Areas closed for rehabilitation

[greenmtnboy]

Does this make any sense? I have seen the USFS or trail maintenance posting signs like that and closing areas off for hiking or camping. And yet they don't treat the area with organic treatments, put down grass seed/hay/lime or otherwise do something so that nature can replenish. Unless you have serious erosion especially on hillsides, I don't see an argument for closing off flat areas. "Time heals"--there is nothing inherent in time or nature that heals or leads to order or improvement, that is why man is on earth to improve on nature.

[Uncle Joe]

I'm not sure I follow you. Closing off an area, depending upon the area, generally will let nature replenish that area. Nature does a pretty good job. I've worked on trail a number of years and our standard for multi-use trails when we did reroutes was to close off an area and leave it. Natural vegetation invariably invades the area and replaces the trail over time. In cases of severe damage some intervention might be in order but generally not. In fact, I don't think I've ever been on a project to "restore" an area by hand. I was riding my bike on my local trail just the other day and happened to be thinking about an old section that crossed ahead of me. I had a very hard time finding that old trail because nature had taken it back.

[Tundracamper]

How many miles would that add to the trail south of GSNP to go out of the fire areas?

[Bronk]

If you've ever been to a high use shelter or camping area you'll see that it looks like somebody took a rake to the whole area and the ground is bare, most likely from people gathering firewood and burning everything within short walking distance to the area. The soil then gets packed down from people camping and walking on it. Then when it rains, more water runs off than is soaked into the ground. Just two or three years of giving a place a rest can change all that as you get a few seasons of leaf litter covering the ground and understory plants begin to regrow in the area.

[windlion]

Does this make any sense? I have seen the USFS or trail maintenance posting signs like that and closing areas off for hiking or camping. And yet they don't treat the area with organic treatments, put down grass seed/hay/lime or otherwise do something so that nature can replenish. Unless you have serious erosion especially on hillsides, I don't see an argument for closing off flat areas. "Time heals"--there is nothing inherent in time or nature that heals or leads to order or improvement, that is why man is on earth to improve on nature.
Sorry to say, our volunteer trail repair crews see overused areas that will not recover naturally as long as overuse persists. As far as active treatment -- aside from questionable LNT issues -- none of the paid or volunteer teams have time or financial resources these days ... we are all desperate for more volunteers, come on out and have fun with us!

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

[MuddyWaters]

It takes some time for overuse areas to recover
You find this not only on the AT, but other places too.
Shelter areas are by definition ...sacrificial...to provide wider protection. So rehabing an AT shelter area is sort of questionable, unless its just a mudhole..

I had the pleasure of talking to a forestry guy one evening in NM. He had worked in all sorts of capacities. This might have been the most interesting person Ive ever talked to.
One of his jobs had been looking at aerial photos in CA to spot marijuana farms, and of course destroying them.

But the really interesting thing he told me, was that Aspen trees grow when the soil is disturbed. They discovered that by introducing hogs to root temporarily, they could initiate aspen growth to reforest areas. Aspens have a tremendous network of roots underground, and when soil is disturbed, a new tree will pop up.

[Roll Tide]

that is why man is on earth to improve on nature.

Man more times than not destroys earth rather a
than improve on nature.

[Deadeye]

man is on earth to improve on nature.

I'm not entirely sure if that was a religious reference or not, but if it was, how can man improve on creation?

He usually mucks it up pretty well.

[greenmtnboy]

I'm not sure I follow you. Closing off an area, depending upon the area, generally will let nature replenish that area. Nature does a pretty good job. I've worked on trail a number of years and our standard for multi-use trails when we did reroutes was to close off an area and leave it. Natural vegetation invariably invades the area and replaces the trail over time. In cases of severe damage some intervention might be in order but generally not. In fact, I don't think I've ever been on a project to "restore" an area by hand. I was riding my bike on my local trail just the other day and happened to be thinking about an old section that crossed ahead of me. I had a very hard time finding that old trail because nature had taken it back.

