WMNF wilderness?

[MtnMagic]

I wish it was that easy. By default the 4 Plans have percentages of General Forest areas, Wilderness, recommended new Wilderness, Special Purpose allowing snowmobles, Alpine Ski Areas, Research Forests, Research Natural Areas, Scenic Areas, Potential Ski Areas and Canadate Research Areas. Also proposed are 30 and 60 mile summertime OHRV trails.

All 26 inventoried Roadless areas (383,500 acres) were recommended as Wilderness but the Forest Service eliminated this from detailed analysis because (Execute Summary Draft E. I. S. bottom of page 12, next to last sentence) "Some of these areas have nonconforming uses that diminish Wilderness values and others currently have little or no public support as proposed Wilderness areas."

All of this reading on page 12 (and the entire draft) explains explains why we need to mail our substantive comments to the FS. I certainly support more Wilderness!

 

[RoySwkr]

if it were up to any of you to decide how much of the WMNF should be Wilderness areas & where to put them, which areas would you choose to not include in Wilderness? (e.g. if it were going to all become Wilderness by default unless someone spoke up)

I would exclude most of what is not presently Wilderness and some that is
(Note that it is politically unacceptable to remove Wilderness, that is never an option under any Forest plan.)

Wilderness is officially supposed to be areas that have minimal trace of humans. There was an article in Appalachia many years ago that Wilderness should be concentric - you should not be able to get there by stepping out of your car but should have to traverse miles of increasingly-restrictive zones so it will be special when you arrive. That is one of the few articles by that guy that I understood or agreed with.

Therefore I would not designate any areas with heavy hiking pressure (Appalachian Trail, 4K, Presidentials) since there is too much chance that Wilderness areas will wind up like the West with daily quotas. Judging by the number of hikers that show up at places where they know there will be lots of others, most hikers prefer to go nice places with crowds than offbeat places by themselves - hence popular areas should not be Wilderness. (When Isolation was the only 4K peak in Wilderness, there was pressure to remove it from the 4K list since Wilderness values were incompatable with peakbagging and the list attracted too many people. Also, the Forest Service insisted that the route of the Cohos Trail be removed from Wilderness so it now follows a less-desirable route.)

Similarly, probably half of the Forest is of no particular ecological value and should be used to demonstrate low-impact logging. And while I am not any great fan of ski areas, it would be disruptive to close them down although I would halt expansions.

 

[stopher]

Right on, Roy.

Roy makes a number of valid points. I'd like to add that it is the inclusion of inappropriate areas to the wilderness system that creates an anti-wilderness response from much of the backcountry recreation community and weakens the Forest Service's ability to effectively manage wilderness. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the "dollars and acres" syndrome that afflicts so many of the preservationist organizations. In order to drum up support for their cause, groups such as the Wilderness Society are apt to focus on popular destination areas, rather than concentrating on more remote and less known areas which could be more readily incorporated into an effective wilderness management plan.

 

[arghman]

FYI I finally found the section of the WMNF Revision Plan which deals with a few of these issues: the intro (p. 3 - p. 9) of Appendix C (Roadless Areas) Warning: this is a 190-page pdf. It does talk in some detail about each of the existing Roadless Areas (including Wild River & Sandwich).

This section has been written mostly to mention the different issues involved; it does not make a recommendation, but you at least get to see some of the things the USFS is aware of. (although some of them don't make sense to me, at least in the "big picture" of this document, including one section in the Wild River chapter where they note that removal of Carter Notch Hut and closure of the Wild River Road would improve the wilderness status / manageability, but would be difficult and controversial)

 

[arghman]

I've been trying to get a map that shows the existing trails in relation to the proposed Wilderness areas.

After calling WMNF HQ a number of times to request such a map, I finally reached upon a passable solution. On their website, they refer to a program called ArcExplorer, which is a freeware GIS viewer from a company called ESRI. If you take the trouble to download the Geobooks (see this page ), they have a bunch of shapefiles including existing trails.

Anyway, if anyone wants me to, I can generate a PDF file / JPG / whatever that shows the proposed Wilderness areas & the nearby trails. (I don't have a webpage though, so I can't post a good-quality image here unless someone else volunteers a little server space somewhere, 1MB is probably enough.)

Here's a not-too-easy-to-read image showing the Wild River area under Alternative 2. The square points with a black curve through them denote the proposed boundary for the Wild River Wilderness, I think the other confusing square points are in other Alternatives. Note that it abuts the AT from Carter Dome to slightly past Mt Moriah, on the west, the Baldface Circle Trail and Meader Ridge Trail on the SE, the Kenduskeag and Shelburne trails on the NE, and includes Perkins Notch Shelter at No Ketchum Pond as well as Spruce Brook Shelter. (Basically it looks like the entire Wild River watershed southwest of the Shelburne Trail and Basin Trail plus a small "polyp" north of Rim Junction.) There are two bridges across the Wild River southwest of Wild River Campground that look as though they would be in Wilderness. I would presume Wild River Campground is outside the proposed boundary.

