Mt Major - Major Trail work and limited parking for the next 12 weeks

[peakbagger]

https://www.unionleader.com/nh/outd...cle_b2fb65ea-13c5-11ef-84f2-1fc428c556da.html

Sounds like a place to avoid.

 

[sierra]

It's already crazy busy with the large lot open, the number of cars that will park along the highway will rival the problem that occurred in Franconia Notch. Many of us regulars use the other trails anyway when it's the busy season, there are many quiet trails in the Belknaps. It is a worthy project, the current trail looks like the eroded section going up the KRT from the tram lot.

 

[Ken MacGray]

Due to the state of the lower section of Mt. Major Trail and the years of destruction caused by erosion, this work is definitely needed. Good to see it finally getting underway.

In case you don't want to deal with the Union Leader paywall, here's the info straight from the source:

https://www.forestsociety.org/project/mount-major-stewardship

 

[skiguy]

It's already crazy busy with the large lot open, the number of cars that will park along the highway will rival the problem that occurred in Franconia Notch.

What's crazy is that parking is allowed on Rt. 11 to begin with. Think of how much less impact would occur on the trail if it was not allowed.

 

[sierra]

What's crazy is that parking is allowed on Rt. 11 to begin with. Think of how much less impact would occur on the trail if it was not allowed.

I am surprised that Alton allows roadside parking. It's a fairly dangerous road to park and walk on. I would go elsewhere before parking on route 11, but I don't go there when it's that busy anyway. Your point on impact is valid, but there is no stopping the crowds, there are a few popular NH peaks that get a lot of attention and Major is probably in the top 5.

 

[skiguy]

I am surprised that Alton allows roadside parking. It's a fairly dangerous road to park and walk on. I would go elsewhere before parking on route 11, but I don't go there when it's that busy anyway. Your point on impact is valid, but there is no stopping the crowds, there are a few popular NH peaks that get a lot of attention and Major is probably in the top 5.

Yes a very popular hike but reduced parking would slow the erosion and make it easier to maintain. There was a day when Rt. 11 was down close to the Lake with parking for a handful of vehicles. When Rt. 11 was moved and the Hikers lot was moved to it’s existing location use of the trail went up. Then the lot was expanded and use went up even more. Then people started parking on the road and use got even bigger. If we build it they will come. Just look at The Crescent Mountain Trailhead in Randolph. How many seasons did that take to become a problem. Not many. Look at what has also happened to Welch and Dickey. Dispersement needs to be encouraged and building bigger lots and allowing roadside parking is only destroying the resources we already have. It’s a no brained IMO.

 

[NHChris]

The worst erosion occurs where the trail traverses a gravel bank just beyond the parking lot. A very unstable subsurface to begin with and active watercourse. I hope they hardscape or pave that entire section.

The road walk is not in bad shape considering the use it sees.

Several eroded spots after the left turn off the logging road, but given the terrain not surprising.

Major provides a lot of bang for the buck with its views of the lake and Belknaps. Like Willard It will always be a fave of half-day hikers.

 

[Ken MacGray]

There are also other, less busy ways to get up to Major that don't appear on official maps.

 

[rocket21]

Yes a very popular hike but reduced parking would slow the erosion and make it easier to maintain.

The gullied portion is too far gone. Other than the current plan of stabilizing that portion (whether in conjunction with a relo as planned, or if it stayed on the existing trail), the erosion would have continued with or without heavy use.

It's promising to see this work being done on Mt. Major. Unfortunately, many of the main trails on the 4Ks are well on their way to the same destiny of massive erosion.

 

[peakbagger]

I expect when the crews are done with the OBP and Falling Waters hardening somewhere in the next couple of decades, they can head right over to the other 4Ks

 

[dug]

I expect when the crews are done with the OBP and Falling Waters hardening somewhere in the next couple of decades, they can head right over to the other 4Ks

Remember how the original idea behind the 4Ks was to "spread the traffic around from the main peaks". Now we have alternate lists to spread the traffic around away from the 4Ks. We're loving the peaks to death.