So the problems tend to be soil compaction in over-used spots? I can definitely see the possibility of that, but have not seen it too much off the AT corridor or heavily used areas. It wouldn't take too much money to do spot treatments of a few soil amendments, grass seed, hay, a few bucks generally and allow plants to grow up. How many years would it take to have compacted areas recover so they are good for later use?

[Deadeye]

So the problems tend to be soil compaction in over-used spots? I can definitely see the possibility of that, but have not seen it too much off the AT corridor or heavily used areas. It wouldn't take too much money to do spot treatments of a few soil amendments, grass seed, hay, a few bucks generally and allow plants to grow up. How many years would it take to have compacted areas recover so they are good for later use?

Not too much money, but labor is hard to come by, and hauling grass seed, tools, and hay doesn't happen without it. In many places, grass seed would be introducing non-native plants to the area. Simply closing off the area and letting nature take its course works fine. The Green Mountain club has some amazing before-during-and-after pictures of recovered areas on their website.

[SkeeterPee]

locally when we reroute trails in county parks, we tear them up with an attachment on the small ditch witch skid loader we use. it allows things to start growing quicker than hardpacked trail. Not very practical on the AT. but I assume you are asking if something like that could be done to speed things up.

[Uncle Joe]

So the problems tend to be soil compaction in over-used spots? I can definitely see the possibility of that, but have not seen it too much off the AT corridor or heavily used areas. It wouldn't take too much money to do spot treatments of a few soil amendments, grass seed, hay, a few bucks generally and allow plants to grow up. How many years would it take to have compacted areas recover so they are good for later use?

In our usage areas it's not so much compaction as run-off. We try to build trail that avoids fall-line and steep drops. Multi-use is considerably different than the AT, which often goes straight up and down a hill. For multi-use and sustainability this isn't the best way to cut trail. The AT has only one real use so it mitigates it a little. That said, back to the point. The most common reason we re-route isn't impaction but rather rutting and water damage. Often that is due to compaction or misuse or just longevity. Sometimes you can't help but go straight down at times with trail but over time, and in time, that will have to be addressed. You just deal with it in an area where there is no option. That said, even compressed and impacted areas will recover. If there are trees over head shedding leaves or needles, it will. It just takes time. No doubt it would be better to break that up but it's not imperative. Nature will win and quicker than you think. The most we've ever done is maybe rake some duff in a rutted area and pull small limbs and debris into it. Limbs were primarily used to indicate this area is closed and to make removing it all a bigger pain than taking the newly routed trail.

[Traveler]

In our usage areas it's not so much compaction as run-off. We try to build trail that avoids fall-line and steep drops. Multi-use is considerably different than the AT, which often goes straight up and down a hill. For multi-use and sustainability this isn't the best way to cut trail. The AT has only one real use so it mitigates it a little. That said, back to the point. The most common reason we re-route isn't impaction but rather rutting and water damage. Often that is due to compaction or misuse or just longevity. Sometimes you can't help but go straight down at times with trail but over time, and in time, that will have to be addressed. You just deal with it in an area where there is no option. That said, even compressed and impacted areas will recover. If there are trees over head shedding leaves or needles, it will. It just takes time. No doubt it would be better to break that up but it's not imperative. Nature will win and quicker than you think. The most we've ever done is maybe rake some duff in a rutted area and pull small limbs and debris into it. Limbs were primarily used to indicate this area is closed and to make removing it all a bigger pain than taking the newly routed trail.
A good explanation of trail area restoration. This is more or less SOP in restoration areas I have worked on, unless erosion is an issue and water bars or other energy dissipation are needed. Only once have I seen plantings done to hold soil and those were mostly native tree saplings or shrubs.

Best practice typically follows the "less is more" philosophy, which is to spread leaf litter and duff on bare ground areas, cover with branches to make walking on it difficult and indicate its part of the closed area. Micro-organisms, insects, and avian/mammalian species that feed on them quickly aerate and fertilize soil. Native fauna species are omnipresent in the environment, once they have a chance to take root they will, surprisingly quickly in some places. Roughing up the soil and hauling in hay, seed, or plantings are potential avenues for invasive species, which causes other long term problems and should be avoided when possible.