Removal of suspension bridge in Pemi Wilderness

[rocket21]

Fictitious Scenario: Although the Dry River Bridge was convenient, once it is removed, hikers can still access the eastern side of the Dry River Wilderness from Route 302 via the Davis Path or the Mt. Langdon Trail. And, hikers can access the western side of the Dry River Wilderness via a variety of trails (Mt. Eisenhower Trail, etc). Furthermore, there are two access points where (at low water) hikers can cross to the other side of the Dry River (via either the Mt. Clinton or the Mt. Eisenhower Trail)!

I think this is a very good point - technically, you can access plenty of bridged areas via significantly longer technical routes if they were to remove those bridges.

I still would like to see a financial analysis - how much it will cost to remove (using wilderness tools and techniques) vs. repair. I suspect it could be cheaper to repair. I know that if I presented a similar scenario where I've worked (private sector), I'd be shot down in a second without providing financials to back it up.

 

[sardog1]

I still would like to see a financial analysis - how much it will cost to remove (using wilderness tools and techniques) vs. repair. I suspect it could be cheaper to repair. I know that if I presented a similar scenario where I've worked (private sector), I'd be shot down in a second without providing financials to back it up.

I will try to say this without resorting to the first thing that came into my mind. Nah, I guess I will anyway.

The values codified in the Wilderness Act are not those of Wall Street. And thank goodness for that. Otherwise, we'd might as well just invite Plum Creek in to handle things.

 

[rocket21]

The values codified in the Wilderness Act are not those of Wall Street. And thank goodness for that. Otherwise, we'd might as well just invite Plum Creek in to handle things.

Financial matters aside, I would think that it would take less time, less noise, and less disturbance to repair a bridge rather than remove it. Even if the bridge is removed, there will still be manmade remains.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

5.3.3 Zone A
Visitors should plan ahead and be well prepared for the most challenging
level of off-trail travel and recreation opportunities with the highest degree of
risk. Only those comfortable in wilderness navigation should venture into
this zone where self-reliance is essential.

5.3.4 Zone B
Visitors should plan ahead and be well prepared for challenging travel
and primitive recreation opportunities with a high level of risk. Self-reliance
and proficient navigation skills may be needed to facilitate travel on
minimally maintained trails. These paths may be exceptionally hard to
follow under winter conditions.

5.3.5 Zone C
Visitors should plan ahead and be well prepared for challenging travel
and semi-primitive recreation opportunities with a moderate level of risk.
Navigation skills will better facilitate travel on moderately developed
trails especially under winter conditions.

5.3.6 Zone D
Visitors should plan ahead and be well prepared for challenging travel
and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. During winter conditions the
level of risk will be elevated and navigation skills will better facilitate
travel on more developed trails.

At what point does a bridge conflict with the challenging travel and at what point is it a matter of public safety?

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I know that if I presented a similar scenario where I've worked (private sector), I'd be shot down in a second without providing financials to back it up.

News flash... the federal government is not run like the private sector

Tim

 

[jniehof]

Thanks for the heads-up Peter. I just sent in my comments, supporting the removal of the suspension bridge and requesting a rock crossing at or near that location. I also suggested a bridge at the Franconia Brook tentsite, ideally using at least some materials from the old bridge, but I suspect that wouldn't fit the budget. (Too bad...it would at least allow a ski loop, even if it's shorter, and would make for a new mountain bike loop.)

I'm perfectly happy to see it go--Wilderness isn't about convenience, or what we did 40 years ago, or 70. It's about letting natural processes dominate and slowly take back over. We got the Weeks Act and the WMNF by saying "Well, maybe it's time to start doing things differently than in the past" and the Wilderness Act and Eastern Wilderness Act the same way. (Incidentally, the Pemigewasset Wilderness turns 25 this June!)

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I would regret the removal of the bridges.

If the USFS can find the funds to install large signage/kiosks/bulletin boards at trailheads, then I believe it should find funds for repair of essential bridges.

The safety of the public is paramount.

 

[grouseking]

Thanks for the heads-up Peter. I just sent in my comments, supporting the removal of the suspension bridge and requesting a rock crossing at or near that location. I also suggested a bridge at the Franconia Brook tentsite, ideally using at least some materials from the old bridge, but I suspect that wouldn't fit the budget. (Too bad...it would at least allow a ski loop, even if it's shorter, and would make for a new mountain bike loop.)

