Pemi Wilderness Bridge Info - Follow-up

[Becca M]

I had a long phone conversation today with John Marinowski (Backcountry Wilderness Program) of the Pemi Ranger District about the process for bridge decisions in the Wilderness. These decisions may not matter to people who don’t use/need the resources, but, I felt it was important to be proactive since there are other resources at risk, namely the Thoreau Falls Trail Bridge. Most of this will not be new to people who were negatively affected by past decisions. Anyway, here is the gist of what I heard:

• The 50-year limit for removal is not firm. If something is older than that, it can still be removed with appropriate approvals and paperwork. As is already known, the pubic opinion gathered is for documentation purposes and IS a legal requirement. There is no public opinion vote needed or required for an actual removal because the Wilderness Designation restricts any non-conforming use.

I questioned why it was legal to remove the bridge debris older than 50 years when other debris (such as the railroad bridge near the Bondcliff Trail) is still allowed to remain. It is legal because the timeframe for the suspension and Black Brook Bridges was approved by decision-making govt parties, including the state historic govt agency (not sure of the name) and a memo to that effect was signed by the govt parties. Funding became an issue, but, apparently 50-60% of the debris has already been removed.

• My next question concerned the Thoreau Falls Trail (“TFT”) Bridge, the primary bridge allowing north/south Pemi ski-thru access due to Shoal Pond Trail’s reduced maintenance. The ultimate decision to maintain or remove will follow the same process followed by the leadership that decided to remove the suspension and Black Brook bridges. The TFT Bridge was last inspected in 2009 and will be reinspected in the next couple years. Any maintenance/removal decisions will include the same factors that led to the suspension bridge removal, including removal of nonconforming uses.

• Finally, I asked how it would be possible to modify the processes to ensure user input is part of the decision-making process. I could not get a clear answer, though, I do have names of other contacts. The essential message is that the Wilderness Process will be followed regardless of popularity on any specific decisions (understood!).

 

[RoySwkr]

Finally, I asked how it would be possible to modify the processes to ensure user input is part of the decision-making process. ...The essential message is that the Wilderness Process will be followed regardless of popularity on any specific decisions (understood!).

The time for public input is when the Forest Plan and Wilderness Process are being written/updated, in VT you are allowed to build new leantos and place geocaches in Wilderness because that's what the public wanted/said.

Then the Forest Service acts like the U.S. Supreme Court and makes decisions based on the rules not on public opinion (although like the Supreme Court they sometimes seem to base decisions on what they wish the rules said).

 

[Becca M]

The time for public input is when the Forest Plan and Wilderness Process are being written/updated, in VT you are allowed to build new leantos and place geocaches in Wilderness because that's what the public wanted/said.

Then the Forest Service acts like the U.S. Supreme Court and makes decisions based on the rules not on public opinion (although like the Supreme Court they sometimes seem to base decisions on what they wish the rules said).

Excellent information! On my next call, I will ask for the update schedule. I would assume they publish a revision schedule.

 

[MichaelJ]

The Forest Plan was last published in 2005. It is listed as valid for the next 10-15 years. The previous one was 1986.

Here's the thing about the Forest Plan. The Wilderness Management appendix specifically states that in Zone C, areas within 500 feet of moderate-use trails, "bridges may exist, but shelters and toilets may not." "Bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection only."

In Zone D, areas within 1/4 mile of developed facilities or 500 feet of high use trails, "The landscape within this zone is modified by the developed trail system and associated structures, and may include bridges, primitive shelters and/or toilets, designated campsites, and impacts resulting from recurring recreation use." "Bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection." (note lack of word "only" there)

The East Side Trail / Wilderness Trail is Zone C, as is the Bondcliff Trail. The Lincoln Woods Trail / former Wilderness Trail is Zone D all the way to the Bondcliff Trail. Unfortunately, at this point, they've gone and edited the Forest Plan online editions to remove the trail from there to the old bridge, so I don't know what zone it was; however, it had to have been at least C. For that matter, I don't know how you can call it D all the way to the Bondcliff Trail then only C, unless it's because it accounted for people going to the bridge, looping and coming back. But I digress …

My point is that according to their own Forest Plan, that bridge could have stayed. In that location, by their own guideline documents, it was a legitimate structure. Their own removal of the trail section to prevent people from trying to ford the river even makes the case that it was there for public safety.

So they didn't even follow their own Forest Plan. Who's to say they will in the future.

It appears that the Thoreau Falls trail is Zone B, areas within 500' of lightly-used trails. However, the northern end is Zone D, of course, and the southern end is official Zone C. In other words, the bridge over the East Branch is in a Zone where it is permitted explicitly by the Forest Plan to be retained for public safety reasons.

As a side note, even Zone B allows for the existence of the trail system, as well as signs at trail junctions. In fact, "It offers the greatest opportunity for solitude and/or an unconfined recreation experience along a maintained trail system." In other words, trails such as Shoal Pond should receive maintenance! It only allows "Primitive trails and trail structures consistent with WMNF Level 1 trail specifications (FSH 2309.18)" and I don't have access to this document, but by golly it's still *some* maintenance, not left to fallow.

So I kinda took the long way to say that the Thoreau Falls trail bridge is, if needed for safety at that crossing, a perfectly legitimate structure, just as the Wilderness Trail bridge was, by their own rules and governing management direction. We have to make sure they don't just turn around again and do as they damned well please.

 

[Becca M]

Thank you MichaelJ for that very thorough and informative reply. I learned a lot from it!!!

 

[psmart]

"Bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection only."

