Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[David Metsky]

The only input considered in the whole discussion was "amount of board feet of lumber to be sold to the highest bidder."

I don't believe there are any lumber sales from the Wilderness Area, so I don't think that was a factor here.

 

[Stash]

There was a long thread discussing this action when originally proposed. A few references to articles and op/eds written in local papers which, while providing viewpoint, likely wouldn't "formally" be considered in the decision. I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29572

 

[MichaelJ]

I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.

There are many quoted in the appendix of the decision document, and an unscientific scan of them shows at least a simple majority in favor of keeping the bridge.

 

[Stash]

There are many quoted in the appendix of the decision document, and an unscientific scan of them shows at least a simple majority in favor of keeping the bridge.

Thank you MichaelJ. I read those and the documented responses which may not necessarily be what the commenter wanted to hear but certainly beats the non-responsiveness often seen.

The driver to my original question was a how many of those on this board (for or against the action) took the time to comment...

 

[smitty77]

There was a long thread discussing this action when originally proposed. A few references to articles and op/eds written in local papers which, while providing viewpoint, likely wouldn't "formally" be considered in the decision. I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29572

I replied, and one of my comments is listed in the document:

This plan will greatly increase the effects and impacts of human use in
other areas of the Pemigewasset Wilderness.
The hike required to reach some points within the wilderness from certain trailheads will be longer with the removal of the bridges, but access will not be restricted to any area located within the Pemigewasset Wilderness. Areas beyond the bridges will still be accessible via the East Side Trail, and areas located in the northern Pemigewasset Wilderness can be accessed by the Wilderness Trail. Since the access is not limited, it is expected that all areas of the Pemigewasset Wilderness will see the same use patterns prior to the bridges removal. See 3.10 for patterns in existing recreation use.

If this is so, I would like to see how they expect one to get from Bondcliff to Ethan Pond. Access will be restricted with the removal of this bridge. It may not affect many, but it will still increase usage of a trail corridor that is heavily used and abused at present.

How and why should people care about areas that are protected so much that folks can't be there to appreciate the jewells that these locations are? (Does that last sentence make sense? Should read: Can't go there, why should I care?)

Makes perfect sense, and I also mentioned this in my opinion letter to the forest service. My guess is those that seek true solitude will be able to find it and then some in the Desolation Trail area. In another 20 years I see most of the trails in the eastern Pemi becoming very hard to follow, much like the section of trail north of the Owl's Head slide past the height of land. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of personal opinion.

I just find it all laughable his thing to create the illusion of wilderness when you have a road with major traffic less than 10 miles in either direction

What I find laughable is this statement by Ranger Fuller:

"I can recall my first visit to the bridge, after hiking almost six miles, three of those miles in wilderness, and arriving at the site. It does take one back for a moment to have such a large and substantial structure before you. This experience is out of context with a wilderness experience, both from the visual impacts of the presence of the bridge to the experience of making a long, dry crossing on a man-made structure over the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River.

Are you kidding me? There are massive stone abutments from an old railroad trestle just upstream from the bridge in question! IMO, this is a much more substantial non-conforming structure than this bridge will ever be, and very much out of context with your "wilderness experience".

Also,

With the exception of one bridge on the Thoreau Falls Trail, virtually the entire wilderness appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, and the imprint of man’s work is substantially unnoticeable.

And I suppose the decaying trestle over Black Brook is "substantially unnoticeable"? I suppose it will be once you close the trail that passes by it. To argue that this structure is adversely affecting the "wilderness experience", while said experience is occurring in the most heavily used Wilderness area in the WMNF (see below), is indeed laughable. After re-reading the statement below, I wonder if there's a push to have the Pemi Wilderness, or a substantial portion of it east of the river, re-zoned for some reason? Maybe a Pemi-West and a Pemi-East? It seems a likely scenario if they can successfully concentrate use to the west side of the river:

The Wilderness Trail and the suspension bridge are in Zone D, which the Forest Plan describes as the most heavily used and most highly developed trails and areas within the WMNF Wilderness. It goes on to state that bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection.

And again, my argument is the removal of this bridge will have a very large, negative impact on the resources in the western Pemi, not to mention putting the public safety at risk.

 

[smitty77]

But, it seems that there has been an attitudinal change of view by the USFS the past few years, which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond, not to mention the ridiculous waste of resources in attempting to remove the side trail to Owls Head.

And it is this very mismanagement of the wilderness that has caused the present destruction of the vegetation and soils on Owls Head. If they used their heads for a moment, and encouraged the use of one trail / herdpath to access the summit of the peak, a lot of time and wasted resources could be applied elsewhere. From what I hear, the endless pissing match has lead to the destruction of trees on another portion of the mountain as the result of the construction of a rogue trail to the summit. The forest service should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen by being so steadfast in their resolve to disguise a well trodden route up a mountain.

And for the Forest Service to remove the summit sign, stating it is non-conforming, while erecting new signs that measure a distance of 200 feet, is absolutely absurd. I'm just plain dumbfounded.

Maybe a better solution to the "camping within 200 feet" problem would be to create, advertise the existence of, and maybe even require the use of several (or even a dozen or more) designated backcountry tent pads, such as those in the Great Gulf, so that we can keep the impact of campers confined to suitable areas. Somehow, someone thinks digging a hole in the ground and erecting two 5 foot signs is a better idea. Keep in mind, the signs don't direct you to a suitable area, only that the area you choose to trample should be 200 feet away.

The "stewards" of this protected area are doing lots more harm than good, and they need to be replaced with some that have a brain and use it rationally.

 

[sardog1]

I sent a congratulatory message to District Ranger Fuller a few days ago. Reading these inflammatory ad hominem comments only reinforces my satisfaction in having done so.

If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.

