WMNF wilderness?

[Mattl]

1) yes more wilderness
2) I bushwhack all over the white mountains, especially the Pemi and you really get to see some really wild areas forgotten by most people. The eastern pemi is amazing and wild, if it werent in wilderness designation no one knows what would happen. The fact is Wilderness and natural areas are the only way to have real protection of an area. Without that you could really see the possibility of roads coming into areas. Look at Maine.. thats all I have to say.
I completely agree with arghman! The pemigewasset and other areas need expansion. Hancock Notch is one of the wildest and least used areas of the Whites.
3)Some areas dont need wilderness protection, they are a more working forest. Examples would be near Carr Mountain, three ponds, or Killkenny and areas around waterville. There should be places for everyone and some dont have to be really difficult to travel through. Places like Lonesome lake are family areas and should stay that way. The point is, some areas are very large roadless blocks and need the most protection possible because of how rare those really are now. -Matt L

 

[arghman]

I completely agree with arghman! The pemigewasset and other areas need expansion. Hancock Notch is one of the wildest and least used areas of the Whites.

Excuse me? Last year I merely posted a summary of what the WMNF's "preferred alternative" would do. In no way do I agree with the Preferred Alternative's viewpoint on Wilderness. I am opposed to additional Wilderness areas unless they achieve a degree of protection to sensitive natural areas that can be accomplished by no other means. For the most part, the off-trail areas in WMNF that are outside of Wilderness cannot be easily distinguished from those that are inside Wilderness, and they are both wilderness with a small W, regardless of whether they fall under Congressionally-designated protection. Area within the WMNF happens to be some of the most protected lands in the entire state & I would rather us as a society be satisfied with that, and spend our collective energy filling in the gaps to protect important lands in this state outside of the WMNF which are far more vulnerable to development.

While Wilderness designation is keeping land from having its trees cut (which will grow back), dirt roads from being built, more than 10 people in a group from hiking somewhere, chainsaws from being used on trail maintenance, cairns and blazes from being left alone, and shelters and bridges from being rebuilt when they need repair (and all of these are separate impacts lumped together in the package of Wilderness designation; even if we all agreed that we don't want trees cut in one area, we're stuck with all the other consequences of Wilderness), the rest of the state outside WMNF is being butchered with abandon, its farmland ripped apart, its forests cut, all subdivided and developed into house lots and shopping malls. Wal-Mart is trying to build another store in Nashua and get permits to pave over an acre of wetlands to get in the required parking. There are developers down south here that are trying to bargain with planning boards to get more houses by offering conservation easements on land that contains mostly wetlands and which is already undevelopable and of no value to them. These same developers walk away with huge profits and leave our towns struggling with the cost of infrastructure & school funding. In the north, huge blocks of land outside the WMNF are changing hands from timber/paper company to developers who have their eye on building up a 2nd-home industry. Our state has slashed its conservation funding by 87% the past two legislative sessions, but meanwhile has been willing to borrow over $100 million to speed up the I-93 widening without giving more than a token interest to help towns deal with the resulting impacts of increased residential growth. In short, it seems like a crazy world to me today in New Hampshire, with the danger to the WMNF being one of the least of our worries.

I wish more people could spend the time to take a look at the whole perspective of land protection, and think about where big-W Wilderness lies in the grand scheme of things, with all of its consequences.

if it werent in wilderness designation no one knows what would happen. The fact is Wilderness and natural areas are the only way to have real protection of an area.

Mattl, I respect your opinion, but I disagree, and I don't know how to respond beyond what I've said already, without sounding nasty or arrogant, so I'll just leave it at that. I'm sure we share the same wish for some areas of the WMNF to remain as they are now, just a difference of opinion on extent, and the mechanism necessary.

 

[Mattl]

Uh oh, I thought this was a new topic, and I thought you were in favor of those areas..opps. sorry about that. I do agree that the state as a whole needs to look at more land protection big time. The only good news is that NH has protected now over 1,500,000 acres of land. 300,000 addition acres has been saved since 1998 or so. I think this sounds wonderful and is in some cases, but yes southern NH needs some serious attention- Matt L

 

[arghman]

damn, I thought this was a new topic, and I thought you were in favor of those areas..opps. oh well I still stand by my voice- Matt L

As do I. Sorry if I jumped on you for a simple mistake.

 

[arghman]

Plan now seems to be available on WMNF's plan revision page

 

[sierra]

I completely support new wilderness area's, here's why. NH is small and taking a middle road can be costly in the long run, when given the chance to save land this day and age you take it. I also think there are many areas where logging and mixed use should stay that way. BUT, I think of the big picture as well, what about in 10 or say 20 years, how much expantion of civilization will impact us backcountry users then? Dont know about others, but I got another 25, 30 years of good hiking in me, I say lets stash more land away now, better safe then sorry, the more I think about more wilderness, the more I support it.

 

[blacknblue]

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.

I like the part where the ATV guy calls the decision "The tyranny of the majority."
Yeah, that darn democracy thing... always getting in the way.

 

[arghman]

For the record, here is the pertinent portion of the Record of Decision (ROD.pdf page 25-26) by Randy Moore, the USFS Regional Forester. (This document is the one to read; all the other ones are essentially information-gathering documents with the final decision on which of the four Alternatives left pending for the RoD.)