That's certainly at the heart of any bridge removal decision. In the case of the removed bridge, the USFS felt there was no imperative for people to cross the river at that point, hence no inherent safety issue - people could still reach any destination by starting on the appropriate side of the river.

For the Thoreau Falls bridge, I believe the situation (and the decision) will be different. At this location I believe the "need" to cross the river can be well established, and the crossing alternatives are arguably dangerous. This is the basic reasoning that resulted in a decision to rebuild the Dry River bridge, rather than remove it.

 

[MichaelJ]

Unfortunately, at this point, they've gone and edited the Forest Plan online editions to remove the trail from there to the old bridge, so I don't know what zone it was

Thanks to Doug Paul's terrific suggestion, I used the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and found an older copy of the Plan online. The Wilderness Trail was Zone D all the way past the Bondcliff Trail right up to, and it appears including, the old bridge.

EDIT:
I will also add that the latest copy of the Plan ensures the Thoreau Falls Trail bridge is in Zone C, while the older map was vague and might have left it in Zone B. This is a good thing!

 

[RoySwkr]

The Forest Plan was last published in 2005. It is listed as valid for the next 10-15 years. The previous one was 1986.

I think you will find that the planning process always takes longer than they think hence the new plan may be more like 2025. It is possible to amend the plan sooner, and minor amendments occur routinely.

But Wilderness tends to be a one-way street - you never undesignate Wilderness and always create more and the rules keep getting stricter. When the Wild River Wilderness was designated, it was part of a compromise between environmental groups and snowmobile clubs to designate Wild River and leave the Pemi open to snowmobiles and mtn bikes. But environmental groups are willing to welsh on deals where more Wilderness is concerned.

So I kinda took the long way to say that the Thoreau Falls trail bridge is, if needed for safety at that crossing, a perfectly legitimate structure, just as the Wilderness Trail bridge was, by their own rules and governing management direction. We have to make sure they don't just turn around again and do as they damned well please.

like the Supreme Court they sometimes seem to base decisions on what they wish the rules said

 

[una_dogger]

BTW, John is a really nice guy, he worked with us Saturday. He's also the ranger we met on East Osceola Peak the day of Eric Rathbun's Grid Finish! Remember him? The guy I teased to tell the crowd waiting on Main Osceolo Peak that we had turned around due to poor conditions?? They never saw him, and that remained something of a mystery to me until I saw John again sunday, he went down the Dog Tail Slide on those giant Atlas snow boats of his.

 

[Becca M]

If the "cost/benefit" analysis had included the TOTAL cost of removal of the bridge (which John admitted it HAD NOT!!!), I would guess they would have kept the bridge.... Who was responsible for THAT analysis????? Wait, it wasn't about the money, right?????

Perhaps our parking permits paid for the "removal"!!! Oh wait, that $ goes into the general fund, doesn't it????

Get ready for a replay on the TFT bridge, except, I guess not many people will care.... BEFORE it's gone.....

SIGH! (let the people/users decide what's legal/illegal in the Wilderness!!!!!)

 

[Rainman]

According to Chris Dailey's blog, the USFS was bringing hay out to horses for the removal of bridge remains.
http://dailey7779.blogspot.com/2013/01/owls-head.html

 

[Becca M]

Thanks for the update!!! Interesting info about the hay/horses - but that is for the Black Brook bridge remains removal, which is/was on the opposite side of the Pemi River from the old suspension bridge remains (if still there)

According to Chris Dailey's blog, the USFS was bringing hay out to horses for the removal of bridge remains.
http://dailey7779.blogspot.com/2013/01/owls-head.html

 

[RoySwkr]

According to Chris Dailey's blog, the USFS was bringing hay out to horses for the removal of bridge remains.

They are using snowmobiles/ATVs to take hay to Black Brook? While not have them drag out the remains on the return trip?

 

[Sunshine Chris]

Wouldn't want them to think practical

 

[psmart]

I suspect the steel girders are too large for a snowmobile or ATV, but could be readily moved with a team of horses.

As for the hay, was is moved all the way to Black Brook by snowmobile/ATV, or just to the Wilderness boundary?

 

[Dave Bear]

Wonder who has the team out there. They had talked with a friend of mine at one time but would not let the team walk across the bridge so they would have to ford the brook. Would be nice to seem some photos of a team back out in teh Pemi after all these years!

 

[Dave Bear]

They are using snowmobiles/ATVs to take hay to Black Brook? While not have them drag out the remains on the return trip?

My guess is to the Wilderness Boundary only and the horses would skid the hay to where ever they are setting up shelter. I would think they would short hitch all the hauls to just outside the boundary and pick the debris up in the summer with a pickup truck istead of making long hauls all the way to LW. And they are being practical using horses since a snowmobile or atv could not drag very much compared to a team of draft horses! Unless the ATV were a skidder or tractor!;-)

 

[giff]

There were no motorized vehicles beyond the Franconia Brook Bridge. Horses were used to bring all of the remaining pieces of the Black Brook bridge from the bridge site to the wilderness boundary. The Forest Service plans to move the debris across the bridge this winter for motorized transport from the wilderness boundary to Rt 112.

 

[erugs]

They are using snowmobiles/ATVs to take hay to Black Brook? While not have them drag out the remains on the return trip?

Or have the horses drag in their own hay? No snowmobiles allowed! Edit: Guess I"m a little late with this post, but still...

 

[Becca M]

Is it me or is this discussion of hay/horses/snowmobiles just pointing to a larger problem with this whole "wilderness" situation????? Ridiculous. PA-LEEZ!!!!!