Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[Ed'n Lauky]

"Crossing swollen mountain streams can provide some of the most hair-raising interludes along the trail. We recall with relish many a precarious crossing--teetering on narrow tree trunks over raging torrents of swift water, or hopping from boulder to moss-slippery boulder, occasionally dropping a boot (or more) into the icy waters. Great memories of exciting moments. Sometimes terrifying. Sometimes hilarious. Always memorable.

"But there are sober, serious bridge builders at work in the backcountry who'd like to exorcise such moments form the backpacker's experience. These overeager engineers will slap a huge log bridge, complete with cement foundations on both sides, over any flowing water too wide to jump. Instead of experiencing an interesting challenge, the hiker just puts his head down and plods over a tailored bridgeway. The mentality that regards such offenses as trail 'improvements' can only be achieved by crossbreeding a beaver with a deskbound colonel from the Army Corps of Engineers.

"We should take lessons from our western hiking brethren. Out West, difficult river crossings are accepted as part of the game. In Alaska they can be really wild. Sometimes you even have to improvise a raft." (pp. 209 & 210)

As far as I know, there is no law prohibiting the fording of a stream in the vicinity of a bridge. If someone gets their kicks or thrills that way, go for it. Skip the bridge and wade in.

Quite frankly, a fifty year old suspension bridge in the middle of nowhere is something I find fascinating. It in no way spoils my wilderness experience.

 

[Willoughby]

Instead of experiencing an interesting challenge, the hiker just puts his head down and plods over a tailored bridgeway. The mentality that regards such offenses as trail 'improvements' can only be achieved by crossbreeding a beaver with a deskbound colonel from the Army Corps of Engineers.

(TEO is quoting the Watermans.)

I'm interested in how you reconcile this view with the abandonment of a middle section of the Wilderness Trail. You're not the only person who has advanced the view, but I think that the FS itself has contradicted you by filling in and rerouting the trails that would lead to the former bridge site. (Or planning to, but it seems like a fait accompli.)

And before anyone asks: yes, I have hiked the Wilderness trail from Lincoln Woods to Stillwater, and I have also hiked the eastern/southern route. I heard history speaking to me along much of the Wilderness trail, and I specifically enjoyed the section that's being abandoned.

 

[Fisher Cat]

Quite frankly, a fifty year old suspension bridge in the middle of nowhere is something I find fascinating. It in no way spoils my wilderness experience.

I like your thinking Ed. It wouldn't spoil mine either. Having hiked out west quite some distance and over various terrain to get to remote ghost towns (not necessarily peaks, but hiking all the same), I enjoy examining old man-made things. I mean that in the sense of, I like watching how something man-made, built with the intention to remain, be slowly and surely consumed by the very elements they were meant to conquer. Not that a bridge is an all-conquering structure mind you, but the principle is the same.

I feared wading into this discussion to begin with, but I guess that's my only feelings on the matter. I'm not sure they are relevant, but, oh well. It's hard not to get sucked into a multi-page discussion.

 

[smitty77]

In regards to this bridge, the Forest Service is following the policies and laws that guide them, which, in this case, seeks to restore and protect what little wildness remains. So I look at this as a step forward. A small step towards the realization of the ideal of wildness. I say bravo and thank you for trying to make life a little more difficult for us in the Pemi Wilderness. I accept that this has and will cost us money.

Thank you TEO, that was well put. I fully understand and respect the policies and laws regarding the Wilderness. What I take exception to is the arbitrary application of these laws and policies. To remove the bridge is fine, but to rebuild other bridges in neighboring Wilderness areas within the White Mountains is what I have a problem with most. I don't remember which forum it was on, but a fellow member pointed out that those bridges are in two different Wildernesses which are managed differently. This simply should not be. If the various ranger offices of the Forest Service are to operate so differently, is there any oversight into their overall operation and application of said laws and policies? I'm starting to think there isn't, and this is what I fear the most.

 

[psmart]

What I take exception to is the arbitrary application of these laws and policies. To remove the bridge is fine, but to rebuild other bridges in neighboring Wilderness areas within the White Mountains is what I have a problem with most. I don't remember which forum it was on, but a fellow member pointed out that those bridges are in two different Wildernesses which are managed differently. This simply should not be. If the various ranger offices of the Forest Service are to operate so differently, is there any oversight into their overall operation and application of said laws and policies? I'm starting to think there isn't, and this is what I fear the most.

