Interesting...Can you elaborate on why exactly they are no longer considered a good idea and what has replaced them...?Originally Posted by soilman
I'd guess it's "because of maintenance concerns" (from soilman's quote.)
To the critics: given that a huge portion of the labor that keeps the AT alive is given freely by unpaid volunteers, doesn't it behoove us to use that labor effectively?
If we were to view the ATC as a competitive, commercial enterprise -- corporations do basic research, as well as simply crank out products for profit. If not for research, you will be overtaken by competition or by history. Even something as mundane as trail design -- techniques and "best practices" undergo constant evolution.
Well since you seem to know what "Maintenance Concerns" means than tell me. To me it's too generic to know...
BTW, I did try and look it up and it's pretty interesting on their construction, described here http://www.nps.gov/noco/parkmgmt/upload/nct_ch5.pdf
And this hints at the maintenance issues, but its PDF link is no longer available http://www.matc.org/report-forms-tip...l-maintainers/
So are they saying that it's best not to have water bars if the clubs don't do the maintenance, meaning that neglected water bars are more damaging to the trail than no water bars?
Or are they saying that all new trails constructed will be constructed so that water bars are not needed?
I do wish I lived near a section of the AT so I could observe this issue of erosion...just find it interesting...
I suspect - and this is just a suspicion - that is not that water bars are a bad idea, it's that they're a "second best" idea. If trail can be properly graded and drained, the water won't run down it in the first place. Water bars are more a way to repair a trail that's already routed so that it's prone to erosion, either for historical reasons or because no well-graded and well-drained routing is available. On a very heavily-trafficked trail, leading ephemeral streams through corrugated drainpipe, or elevating the trail on riprap, may be preferable to channeling them off with water bars. Both of these are easier to keep clean than water bars, which accumulate duff and debris and rapidly become ineffective.
Moreover, many land managers have, among other goals, the goal of making a greater portion of trail accessible to people who have some degree of mobility impairment. It is recognized that backcountry hiking is an athletic activity - nobody is proposing that all trails have wheelchair ramps! - but the idea is to have at least some amount of trail accessible to people who perhaps need a wider and better graded surface, or some motorized access program for the disabled. Water bars are surely incompatible with this sort of trail. A good example of this sort of approach is the (heroic) effort to remediate Bear Mountain in New York. The stone steps are both extremely durable and considerably more accessible than steep scrambles. There is a loop trail of just under a mile surrounding Perkins Tower that has even been widened and graded with gravel for wheelchair access, and of course the tower itself was already accessible by automobile. It's surely a solution suitable only for the "front country," but it offers the mobility-impaired at least some opportunity to spend time in the woods.
I now prepare myself for the onslaught of stones thrown from the brigade who see any concession to disabled access being a call to put wheelchair ramps down the whole length of the trail. To people who cannot get beyond that sort of black-and-white thinking, I have nothing to say that will be heard.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
Professor Marion appears to be an expert in his field, but what is his agenda? Hard trail—less traffic or easy trail—wheel chair accessible? Could we be heading for a Pay-Per-Hike system?
I suspect the NPS knows exactly where he is coming from based on his previous studies or he wouldn’t have been awarded the $300K. Post-study, consultant recommendations typically tell the government what they want to hear, as well as provide for future work for the consultant. $300K is barely an “accounting error,” even in an underfunded bureaucracy like the NPS, so I suggest we lower our expectations in terms of what we think we are going to get out of this study. Also, fulfilling the consultant’s recommendations will require money that the NPS doesn’t have, so I believe it would have been more appropriate to allocate the $300K to the local level trail maintainers. Finally, Dr Marion’s comment about climate change really bothers me, since there appears be little hard since in his educational background.
i like the northern part of the Long Trail. no fancy studies and very minimal trail maintenance
The ATC makes public their mission(WHAT THEY DO), What they are, and their Financials(AUDITED, ANNUAL REPORTS, etc). Before anyone makes comments about these things they should carefully peruse these items.
Don't read too much into the NPS report that you linked to. Look at Table 2 at the end. I think, for instance, that nearly all the trail that MATC maintains - certainly the entire length from Monson to Katahdin, and the whole stretch through the Mahoosucs - would be classed as ROS Primitive areas. These require amenities only for resource protection, not for hiker convenience (and of course require amenities such as bridges to meet acceptable engineering standards).
