Skidding logs across Appalachian Trail

[RoySwkr]

A landowner who sold land for the A.T. Corridor in Hanover, NH and retained a forestry easement on part of it claims that gives him the right to skid logs across the A.T. not only from the easement land but from other land he owns, and to use part of the land he sold as a log yard. Those familiar with the Mt Cabot situation will not be surprised to hear that the Forest Service intends to allow this.

I couldn't find a description of this project on the F.S. web site, perhaps someone else can do better.

 

[RGF1]

That is becuase the NPS not the USFS operates the AT Corrider .

 

[jjmcgo]

The AT was not conceived and has never been managed as a Wilderness. Rather, it is a path that gives a view of life around it. It goes through the most beautiful places in the Eastern U.S. but it also goes through towns and brownfields. You can sleep in city parks, monasteries and police stations on the AT. Parts of it are adjacent to Interstates.
Heck, at one point here in Pennsylvania, the Army practices for war around it near Ft. Indiantown Gap.

 

[Umsaskis]

I think that one of the best ways to help conservation as well as the protection of trails is to maintain good relations with the landowners. I know that a concern that some large landowners have with corridors like the AT is that the corridor would cut across their land, effectively splitting it in half, and they would no longer be allowed to cross the corridor with such activities as hauling logs. This could render large chunks of their land unusable. I am content to let them cross the AT in places, which will help them to maintain a positive perspective towards hikers and will encourage them to work cooperatively with the conservation community for such things as the AT corridor.

 

[RGF1]

I think that one of the best ways to help conservation as well as the protection of trails is to maintain good relations with the landowners. I know that a concern that some large landowners have with corridors like the AT is that the corridor would cut across their land, effectively splitting it in half, and they would no longer be allowed to cross the corridor with such activities as hauling logs. This could render large chunks of their land unusable. I am content to let them cross the AT in places, which will help them to maintain a positive perspective towards hikers and will encourage them to work cooperatively with the conservation community for such things as the AT corridor.

Not just that but we do not know what type of arrengement was made with this land owner and the NPS or the ATC woh might have arraanged it. I know I would never asllow a easment wher I could not use the land and at least move logs from one sde of the trail to another
TheAT is only possible with cooperation with he priovate land owenrs thatthe trail passes. offending them is a sure way to harm the trail and the reputation of thru hikers, who many land owners already percieve rightly or wrongly as a bunch of " pot smoking tree hugging hippy wanna be zealots " a very overly broad and wrong generalization certainly some are but , they all most remember they are often on private property an could lose the privledge to use it very quickly if they have a antagonistic attitude toward land owners . Aso not all loggers are evil land raping greed heads . Hey I dependid upon a living forest to make a living I do not have any desire to strip the land that is just extreamist porpaganda

 

[arghman]

This may be the case RoySwkr is talking about:

US House Resources Committee report re Dave Cioffi

 

[RoySwkr]

That is becuase the NPS not the USFS operates the AT Corrider .

This statement is clearly wrong and should be deleted lest it mislead others.

The Forest Service has always managed the A.T. within National Forests, since before there was a designated scenic trail. In additional, the Park Service has delegated management of some Park-owned sections to the F.S., including the A.T. in NH to the WMNF.

 

[arghman]

...so if I understand right, it's the National Park Service which generally owns AT land (unless it's otherwise part of a national/state forest etc. in which case there's no point to NPS acquiring land, vs. privately owned land where there is the risk of denying recreational access), but the USFS manages it in NH? I knew USFS managed the AT land in the Mahoosucs, didn't know it had jurisdiction over the NPS land in the Hanover/Lyme/Orford area also.

Not sure how I feel about this specific case, it's clearly not a cut & dry situation. My only comments would probably be that there should be some sort of notice given jointly by NPS and the landowner in question, as to when any operations are going to take place and who's doing it and why (they should post on the nearest road access for hikers, not just at the property boundary), that either the AT or a temporary relocation should be maintained as passable, and that the use of any NPS land as a log yard should be contingent on a subsequent cleanup satisfactory to NPS/WMNF.

The property I monitor for SPNHF has a log landing on it; an out-of-state forestry company owns property to the south which has deeded access/use which sounds somewhat similar to this case: namely, they have the right to cross the property, and the right to use the log landing. They logged their property pretty heavily in Fall 2003. In general the situation was handled badly and a number of abutters thought it was SPNHF doing the heavy timbering & creating all the noise. No notice was given (other than the Intent-To-Cut forms being posted), and they did a pretty lousy job cleaning up afterwards. Two years later the grasses/weeds are finally starting to come back.

 

[RoySwkr]

This may be the case RoySwkr is talking about:

US House Resources Committee report re Dave Cioffi

I'm almost certain this is the same property

Note that the e-mail address in my original note is as shown in the letter, but doesn't work. You need to replace the first @ with a -. Because of the error in their letter, the FS has extended the comment period to Dec. 16. I am still trying to discover where their description is posted online.