The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the subsequent Eastern Wilderness legislation have demonstrated the will of the people to have some land set aside that could be managed in an untrammeled state. With increasing development in the East, and the desire of people to reconnect with a place in its true wild state, it is reasonable for me to recommend additional lands be considered by Congress for Wilderness designation. The additions to the Sandwich Range Wilderness and the proposed new Wild River Wilderness would provide unique opportunities for solitude and preserve ecological, geological, and other features of scientific, educational, scenic, and historical value. While there would be some trade-offs and effects on other outputs and experiences, I believe the long-term benefits outweigh the trade-offs in the case of the two areas recommended. I considered recommending other areas discussed in the EIS for Wilderness, but believe Wilderness designation in those areas would significantly disrupt the balance of expected experiences, outputs, and services provided on the Forest. The proposed addition of 34,500 acres to the Wilderness Preservation System would result in approximately 18 percent of the Forest being managed as Wilderness.

The recommendation is going to essentially pick Alternative 2, with an additional 900 acres in the Ferncroft area for recommendation to Congress in addition to what Alternative 2 proposed. (see RoD p. 34)

The RoD also cites, as a factor in not selecting Alternative 1 (the status quo)

The increased demand for Wilderness would not be met, as there are no recommendations for new or expanded Wilderness areas in this alternative.

although it seems a bit vague to me where this demand for Wilderness is coming from, what aspects of Wilderness are being demanded (e.g. prohibitions on timber harvesting / road building? or removal of shelters, bridges, prohibitions on >10 people in a group?), how USFS knows the existing 114,000 acres are insufficient, and why alternative methods of preserving the little-w wilderness aspects of the large unbroken sections of WMNF not in big-W Wilderness were not considered. (just my 2 cents here.)

 

[sardog1]

FWIW, the WMNF plan was the subject of today's The Exchange program on NHPR. The guests were Tom Wagner, NH Forest Service Supervisor for the White Mountain National Forest and Charlie Niebling, Vice-President of Policy & Land Management for the Society for the Protection of NH Forests. You can listen to the whole program at NH Forest Plan.

If you've been immersed in the development of the new plan, you probably won't hear anything new in the broadcast. But it's worth listening to if you're either new to the subject or just really, really into it.

As someone who once successfully sued the Forest Service on behalf of a client in another state, for failing to follow NEPA's mandates, I will say this: It sounds like the FS did a very thorough and commendable job this time. The ultimate measure of the plan's success may be that it disappoints each and every individual stakeholder group in some measure but not hugely. I'm predicting that none of them will likely have any legal basis, or appetite, for challenging the plan in court. Of course, Congress is a whole 'nother ball game ...

 

[arghman]

Am still wading my way through the Forest Plan. In addition to the Record of Decision, another document worth reading (probably more insightful in some ways) is Appendix A, Public Involvement (A_FEIS_public.PDF), which addresses, to various degrees, the major points made by public commenters.

Here's one in particular which is interesting (p. A-192):

PC 40240-17: The Forest Service should exclude the UNH trail and the trail to Jennings Peak from Wilderness designation.

This comment asks that trails to two popular day-hike destinations, Hedgehog Mountain and Jennings Peak, be removed from Wilderness recommendation. These peaks are both easily hiked via loop trails from accessible trailheads, making them popular with day hiker groups and with outfitter/guides. Hedgehog Mountain is accessible from the Kancamagus Highway via the UNH Trail. Jennings Peak is accessible from Route 49 via the Sandwich Mountain and Drakes Brook trails.

As popular day-hike destinations, large numbers of people often occupy these summits at one time, and one likely effect of the proposed expansion of the Sandwich Range Wilderness boundaries would be to limit or exclude large groups, since Wilderness standards restrict group size to 10 people or less.

UNH Trail (Hedgehog Mountain): The easy access of this trail on the Kancamagus Highway, plus the fact that the trail offers fine views from several viewpoints for a modest effort, makes this trail an ideal destination for dayhikers and many outfitter groups. Designating the summit of Hedgehog as Wilderness would affect this established use. This potential problem was also identified and described in the Inventoried Roadless Area Inventory Evaluation (FEIS, Appendix C): “The heavy day use around Hedgehog Mountain and the conflicting snowmobile use around Flat Mountain Pond could make inclusion of these two areas problematic for Wilderness management. In order to maintain Wilderness attributes, Hedgehog Mountain and Flat Mountain Pond would be most effectively managed outside of Wilderness designation.”

This adverse effect could be mitigated by excluding the summit of Hedgehog Mountain and the upper (southernmost) loop of the UNH Trail from the wilderness boundary. Therefore, it has been decided to adjust the Wilderness boundary at the Hedgehog summit to exclude the UNH Trail (which forms a small loop at the summit), which will result in a net change of approximately 15 acres less Wilderness in the Sandwich Wilderness expansion (“Sandwich-4” extension). This small change seems justified in light of the benefits of encouraging continued day-hike and outfitter use of a popular recreation site.

Jennings Peak: A comparable situation exists on Jennings Peak: including it in the Sandwich Range Wilderness will likely adversely affect its use as an established and popular group hike destination. However, the fix for that situation would require that the loop trail formed by the Sandwich Mountain and Drakes Brook trails be removed from Wilderness, which would entail removing approximately 300 acres from Wilderness, and would also require the creation of a significant “cherry stem” in the Wilderness boundary. As a result, this change is less justifiable and has not been included in the FEIS.

This is the one of the few comments/responses I've read so far in the plan, where the WMNF seems to have addressed the concrete implications of Wilderness designation with a detailed explanation. (vs. some generalities like "The WMNF recognizes public support for Wilderness designation" w/o citing polls, or "The WMNF recognizes that recommending National Forest land for Wilderness designation involves numerous traade-offs and effects.")