Current thinking much prefers Coweeta dips when feasible to keep the treadway dry, but recognizes that sometimes, particularly when dealing with existing trail, there is no alternative to waterbars.
Here are a handful of examples of what I see on trails where I go. I offer no criticism: the trail maintainers are often dealing with treadway that is known to have been in use since early in the 19th century. We know more about trail design now..
First stream crossing by ke9tv, on Flickr
Abiove is a typical example of trail erosion. Here the trail crosses a stream on a rock hop that is dangerously slippery. While this particular crossing can be done dry-booted even at high water, other crossings farther downstream may require wading ice-cold snowmelt. The trail climbs a steep bank, and has eroded into a gully that is at least shoulder-deep on a tall hiker and also has a substantial flow of water in snowmelt season. The beech tree at the center of the picture has had its roots undermined by the seasonal flooding of the trail, and in another season or two will have fallen across the stream. Passage of the trail at this point requrires either a steep climb up rocks that are under flowing water, or departing from the trail and scrambling up either mossy and loose talus or equally slippery duff-covered slopes. I've heard stories of even fit and experienced hikers having accidents (sprained ankles, broken wrists from falls onto an outstretched hand) at this location or other stream crossings nearby. Water bars would not have saved this trail. It's simply too steep for the soil, and needed to climb the side of the ravine on a switchback or something.
Sometimes, the trail just is a stream by ke9tv, on Flickr
The photo above was taken higher up on the same trail, showing how a stream of seasonal snowmelt has joined the trail and is following it rather than the natural stream channel where the photographer is standing. Out of frame to the right, the trail is carved into a gully that is several feet deep. The bottom of the gully is a slab of conglomerate rock.
Boulder scramble by ke9tv, on Flickr
The photo above shows an example of trail that is surely challenging even for athletic hikers, but is nonetheless compliant with Primitive Area guidelines. The rocks are bare and exposed naturally - this route ascends an old rock slide onto the ledge above. The climbing is strenuous, but can be negotiated without needing to resort to the vegetation for hand- and footholds. The reassurance blaze (the trail marker here is a red-and-white plastic disc, and there is one visible on the tree at top center) gives guidance that even this unlikely pile of boulders is indeed the trail, although an experienced hiker in this area will also recognize it at once from the crampon scratches in the soft sandstone. Surprisingly, this is an example of how to design an extremely challenging trail well.
Rich on the trail by ke9tv, on Flickr
The only thing that saves the bit of trail in the picture above from catastrophic erosion problems is that it's dry pretty much year round. The "knife edge" ridge that it's climbing drains to both sides.
IMG_2212 by ke9tv, on Flickr
The above section of trail is now abandoned. It has eroded down to bedrock, and a new permanent stream has formed in what was once the treadway. When this trail was constructed in the early 19th century, it was level with the surrounding ground! This level of erosion is, of course, disastrous.
IMG_2220 by ke9tv, on Flickr
The picture above shows the same catastrophic erosion, farther down the hill. The water visible in the earlier picture is flowing under the loose rocks, which were laid in an attempt (around 1900) to stabilize the trail. The wire at foreground is a fence on the current trail to discourage hikers from accessing the abandoned section.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
Not sure I get the point.
What I see is that NPS has effectively hired a paid consultant to the tune of $300k.
Further, the NPS has already decided that the results of this study (which has yet to be conducted) merit dissemination and promotion to land managers/caretakers up and down the AT-- and have made provisions for that to happen.
i love our National Parks, and respect the way they manage competing claims on the resources they are entrusted with-- even if that has meant rather onerous regulations in virtually everyone I have visited. But every organization has its agenda.
The issue is not how the Trail will look in 2 or 3 years-- but rather in 30 or 40.
Like you, I have visited lots of National Parks. Not once have I run into a single "onerous regulation," but then, lots of individuals have their own agendas.
Rain Man
.
[I]ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: ... Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit....[/I]. Numbers 35
[url]www.MeetUp.com/NashvilleBackpacker[/url]
.
