davesenesac
Trail Wise!
Our precious life is short within eternity, don't waste it!
Posts: 1,710 
|
Post by davesenesac on Jul 9, 2017 14:55:41 GMT -8
How do those in this community feel about the following 3 occasional exceptions to general use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas? Specifically use of helicopters for emergency search and rescue or wildfire fighting and chainsaws for clearing trail paths on official trails?
SAR use when necessary for helicopter rescues seems to have been deemed acceptable for decades.
www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038234.pdf
snippet:No, helicopters are not allowed in wilderness for general public access. Under the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act, Section 4(d)(1), the Regional
Forester conducted an environmental impact analysis with full public process that
analyzed the public use of helicopters in wilderness areas. The Regional Forester
issued a Record of Decision in November, 1997, that does not allow public helicopter
access in wilderness. However, helicopters may be authorized by the Forest Supervisor
in emergencies such as an agency initiated search and rescue or evacuation, where the
situation involves the health and safety of people within the area, and an inescapable
urgency and temporary need exists for speed. Administrative use of helicopters by
government agencies may be authorized under a separate process and in accordance
with provisions in the Wilderness Act and ANILCA, but are not addressed in this
brochure.What types of hand portable, motorized equipment may be used by the public in
wilderness? Is equipment such as chainsaws and generators allowed?
Except as allowed for the taking of fish and wildlife (see below), neither ANILCA nor the
Wilderness Act allows the use of hand portable, motorized equipment within wilderness
in support of recreation activities. Motorized equipment includes machines
and power tools that use a motor, engine,
battery, or other nonliving power source to perform work or provide transport.
Hand portable motorized equipment includes, but is not limited to, chainsaws,
generators, power tools, and electric water pumps. Small, personal hand carried
devices that are not considered tools but rather are intended for personal safety
or enjoyment of an individual during their wilderness activity are allowed. These i
include such devices lanterns, camp stoves, flashlights, cameras, video
recorders, rescue beacons, phones, Global Positioning
8 System (GPS) units, and other similar small equipment. Administrative use of
chainsaws and power winches are allowed for clearing navigational hazards within semi
primitive motorized areas. Apparently there is currently some level of local district supervisory discretion in already allowing the above.
methowvalleynews.com/2017/06/21/u-s-forest-service-seeks-ok-to-use-chain-saws-in-wilderness/
methowvalleynews.com/2017/07/05/andrews-creek-trail-cleared-of-massive-logjam/
www.argusobserver.com/news/helicopters-chain-saws-ok-d-for-wilderness-fires/article_c406e3c8-e182-11e1-ad1b-001a4bcf887a.html
But what about chain saws for clearing trails of fallen logs? A constant yearly task in some areas, especially those with heavy forest made difficult due to lack of manpower.
David
www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/2017_Trip-Chronicles-0.html
|
|
johnnyray
Trail Wise!
Argle-Bargle, Jiggery-Pokery, and Applesauce
Posts: 2,050
|
Post by johnnyray on Jul 9, 2017 15:56:31 GMT -8
With regard to chainsaws the root problem may be the chronic underfunding, and huge maintenance backlog, lack of personnel.
Getting political so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
whistlepunk
Trail Wise!
I was an award winning honor student once. I have no idea what happened...
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by whistlepunk on Jul 9, 2017 15:57:52 GMT -8
I used chainsaws for trail clearing in a Wilderness when the volume of work was just too high for crosscut saws. Basically a jackstrawed forest from a wind event. For just a few logs a crosscut is easier to carry than a chainsaw. Or reroute the trail around the log.
Landing a helicopter in a natural opening for SAR or firefighting is generally allowed, but constructing a landing spot is not. Exception -- retrieving an injured person. Then a landing area can be constructed. Smokejumpers and rappelers can get in easy enough, but unless someone gets injured they pack out (may be many miles of cross country hiking with 100 pound packs. Hence the tougher physical standards for SJ and rappellers than regular fire crews). Sometimes helicopters can be used to retrieve the gear via external load and the people hike out with just their personal packs. Most prefer this, it was liking getting paid to backpack. :D I know I did.