 

[Waumbek]

A landowner who sold land for the A.T. Corridor in Hanover, NH and retained a forestry easement on part of it claims that gives him the right to skid logs across the A.T. not only from the easement land but from other land he owns, and to use part of the land he sold as a log yard. Those familiar with the Mt Cabot situation will not be surprised to hear that the Forest Service intends to allow this.

The landowner indeed sold the land but it doesn't sound as if he had much choice, as he describes it:

"The other 70 acre parcel nearby
on Ruddsboro Road is occupied by my brother-in-law David Stebbins and his family.
Sections of each of these parcels were acquired by the U.S. Government in 1984 after a
long and difficult road to compromise after being threatened by eminent domain. In the
justification for condemnation letter written by the National Park Service (NPS) and
accompanied by my photo, it was written that “because the owner has actively
encouraged landowner resistance to the program despite its support by local and state
government , the credibility of the NPS is at stake”. We were resisting because the NPS
originally was trying to drive a 1,000 foot corridor through the middle of our property.
Eventually they were persuaded to compromise with all of us affected landowners. They
settled for a 350 to 450 foot corridor through our property and located it at the back
border rather than through the center."

Nor does it sound as if he has in mind an evil strip-clearcut, just a cleanup:

"The NPS located the footpath on
the only high ground we could have used as a log landing and we are left
with wetlands bordering the road from which logs could be loaded and
hauled away. Logging on wetlands is extremely expensive and not really
environmentally sensitive. Our logging operation is simply a “clean up”
and there is not much money to be made. In fact if we break even on the
operation we will consider it a success."

I'm with arghman on this one: find a compromise that appeases both interests.

 

[RoySwkr]

Here is the FS link:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whi...projects/assessments/etna_skid/etna_skid.html

What bothers me is not the project but the presentation:
They seem to indicate the guy has a deeded right-of-way (although in the Mt Cabot case they consider them worthless)
They say there is no environmentally sound alternative (although they are willing to build a road from Tripoli Road to Milll Brook in Thornton for their logging)

 

[RGF1]

The landowner indeed sold the land but it doesn't sound as if he had much choice, as he describes it:

"The other 70 acre parcel nearby
on Ruddsboro Road is occupied by my brother-in-law David Stebbins and his family.
Sections of each of these parcels were acquired by the U.S. Government in 1984 after a
long and difficult road to compromise after being threatened by eminent domain. In the
justification for condemnation letter written by the National Park Service (NPS) and
accompanied by my photo, it was written that “because the owner has actively
encouraged landowner resistance to the program despite its support by local and state
government , the credibility of the NPS is at stake”. We were resisting because the NPS
originally was trying to drive a 1,000 foot corridor through the middle of our property.
Eventually they were persuaded to compromise with all of us affected landowners. They
settled for a 350 to 450 foot corridor through our property and located it at the back
border rather than through the center."




Nor does it sound as if he has in mind an evil strip-clearcut, just a cleanup:

"The NPS located the footpath on
the only high ground we could have used as a log landing and we are left
with wetlands bordering the road from which logs could be loaded and
hauled away. Logging on wetlands is extremely expensive and not really
environmentally sensitive. Our logging operation is simply a “clean up”
and there is not much money to be made. In fact if we break even on the
operation we will consider it a success."

I'm with arghman on this one: find a compromise that appeases both interests.

SOme need to learn ter is a hi\ uge f differnce betwen thre USFS and the NPS , In deed the land in question was aquired by the NPS not the Usfs . Please get your fats right beforev flaming others . thanl yoi
If you look up the n misssion of the NMPS you will find it does i operaste tee AT corridor for the msot part.

Hanover is far from o most WMNF lands and that land has nwever been a part of the WMNF
I stand by may statement

 

[RGF1]

This statement is clearly wrong and should be deleted lest it mislead others.

The Forest Service has always managed the A.T. within National Forests, since before there was a designated scenic trail. In additional, the Park Service has delegated management of some Park-owned sections to the F.S., including the A.T. in NH to the WMNF.

Comments on this proposal are due by Nov.25, by phone 603-536-1315 , e-mail comments-eastern-white-mountain@[email protected] (hope I got that right), letter, etc.

thanks for the flame I was simply stating the AT corrifdor is for the most part maintaiend by the NPS as you read fuither thisd is the Read otther post before flaminmg . you ar misleading notI as the Etan land is very difernt than the and in quesion that was in fact aquired by the NPS , I know i am a logger i hearcall bout this all the time i see the laws and such. it is indeed part of the NPS


I think Han\ovcr NH is not any where near the land oters are talking aboput hanover is near VT not ME . I am sure the USFS does not mange the AT corridor I can find ouit s simpe phone call confrims I am rigt, te land is infactr help in part by the NPS. get ypour facts striaght befroe you throw a falme .
the toen you mention is almost 100 miles NE of Hanover NH

think again
andYes n most of the AT is maitianted or opertedby the NPS
call them and ask

 

[arghman]

What bothers me is not the project but the presentation:
They seem to indicate the guy has a deeded right-of-way (although in the Mt Cabot case they consider them worthless)

Roy, to what are you referring? I don't see the words "right-of-way" in the project description. If the following, I'd have to read the conservation easement to comment (unfortunate both that they don't cite a book/page # in the Grafton County Registry of Deeds, and that GCRD is one of three counties with Carroll and Merrimack not to put their recent records online).

