Removal of suspension bridge in Pemi Wilderness

[4Khiker]

The suspension bridge was built in 1959-1960 and opened to use in the fall of 1960. Prior to that, hikers utilized the former No. 17 Trestle, which stood a few hundred feet downstream of the bridge. (If you've visited the bridge, you no doubt have seen the trestle abutments.) The trestle was apparently in very poor condition and the 1955 AMC guide warned hikers that it was "not kept in repair; proceed at your own risk."

While I personally love the bridge and find it convenient whenever I get the urge to do the East Side-Wilderness Trail loop, its absence would not stop me from visiting the interior Pemi. In truth, the walk along the East Side Trail is way more interesting than the interminable stroll along the old RR grade. This is especially true from the Wilderness boundary up to the site of the bridge. My big regret is that the East Side Trail will no doubt get a lot more use once the bridge is gone and the "wilderness" feel that you get now on that side of the river will be greatly diminished by the increase in foot traffic.

 

[Waumbek]

My big regret is that the East Side Trail will no doubt get a lot more use once the bridge is gone and the "wilderness" feel that you get now on that side of the river will be greatly diminished by the increase in foot traffic.

Agreed. A few years ago I spent about 6 hours on a beautiful summer Saturday "patrolling" (long story) that trail back and forth between the campground and the bridge and saw no--0--people. The unintended consequence of the bridge removal will surely diminish the wilderness feel there.

 

[grouseking]

Agreed. A few years ago I spent about 6 hours on a beautiful summer Saturday "patrolling" (long story) that trail back and forth between the campground and the bridge and saw no--0--people. The unintended consequence of the bridge removal will surely diminish the wilderness feel there.

Hmm, that could be, especially at first. Perhaps as word spreads, less people will go there, thanks to the inconvenience of no bridge. It will be interesting to see what happens in that area in the coming months and years (if the bridge is removed).

 

[rocket21]

I wish they had provided estimates of how much it will cost to remove the bridges vs. how much it will cost to repair them.

 

[Stan]

It sounds like a safety hazard that cannot be left as-is and there's, as usual, no money to restore it ... hey! what about the stimulus funds??? The logical bet is that it'll be gone never to return.

Plenty of places a bridge would be nice but they're not in place so we don't miss them. Same with this location, eventually. This bridge made a nice loop more accessible to more people more times of the year and, in my opinion, it's loss will be unfortunate.

Maybe the timing of the removal has something to do with precedimg that 50 year milestone but a suspension bridge in a wilderness ... I like suspension bridges and I like wildernesses ... would be of such architectural and contextual significance that I believe it should be evaluated by historic preservation standards. Restoration might be a wiser use of those stimulus funds than a lot of other things proposed or planned.

 

[RoySwkr]

The steel girder bridge has been on the hit list for years, and Black Brook can be crossed most of the time. The chief negative with its removal is that people may be tempted to use the unsafe trestle.

The suspension bridge has also been on the hit list for years, although in the past that has been coupled with building a new bridge over the East Branch near Franconia Brook Campsite.
If closure means fewer people in the area, many Wilderness advocates will approve.

I will write a negative letter but suspect it will be indefinitely closed (like Dry River) even if not removed.

 

[rocket21]

It sounds like a safety hazard that cannot be left as-is and there's, as usual, no money to restore it

That is perhaps my biggest question - how much will they spend to remove it (especially following wilderness regulations)...I can't help but wonder if it'll be more costly to remove it rather than repair it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

As I said above, I've never been over either bridge nor have I been on the Wilderness Trail past Bondcliff. Dr. D. mentioned the Pemi ski-through would be an hour longer. I looked at the map a bit last night and I can see how you wouldn't be able to cross from the Hancocks to the Bonds (Cedar Brook Trail). It would appear to not affect peakbaggers per se. The impact appears to be more for skiers and backpackers, if I understand it correctly.

What specific loops, traverses, ski-throughs, etc., will you, the reader, miss? Or, what alternatives will you have for said loops?

Tim

 

[smitty77]

What specific loops, traverses, ski-throughs, etc., will you, the reader, miss? Or, what alternatives will you have for said loops?

Tim

My fondest backpacking memory was a 4 day pemi trip through that very area. Day 3 was a nice walk from Camp 16 (no longer in use) across both bridges in question and up to Throreau Falls for lunch, and then on to a night's stay at Ethan Pond. This was back in 87 or 88, and the Black Brook bridge was fairly new. I remember Max telling me the last time he had been through the area in the late 70s the Wilderness trail still used the old trestle. The hand-rail was still there when I saw it, and the decking still in okay condition. We almost crossed on the old trestle just for kicks, but decided to use the safer, newer bridge.

