New England Mountain Bicycling Association (NEMBA)
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
ACTION ALERT
DEFEND MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS IN THE WHITE MOUNTAINS OF NH
A new draft management plan for the White Mountain National Forest in New
Hampshire could greatly diminish bicycling opportunities. We urge all New
England mountain bikers to write to the U.S. Forest Service.
To comment:
All mailed comments must be postmarked by December 16, 2004. Send comments by
mail to Forest Planner, WMNF, 719 N Main St, Laconia, NH 03246l; or by email
to wmnfplan@fs.fed.us.
Key points:
Include one or more of the following points in your own words. Any personal
stories that illustrate your point are especially helpful.
1. Travel management: Mountain biking should be permitted on non-system
trails unless posted closed. The impacts of cyclists and hikers are similar,
and treating them differently will harm relationships, require enforcement,
and not solve any environmental problems.
2. Wilderness: Proposed Wilderness areas, if ratified by Congress, would
prohibit bicycles from important trails. If you enjoy riding any of the
trails (listed in the background section below), please mention them by name.
Urge the Forest to use boundary adjustments and alternative designations to
avoid these trails so that trails appropriate for mountain biking are not
impacted by Wilderness. Also ask the Forest Service to protect White Mountain
N.F. roadless areas from further road building.
3. Summertime ORV use: the Moat Mountain region is inappropriate for the ORV
use proposed in Alternative #4.
To learn more about the plan:
Refer to the background summary information below and visit the Forest
Service website:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_fpr_Web/forest_plan/revision/
IMBA/NEMBA travel comments to the Forest Service:
http://www.imba.com/resources/agencies/10_04_whitemtn.html
Please pass this alert on to your friends and associates. Thank you for
taking action!
---
Philip Keyes
NEMBA executive director
Mark Jenks
IMBA New Hampshire representative
Gary Sprung
IMBA staff
---------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
The White Mountain National Forest has a history of good relations with
bicyclists. The new plan does not change this, but bicycling management is a
new task that seems to be challenging these well-meaning managers. The issues
stem from two problems. The first is old: Bicyclists generally support
protecting America's undeveloped public lands, but Wilderness bans bicycling.
Federal regulations mandate that the Forest Service evaluate new Wilderness
possibilities when it revises a forest plan. In this case, the agency is
proposing to recommend new and expanded Wilderness, which would ultimately
close trails to biking.
The other main problem is the expansion of unauthorized trails in this forest
and just about everywhere. Trails and trail users do cause some impacts to
ecosystems and when users build new routes without permission, problems
multiply. The agency's proposed answer to this problem is a prohibition of
bicycling on most unofficial routes.
Bicyclists may be one of the groups building new routes through the forests,
but we're hardly alone. More important is the fact that simply riding on
existing trails causes no more harm to the land than hiking those routes and
no one is proposing banning hiking on those paths. Since there is little
difference in our impact to the land, the Forest Service should not
discriminate against cycling.
The Forest Service should address the problem of unauthorized trails through
site-specific travel management planning processes. Banning biking will only
harm relationships and not solve the environmental problem. There may be
sensitive areas where non-system trail use is problematic, but in those
places the agency should require ALL users to stay on trails.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT:
The proposed plan presents three mountain-bike specific rules:
1. The first rule (S-1) would say that bicycling is allowed on all system
trails, except where specified closed, such as the Appalachian Trail. IMBA
and NEMBA support this provision.
2. The second rule (S-2) states, "Cross-country mountain bike travel outside
the open system of Forest trails and open travel corridors is prohibited."
This suffers from problems of definition. The Forest Service documents do not
define "cross-country travel." If it means trampling on vegetation, IMBA
would support a ban on cross-country travel, for cyclists and other users.
But in this proposed rule the agency appears to prohibit bicycling on most of
the narrow, unofficial paths through the forest. If hiking is allowed on
those paths, bicycling should be allowed too. Our impacts are about the same.
