Z
April 1st, 2003, 10:41 PM
Saturday Peter Brandenburg and I went to the White Mountain National Forest plan revision hearing in Plymouth, and we thought we’d send you an update. The comment period ends April 8th, and we will follow up in the next couple of weeks once the Forest Service has posted the proposals online and the White Mountains NEMBA officers look at the plan revision in greater detail. Let us know if you’d like to be more involved.
Four alternatives have been proposed by the Forest Service. There are several aspects to each of these plans, including land allocations, timber and wildlife management, and recreation. However, the two aspects that could have the most impact on cyclists and MWV residents are the proposed designations of additional Wilderness and summertime use of ORVs in the Moat Mountain area.
I will greatly simplify the Alternatives based on these two aspects:
- Alternative One is basically the current plan, as implemented in 1986.
- Alternative Two proposes some additional Wilderness in the Wild River drainage
- Alternative Three proposes the greatest amount of additional Wilderness, including expansion of the Pemi and Sandwich Range areas, and the largest area in the Wild River drainage.
- Alternative Four proposes the least amount of additional Wilderness, in the Wild River drainage only, and proposes to open two areas for summertime ORV use in the Moat Mountain and Landaff areas.
Wilderness and Mountain Bikes
For those of you that aren’t aware, since the mid 80’s the use of “mechanized travel” has been prohibited in all Wilderness, meaning mountain bikes are not allowed. (It also might impact those of you that are avid climbers as well.) For IMBA’s position on Wilderness, see the bottom of this message. At the meeting there was strong support for Wilderness and Alternative Three, possibly because the AMC heavily publicized this meeting.
The good news is, Mark Jenks and White Mountains NEMBA have been working closely with the Forest Service throughout the 5-year revision process, and they have been really cooperative and open to the suggestions from the outdoor recreation community. Our objective is to have the forest service’s proposed areas for Wilderness avoid areas suitable for mountain biking, so that we can coexist with the proposed Wilderness. So far we think they’ve done a pretty good job, although we still have a few questions about the Greeley Pond area near Waterville Valley and the Wild River drainage. We will look at this matter more closely. (If you ride there regularly, PLEASE CONTACT US! We’d love to talk with you.)
ORVs in the Moats
Probably the biggest issue that will directly affect Mount Washington Valley Residents at this stage is the proposed summertime ORV use in the Moats in Alternative Four. As most of you know, this area abuts North Conway neighborhoods and is one of the most popular biking, dog walking, and trail running areas. The White Mountains NEMBA officers believe opening this area up would lead to significant user conflicts, trail damage, and excessive noise, in addition to causing management, safety, enforcement, and maintenance headaches. We would welcome any input you have on this.
Next Steps
We will follow up with you soon with commentary once the Forest Plan Revision Alternatives are online, and we will urge you to write a letter to the Forest Service expressing your views.
In parallel, NEMBA will work with the Forest Service to provide input to the “Standards and Guides,” which provides the fine print for how the plan will be implemented. We believe that this stage is critical because the devil is in the details, and there is a lot of wording in question that could directly impact mountain bike access.
The Forest Service will take the input they get by April 8th and come back with the draft forest plan by the end of 2003. At that point they will solicit input again. We will continue to work closely with the Forest Service and keep you informed of ways that you can help.
Thanks for listening, and let us know if you have any comments.
Krisztina
---------------------------
IMBA’s Position on Wilderness
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) has a strong record of conservation work and is committed to preserving open space and natural places. We want to protect roadless lands from development and traditionally support prohibitions on mining, logging, road construction, dams and drilling in these areas. Mountain bicyclists care deeply about the environment, strongly support conservation efforts and will endorse some new Wilderness designations. But, the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits bicycle use in all Wilderness areas. For places with significant mountain biking opportunities, IMBA proposes boundary adjustments and alternative legal protections that protect the resource without categorically banning all bicycle use.
Where Wilderness proposals are being considered, IMBA will be involved. We will help empower the United State's 30 million mountain bicyclists to actively support land protection. In all negotiations, we work to identify areas of proposed Wilderness we can support while making sure that important trails remain open for future bicycling enjoyment.