I'm perfectly happy to see it go--Wilderness isn't about convenience, or what we did 40 years ago, or 70. It's about letting natural processes dominate and slowly take back over. We got the Weeks Act and the WMNF by saying "Well, maybe it's time to start doing things differently than in the past" and the Wilderness Act and Eastern Wilderness Act the same way. (Incidentally, the Pemigewasset Wilderness turns 25 this June!)

Hope I don't cause a forest fire:

The Pemi wilderness is clearly a unique example. They do their best to balance the natural processes of nature slowly taking over again, and they have to acknowldege the history of the area, especially since it probably wouldn't have been designated as a wilderness if the forests were not so heavily logged. Sometimes, things have to be sacrificed, and it looks like the bridge will be the next to go. As a history buff, it will be neat to check out the bridge remains years from now. If anything, it will add charm to the area, since there are lots of old remnants of logging within the boundaries that have not been removed, because of their historical significance. The bridge will be remembered for other reasons.

As for increased congestion on the East Side Trail:

Probably for a couple years, but people will accept it eventually. I always thought that (besides the Pemi Loop skiers), the vast majority of people hike the Wilderness trail to get up to the Bonds, or to get to Franconia Brook tr, and people who take the East Side trail are coming from the Cedar Brook trail, or out towards the Desolation area. I can't see how closing 7 tenths of a mile of trail is going to make that much of a negative impact. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that some increased backcountry skis will cause extra damage to a trail covered in a few feet of snow.

I am definitely bummed to possibly see the bridge go, but I guess you have to deal with it gracefully.

grouseking

 

[rocket21]

*bump*

As a reminder, tomorrow is the deadline for comments.

Per the pdf file, comments may (in addition to other methods) be e-mailed to [email protected]. Full name, address, and telephone number, as well as project name, must be included.

I'll share an exerpt from my letter:

Before any sort of decision should be made, I believe a simple financial analysis must be presented - cost of removal vs. cost of repair.

 

[RoySwkr]

I have posted a poll on this topic.

This is approximately the letter I will be sending, may add final edit.

I oppose the removal of the two bridges on the Wilderness Trail, for a variety of reasons.

First, removal is symptomatic of the current problem of the White Mountain National Forest that there never seems to be money to repair or build anything (with the exception of fancy new office buildings) but always money to remove things. If the Forest Service kept a schedule of backcountry fixed assets, they would find most trails almost fully depreciated due to lack of maintenance and declining numbers of amenities such as shelters and bridges - certainly not a healthy situation. At one time the FORPLAN planning model used by the WMNF did not directly measure trail amenities but just used total trail mileage, hence the amenities which were assumed to exist in proportion had no explicit value so it was tempting to remove them. I feel that removal of any structures based strictly on Wilderness guidelines should be coupled with construction of similar structures outside Wilderness so as to maintain the Forest-wide level of amenities. As I recall, an earlier Wilderness plan suggested that the bridge be moved to the Franconia Brook area where it could also be used for a bike loop.

Second, I am concerned that the WMNF is failing to use proper concern for historic objects. I went to a lecture at Big Bend National Park where the ranger said the Park Service had been foolish to remove all the existing structures without concern for historic value when their footprint was minimal compared to the whole area - but the Forest Service refuses to learn from its sister agency and is making the same mistake. The suspension bridge is apparently being removed just before the 50-year point in a morally questionable manner - let's take time to do the appropriate study. The steel beam bridge is necessary to keep people from using the adjacent historic trestle, although I would love to see a more rustic replacement.

Third, the suspension bridge makes possible an easy 11-mile loop deep into the Forest which as near as I can tell is not available anywhere else on the Forest. Some people will no doubt continue to try the loop after the trail is closed and get lost or hurt. If the Forest Service announced closure of the bridge until funds were available for repair, I suspect that donations would pour in and Congress would earmark the necessary money. And it appears that the trailhead parking fee will be nearly doubled and this is the sort of thing that money should be used for.

Last, while the current Wilderness guidelines were created and supported by lobbyists for national wilderness activist groups, they are far more stringent than those in the nearby Green Mountain National Forest and have little support among actual Forest users. While the Appalachian Mountain Club officially supports the current Forest Plan, its trips to Mount Isolation and Owls Head routinely exceed suggested Wilderness Zone A group sizes. Many people supported Wilderness when what they really wanted was no logging and Scenic Area designation would be more appropriate. At some point, they will realize it is elitist to remove blazes, signs, and bridges and get the guidelines changed. Replacing blazes and signs will be expensive enough but rebuilding a major bridge using hand tools is much worse - let's leave it for now.

 

[--M.]

Thanks, R21.