 

[skiguy]

The gullied portion is too far gone. Other than the current plan of stabilizing that portion (whether in conjunction with a relo as planned, or if it stayed on the existing trail), the erosion would have continued with or without heavy use.

It's promising to see this work being done on Mt. Major. Unfortunately, many of the main trails on the 4Ks are well on their way to the same destiny of massive erosion.

I am well aware and agree with what you're saying. Good point but not what I was saying. That gully was there in 1968 the first time I hiked Mt. Major. Not suggesting the relo is not a good idea. What I'm saying is going forward decreased impact would be prudent.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Yes a very popular hike but reduced parking would slow the erosion and make it easier to maintain. There was a day when Rt. 11 was down close to the Lake with parking for a handful of vehicles. When Rt. 11 was moved and the Hikers lot was moved to it’s existing location use of the trail went up. Then the lot was expanded and use went up even more. Then people started parking on the road and use got even bigger. If we build it they will come. Just look at The Crescent Mountain Trailhead in Randolph. How many seasons did that take to become a problem. Not many. Look at what has also happened to Welch and Dickey. Dispersement needs to be encouraged and building bigger lots and allowing roadside parking is only destroying the resources we already have. It’s a no brained IMO.

In reply to skiguy and others on this thread:
By way of intro, Cardigan Highlanders Vol. Trail Crew tends 20 miles of trail, 10 on Cardigan, 2 on Kearsarge, 6 on Sunapee. Level 1 tending plus level 2 building fixtures is plenty to keep us busy. The dynamic of hiker impacts and fixing erosion is present everywhere there is more impact than there is mitigation. To keep erosion somewhat under control requires time from both level 1 tenders and from level 2 builders,
each on a regular and timely basis. Everyone of much experience in this business knows these things. It is all spelled out in several manuals
from prominent organizations, and all say generally the same thing. It is best if we can keep a trail in what I call Needs Condition Two, where trail tending, especially cleaning drains, happens every season. Building and replacing fixtures happens as needed, or before they fail.

The weakness (IMO) of many groups is that this work is out of balance. Tending does not get done, or building does not happen in a timely manner. The result is what we see on the 4000' peaks. The model of a crew being responsible for a definite trail system (territorial) vs the departmental model that has all decisions made by a manager far away with much on their plate... The territorial model is far superior to
the departmental, although the latter is also good for ongoing support and for backup. The mutual aid model may be the best of both
models.

Of course, limiting hiker impact by appropriate-size trailhead parking lots plus no roadside parking is very needed as well. In other countries they call it the "long walk in." When trail fixing efforts still cannot mitigate hiker impacts, limiting their numbers or increasing efforts seems to be the responsible choice.

 

[Ken MacGray]

In regards to limiting trail use to reduce impact, I recently spotted an interesting nugget in this document:

https://www.nhstateparks.org/NHStat...ails Bureau/2024-04-10-STAC-Minutes_DRAFT.pdf

"It was mentioned earlier in the presentation given, but we have also been working on the Franconia Loop project. WMNF is working with partners to work on the federal side to build trail structures. The Franconia loop saw over 270,000 hikers last year. One way to manage use is better structures. Another big thing we are looking at is visitor use management, the alpine zone can’t sustain with that level of use continuing, even as hardened as it is. We have been looking at data as to how we can manage that visitor use. Mt. Hood National Forest, in Oregon, uses a permitting system. One of our WMNF former employees is out there now and we are talking with them about how they manage that permitting program and how it may be utilized here in WMNF."

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

In regards to limiting trail use to reduce impact, I recently spotted an interesting nugget in this document:

https://www.nhstateparks.org/NHStateParks/media/NHStateParks/Trails Bureau/2024-04-10-STAC-Minutes_DRAFT.pdf

"It was mentioned earlier in the presentation given, but we have also been working on the Franconia Loop project. WMNF is working with partners to work on the federal side to build trail structures. The Franconia loop saw over 270,000 hikers last year. One way to manage use is better structures. Another big thing we are looking at is visitor use management, the alpine zone can’t sustain with that level of use continuing, even as hardened as it is. We have been looking at data as to how we can manage that visitor use. Mt. Hood National Forest, in Oregon, uses a permitting system. One of our WMNF former employees is out there now and we are talking with them about how they manage that permitting program and how it may be utilized here in WMNF."