IMBA believes there are more tools in the conservation tool-kit than the "one-size-fits-all" Wilderness designation approach. By looking to alternative protections such as National Conservation or Protection Areas to supplement Wilderness designations, we widen the constituency of support for land protection and help strengthen the trails and open space legacy for future Americans to enjoy.
Four alternatives have been proposed by the Forest Service. There are several aspects to each of these plans, including land allocations, timber and wildlife management, and recreation. However, the two aspects that could have the most impact on cyclists and MWV residents are the proposed designations of additional Wilderness and summertime use of ORVs in the Moat Mountain area.
I will greatly simplify the Alternatives based on these two aspects:
- Alternative One is basically the current plan, as implemented in 1986.
- Alternative Two proposes some additional Wilderness in the Wild River drainage
- Alternative Three proposes the greatest amount of additional Wilderness, including expansion of the Pemi and Sandwich Range areas, and the largest area in the Wild River drainage.
- Alternative Four proposes the least amount of additional Wilderness, in the Wild River drainage only, and proposes to open two areas for summertime ORV use in the Moat Mountain and Landaff areas.
Wilderness and Mountain Bikes
For those of you that aren’t aware, since the mid 80’s the use of “mechanized travel” has been prohibited in all Wilderness, meaning mountain bikes are not allowed. (It also might impact those of you that are avid climbers as well.) For IMBA’s position on Wilderness, see the bottom of this message. At the meeting there was strong support for Wilderness and Alternative Three, possibly because the AMC heavily publicized this meeting.
The good news is, Mark Jenks and White Mountains NEMBA have been working closely with the Forest Service throughout the 5-year revision process, and they have been really cooperative and open to the suggestions from the outdoor recreation community. Our objective is to have the forest service’s proposed areas for Wilderness avoid areas suitable for mountain biking, so that we can coexist with the proposed Wilderness. So far we think they’ve done a pretty good job, although we still have a few questions about the Greeley Pond area near Waterville Valley and the Wild River drainage. We will look at this matter more closely. (If you ride there regularly, PLEASE CONTACT US! We’d love to talk with you.)
ORVs in the Moats
Probably the biggest issue that will directly affect Mount Washington Valley Residents at this stage is the proposed summertime ORV use in the Moats in Alternative Four. As most of you know, this area abuts North Conway neighborhoods and is one of the most popular biking, dog walking, and trail running areas. The White Mountains NEMBA officers believe opening this area up would lead to significant user conflicts, trail damage, and excessive noise, in addition to causing management, safety, enforcement, and maintenance headaches. We would welcome any input you have on this.
Next Steps
We will follow up with you soon with commentary once the Forest Plan Revision Alternatives are online, and we will urge you to write a letter to the Forest Service expressing your views.
In parallel, NEMBA will work with the Forest Service to provide input to the “Standards and Guides,” which provides the fine print for how the plan will be implemented. We believe that this stage is critical because the devil is in the details, and there is a lot of wording in question that could directly impact mountain bike access.
The Forest Service will take the input they get by April 8th and come back with the draft forest plan by the end of 2003. At that point they will solicit input again. We will continue to work closely with the Forest Service and keep you informed of ways that you can help.
Thanks for listening, and let us know if you have any comments.
Krisztina
---------------------------
IMBA’s Position on Wilderness
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) has a strong record of conservation work and is committed to preserving open space and natural places. We want to protect roadless lands from development and traditionally support prohibitions on mining, logging, road construction, dams and drilling in these areas. Mountain bicyclists care deeply about the environment, strongly support conservation efforts and will endorse some new Wilderness designations. But, the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits bicycle use in all Wilderness areas. For places with significant mountain biking opportunities, IMBA proposes boundary adjustments and alternative legal protections that protect the resource without categorically banning all bicycle use.
Where Wilderness proposals are being considered, IMBA will be involved. We will help empower the United State's 30 million mountain bicyclists to actively support land protection. In all negotiations, we work to identify areas of proposed Wilderness we can support while making sure that important trails remain open for future bicycling enjoyment.
IMBA believes there are more tools in the conservation tool-kit than the "one-size-fits-all" Wilderness designation approach. By looking to alternative protections such as National Conservation or Protection Areas to supplement Wilderness designations, we widen the constituency of support for land protection and help strengthen the trails and open space legacy for future Americans to enjoy.