3. The third proposed rule (S-3) states, "Mountain biking will not be allowed
on travel corridors unless open to that use." This is plainly discriminatory.
What about mountain biking makes it improper on travel corridors? Why should
bicycling face a "closed-unless-opened" policy while hiking and equestrian
travel enjoy the "open-unless-closed approach?
WILDERNESS:
IMBA and NEMBA support protection of all roadless areas on all national
forests. But the White Mountain National Forest should recognize that
Wilderness is not the only way to protect public lands. Options include
boundary adjustments to avoid trails; White Mountain-specific rules to
protect roadless areas; and planning designations such as "Management Area
6.2 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation" in this plan or the "Primitive
Backcountry" class used in the Chattahoochee National Forest of Georgia.
Areas with trails threatened by potential new Wilderness in the White
Mountain N.F. include:
a. Sandwich Range expansion: Greeley Ponds, Mt. Osceola, East Pond, Guinea
Pond, and Black Mountain Pond trails
b. Wild River: Highwater, Wild River, Black Angel, Basin, Burnt Mill Brook,
Moriah Brook, Bog Brook, Wildcat River, Rainbow and Shelburne trails.
c. Pemigewasset expansion: Hancock Notch, Sawyer Pond, and Signal Ridge trails
d. Kilkenny: Mt. Starr King, York Pond, Bunnell Notch, Mt. Cabot, and Unknown
Pond trails.
SUMMERTIME ORV USE IN THE MOAT MOUNTAIN AREA:
Alternative 4 would authorize a new motorized trail system in the Moat
Mountains area just west of North Conway. This is a heavily used bicycling
and hiking area near quiet neighborhoods and is an inappropriate place for a
motorized system. There is insufficient parking for current users, and
motorized users would require significantly more space to accommodate
vehicles with trailers. Additionally, there are multiple unauthorized points
of access, such as from the five neighborhoods that abut the Forest, which
would create poor conditions for enforcement.
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
ACTION ALERT
DEFEND MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS IN THE WHITE MOUNTAINS OF NH
A new draft management plan for the White Mountain National Forest in New
Hampshire could greatly diminish bicycling opportunities. We urge all New
England mountain bikers to write to the U.S. Forest Service.
To comment:
All mailed comments must be postmarked by December 16, 2004. Send comments by
mail to Forest Planner, WMNF, 719 N Main St, Laconia, NH 03246l; or by email
to wmnfplan@fs.fed.us.
Key points:
Include one or more of the following points in your own words. Any personal
stories that illustrate your point are especially helpful.
1. Travel management: Mountain biking should be permitted on non-system
trails unless posted closed. The impacts of cyclists and hikers are similar,
and treating them differently will harm relationships, require enforcement,
and not solve any environmental problems.
2. Wilderness: Proposed Wilderness areas, if ratified by Congress, would
prohibit bicycles from important trails. If you enjoy riding any of the
trails (listed in the background section below), please mention them by name.
Urge the Forest to use boundary adjustments and alternative designations to
avoid these trails so that trails appropriate for mountain biking are not
impacted by Wilderness. Also ask the Forest Service to protect White Mountain
N.F. roadless areas from further road building.
3. Summertime ORV use: the Moat Mountain region is inappropriate for the ORV
use proposed in Alternative #4.
To learn more about the plan:
Refer to the background summary information below and visit the Forest
Service website:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_fpr_Web/forest_plan/revision/
IMBA/NEMBA travel comments to the Forest Service:
http://www.imba.com/resources/agencies/10_04_whitemtn.html
Please pass this alert on to your friends and associates. Thank you for
taking action!
---
Philip Keyes
NEMBA executive director
Mark Jenks
IMBA New Hampshire representative
Gary Sprung
IMBA staff
---------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
The White Mountain National Forest has a history of good relations with
bicyclists. The new plan does not change this, but bicycling management is a
new task that seems to be challenging these well-meaning managers. The issues
stem from two problems. The first is old: Bicyclists generally support
protecting America's undeveloped public lands, but Wilderness bans bicycling.