All the Wilderness areas in the WMNF are managed under the same rules and guidelines according to the WMNF Plan. Although the decisions are made by different personnel in each district, I believe that differences in the decisions are primarily a matter of different circumstances for each bridge, rather than any inconsistency in the application of the rules. Remember, there is no simple rule regarding bridges. As explained in the decision memo, it's a complex decision based on a number of factors, so there is no reason to expect the same outcome in all cases.

 

[dr_wu002]

Bridge is gone, boo hoo. At best it functioned to enable an 11 mile ski route. Most other traffic needs can be served by the East Branch Truck Road or whatever it's called -- it's not like you can't get to any of those areas anymore, you just can't do the loop. Waste of time and resources in my opinion but then again, who really cares. They replaced the bridge on the Great Gulf Trail which is far more important in my opinion.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Waste of time and resources in my opinion but then again, who really cares.-Dr. Wu

Hmmm, 6000 views and 146 posts in less than two weeks on this thread, not to mention the 10,000+ views and 20+ pages of posts on the earlier Pemi bridge thread, I think answers your question "who really cares."

 

[dr_wu002]

Hmmm, 6000 views and 146 posts in less than two weeks on this thread, not to mention the 10,000+ views and 20+ pages of posts on the earlier Pemi bridge thread, I think answers your question "who really cares."

I meant in the grand scheme of things.

Do you really take things that I say serious anyway?

-Dr. Wu

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I meant in the grand scheme of things.

Do you really take things that I say serious anyway?

-Dr. Wu

Every word, Dr. Wu!

 

[dr_wu002]

Every word, Dr. Wu!

Maybe we can go build our own bridge outta Barge Glue!

-Dr. Wu

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

No Solitude

Somehow I get the feeling that there won't be any solitude in the Pemi wilderness this weekend. In fact it's liable to be kind of crowded out there.

There's nothing like a bit of controversy and a little bridge work for destroying that wilderness experience.

 

[RoySwkr]

It looks like the "new" trail was once the turning wye for the RR, I sort-of remember it
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=44.11027,-71.52447&z=15&t=T

 

[expat]

Great research, TEO

TEO, thank you for providing the thoughts of wilderness promoters of yesteryear. There is room in the WMNF for Wilderness areas, where permanent manmade aids are minimal, or even non-existent.

In addition to that information, I noted in the WMG that when they cover any of the WMNF Wilderness areas they note this: "Wilderness regulations, intended to protect Wilderness resources and promote opportunities for challenge and solitude..." (italics added for emphasis). They then go on to describe the limitations and restrictions on mechanized use, camping, etc. that are particular to the Wilderness.

Removal of the bridges will increase challenge and I think will also increase solitude in many areas of the wilderness, although it may decrease solitude in some few areas, which, to be honest, currently don't provide much in the way of solitude anyway.

Although there may be bridges in other Wilderness areas in the WMNF, that doesn't mean that they are required in all areas that are designated as Wilderness. Just as there are different levels of trail difficulty, I can see that there could be differing levels of Wilderness challenge.

Some people may not be comfortable ascending the trail up Huntington Ravine, and in the same way, some may not be comfortable in the Pemi Wilderness area as it will exist after these bridges are removed. There are other places for those less comfortable.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I did the loop today to see for myself what is going on.

When you get to the spur that leads to the river, the trail is clearly blocked.

We went several hundred feet upstream and bushwhacked to the river. From out in the middle of the river you could get a good view of what is left of the bridge. There obviously is no sense in trying to save the bridge. By the end of next week it will be gone.

The river was very easy to rock hop today. No need to put on the sandals. There are obviously certain times of year when the river is fordable.

On the north side of the river we bushwhacked around the closed section of the trail. Great pains had been taken to block this trail off.

The Ranger on guard at the bridge told me the trails were blocked to protect hikers from any danger while the bridge was being taken down. But another Ranger told me that even after the bridge is down the trails will remain blocked. He also mentioned that a bootleg trail is forming from the junction of the Bondcliff trail down to the river. I hadn't been aware of that and I must admit that I didn't notice it when I went by.