As we crossed the suspension bridge, I remember gazing at the old abandoned piers from the No. 17 Trestle and wondering what that bridge must have looked like, and in a way wishing they had repaired or replaced it instead of building a new suspension bridge. It was probably a historic landmark at the time of it's removal in the 60s, and if it was saved we may not be having this discussion today. From an engineering standpoint I am still impressed by the suspension bridge - by its size, height over the river, and the amount of work it must have required to erect it in the first place.

Smitty

 

[Hillwalker]

Wonder how

I wonder how they intend to remove the suspension bridge since they are not permitted to use power tools or have vehicular access in the wilderness. Of course as they did in the 98 ice storm they can suspend the rules on a temporary basis. Re vegetation of the compacted RR bed will also be a trick. As a side note, did you know that there is an old RR bed up on the hillside behind said suspension bridge (Bond Cliff side) that goes well up along the North Fork. I whacked all the way to the base of Thoreau Falls one spring day along that route. There is also quite a bit of steel rail still in place way up in there. Also in there is quite a large campsite full of old tools and some G.I. stuff that I was told was left from when a draft dodger or deserter hid out up in there during the 60s. Hooray for the sixties! Sounds a little like the "Pond of Safety" story. Got this story from my younger brother who went to Canada from NH to avoid the draft. I guess there was quite a bit of information sharing among the group. I don't know cause I had been in the Army ten years by then. GD Lifer!

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

My guess is that removal might cost somewhat more than replacing the decking and rails (if I read the USFS report correctly, the rest of the suspension bridge infrastructure is fine). But, sounds like long-term maintenance (the next 50 years?) is a concern, and the USFS notes that they will save $ on trail maintenance by closing the 0.7-mi section of the WT between the Bond Cliff Trail and the about-to-be former suspension bridge (this argument sounds absurd to me, as I have not seen any evidence that the USFS has spent much on trail maintenance in the Pemi the past few years, other than removing blue paint blazes and tearing down cairns and signs on the Owls Head Path and tearing down my all-time favorite summit cairn on top of West Bond). I also think that the USFS will have a hard time finding a dog team strong enough to sled out the steel beams from the bridge over Black Brook; "Brutus Rooney is not walking through that door, and if he does, he will be old and gray."

We can certainly accommodate the extra hour for our annual Pemi ski-through by using the East Side Trail (it is about the same distance, just more up and down), especially after our debacle this past late February. But, I worry that the USFS will next claim that the bridge over the East Branch on the Thoreau Falls Trail must go, along with the bridge over Thoreau Brook on the Shoal Pond Trail (or is it Ethan Pond Trail?). Removal of those two bridges would really screw up our Pemi ski-through trips, but would save the USFS about 10 more miles of supposed trail maintenance costs.

I hope that the USFS is not removing these bridges "out of spite" or as a political backlash, which is the sense that I am getting in reading between the lines of the report. But, perhaps my cynicism has been colored by the pointless and labor-intensive removal of blazes, cairns, and signs on Owls Head and West Bond the past few years; what a complete waste of our tax money and parking fees.

 

[psmart]

I wonder how they intend to remove the suspension bridge since they are not permitted to use power tools or have vehicular access in the wilderness.

It can be done. There are plenty of trail crews with experience in non-motorized work.

Of course as they did in the 98 ice storm they can suspend the rules on a temporary basis.

Although there was dicussion of using power tools (i.e. chain saws) for '98 ice storm cleanup, all the Wilderness work in the WMNF ended up being done with hand tools.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I will say this about Wilderness rules and power tools - since it is our tax dollars at work, I would highly prefer the rules allowed the cheapest and most-efficient method of removal. Maybe as payback, we should stop paying taxes and parking fees

They do specifically say they will use pack animals to remove the debris. It doesn't say dogs specifically though. Maybe mules? I've seen them tow some pretty big logs on Discovery Channel so the steel beams would be on par with that.

Tim

 

[Barkingcat]

I wish they had provided estimates of how much it will cost to remove the bridges vs. how much it will cost to repair them.

Yes -- I agree. I see this all of the time in working with folks who want to rehabilitate (or tear down) historic structures. Often the cost to dismantle/demo something is not too different from that of repairing/rehabilitation.