 

[arghman]

Also in Alt. 2, Sandwich Range picks up smaller bits & pieces around the existing Wilderness area. No new shelters have been picked up (they're already all in Wilderness except the ones near Chocorua) but there are a few trails which would have portions be subject to Wilderness rules. Jennings Peak and Hedgehog Mtn would not be reachable except by entering Wilderness.

In Alt. 3: (which AMC is advocating for Wilderness area designation)
Cherry Mtn area would become Wilderness, however it would include no existing trails. It would include a few trailless peaks like Mt. Mitten & Dartmouth.

Kilkenny: Much of the western half of the WMNF's northern unit would become wilderness. I don't have a map that covers that area with me, so I can't tell you which mountains/shelters the proposed boundary includes. (those features are not in the GIS files on the WMNF website.)

Wild River: Same as in alternative 2, but adds a 2nd "polyp" east of the Shelburne Trail all the way out roughly to the Maine/NH border. This area would include a road labeled "FR52" on my trail map, also another 3 miles or so of the Highwater Trail but no other additional trails would be affected.

Pemigewasset: This existing wilderness would be expanded to include a few new areas which are fairly large. In the SW: Includes Mt. Flume, all of the Flume Slide Trail outside of Franconia Notch State Park, much of the Osseo Trail, appears to include Whaleback Mtn, Big Coolidge Mtn, Potash Knob. (Excludes Mt Liberty & Liberty Spring Trail.)

Pemigewasset, SE: A large chunk of the Town of Livermore (i.e. outside the Pemigewasset River watershed), including South Hancock and all of the Hancock Loop Trail, much of the Hancock Notch Trail, appears to pick up Mt Huntington, picks up the Signal Ridge Trail & Carrigain Notch trails NW of where they meet, Mt. Lowell, Duck Pond Mtn, Nancy Pond, Duck Pond, much of the Nancy Pond Trail, and Mt. Bemis (i.e. essentially all of the WMNF south of the Ethan Pond Trail, NE of the Carrigain Notch Trail, and west of Rt 302, with a few buffers.) The trail leading from Arethusa Falls to Frankenstein Cliff would cross through Wilderness.

 

[RoySwkr]

Here are a couple of interesting guidelines for bushwhacking in Wilderness (from http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_...df_documents/PLAN/E_PLAN_wilderness_mgt_c.pdf)
• Group number should be kept to a minimum, preferably four or
fewer people but never more than ten.
• ... Members
of a group should spread out to disperse the impact and avoid the creation
of lasting trails.

So in thick scrub there should be only 4 and you should follow different routes according to the above

I note from the maps that the path up the Owls Head slide is not shown so apparently the above bushwhack rules apply, but maybe you are thus allowed to camp right next to it. Hmm, the Davis and Isolation spurs don't seem to exist either

 

[stopher]

The draft EIS for the WMNF plan revision has different recommendations for different Wilderness zones (A through D). This is just going to confuse the general hiking public.

Good observation about the "non"-trails, Roy. I'll offer two more that are technically bootleg trails: The .3 mile view trail on Passaconaway and the Shortcut on Wonalancet Range Trail.

 

[forestgnome]

I understand the opposition to Wilderness designations, but I have an overriding concern about the noise from 2-stroke machines. Whatever it takes to keep at least some areas free of that noise, I'll support it. If 2-strokers were outlawed in WMNF, I'd be very much more tolerent of new machine trails, and much less supportive of Wilderness designations.
Some have expressed that hikers want it all to themselves, want to kick others out of the forest; not true. The snowmobiles effectively kick me out because the noise renders the area useless to me. It's the same as when the snow melts off of the snowmobile trail; it's simply useless for snowmobiling.
Admittedly, I have not read the plan. Does anyone know if the issue of 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke engines is considered?

 

[arghman]

Does anyone know if the issue of 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke engines is considered?

I don't remember seeing it; it's a good point. My recollection from the plan is that the WMNF revision plan had one alternative (Alt. 4) in which ATV trails would be considered only in two limited areas, Landaff (in the extreme western part) and Moat Mountain in the east.

re: Owl's head -- yikes, I didn't see that. 4000-footers because of their popularity are rather anomalous in Wilderness

Comments will be much more effective if you send them to the USFS (comment period ends tomorrow!!!) than if you post them here....

I finally had some time to look at my map of the Kilkenny area (in Alternative 3), it would pick up most of the western half of the part of the WMNF north of Rt 2, including Starr King / Waumbek / Cabot / Bulge / Horn & that whole ridgeline. Cabot Cabin would be included in Wilderness (if this area were designated Wilderness) and presumably would have to be taken down at some point... (the cabin is apparently maintained by the Boy Scouts and the White Mountain Regional High School Wilderness Program, which is rather ironic :/ )

 

[spider solo]

perhaps

"...Comments will be much more effective if you send them to the USFS...than if you post them here..."