Federal regulations mandate that the Forest Service evaluate new Wilderness
possibilities when it revises a forest plan. In this case, the agency is
proposing to recommend new and expanded Wilderness, which would ultimately
close trails to biking.
The other main problem is the expansion of unauthorized trails in this forest
and just about everywhere. Trails and trail users do cause some impacts to
ecosystems and when users build new routes without permission, problems
multiply. The agency's proposed answer to this problem is a prohibition of
bicycling on most unofficial routes.
Bicyclists may be one of the groups building new routes through the forests,
but we're hardly alone. More important is the fact that simply riding on
existing trails causes no more harm to the land than hiking those routes and
no one is proposing banning hiking on those paths. Since there is little
difference in our impact to the land, the Forest Service should not
discriminate against cycling.
The Forest Service should address the problem of unauthorized trails through
site-specific travel management planning processes. Banning biking will only
harm relationships and not solve the environmental problem. There may be
sensitive areas where non-system trail use is problematic, but in those
places the agency should require ALL users to stay on trails.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT:
The proposed plan presents three mountain-bike specific rules:
1. The first rule (S-1) would say that bicycling is allowed on all system
trails, except where specified closed, such as the Appalachian Trail. IMBA
and NEMBA support this provision.
2. The second rule (S-2) states, "Cross-country mountain bike travel outside
the open system of Forest trails and open travel corridors is prohibited."
This suffers from problems of definition. The Forest Service documents do not
define "cross-country travel." If it means trampling on vegetation, IMBA
would support a ban on cross-country travel, for cyclists and other users.
But in this proposed rule the agency appears to prohibit bicycling on most of
the narrow, unofficial paths through the forest. If hiking is allowed on
those paths, bicycling should be allowed too. Our impacts are about the same.
3. The third proposed rule (S-3) states, "Mountain biking will not be allowed
on travel corridors unless open to that use." This is plainly discriminatory.
What about mountain biking makes it improper on travel corridors? Why should
bicycling face a "closed-unless-opened" policy while hiking and equestrian
travel enjoy the "open-unless-closed approach?
WILDERNESS:
IMBA and NEMBA support protection of all roadless areas on all national
forests. But the White Mountain National Forest should recognize that
Wilderness is not the only way to protect public lands. Options include
boundary adjustments to avoid trails; White Mountain-specific rules to
protect roadless areas; and planning designations such as "Management Area
6.2 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation" in this plan or the "Primitive
Backcountry" class used in the Chattahoochee National Forest of Georgia.
Areas with trails threatened by potential new Wilderness in the White
Mountain N.F. include:
a. Sandwich Range expansion: Greeley Ponds, Mt. Osceola, East Pond, Guinea
Pond, and Black Mountain Pond trails
b. Wild River: Highwater, Wild River, Black Angel, Basin, Burnt Mill Brook,
Moriah Brook, Bog Brook, Wildcat River, Rainbow and Shelburne trails.
c. Pemigewasset expansion: Hancock Notch, Sawyer Pond, and Signal Ridge trails
d. Kilkenny: Mt. Starr King, York Pond, Bunnell Notch, Mt. Cabot, and Unknown
Pond trails.
SUMMERTIME ORV USE IN THE MOAT MOUNTAIN AREA:
Alternative 4 would authorize a new motorized trail system in the Moat
Mountains area just west of North Conway. This is a heavily used bicycling
and hiking area near quiet neighborhoods and is an inappropriate place for a
motorized system. There is insufficient parking for current users, and
motorized users would require significantly more space to accommodate
vehicles with trailers. Additionally, there are multiple unauthorized points
of access, such as from the five neighborhoods that abut the Forest, which
would create poor conditions for enforcement.