Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[Kevin Rooney]

It looks like the suspension bridge over the Pemi.

Here's the official link:

It's an incorrect decision, and leaves one wondering why we pay those parking passes for maintenance.

Edit - removed incorrect reference to location of bridge.

 

[psmart]

Just so no one is confused, this decision concerns the bridge on the Wilderness trail, and not the pedestrian bridge at the start of the Lincoln Woods trail.

I realize that active VFTT members will be aware of this distinction, but others might be confused by the text of the OP.

 

[Tobit]

Just so no one is confused, this decision concerns the bridge on the Wilderness trail, and not the pedestrian bridge at the start of the Lincoln Woods trail.

Correct. The bridge, and trail, in question is the 0.7 mile segment of the Wilderness Trail near the Bondcliff Trail. This 0.7 mile segment of trail will also be closed and reclaimed. The I-beam bridge that spans Black Brook will also be removed as part of this project.

 

[MichaelJ]

As a result, any visitor who opts to try to ford the river is doing so at their own risk. Removal of the suspension bridge does not force someone to ford the river.

Crossing the river is always a personal choice. It is incumbent upon the hiker to decide whether or not they are comfortable with crossing.

Any visitor that opts to try to ford the river is doing so at their own risk. Our removal of the suspension bridge is not forcing them to ford the river.

While these statements are *technically* true I find them to be horribly naive and not in keeping with the reality of management of the public. The fact they are repeated so many times in the document simply serves to reinforce my opinion of this. Nobody forces anyone to walk out of the parking lot and into the woods, either, but we're not eliminating all the trails.

With the closure of the .7 mile section of the Wilderness Trail, the loop will no longer exist.

This is a designated Wilderness Area. Despite being Zone D, you are still expected to be capable of, and perform, off-trail navigation. The loop will most certainly still exist and people will simply find a way to route around the "closed" trail. This closure is not going to "remove access to the bridge location." They even acknowledge that fact:

Visitors, as in any part of the wilderness, may still choose bushwhack along the banks or cross the river. It is not part of our wilderness management policy to restrict off trail travel.

One other point:

Many of the users of the popular [ Bondcliff - Thoreau Falls ] loop are looking for a relatively easy experience on flatter trails. We deem it unlikely that this type of visitor would make the considerable effort of bush whacking for more than 1.5 miles.

I somehow doubt that the person doing the Bondcliff-Thoreau falls loop is looking for an easy experience on flatter trails.

 

[TCD]

I wouldn't worry about comparing the quoted phrases to reality. The phrases are recognizable as "lawyer speak." They are plugged in there: to establish that the forest service is not inviting visitors to do anything; to establish that they have no duty to maintenance; and to establish that their actions have been taken on "reasonable" grounds. All this is just laying defensive bulwarks that can be trotted out in court the first time someone drowns in the river, and survivors sue based on the removal of the bridge.

 

[Waumbek]

All this is just laying defensive bulwarks that can be trotted out in court the first time someone drowns in the river, and survivors sue based on the removal of the bridge.

I think we just threw out the baby and saved the bath water. As if this will make the Pemi "wilderness" again.
Sigh.

 

[arghman]

So it is what it is.

I'd suggest expressing your views to your congresspersons in regards to the Wilderness mechanism in general.

 

[Becca M]

Why did they bother "gathering" any input whatsoever? I know, I know,... a legal requirement. Who are they serving? I thought that *we* pay the bills, why isn't our input counted?>?>>? What country are we in??
--Becca

 

[Kevin Rooney]

In the email I rec'd from the USFS, it said, in part " Implementation of this project is scheduled to commence on 21 September, 2009."

While the Forest Service is certainly within its rights to remove the bridge this rapidly, I question their wisdom in doing so. Typically, the implementation of a controversial plan is delayed after a final decision in order to give the political process time to play out. To disregard the political process only serves to create the impression the Forest Service is accountable to no one, and damages the perception they're being good stewards of the public lands entrusted to them.

If the FS is concerned about the safety of the bridge, then it can block access to it, while allowing appeals of their decision thru the various regulatory and political processes. It would be in their longterm interests to delay the removal of the bridge until spring.

 

[sardog1]

Somewhere tonight Bob Marshall, Sigurd Olson, Olaus and Mardy Murie, Harvey Broome, and Howard Zahniser are all smiling. As I am.

Kudos to District Ranger Fuller for "getting it."

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

While these statements are *technically* true I find them to be horribly naive and not in keeping with the reality of management of the public. The fact they are repeated so many times in the document simply serves to reinforce my opinion of this. Nobody forces anyone to walk out of the parking lot and into the woods, either, but we're not eliminating all the trails.QUOTE]

Not only a terrible decision, but her grammar is atrocious; how do these people who cannot write the King's English get promoted to such power positions? Even much worse than "lawyer speak."

