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.