Translation: Any limits whatsoever.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Oooooh.....I didn't know this was going to be a "fancy" study. Well that changes everything.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Me, too. This is to the extreme end of what the studies call 'Primitive Area'. It's so little traveled that treadway erosion, herd path formation, trail widening, and so forth are virtual non-issues. But it would obviously not support more intensive use, and that's what the AT is up against in many areas. Dealing with the intensive use by adopting a quote on the number of hikers would be both unpopular and disastrous for the long-term health of the trail system. (Non-users are likely to join the chorus of, "it's a waste of money, just sell the land and put the proceeds to better use.") Studies like this are to find a better way.
You seem to be reading your own "NPS is evil" or "government-funded studies are all evil" agenda into this. Jeff Marion is a hiker and maintainer himself, and he's published very extensively on the subject. If you want to know his agenda, read some of his studies. He supports both enhanced accessibility AND true wilderness, recognizing that there are users who need one or the other. But in the main, he's about "what can we do about trail layout and construction, shelter design and site selection, and so on so as to make it easier for hikers to hike responsibly with low impact than otherwise?" It's not about restrictions and bureaucracy, it's about "when we have problems, what's the best way to fix them so they'll stay fixed?"
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
Water bars are out because they don't work, in any but the lightest of rains. Even then only for a short while. When water turns, it slows down. When it slows down, it deposits silt. Silt fills the waterbar, in less than two seasons down here in Georgia, as it probably does on other parts of the AT.
If you cover the water bar, and ditch ahead of it so the water turns gradually, and reinforce with perpendicular cribbing steps below it, and clean leaves out of it after every fall, and shovel the silt back over the waterbar, then it will continue to work, year after year. But that isn't what happens, and hikers gripe about having to step over the ditch. And the maintenance crews end up rebuilding it after a few seasons of neglect.
Yeah coweeta dips are better, and I have a few on my section, but let me see you put one on an existing trail, much less a fall line trail.
The forest service spent several hundred thousand dollars on professional trail builders to come and teach some of this stuff in GA, to trail people from all walks, hikers, horsemen, bikers, and atvers. They also did evaluations of many miles of trail in Georgia. Do you know how many AT maintainers came? A few. Most think they know it already.
I learned a "new style" of waterbar the same year they started that. I wrote and asked the ATC about it, to see if any research had been done. I got referred around a few times before someone admitted they didn't know about it. They finally referred me to their standard "Appalachian trail design construction and maintenance" second edition, which still preaches waterbars, only if you can't coweeta.
Konnarock may have a few that know waterbars are out, but they were still building them in GA 3 years ago when I helped them out.
This needs research. It has been researched, but it seems like the "pros" want to keep it a secret. and the AT clubs want to do it their way. It's time for the government to put in some research and open source the results!
I bet the USFS spent more than that developing the current design for the Georgia Mouldering Privy. I can't find that research published anywhere either.
I know the ATC has a "Maintainer's toolbox" on their website, but I usually get stumped trying to find the tools I need. I hope this study develops more useful tools.
I had rather see the money spent on improving the AT then some boondoggle wasting the taxpayers money
Google isn't helping. What's a Coweeta dip? Got a picture or basic description?
Coweeta dip, from "appalachian trail design construction and maintenance": "on an ascending trail, after every 50 to 100 feet, the treadway should level, descend gradually for 10 to 15 feet, then continue up" ... "note that coweeta dips work only on sidehill trails ..."
It's a trail design technique, implemented in construction, but near impossible to implement after construction.
Let's say you have a trail that's climbing on the side of a hill. Not charging straight up the hillside (the "fall line", it's called) but angling up gradually.
Angle the trail outward a tiny bit for 15-20 feet so that it briefly descends rather than climbs. Then go back to climbing.
Reinforce the trail on the spot where it bottoms out, and make sure it's graded toward the outside of the hill.
Do this at intervals, maybe every 30-50 yards (Doing it at irregular intervals makes the trail less boring).
Water that runs down the trail will spill outward at the bottom of the dip and run off, so that you don't have the whole trail turning into a stream.
Figure 16 in http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpu...806/page06.htm is a decent picture - the Forest Service calls it a 'rolling grade dip.'
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
Re: Coweeta Dips....
I just slapped my forehead and muttered, "Now why didn't I think of that?" It's a simple but elegant solution to an ongoing problem that could be useful in a lot of--but not every--situations.
Rafe, you are right! This must be very new. Even the myriad tentacles of Google--which seems to know everything about all of us--doesn't seem to know about this!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