I have wondered that from time to time, though not trying to be overly pessimistic I have ingrained in my mind the image of the comments going directly down the drain (toilet) that was going around a few years ago.
Posting here helps let you know if a person is the "only one on the planet" that looks at things from such an such a view point.
Which I find quite effective...perhaps more so than sending in a comment to be shuffled along to ....?

kind of a small point...I suppose it's how one looks at things from time to time....

 

[arghman]

spidersolo: good point, "effective" has different contexts. If you are trying to influence the USFS policy, a large window closes tomorrow. There are some things posted here like the Owl's Head trail issue (it being included in the Revision Plan as the lowest-frequency use category of Wilderness, when it's a 4000-footer and thereby a potential "hotspot") which may represent minor potential tweaks to the USFS plan -- the WMNF people may not have considered it given the overwhelming scope of their plan revision, and one or two comments may cause them to change their plan to accomodate people's concerns.

The other "effective" you mention is bouncing ideas off other people with common backgrounds, that certainly does help us all understand facts & viewpoints we may not have considered.

 

[Stan]

" ... Posting here helps let you know if a person is the "only one on the planet" that looks at things from such an such a view point. ...

I've got a feeling that many of us have have viewpoints about something or other that is unique among our species, that's what makes us human. It is sometimes interesting to hear and consider that viewpoint but I wouldn't hesitate to send in an opinion even if everyone else on the planet got their shorts in a twist over it. Notice I said, "sometimes interesting". In my mind that generally excludes the type of drivel that formerly appeared on AMC's Mountains and Molehills.

As for expanding the White Mountain Wilderness areas, I'm in favor to the extent that it's done with a fairly strong consensus. Not everyone will be happy but hopefully few will be altogether shut out ... at least, in theory, that's what this Forest Service process is all about.

 

[stopher]

There are some things posted here like the Owl's Head trail issue (it being included in the Revision Plan as the lowest-frequency use category of Wilderness, when it's a 4000-footer and thereby a potential "hotspot") which may represent minor potential tweaks to the USFS plan -- the WMNF people may not have considered it given the overwhelming scope of their plan revision, and one or two comments may cause them to change their plan to accomodate people's concerns.

The Wilderness zones based on human impact are based on actual counts the Forest Service has done over the years, not on a guess as to how many peakbaggers will be climbing any given mountain. If you've been hiking in the Whites extensively, chances are good that you've been "counted" by one of these electronic devices. I've been counted many times by one after I found it and passed my hand in front of the photo reciever a couple dozen times.

As for whether or not your comments count in the revision process, let me assure you that they most certainly do. At least, they count as much or more than your selection for President if you voted last month. The Forest Service is very receptive to public input. The scoping process is drilled into their heads throughout their career and they are mandated by law to be answerable to the public. On some local issues, one or two people can have a significant effect if they are vocal and persistant enough. At the plan revision level, keep in mind that you are one voice in thousands; but if your voice is in harmony with others, then you will help strengthen the cause.

One word of advice, for which I just witnessed reinforcement today: Try to phrase your comments in a constructive, problem solving manner. Don't be a negative Ned (or Nancy).

And ya better write fast! 29 hours and counting!

 

[afka_bob]

public response

Headline in today's Union Leader: "Thousands respond to proposed forest plan"

 

[Jasonst]

Quote: "The Appalachian Mountain Club likes those two proposals but would like to see more wilderness, said Rob Burbank, spokesman for the club."

I am guessing that they won't be happy until the whole state is "wilderness area?"

 

[afka_bob]

( ) I am guessing that they won't be happy until the whole state is "wilderness area?"

I think that the AMC, while often irritating, serves an important purpose here by pushing for more wilderness area designation. There are those that would cut down every tree, then pave or build on the "whole state." They are held in check by organized efforts of groups like the AMC. The entire state will be neither developed nor declared wilderness, so it probably works out pretty well in the end.

 

[Francis]

I think that the AMC, while often irritating, serves an important purpose here by pushing for more wilderness area designation. There are those that would cut down every tree, then pave or build on the "whole state." They are held in check by organized efforts of groups like the AMC. The entire state will be neither developed nor declared wilderness, so it probably works out pretty well in the end.

yup (agree), just like most things, hopefully the extremes "ballance" on middle ground that most people can live with, although I am on the tree side of the fence.

 

[Jasonst]

I think that the AMC, while often irritating, serves an important purpose here by pushing for more wilderness area designation. There are those that would cut down every tree, then pave or build on the "whole state." They are held in check by organized efforts of groups like the AMC. The entire state will be neither developed nor declared wilderness, so it probably works out pretty well in the end.

Good point. Usually the money wins in the end anyway.

 

[Waumbek]

The revised plan issued yesterday has gone to Congress; the map on the USFS-WMNF site should be available Monday. Another summary of the "compromise" is here.