When I was a helicopter crew captain I had written delegation of authority to allow portable pumps or chainsaws in a Wilderness. I was pretty judicious (I think I was, anyway) in allowing their use. The few times I allowed pumps was weighing the alternatives -- which was the greater impact to Wilderness values, 10 people camped out for a week dry mopping a fire, or 5 people/3 days with a pump from a water source? I noted that when I promoted up to my next job my replacement did not receive a similar delegation of authority.
Very rarely have bulldozers been allowed for firefighting in a Wilderness. Only in severe or highly unusual conditions and then approvals came from either the Regional Forester or DC after the Incident Commander argued his case well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on Jul 9, 2017 17:28:49 GMT -8
I generally defer to those who are directly affected by these decisions, primarily USFS personnel and administration.
They are in a much better position than I to judge if and when these exceptions are appropriate.
|
|
toejam
Trail Wise!
Hiking to raise awareness
Posts: 1,795
|
Post by toejam on Jul 9, 2017 18:06:57 GMT -8
I'm certified to use a crosscut saw in national forests. It's kinda fun and aesthetic. But when fire, wind, or hard winters cause so much blowdown that people have trouble find the trails, I think chainsaws should be used for safety's sake. This usually happens in national parks where the rangers are in the wilderness and have to deal with lost hikers. My local forest administration won't allow chainsaws in the wilderness for any reason. I think that's unreasonably obtuse, given their staff rarely sees the wilderness and doesn't clear trails.
|
|
|
|
Post by johntpenca on Jul 9, 2017 18:44:39 GMT -8
I'm not sure I understand the question. Helos for SAR is a given, although drones may reduce the need for helos IF they can mitigate the risk of fire from crashing drones (helo, drone; both are mechanized so it is kind of a pointless difference).
Chainsaws? Not acceptable in my thinking for normal clearing. If the wilderness hiker cannot deal with occasional blowdowns, go somewhere else. I'm not sure what they have done in the Mammoth backcountry with thousands of acres of blowowns. On the one hand, it is hard to expect trail crews to clear this massive amount of trail w/o chainsaws; there is no easy answer. In extreme cases, let the chainsaws in.
|
|
whistlepunk
Trail Wise!
I was an award winning honor student once. I have no idea what happened...
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by whistlepunk on Jul 9, 2017 20:31:57 GMT -8
Helicopters and aircraft were never forbidden to be flown over a Wilderness, only landing. The Federal Aviation Regulations request aircraft remain above 2000 AGL. It is not required. Agency administrative use is exempted anyway.
So it is technically not illegal for a helicopter to bring in supplies to a back country cabin or lookout via external load or low level wildlife population counts, as long as the helicopter does not land. We did it frequently. Some areas may have local policies to the contrary. On a legal level it is an undefined gray area. Drones are so new regulations are still being worked out. Some units are drafting local regulations about drones in a Wilderness when it is still not clear they have the legal authority to ban them. I'll let the lawyers and courts argue the fine points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 3:02:03 GMT -8
The problem with the wilderness act IMO is it paints the entire picture with one big broad brush and the devil is always in the details...
There needs to be exceptions allowed depending upon the circumstance.
|
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Jul 10, 2017 5:02:41 GMT -8
Thank God for wilderness areas. I wish every national forest was a wilderness area and we could close all the gravel roads eating into the very interior of this country's last wild places, especially in the Southeast where I backpack. In reality, we have no wilderness areas in the NC or TN or Va or Georgia mountains. How so? They are constantly bombarded by overhead jet traffic and any nearby so-called "scenic motor loops" which suffer from blasting motorcycle noise pollution from harleys with custom pipes and screaming crotch rockets. And don't get too certain about the rule against landing helicopters in wilderness areas and clearcutting an acre of wilderness land to do this. In 2007 I was on a backpacking trip to Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock wilderness and reached Hangover Mt at 5,000 feet and to my disgust discovered the Cheoah ranger district okayed this clearcut landing zone---  Welcome to North Carolina wilderness---after the forest service gets thru with it.  Leaving no permanent sign of man's passing. Yeah, right. I sent these pics to a Sierra Club lawyer in Knoxville and the ranger district supervisor eventually quit her job.  This was the purported purpose of the clearcut and helicopter landing---a small fire about 2 miles away and 3,000 feet below. Crazy, ain't it?  And here's the clearcut 10 years later---an unlivable bramble field totally unmaintained by, you got it, the forest service. |
|
davesenesac
Trail Wise!