 

[Snowflea]

Whether the decision is correct or incorrect is a matter of opinion. I can appreciate both sides of this issue and don't feel passionately one way or the other. (There are way bigger fish to fry IMHO.)

"Atrocious grammar" aside, I thought Ranger Fuller did a good job of explaining her decision.

 

[Waumbek]

Not only a terrible decision, but her grammar is atrocious;

Grammar and logic go hand in hand, but I'm more concerned about the latter in statements like this one:

"it would be speculative, at this point, to conclude that removing the bridge would cause more search and rescues."

Would it not also be speculative, at this point, to conclude that removing the bridge would cause the same number or fewer searches and rescues? Or, indeed, at this point to conclude anything?

The decision constantly falls back on the assertion that when the .7 mile trail is removed, there will be no traffic to the bridge site, hence no crossing, no safety concern.

I wonder.

But so does the decision in its provision to "monitor" what happens on the "removed" trail.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

I'm not sure why I care if they remove them or not. Especially if it frees up funds to be used in other more heavily trafficked areas. I like doing off trail navigation more than trail walking any ways. And anything that reduces the number of people out there means that everyone that is out there gets more of the wilderness experience.

Keith

 

[DougPaul]

And anything that reduces the number of people out there means that everyone that is out there gets more of the wilderness experience.

I rather doubt that removal of the bridge will decrease the number of people out there. It will most likely just move some of them elsewhere.

I personally prefer that the bridge stay. It is part of a traditional route into/through the backcontry and have some nice memories of trips that went over it.

Doug

 

[Mattl]

The bridge was historic, and in there lies the conflict. I can remember the first time I crossed that bridge and marveled at it's engineering while I swayed back and forth on it towering above the river. A glimpse into the past of this wilderness and what we have done to conquer it. I will both miss the bridge and understand why it was time to take it out. The one thing I can say is, I see how difficult this will make the hike for some people if they want to cross the river and it ends up being too high and ruins their plans or worse. This will change things now.

-Mattl

 

[dr_wu002]

I rather doubt that removal of the bridge will decrease the number of people out there. It will most likely just move some of them elsewhere.

I personally prefer that the bridge stay. It is part of a traditional route into/through the backcontry and have some nice memories of trips that went over it.

Doug

Philosophically speaking, I can see their point. But for all practical and reasonable purposes I think it's freaking stupid to take the bridge out. Mindless technocrats.... here's to hoping that people get angry enough at this idiocy and harass the rangers or that the rangers get eaten by a tiger or something (worse) while attempting to take the bridge out. Big middle finger from me -- at least I can say that I haven't paid the WMNF fees at any TH in more than 4 years now and frankly don't intend to start after this either. I'd rather support local businesses (Common Man, White Mountain Bagel, Mountain Wanderer, all the liquor stores etc.) where my money is concerned.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Hampshire]

I must admit that I’m a bit surprised by the reaction to this decision by the VFTT community. In light of the praise heaped upon those on this board that, travel so light and fast, that climb distance mountains on less traveled glaciers, that seek adventure off the beaten path, I’m especially surprised. In fact I thought this board would celebrate this decision.

 

[dr_wu002]

I must admit that I’m a bit surprised by the reaction to this decision by the VFTT community. In light of the praise heaped upon those on this board that, travel so light and fast, that climb distance mountains on less traveled glaciers, that seek adventure off the beaten path, I’m especially surprised. In fact I thought this board would celebrate this decision.

The issue is that they're bothering to remove (or not replace) the bridge. Removal is the key. If they were going to put some new bridge here or there people might be a little agitated by why change the status quo for some wank-philosophy.

Also, people that are cheering the decision: who is actually benefiting from the bridge removal? It's not like the hordes who, as soon as they leave the visitor center at Mt. Washington and take the cog down, head over to the Wilderness Trail to cross that bridge. Pure stupidity. Mindless, wanker philosophy spooging all over reason in my opinion.

-Dr. Wu

 

[RoySwkr]

It's an incorrect decision, and leaves one wondering why we pay those parking passes for maintenance.

I agree. They always find money to remove things but never to fix things.

This is a designated Wilderness Area. Despite being Zone D, you are still expected to be capable of, and perform, off-trail navigation. The loop will most certainly still exist and people will simply find a way to route around the "closed" trail. This closure is not going to "remove access to the bridge location." They even acknowledge that fact:

I somehow doubt that the person doing the Bondcliff-Thoreau falls loop is looking for an easy experience on flatter trails.

It is the 11-mile near-flat Wilderness/East Side loop that was a favorite of skiers that will be the real loss. I have a friend who is not well but was hoping to hike it some day, now they never will.

I'd suggest expressing your views to your congresspersons in regards to the Wilderness mechanism in general.

I agree, if this decision was based on the guidelines they need to be changed, along with the people who wrote them.