The conservation easement, cited above, indicates clearly that management of the sugarbush, including improvement cuts, would be allowed in Parcel 198-29; access to remove forest products as a result of sugarbush management is an implied use of the adjacent parcel.

It is very curious that the description refers to the AT as being part of the WMNF. They do explain somewhat (although this is news/surprise to me):

Parcels 198-16 and 198-34 which include the Appalachian Trail and immediately adjacent corridor had historically been in private ownership until acquisition by the National Park Service in 1984. The land was acquired in public ownership to provide a federally managed corridor surrounding and including the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Subsequently these lands were administratively transferred to the US Forest Service to be administered by the White Mountain National Forest. Title to parcels 198-16 and 198-34 are held entirely by the United States of America.

RGF1 -- I think I understand some of the confusion here, part of it is legal stuff. (disclaimer: I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert in these manners) In the state of NH, land can be under the administrative control of a municipal agency (e.g. the Goffstown Conservation Commission, Goffstown Dept of Public Works, etc.), but the title itself can only be held by the municipality (e.g. the Town of Goffstown). This appears to be the same on the state level (e.g. see nhdeeds.com -- Coos Cty Registry of Deeds book 1054 pg 0420 for Magalloway Mtn fire tower, and book 1018 pg 0197 for the 25000 acres in Pittsburg) -- land is granted "to THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE acting by and through its FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT". It would appear to be the same at the federal level (not sure in the case cited above) -- the deed grants land to the United States of America, though it may mention a federal agency in passing e.g. Fish & Wildlife or USFS. That the gov't would administratively shuttle land from one agency to the other doesn't surprise me.

p.s. I just have to quote Coos Cty Registry of Deeds book 1025 pg 0914 for the language; I've never seen the introductory "greeting" sentence used in any legal deed more recent than land grants & town incorporations made by the King of England back in colonial times, so it's pretty spiffy to see it in a modern deed...

W A R R A N T Y D E E D
TO ALL PEOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:

KNOW YE, THAT THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, d/b/a TPL - NEW HAMPSHIRE, a nonprofit California public benefit corporation, having a place of business and mailing address at 3 Shipman Place, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, "GRANTOR", for the consideration of FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($54,000.00), received to the full satisfaction of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, 01035, hereinafter "GRANTEE", does give, grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said United States of America, its successors and assigns forever, with WARRANTY COVENANTS, all that certain parcel of land, located in Wentworth's Location, Coos County, New Hampshire, designated as Tract (16z,-I) at the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, being more particularly described in a standard property survey plan and report prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Realty, entitled: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, LAKE UMBAGOG NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND TRACTS (16z,-I), Containing 0.23 Acres, which report was prepared by Christopher H. Mende, New Hampshire L.L.S. #792, Civil Consultants, South Berwick, Maine on February 6, 2003, from which, the description is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, as EXHIBIT A.

 

[RoySwkr]

30 truckloads

With regard to the forest management issues faced by the property owner, I once talked to a Vermont farmer in a similar situation. The Appalachian Trail followed a woods road through his sugar orchard, and he liked talking to the hikers from all over the world and let them sleep in his sugar house. Then various Appalachian Trail officials (he called them "liars with neckties") came around trying to buy the trail right-of-way and told him motor vehicles would not be allowed so he would have to quit driving his tractor on it. Obviously this did not work for him, so they decreed a temporary relocation along Route 12 (for some reason they did not ban motor vehicles on Route 12). However the farmer put up his own sign at the junction saying that hikers were welcome on the old route but Trail officials were not. The alignment on the other side of the highway wasn't good either and the final reroute was in the woods some distance S of his property.

With regard to the Hanover/Etna situation, instead of cutting a route through the middle of the property the Park Service bought one side of it. It isn't clear from the Congressional testimony whether the sum paid was reduced in consideration of a right-of-way granted across the purchased property, or whether the condemnation was intended to extinguish all rights. I would say this distinction is important on whether to grant the access.

--------- Begin forwarded message (shortened) -------------
From: Susan Mathison <[email protected]>

With regard to the volume of timber to be removed from private land:
This, of course, is beyond the purview of the Forest Service except for the effects of volume on the use of the proposed skid trail. We do have a preliminary estimate of the volume to be removed from the proponent's land.

The proponent's estimate for volume to be removed would require approximately 15 truck loads of sawtimber and 15 truck loads of pulp. It appears to be a level that can be removed easily over the course of 4 weeks.