Permitting schemes or reservations are popular in this country for all kinds of public accommodations, from restaurants to national parks to BSP etc. They work well enough where the few points of access are staffed. That is possible where the roads stop at the edges of the wild lands. However, in the WMNF and in NH generally, roads go all around and through the mountains, there are three major notches with all-year highways. Dozens of trailheads are along all these roads. Permit systems work only if enforced. Closing a full parking lot plus towing cars parked along the road is also enforcement, but minus the permits and maybe adding parking fees for those arriving early enough for a space in the lot. I won't pretend to have all the answers here.

In the early 2000s the USFS on the WMNF had what they called a "fee pilot" program. All fees had to be spent on upkeep and improvements on the NF where they were collected. They published a brochure of annual report, listing the projects funded and with pie charts to show how the money was raised and spent. It seemed to have good popular acceptance, because the principle was "user pays."

 

[peakbagger]

The problem with a "fee pilot" is that in theory it is spent locally for a few years but various creative budgeting techniques usually figure a way how to drain the "extra funds".

With respect to some sort of permit program for the Franconia Loop, I think there may be conflicts with the Federal Aid Highway Act that created the Interstate system. The rules were substantially "bent" at the congressional level to actually build the parkway but one of the many rules is that the states are restricted in what they can do at facilities funded by the act and that includes "rest areas" . My speculation is setting up a turnstyle and requiring permits may not be allowed especially since the Federal Government just earmarked a bunch of federal funds directed at rebuilding Old Bridal Path, Franconia Ridge Trail and Falling Waters.

 

[skiguy]

The problem with a "fee pilot" is that in theory it is spent locally for a few years but various creative budgeting techniques usually figure a way how to drain the "extra funds".

With respect to some sort of permit program for the Franconia Loop, I think there may be conflicts with the Federal Aid Highway Act that created the Interstate system. The rules were substantially "bent" at the congressional level to actually build the parkway but one of the many rules is that the states are restricted in what they can do at facilities funded by the act and that includes "rest areas" . My speculation is setting up a turnstyle and requiring permits may not be allowed especially since the Federal Government just earmarked a bunch of federal funds directed at rebuilding Old Bridal Path, Franconia Ridge Trail and Falling Waters.

Also dealing with multiple entities that the entire loop lies within. As discussed here before Falling Waters/ Bridal Path’s Trailhead lies within a State Park. The trail then continues onto National Forest Land and then enters The National Park System’s jurisdiction only to do the reverse on the return trip. Also multiple access points exist other than this trailhead. We have beaten this one into the ground but all in all tough to administer and enforce. On a side note regarding Administrative costs I wonder how much of the 1.5 million the AMC pocketed to get the trail work going on FW/OB.

 

[sierra]

I think it would be enough to staff the loop trailhead on summer weekends and holidays. On those days, you run a permit system and once it's filled you turn people away. Not only would it mitigate the damage that comes with 1000 people a day tramping the tundra, but you also get out to FB land that you can't just walk up and hike. I think the other ways in are not that big of a factor because the main thrust of traffic is from the Parkway, tourist hikers have no idea where the Osseo trail is. Are there holes in instituting a permit system? There are for sure, but not doing anything is worse than at least trying to fix the problem. I think back to talking with Guy Waterman when he was working up there and try to imagine what his reaction to the current crowds would be? actually, I don't have to imagine, Hell he's probably rolling over in his grave as we speak.

 

[peakbagger]

So, does somebody who buys a reservation at Greenleaf Hut get an automatic permit or do they take their chances and get in line?. Then the question comes, is the state giving preferential treatment to AMC over a John Q Public?.

The lower Greenleaf trail is a nice option Plenty of parking at the Tram. The walk up the bike trail is not that bad.

 

[DavidG]

In the daks all parties say the Rt73 restrictions have helped.