 

[Amicus]

I did the loop today to see for myself what is going on.

I guess they weren't bluffing. Those inner-city homicide tapes certainly add to the Wilderness Experience.

We could see last Sat. that the East Branch was low and easily fordable. I have posted a couple of other bridge pix, but here is the one from the middle of the bridge looking east, which won't be replicated by anyone without a crane or jetpack:

Note the foundation for the old RR bridge.

 

[Tom Rankin]

On the north side of the river we bushwhacked around the closed section of the trail. Great pains had been taken to block this trail off.

[/QUOTE]The sign says 'please turn back'. It's a long back!

 

[smitty77]

On the north side of the river we bushwhacked around the closed section of the trail. Great pains had been taken to block this trail off.

The Ranger on guard at the bridge told me the trails were blocked to protect hikers from any danger while the bridge was being taken down. But another Ranger told me that even after the bridge is down the trails will remain blocked.

[SARCASM]Sure, remove the bridge because, according to the Forest Service, the crossing does not warrant it. Now they close off the area to save me from myself. That yellow caution tape blends-in well with the wilderness. Much less obvious than the bridge.[/SARCASM]

Is there a fine or threats of imprisonment for venturing beyond the tape? Will there be after the trail is officially "closed"? What's next, prohibition of "bushwhacking" north of Black Pond, where there are reports of herd paths forming? I thought there were not going to be any usage restrictions as a result of this project? Does anyone else have a problem with this, or is it just this crotchety old man?

He also mentioned that a bootleg trail is forming from the junction of the Bondcliff trail down to the river. I hadn't been aware of that and I must admit that I didn't notice it when I went by.

Hmmm, sounds a lot like what is happening on Owls Head. Take down signs and new ones will be put up. Remove simple cairns and trees get blazed. Remove blazes and trees get cut down. Remove a bridge and close trails and new bootleg trails get created.

 

[MichaelJ]

He also mentioned that a bootleg trail is forming from the junction of the Bondcliff trail down to the river.

I find it hard to believe that a trail would form in barely a week, especially considering the supposedly minimal number of people crossing the Pemi in that area.

However, I do take issue with the term "bootleg" because of course the USFS specifically gave bushwhacking and fording as the suggested alternative:

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.

It's a river - there will be good and bad places to cross it. Use *will* be concentrated and footpaths will form to those safer/better crossing points.

 

[Willoughby]

The Ranger on guard

Now there's a scary thought. Guarding what from whom, I wonder?

at the bridge told me the trails were blocked to protect hikers from any danger while the bridge was being taken down. But another Ranger told me that even after the bridge is down the trails will remain blocked. He also mentioned that a bootleg trail is forming from the junction of the Bondcliff trail down to the river. I hadn't been aware of that and I must admit that I didn't notice it when I went by.

I went up Bondcliff on Friday, and noted the herd path headed towards the river. I didn't remember it from the last time I was there, but then there are numerous herd paths off both sides of the Wilderness and Lincoln Woods trails. I'm not surprised the rangers are more sensitive to this one, but it's hardly unique.

Along the Lincoln Woods/Wilderness trail, many trail signs have been recently replaced. That's fine, they were pretty weather-worn, and much of the visual clutter at the Wilderness boundary has been cleaned up (except for the sign about a certain bridge removal project). But, at the Bondcliff trail junction, only the Bondcliff trail sign was replaced: the weathered old Wilderness trail sign was left in place.

I'm no big fan of conspiracy theories. But if a ranger can look at one of many herd paths and see a "bootleg trail", can I be forgiven for looking at an old trail sign and thinking they already knew they were going to remove the bridges and bisect the Wilderness trail?

 

[Tim Seaver]

But another Ranger told me that even after the bridge is down the trails will remain blocked.

Behold the awesome power of plastic tape and a meek plea to "Turn Back".

The comedic aspects of this are almost worth the loss of the bridge. Jon Stewart would have a field day with this stuff.

BTW, can we call the people in favor "Bridge Destruction Enablers"?