Defend Mountain Bike Access In The White Mountains Of New Hampshire

Action Alert

For Immediate Release
11-20-04
Contact: Gary Sprung

303-545-9011

Philip Keyes
NEMBA executive director

Mark Jenks
IMBA New Hampshire representative

603-356-0233

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 .

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

---

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 problems 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:

1. Sandwich Range expansion: Greeley Ponds, Mt. Osceola, East Pond, Guinea Pond, and Black Mountain Pond trails
2. Wild River: Highwater, Wild River, Black Angel, Basin, Burnt Mill Brook, Moriah Brook, Bog Brook, Wildcat River, Rainbow and Shelburne trails.
3. Pemigewasset expansion: Hancock Notch, Sawyer Pond, and Signal Ridge trails
4. 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.