Removal of suspension bridge in Pemi Wilderness

[jniehof]

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 you can speak in terms of governing documents, like the Wilderness Act or the Forest Plan, your comments may carry more weight. BTW, if you have a vision from the Pemi that differs from the Forest Plan, it, too, requires public input. The current Plan dates to 2005 and "The Forest Supervisor is required to review conditions of the land at least every five years to determine if the Forest Plan needs to be revised. If conditions or monitoring indicate that changes are too substantial to be handled through an amendment, the Forest Plan may need to be revised before the required 10 to 15 year planning cycle." So there should be at least a small opportunity to talk about Big Picture stuff around fall of 2010, and certainly somewhere in the 2015-2020 timeframe.

For specific arguments, take a look at the Dry River bridge replacement project and see if the arguments there seem applicable.

 

[1HappyHiker]

For specific arguments, take a look at the Dry River bridge replacement project and see if the arguments there seem applicable.

Thanks for posting the link to Dry River Bridge Replacement Project . . . much appreciated.

IMHO, regardless of whether a person is for or against the removal of the Pemi suspension bridge, the "Decision Memo" within this document contains some very interesting commentary.

 

[smitty77]

If you can speak in terms of governing documents, like the Wilderness Act or the Forest Plan, your comments may carry more weight.

I just sent the following comment to the USFS using examples from the Dry River Bridge project to compare the two. I know some of the statements I made seem like a stretch, and I doubt it will be given much consideration, but I did my part.

Here's a copy of the e-mail:
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to comment on the proposed removal of two bridges within the Pemigewasset Wilderness and the propsed closure of a section of the Wilderness Trail. I strongly disagree with the removal of the suspension bridge over the East Branch of the Pemigewasset for reasons of public safety, concentration and limitations of use of protected land, and the removal of historic landmarks.

Upon reading the comments released for the Dry River Suspension bridge project, it seems to me the positions of the USFS and WMNF regarding the use of the Wilderness area has been completely reversed in two years, as shown in this except from the Decision Memo from that project:

“Removal of the existing structure and no replacement.
The removal of the bridge would have a negative impact on many of the traditional Dry River Trail users because access beyond this crossing of the river would be limited except possibly during low flow. As a result, use could be redistributed to other access points to the Presi-Dry Wilderness. This alternative clearly meets wilderness objectives in their purest sense by removing a structure and allowing the site to return to a more natural appearance. However, it fails to recognize the very real and documented public safety issues with this crossing and river including fatalities.”

While there have been no noteworthy public safety issues concerning the crossing of the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River, I contend that this is a fact because the bridge has been in existence for so long. Wilderness users have come to rely upon the use of this bridge as part of their enjoyment of this protected land. A version of this very statement was included in the 30-day Comment Package for the Dry River Bridge in defense of the decision to repair it:

“This Dry River Trail is used by diverse visitors with a range of skill levels. The trailhead is located along a highway in Crawford Notch State Park which facilitates access. Removing the existing structure would not provide the improvements that many of the traditional user groups accept and rely upon. Many users travel a long distance and their trip planning may not account for storm events that make the Dry River impassable even by skilled wilderness visitors.”

I would argue that the same statement holds true for visitors to the Pemigewasset Wilderness in regards to the diversity of uses and the skill levels of the users. In one instance, permanent equipment installed and used by the USFS to monitor the flow of the East Branch of the Pemigewassett was washed away after a heavy rainfall and evidence that this river also reacts quickly to short-term weather events that visitors may not account for. I would also argue that River crossings on the west side of the Pemi Wilderness are of such a concern to wilderness users that a well known and rather well used “bushwhack” route has become established between Black Pond and the Lincoln Brook Trail in order to avoid two crossings that are often dangerous at any time of year. It is my fear that these “rogue” trails will become the norm as visitors attempt to find their own ways to cross the river, which could lead to destruction of fragile ecosystems as well as erosion of soils within the Wilderness, not to mention the public safety issues associated with visitors attempting to follow un-maintained and un-blazed paths.

While it seems the USFS/WMNF has been singing the song of “primitive recreational experience” in defense of removing the bridge, I fear the consequence of this will be the concentration of use to a very small area. The removal of these bridges and closure of this section of the Wilderness Trail will effectively put up a wall between east and west, and visitors entering the Wilderness from any point other than Lincoln Woods will be forced to one side or the other with no access between. Those that have the ambition to make the loop down to Franconia Brook Campsites to cross the river can indeed do so, but it will only increase the amount of users to an area that is already heavily visited, and in my opinion, grossly overused which is evidenced by the need to relocate the campsite due to pollution problems from overuse. Also, crossing the East Branch of the Pemi in the vicinity of the Franconia Brook Campsite is not always a viable option. According to the narrative written by David Metsky at http://www.hikethewhites.com/f_b_shelter.html:

“The Forest Service has closed the campsite due to problems with the toilet facilities. The new campsite is located on the Eastside trail, on the East side of the Pemigewasset River, 3 miles in from the Lincoln Woods trailhead. There are approx 20 campsites available there for overnight use. There is no bridge across the Pemi, but stepping stones are in place for crossing in times of low water. To safely cross the river in high water you must either hike back to Lincoln Woods and cross on the suspension bridge there or continue up the Eastside trail to the Cedar Brook trail and cross that suspension bridge. A fee is charged and a ranger is present.”