 

[MichaelJ]

which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond

I should have knocked down the scree walls up there that were put in its place. They ruined my wilderness experience with their harsh intrusion as a manmade structure.



(yes, that's tongue-in-cheek)
(sort of)

 

[smitty77]

If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.

I don't agree, but that's what makes the world go 'round.
Your welcome.

 

[Stash]

I sent a congratulatory message to District Ranger Fuller a few days ago. Reading these inflammatory ad hominem comments only reinforces my satisfaction in having done so.

If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.

I can't say that I agree or disagree on this item. I can understand points on both side but am of the opinion that I will hike where I can hike using the available resources (trails/bridges) to reduce the damage I cause. If an access route is removed I will use an alternate or I will avoid that area. I don't consider my personal preference a factor in how the overall wilderness is maintained, nor do I consider my relative safety to be a factor - if I think something is unsafe I should not choose to do it.

Interpretation of any rule put in place by government is a crapshoot and is in the hands of the players directly involved at the time. Had the proposal been to knock everything down and build condos I'd think differently and there might be a chance of a decision change, if a properly publicized. In this instance I don't see that happening.

If I agree or disagree with other activities related to USFS I will provide comment to those items in a forum related to those items.

If one chooses to vent, however, they have that right. My preferance, though, is that it is not insulting to others.

 

[TCD]

Well, I agree...with smitty. Many government agency's wilderness policies are misbegotten, and are doing more harm than good. (Sadly, these policies are driven by a contingent of folks that genuinely dislike humanity; reasons for that are TBD by their personal analysts...).

But I also agree with Stash; I don't think it's right to call the agency people involved stupid. They are doing as they're directed by politics from above.

TCD

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... I don't think it's right to call the agency people involved stupid. They are doing as they're directed by politics from above.

TCD

I'd agree that calling people stupid is inappropriate. However, if you re-read Dr. Wu's comments, he's not calling anyone stupid. Rather - removing the bridge is stupid. The act is stupid - not the person. Big difference.

 

[psmart]

I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.

"The Forest Service received over 115 letters from interested individuals and
organizations. ... Comments received from these scoping efforts were used to refine the project, to explore the possibility of extraordinary circumstances, and to evaluate potential effects of proposed activities on resources."

 

[psmart]

I sent a congratulatory message to District Ranger Fuller a few days ago. Reading these inflammatory ad hominem comments only reinforces my satisfaction in having done so. If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.

The FS did a good job of making a difficult decision. Remember that the bridge had become unsafe, so doing nothing was not an option. They had to choose between removal and repair, each with it's own drawbacks.

For the detractors, I would ask: How many government agencies actually ask for your opinion about a project, and then respond to it directly in their decision? Even when we don't like the decision, we should be grateful for this level of participation in an administrative process. Would we rather that the FS made these decisions with no public input?

 

[RoySwkr]

I also don't understand why people that can get to that location can't simply ford the river.

That depends on whether they are there for Wilderness flavor or because the want a nearly level 11-mile loop hike away from roads which as far as I can tell exists nowhere else on the Forest. [Here's your challenge - name one.] (Their list of alternates is laughable and indicates the preparers don't hike very often as they are mostly narrow and rocky with steep sections.

But, it seems that there has been an attitudinal change of view by the USFS the past few years, which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond, not to mention the ridiculous waste of resources in attempting to remove the side trail to Owls Head.

The Wilderness guidelines were changed in the last Forest Plan

Still there were maybe a dozen District Rangers over time who thought the bridge was OK, but once one decides to remove it, it's gone forever. The same thing has been happening nationwide with fire towers.

The problem with the frequent rotation of Forest officials is that you can wind up with a District Ranger who has no sense of the history of the area and no knowledge of the lack of similar recreational resources.

There are many quoted in the appendix of the decision document, and an unscientific scan of them shows at least a simple majority in favor of keeping the bridge.

I think 3 of the quotes are from a single letter I wrote.

 

[kltilton]

Peter, you make a very good point. But a lot of people on this board believe that the decision to remove the bridge was a foregone conclusion. I believe that it is more than a coincidence that the bridge is "unsafe" (but still open to use as of earlier this summer) when it is about 49.5 years old, similar to the Desolation Shelter. It seems the FS is asking for public commment to make sure they are following the rules.

The FS did a good job of making a difficult decision. Remember that the bridge had become unsafe, so doing nothing was not an option. They had to choose between removal and repair, each with it's own drawbacks.

For the detractors, I would ask: How many government agencies actually ask for your opinion about a project, and then respond to it directly in their decision? Even when we don't like the decision, we should be grateful for this level of participation in an administrative process. Would we rather that the FS made these decisions with no public input?

 

[RoySwkr]

Apparently there are no formal appeal rights to this decision but I sent a comment to the Regional Forester asking that it be overturned. I will write to Senator Gregg next.

I invite others pro & con to do the same.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/contact/

 

[Grayjay]

I think I will go do the East Side Trail and Cedar Brook, and find a way across the river and go back on the other side. Should be an adventure--something appropriate for a wilderness area.

 

[TCD]

Kevin, I'm sorry you misread my post. I was not responding to Dr. Wu. I was responding to Smitty, as I stated. Smitty referred to the stewards of the area needing "...to be replaced with some that have a brain and use it rationally." That is the statement I equated with "calling people stupid."

However, I did go back and re-read Dr. Wu's post, at your suggestion. He referred to the people involved as "mindless." You can decide whether or not that that is a reasonable synonym for "stupid."

My point was exactly the same as yours (we are "violently agreeing"). The decision is bad, the people are just people.

TCD

 

[ferrisjrf]

imagine if...

What about chaining ourselves to the bridge? If we can last through the winter, then the bridge will be 50 years old. It seems like it might be our last chance to save her.

Jason