Here's a question: if the removal of the bridge is mandated by the FS's reading of the law, then why the offer of public commentary? What opinion do they seek that would sway them? Is removal a given and they want our opinion on oxen vs. the internal combustion engine? If Santiago was not to be touched, then why the two orders?

I feel a dope-slap coming, but please enlighten me while administering it.

Thx,

--M.

 

[rocket21]

Here's a question: if the removal of the bridge is mandated by the FS's reading of the law, then why the offer of public commentary? What opinion do they seek that would sway them?

I think some would argue that the public commentary doesn't do much to sway unelected officials. As evidenced by Kanc7, lawsuits seem to be the only way to make an impact. That's, of course, a different discussion for a different thread.

 

[psmart]

I think some would argue that the public commentary doesn't do much to sway unelected officials. As evidenced by Kanc7, lawsuits seem to be the only way to make an impact.

From years of observing the scoping process, I know that the comments do make a difference. Although few projects are abandonded based on the comments, in most cases the comments do influence the details of the project.

Kanc-7 is a good example: Although the overall project is going forward, a number of changes were made regarding the proximity of the cutting to hiking trails. Our comments do make a difference.

 

[psmart]

Before any sort of decision should be made, I believe a simple financial analysis must be presented - cost of removal vs. cost of repair.

That would be useful - if the decision were based on cost. But the action proposed by the USFS is based on the objectives and guidelines of the Forest Plan, rather than the relative cost of the alternatives.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Thanks, R21.

Here's a question: if the removal of the bridge is mandated by the FS's reading of the law, then why the offer of public commentary? What opinion do they seek that would sway them? Is removal a given and they want our opinion on oxen vs. the internal combustion engine? If Santiago was not to be touched, then why the two orders?

I feel a dope-slap coming, but please enlighten me while administering it.

Thx,

--M.

I believe the requirement for public input is a requirement under their administrative rules process.

Even if a Federal agency has "already made up it's mind", this public input process can be a valuable exercise. For example - if the USFS decides to go ahead and remove the bridges anyway, an individual or group may decide to seek a court injunction to stop their removal. In that scenario the public input can be reviewed again, within the court system.

In the event the USFS decides to remove the bridges, I would be willing (and I suggest many other VfTTer's would as well) make a financial contribution to initiating the injunction process.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

That would be useful - if the decision were based on cost. But the action proposed by the USFS is based on the objectives and guidelines of the Forest Plan, rather than the relative cost of the alternatives.

Only the government has the luxury of ignoring the cost. No other public or private institution or individual (with the exception, possibly of the filthy rich) do not give cost some consideration. Especially since there is at least some wiggle room for justifying it's continued existence and maintenance based on safety and the existence and maintenance of other bridges.

Tim

 

[psmart]

Only the government has the luxury of ignoring the cost.

I don't believe the USFS is ignoring the cost. It's just that any cost difference of removal vs. repair is outweighed by the other issues presented in the scoping.

IMO: Repairing the bridge would be more expensive over the long term, since it will continue to require inspection, maintenance, and repair. Whatever the removal cost, you only pay it once.

 

[rocket21]

I don't believe the USFS is ignoring the cost.

Not to sound like a jerk, but if they *weren't* ignoring the cost, they would have put some sort of cost in the proposal.

 

[TEO]

I think that they should make all of the commentators on Union Leader articles stand in the middle of the bridge and then cut the suspension cables. Preferably during high water.

 

[--M.]

I believe the requirement for public input is a requirement under their administrative rules process.

Even if a Federal agency has "already made up it's mind", this public input process can be a valuable exercise. For example - if the USFS decides to go ahead and remove the bridges anyway, an individual or group may decide to seek a court injunction to stop their removal. In that scenario the public input can be reviewed again, within the court system.

Thanks, Kevin Rooney, this is what I thought, but considered that maybe there was a particular aspect they wanted commentary on (i.e. "Please comment on how, not whether").

I, too, support keeping the bridge (in this particular instance), but I'm sure my own vision is not identical to what's enacted into the Big "W" Wilderness law. They may not care what my vision for the Pemi is ("No, we had that discussion when the W was passed"), but rather if I feel that the bridge has certain (code-word) qualifiers for preservation, like "historical significance," or "necessity for safety."

If we all cried about its history or safety features, would they find that persuasive? As opposed to not finding it persuasive if we all cried about convenience or something else?

I guess I don't really care why the bridge is still there when I go to use it; I'm under no illusions that my vision matches up with everyone else's. But if it's there when I want to use it, I'll be glad it's still there.

And if I can help it stay there by e-mailing the word "History" to the feds, then I'm happy to help.

Does that play into it, saying the right words?

--M.