 

[The Hikers]

Is anyone else picturing barbed wire prison fence surrounding the entire wilderness in the future?----or Ranger crossing guards to check for paint
or cannisters?

 

[Waumbek]

I will say this about Wilderness rules and power tools - since it is our tax dollars at work, I would highly prefer the rules allowed the cheapest and most-efficient method of removal. Maybe as payback, we should stop paying taxes and parking fees

They do specifically say they will use pack animals to remove the debris. It doesn't say dogs specifically though. Maybe mules? I've seen them tow some pretty big logs on Discovery Channel so the steel beams would be on par with that.

Tim

Correct. Dog teams are being contemplated for removing treated sections of the suspension bridge that would not be burned on site; pack animals would remove the steel I-beam (p. 7 of scoping report). Frankly, if the bridges have to go, which I oppose, I think it would be more compatible with the so-called desired "wilderness character" of the Pemi to get the removal job done as quickly and efficiently (and low impact) as possible with a motorized vehicle than to start mushing dog teams or mule teams or driving oxen into the site. This is where the whole concept of re-attaining wilderness with supposed wilderness means which really aren't--dog teams and such--becomes surreal. With Dr. D, perhaps I've just grown weary of the time and expense wasted on the Owls Head Wars.

 

[RoySwkr]

What specific loops, traverses, ski-throughs, etc., will you, the reader, miss? Or, what alternatives will you have for said loops?

I will miss the up-the-one-side down-the-other 11 mile loop (and extensions) which is a good ski trip and I once did by 3-speed bicycle before it was Wilderness (and before mtn bikes). The Zealand Hut crew will miss the loop from the hut via Thoreau Falls and Bondcliff Trails which they do between breakfast and dinner

But, I worry that the USFS will next claim that the bridge over the East Branch on the Thoreau Falls Trail must go, along with the bridge over Thoreau Brook on the Shoal Pond Trail (or is it Ethan Pond Trail?). Removal of those two bridges would really screw up our Pemi ski-through trips, but would save the USFS about 10 more miles of supposed trail maintenance costs.

I hope that the USFS is not removing these bridges "out of spite" or as a political backlash, which is the sense that I am getting in reading between the lines of the report.

I thought the East Branch bridge on Thoreau Falls Trail was in bad shape when I first hiked it ~30 years ago, and yes I suspect it will go too. The Ethan Pond Trail is just outside the Wilderness boundary so that bridge is safe from Wilderness but not fiscal concerns (see Gale River and Dry River).

I think a lot of the bums rush is to get it gone before 50 years kicks in, and I don't see why the Forest Service shouldn't try to manage Wilderness by Sierra Club standards when nobody important objected to their inclusion in the Forest Plan.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

They do specifically say they will use pack animals to remove the debris. It doesn't say dogs specifically though. Maybe mules? I've seen them tow some pretty big logs on Discovery Channel so the steel beams would be on par with that.Tim

Correct, the scoping letter says "dog sleds," so I assumed dog sleds meant dogs, hence my attempt at some humor about Brutus Rooney, who probably could have hauled out the steel beam from the Black Brook bridge when in his prime.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

II thought the East Branch bridge on Thoreau Falls Trail was in bad shape when I first hiked it ~30 years ago, and yes I suspect it will go too. The Ethan Pond Trail is just outside the Wilderness boundary so that bridge is safe from Wilderness but not fiscal concerns (see Gale River and Dry River).

I am pretty sure that the bridge over Thoreau Brook at the upper end is also inside the Wilderness boundary, although perhaps just barely. I agree that the bridge over the East Branch on the lower Thoreau Brook Trail appears to be in bad shape on top, but it looks quite solid underneath.

 

[peakbagger]

What sometime rears up in the planning is that when structure is "replaced" versus rehabilitated, they usually have to be upgraded to be handicapped accssible (AKA Galehead). This may mean completely revising the approaches and the actual bridge deck section to comply, which is typically far more costly than doing repairs. Unfortunately repairs comes out of one budget versus replacement comes under another budget.

I consider the removal another "management tool" to cut down on usage in the area. I would refer importing a problem bear or two to replace Brutus from 20 years ago, which appeared to be used as a crowd management tool.

The cynic in me says that by reducing access and cutting back on blazing, it will be a few years and then lesser used trails will be abandoned completely by the WMNF due to lack of usage.