Our precious life is short within eternity, don't waste it!
Posts: 1,710
|
Post by davesenesac on Jul 10, 2017 12:50:13 GMT -8
As with many controversies of this era, I tend to look for pragmatic solutions even if such means compromise versus my own views and so it is with exceptions to general policy in our wilderness areas. I'm fine with all the above news items of exceptions and support a reasonably flexible policy that fine tunes rigid general rules. That is not to say I'd expect actions will always play out in ways we might approve as tipiwalter pointed out with his experiences because individuals in position of authority make decisions, some of which have their own political leanings and agendas. Hopefully organization involved have enough checks and balances to bring unreasonably decision makers into line or eventually bring in reasonable managers that will.
With regard to chainsaws in the backcountry, as toejam mentioned using a crosscut saw sounds as though it ought be the standard policy, especially for non-federal employee volunteers. However as is sometimes the situation for the sake of clearing trails the public is interested in using, supervisors of such lands ought be allowed to make temporary exceptions even if that in some heavily forested wilderness areas is an annual situation. Does not bother this person at all in the least but rather is what I see as common sense and progressive management.
In this Internet era our government agencies are increasingly embracing online services. On the issue of fallen trees blocking trails and other trail issues like storm erosion, bridge damage, and brush encroachment, they ought to start providing mechanisms for public input since it is we enthusiasts who use such trails far more than the few actually working in the forest service especially given their chronic under-funding. Older processes of making telephone calls and hoping someone eventually does something are now ancient times. Accordingly each NF might have a sub-page for logging such reports. Thus one might hike a trail and note a couple places where trees have fallen across trails causing usual annoying walk arounds or climb overs. Upon reading the log page one might find one was already reported while the other was not. And the FS after taking care of such could annotate the log noting when items have been fixed or will be.
David
|
|
whistlepunk
Trail Wise!
I was an award winning honor student once. I have no idea what happened...
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by whistlepunk on Jul 10, 2017 14:10:49 GMT -8
One of the other past 'controversies' over Wilderness firefighting is the use of fire retardants from aircraft. Some purists felt the aerial application of chemicals is contrary to the spirit of the Wilderness Act.
The concern was threefold:
(1)The retardant is toxic to fish and aquatic ecosystems. Well, yes it is. In recent years the two major retardants (Fire-Trol and Phoscheck) have been reformulated to lessen their toxicity. Unfortunately, some toxicity remains. Sodium Ferrocyanide, (a chemical stabilizer that was present in small amounts) is no longer used. As it broke down one of the residual chemicals was cyanide that stayed in the soil. Everyone involved in aerial firefighting is aware of the fish impacts, and great efforts are made to avoid as much as possible introduction to lakes and waterways. The thickeners, that give the retardant the consistency of snot rather than koolaid is either guar gum (plant based, biodegrades completely with no side effect) or clay. No significant negative effects from those.
(2)The red dye is a long term visual impact. The dye is ferrous oxide -- rust. Not toxic, but the stain on rocks remains a long time. Just like in clothes. Sometimes, a fugitive dye that fades in a few weeks is used. It is not well liked, as it is not as bright and harder to see. The dye is for the pilot to see where the last load was dropped so he knows where to drop the next load and not double up or leave a gap in the retardant line.
(3) The main retardant chemical, the active ingredient, is ammonia phosphate or ammonia sulfate. Basically, the same stuff that is in most fire extinguishers. It is also a fertilizer. Somehow, the fertilizer action has been deemed a 'human impact' by accelerating natural regeneration of the vegetation. I think that is twisting the meaning of the Wilderness Act a bit far.
Some groups have tried in the past to get retardant banned in Wilderness for these listed reasons. Largely unsuccessful, although firefighters are now more aware of the impacts and try to use the chemicals more judiciously. Besides -- the stuff is expensive, and aircraft costs are expensive. Don't use it if you don't need it.
Some old timers may still use the term 'borate bombers'. Borate based retardants were phased out in the early 1960s. That stuff really was nasty and toxic to everything.
|
|