When one considers these facts, it seems like the USFS is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” in regards to one area being restored to offer a more primitive experience at the expense of other areas within or located just outside of the wilderness. By your own admission, hiking loops that “incorporate the suspension bridge will no longer be possible. As alternatives, visitors would need to do up and back hikes or plan longer loops to avoid fording the river.” This act of up and back hikes will double the traffic in those areas, and I argue the increase will be even greater as those that once enjoyed the east side of the wilderness will do less with less frequency and instead stick to the west side of the Wilderness. This concentration of use would satisfy the first part of the following statement, quoted from this project’s scooping letter, while completely contradicting the second part:

“WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Wilderness
Management Plan located in Appendix E: “These lands (wilderness) are managed to allow natural processes to continue with minimal impediment, to minimize the effects and impacts of human use, to provide primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities.…””

The overall effect of this plan will greatly increase the effects and impacts of human use in other areas of the Pemi Wilderness, and will have the effect of confining the use of the Wilderness to one area accessed almost solely via the Lincoln Woods Trailhead.

Lastly, with the removal of this soon-to-be historic artifact, the anniversary of which is next year, and the closing of a portion of trail that accesses another artifact, the aging and crumbling railroad trestle at Black Brook, I fear for the continued preservation of the history of the Pemigewasset Wilderness. Will the Black Brook Trestle be next on the removal list once it has been determined it means very little to the public since no one visits it? This scenario seems likely with the closure of this portion of the Wilderness Trail, and I feel we are compromising the future protection of the Wilderness and the public’s high regard for this Wilderness if we ignore and let fade the history of how the area was once misused and pillage by mankind. Will our grand- and great-grandchildren be as inclined to treat this area with such respect once all evidence of the sad history has been removed in the effort to restore the “primitive recreational enjoyment? As a fellow steward of our public lands, I strongly disagree with the removal of these bridges and suggest they be repaired instead.

Sincerely,

<Smitty77> Used my real name and address of course, just not for you to see.

 

[NeoAkela]

Well spoken, Smitty! That is an excellent argument you have presented. I only hope there are people in the decision making process who take the time to read it. It certainly convinced me!

 

[Mattl]

I understand that everyone has different skill levels and such, and I am not trying to emphasize any kind of machismo or anything, but I think the bridges in the Pemi should be removed. I mean here we have a large national forest, with trails for every skill level, and then smaller designated wilderness areas, which have specific rules to attempt to make them more wild. Part of that to me is the absence of bridges for aid. The East Branch as well as others, can be very dangerous in high water, but that is a risk that one should expect going to a place that is trying to achieve a more wild feel. We can't enter the forest and expect it to be 100% safe, there are always dangers. If one doesn't want to cross the East Branch, they can go around another route or bushwhack upstream. I know I am a young guy in my 20's, but there is something to say for leaving areas challenging and natural. Its the same thing when hiking up a mountain and turning back when bad weather moves in, that's a choice for personal safety, so is turning back or changing plans for a stream that is too high.

-Mattl

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I think that Smitty77 nailed my feelings exactly, although my own letter sent two days ago was much shorter in length. I sympathize with the desires for extreme wilderness challenges by Mattl and others, but could not disagree with them more. Over the past 40 years I have seen way too many knuckleheads and novices, not necessarily one and the same, in the Pemi who are going to get hurt and/or killed without the bridges. These recoveries will not be easy or fun for volunteer SAR teams.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Its the same thing when hiking up a mountain and turning back when bad weather moves in, that's a choice for personal safety, so is turning back or changing plans for a stream that is too high.

It's not the same thing, vis-a-vis expectations. Without these bridges, the expectation is that most of the time you'll have to turn around. Unexpected summit turnbacks on bad-weather days (unexpected bad weather that is) are just that - unexpected. I for one don't have a ton of vacation days, days away from the family, etc., and I really don't plan on getting turned around. Without bridges, the odds of a "wasted" vacation day go way up, which would completely tick me off.

Owl's Head / Black Pond is a perfect example - Lincoln and Franconia Brook are often difficult to cross and if I'm going to make the effort to go to Owl's Head, I don't want to be turned around by high brook crossings.

Tim

 

[Quietman]

Part of that to me is the absence of bridges for aid. The East Branch as well as others, can be very dangerous in high water, but that is a risk that one should expect going to a place that is trying to achieve a more wild feel. -Mattl

I'm not trying to be a smart a**, and I understand what you're saying, but you would always have the option to choose to cross without a bridge at any other spot. I being a little older with a few dependants, would most likely lose the crossing option without the bridge.

That being said, if it is cheaper to remove, I would understand.

 

[ferrisjrf]

Without these bridges, the expectation is that most of the time you'll have to turn around...I for one don't have a ton of vacation days, days away from the family, etc., and I really don't plan on getting turned around. Without bridges, the odds of a "wasted" vacation day go way up, which would completely tick me off.

