets expensive to replace drivetrains that are constantly filled with dirt, sand and grit embedded in them. I learned this racing in the wet season of 1995 - and decided I didn't like replacing my drivetrain as often as was needed to ride alot in muddy conditions.

[dgaddis1]

I wouldn't mind the trail being closed for the winter. But, that's not an option. I wish we could put up a BIG sign next to the trail entrance explaining why it shouldn't be ridden when wet, but USFS wont allow that either. (LAME!)

Who wants to ride Modoc Sat? It's been too long since I've been on my bike, and even longer since I've ridden Modoc. Also, don't forget the Explore the Trails ride on Sunday at Turkey Creek.

I'll start a thread in the Ride Post about Modoc on Sat.

[seenvic]

Dec 2, 2008 16:59:00 GMT -5 azdrawdy said:

Can't close the trails. USFS said no to that last season.

..

FATS was closed from mid January to mid March last season.

Where are people getting this idea that the USFS won't close FATS if it is getting torn up?

[dgaddis1]

I didn't think we were officially allowed to close them for extended periods. I thought the trails only got closed last year when it was wet.

[seenvic]

Dec 3, 2008 13:01:10 GMT -5 dgaddis1 said:

I didn't think we were officially allowed to close them for extended periods. I thought the trails only got closed last year when it was wet.

Isn't that what this thread is about....whether or not FATS should be closed when wet?

[azdrawdy]

Yep, the USFS can shut things down hard but we (SORBA/CSRA) don't have that power. Think USFS and LCHT.

I thought the USFS was the cheesehead for shutting down the trails. We watch the trails and if it gets too darn bad, and it becomes unmanageable, we ask for a seasonal closure. The big bad USFS walks up and slams down a big bad sign that states the trail is closed. End of discussion.

We tried to get rights for quick closure and enforceability of said short closures, but that was deemed to be not enforceable. I even asked for gates at each major entrance but that was not considered enforceable or desirable either.

MD

[seenvic]

USFS is the decision maker on whether or not to close FATS. I agree.

The analogy between FATS and the LCHT is apples to oranges in the USFS's mind. FATS is recently built, most of the LCHT is over 50 years old. I personally think they should have managed the newer built sections of the LCHT differently than they did. And for that reason, they have more willing to close FATS once enough water is in the ground that is simply can not dry out in any number of days before the next rain comes.

I think that is really the difference. We haven't hit the point yet where the ground is 100% saturated, with no viable means for the water to get out of the ground. I am no hydrologist, but to me the water gets out of the ground and off the trail by means of the trees drinking it, or the sun pulling it out, or wind or drainage. Then we get to a point, usually in by January when the trees are done, the sun isn't hot enough, the drainage works against us as the hillsides the trails are cut into hold a ton of water and it slowly seeks out, draining from the hillside onto the trail. The seeps keep a constant supply of water on the trail and the next rain comes too soon for the seeps to dry up.

This may make no sense, or partial sense. I'll stand corrected if someone could come along and explain it better than I just did.

[Sasquatch]

I went and talked to our organizational advisor (at lander to have a club you have to have a staff advisor) and he is a professer of Physical Science and while talking to him I brought up the discussion that has been going on in this thread. He talked to me about it (jargon that a business administration student hardly understands) and then he later sent me a link to, where else but a study published on the imba site.
www.imba.com/resources/science/goeft_alder.html
Its a lot of stuff and may take a little bit to read but the author made it very easy to read and is understandable. Granted, this study did not take place in our area, it still applys. If you want to skip a lot read the section, "Implications for Sustainable Trails."
I'm going to pick up a soil sample kit (?) or something from him that I am supposed to hammer into the ground with a mallet to collect a soil sample for him because I think this topic has sparked his interest. I'm going to try to get it either this weekend or next weekend after exams.

additionally, after typing all of this ^^. He also found this study on imba that took place in tennessee and kentucky. www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf

[seenvic]

Interesting about the professor.

I've seen those studies before.

I'd like to hear your professor comments after you take a soil sample. I'd take him some from some dry spots and some from the seepy spots.

My unproffessional opinion is that the worst areas have a high clay content and the clay has that white shiny (mica) in it. This stuff holds water like a sponge, and slowly releases it over time. I say this because I've cleaned out many a drain to dry soil, only to see it an hour later full of water and it had not rained in that hour.

[Sasquatch]

mica not kaolin? isn't kaolin pretty frequent around here? I know thats what people use when building man-made ponds

[seenvic]

Could be kaolin. I always thought the white shiny specs were called mica. I could be wrong for sure.

Whatever it is, it is the devil. Holds water like a sponge.

[dgaddis1]

Probably is Kaolin, it absorbs water like crazy.

[JIMMYC]

Both are in the CSRA area, but you won't find them in the same place. I bet Jon Taylor can tell.
my guess is mica.

[ted]

I'll go with Kaolin

[JIMMYC]

Well I HAD to ask someone smarter than me. "if anything, definitely Mica. the Kaolin belt doesn't come that far north". per Plant manager Huber Clay.
one of those "who you know not what you know"

[jtaylor]

JC, I was waiting to see how many voted for kaolin before disabusing that notion, but you had to spoil the fun........ Oh well. I'm not a geologist but here's my $0.02: The white kaolin is normally found in thick beds and is definitely not shiny. Farthest north in this area to find the beds is about Ft. Gordon. My kaolin plant is in Hephzibah. The "fall line" 70 million years ago was beach-front property, where the kaolin settled out. Many road bike riders have been on Huber Clay Road in N. Augusta and ridden by the Huber (now KT or Imerys) plant. Fall line runs from there through HZ, Wrens, Sandersville, Macon area, Columbus. Mica doesn't absorb that much water, but vermiculite is a transformation of mica and it absorbs lots. There is a large commercial deposit of vermiculite in Enoree, SC (about 20 miles south of Spartanburg). There are lots of other clays in the top soil layers as well, so it doesn't take much to make soils slippery; and mica is easy to see, to it gets the blame......

[JIMMYC]

Sorry 'bout spoiling your fun

[seenvic]

OK, we've covered what will fix the problems.
We've covered the various types of clay.

We've had one guy who thinks FATS should remain open because he has a new bike.
And we've got a few people who see the benefits of closing FATS in the really wet months.

Any other comments, pro or con on the closing / not closing of FATS in the really wet months.

This prolly surprizes no one, but I'd be on the it should be closed when wet side. I say this mainly to protect the trails from what will no doubt be some serious damage caused by the people who did nothing and will do nothing for FATS. To me prevention is the best form of maintenance. To me the other trails need wheels desperately.

To me it is a no brainer.

What do you think? Please tell us here.

[azdrawdy]

Thoughts:

- Just how long will it be before the FATS trail will be sustainable year-round? Five years, ten years? Ever?

- What will it take to make it sustainable? Gravity and time? Another 1500 hours of volunteer effort? Another five truckloads of JC’s bricks?

- Do we just accept the fact that FATS is a three-season trail and shut it down December 1st and reopen April 1st? November is typically the driest month of the year, rains start in December and the trees start sprouting leaves in March/April.

- Do we just leave it open, continue to post that we recommend not riding when wet, then go out with work parties and armor, armor, armor? Eventually the trail becomes a sustainable trail.

MD

[dgaddis1]

I've wondered about how long it typically takes for a trail to become more sustainable. However, I have a theory FATS will never be year round sustainable with the amount of traffic it gets.

+1 vote for closing it during the winter.

And again...I'm riding modoc tomorrow if anyone's interested.