...Lincoln and Franconia Brook are often difficult to cross and if I'm going to make the effort to go to Owl's Head, I don't want to be turned around by high brook crossings.

I think you should send this argument to the Forest Service. I'm sure once they hear that it "would completely tick [bikehikeskifish] off", they'll begin repairing the bridge...maybe even building some new ones too, so the walk to Owl's Head isn't so darn annoying.

Furthermore, I propose that we start managing all public lands in such a way that our first priority is to minimize wasted vacation days for users. That seems reasonable.

Jason

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I think you should send this argument to the Forest Service. I'm sure once they hear that it "would completely tick [bikehikeskifish] off", they'll begin repairing the bridge...maybe even building some new ones too, so the walk to Owl's Head isn't so darn annoying.

Furthermore, I propose that we start managing all public lands in such a way that our first priority is to minimize wasted vacation days for users. That seems reasonable.

Jason

I have clearly failed to illustrate my point - The point was I don't consider the two equivalent conditions of turning around. In fact I wouldn't attempt to go any way where there was a high chance of turning around, be it for lack of bridge, lack of visibility, lack of adequate equipment, etc. Routes known to be not broken out are avoided in winter. Routes with difficult water crossings likewise. In other words, I would never depart on a trip (using up a precious vacation day or weekend) where there was a high chance or expectation of turning around. In fact, through careful planning, I have not yet had to turn around. If I knew there was no bridge, I wouldn't go that way, simple as that. On the other hand, if all conditions said "go", but something unexpected came up and I was forced to turn around, that wouldn't tick me off.

People go via Black Pond because the chance of turning around due to high water is greatly lessened.

Make sense?


I'm also of the opinion that it is worth fighting to hang on to something because once you let go it is much harder to get it back.

The really silly thing is that I have never been over that bridge and have no future plans to do so. But I do support access and like I said above, I don't like to see it taken away.

And finally, as it is public land, it's as much "mine" as it is "yours" and it is left to the forest service to mediate any differences between "me" and "you."

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

I mean here we have a large national forest, with trails for every skill level, and then smaller designated wilderness areas, which have specific rules to attempt to make them more wild.

If only that were true :-(

The problem (which I noted in my letter to the FS) is that so much of the trail base in the NF is now Wilderness so we are losing the "trails for every skill level" in favor of only unblazed trails with no amenities. Where else in the NF can one find an easy near-level 11-mile loop leading far from the road? I would be more inclined to accept this view if shelters, bridges, trails etc. removed from Wilderness were replaced elsewhere.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The overall effect of this plan will greatly increase the effects and impacts of human use in other areas of the Pemi Wilderness, and will have the effect of confining the use of the Wilderness to one area accessed almost solely via the Lincoln Woods Trailhead.

That is pretty much how I see it playing out. Hard to believe that they think this is a good move, but it certainly in line with the rest of the poorly thought out decisions made in the name of "Wilderness" in the Pemi.

Hope there is room left for the bridge on the honcho's desk, right next to the "Owl's Head" trophy sign.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Hope there is room left for the bridge on the honcho's desk, right next to the "Owl's Head" trophy sign.

They can reassembly the bridge at headquarters and bolt all the Owl's Head signs on it.

Tim

 

[rocket21]

They can reassembly the bridge at headquarters and bolt all the Owl's Head signs on it.

Tim

Heck, they might have enough wood from the Owl's Head signs to repair the bridges

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Heck, they might have enough wood from the Owl's Head signs to repair the bridges

Oooh, the ultimate prank would be to steal the bridge and move it to the summit of Owl's Head.

Tim

 

[jniehof]

Oooh, the ultimate prank would be to steal the bridge and move it to the summit of Owl's Head.

Build an observation tower out of it...get views from Owl's Head

 

[--M.]

Oooh, the ultimate prank would be to steal the bridge and move it to the summit of Owl's Head.

Tim

Shhh: some MIT geeks might use it to replace the Mass. Ave. bridge.

My dad was part of the MIT hiking culture in the 60s (along with millions of others in what was a "Complete Walker" revolution) and loved the idea of discreet and effective back-country engineering.

He would have kept the bridge.

 

[Barkingcat]

Heck, they might have enough wood from the Owl's Head signs to repair the bridges

Touché, Jeremy...touché!

 

[paul ron]

It amazes me that someone would want to spend millions to restore the old man of the mountain but not put one red cent towards repairing or rebuilding a much needed bridge.

BTW where is all that money from parking fees, smoke machines climbing the mountains n hotels in the sky going?

 

[sardog1]

It amazes me that someone would want to spend millions to restore the old man of the mountain but not put one red cent towards repairing or rebuilding a much needed bridge.

BTW where is all that money from parking fees, smoke machines climbing the mountains n hotels in the sky going?

Old Man is a state issue on state land (unless someone finds some federal stimulus money. Then a NEPA challenge lies in wait . . . ) Pemi is federal on federal land.

As for the concession fees paid to USFS, I don't know the particulars. I suspect they go into a semi-dedicated WMNForest-wide fund, but mebbe not.