Wilderness Thoughts

[McRat]

PSmart, sarcasm aside, I'm glad to see that someone is trying to be a reasonable advocate for the USFS here - and situtions like this do not make it any easier for you. Though we disagree in a few areas, I always appreciate your input (and find you more philosophically consistent than USFS).

Even if a myth, the rush to dismantle the bridge followed by the very relaxed attitude about the debris removal does little to discourage those that believe that the decision was based more on managements interpretation of the Wilderness Act than safety concern for hikers. It only raises more questions.

Is there a link to the actual report on the structural integrity of the bridge? Who conducted it and when? If it was unsafe, why were people allowed to risk their safety crossing it right until the day of removal?

Ah.. I'm probably beating a dead horse with that one... it just is bewildering to think that a publicly funded organization can have the manpower and determination to remove canisters, blazes, and cairns miles into a wilderness zone - but fail to clean up after themselves.

If the remains are still there in the Spring, I urge everyone to write their elected representatives to investigate whether the management of this project is underperforming in conforming to management direction in the Wilderness Act.

 

[psmart]

Good Questions, McRat. I would urge you to contact the USFS and push for answers. Try the district ranger, or even the WMNF supervisor. We may not always agree with their decisions (trust me, I've been on both sides of FS decisions) but they're real people with a real concern for the WMNF, and I think you'll find they're generally responsive to your concerns.

Edit: I haven't seen the structural report on the bridge. I don't believe there was any detail in the scoping. And none of the public comments took issue with the structural concerns, so there were no additional details on this point in the decision memo.

 

[RoySwkr]

Is there a link to the actual report on the structural integrity of the bridge? Who conducted it and when? If it was unsafe, why were people allowed to risk their safety crossing it right until the day of removal?

I got a copy through Sen. Gregg's office. The report recommended closing the bridge a year earlier than was done (but said nothing about repair/remove). Obviously a lot of politics on that one.

My gripe is the lack of thought as to trail naming. By having a discontinuous "Wilderness Trail" people are going to be unnecessarily confused. Why not add the pieces to Bondcliff Trail and Shoal Pond Trail for example?

 

[RoySwkr]

I have "J.E. Henry's Logging Railroads: The History of the East Branch & Lincoln and the Zealand Valley Railroads" by Bill Gove. Fantastic book loaded with historic pictures, documentsm etc... IIRC, the most board feet of timber was hauled out of the Hancock area. There's another one I've seen out there, the name is "Logging Railroads of the White Mountains."

This book could have used better editing, one photo of Livermore Falls is reversed for example. It has many of the same historic photos as the earlier "Logging Railroads of the White Mountains" by Belcher which is reasonable but also much verbatim text which I find curious.

 

[RoySwkr]

I would think that the main reason that the abandoned railroad grades, roads and camps lack any substantial regrowth is due to extreme soil compaction from logging activities.

Soil compaction may not be significant as most of the logging was in winter on snow over frozen ground. My vote is that while the roads were grubbed out the surrounding woods already had an understory with a head start on a new forest. Animals would walk the old roads and eat birch shoots as they appeared, so revegetation occured mostly with spruce.

The plaque at Lincoln Woods say Henry had 3 locomotives and 160 horses, year not given. I doubt that he used creosote in his ties except maybe on the main line, most of the tracks had to last only a few years before the rails were pulled to use elsewhere.

 

[RoySwkr]

From the final decision paper:

Remove the steel I-beam bridge over Black Brook: Time and weather permitting,
after the suspension bridge is removed the steel I-beam bridge over Black
Brook will be dismantled with hand tools and removed from the wilderness
with stock animals in winter. This bridge will be removed via the Wilderness
Trail to Lincoln Woods Trailhead. Disassembly of this bridge may overlap into
the fall of 2010 depending on 2009 progress and resource availability.

This refers to the steel bridge over Black Brook. I was there yesterday and it had been cut into pieces for removal although an old rail just up the Bondcliff Trail was not. There was also a pile of something under a blue tarp which I didn't investigate.

Presumably the suspension bridge pieces will be hauled out the East Side Trail if they are on that side of the river.

 

[SteveHiker]

My gripe is the lack of thought as to trail naming. By having a discontinuous "Wilderness Trail" people are going to be unnecessarily confused. Why not add the pieces to Bondcliff Trail and Shoal Pond Trail for example?

I've heard from a very knowledgeable source that the section from the Wilderness boundary to the Bondcliff Trail is going to be renamed as "Bondcliff Trail". Wilderness Trail will only apply to the segment from the other side of the now removed bridge to wherever it currently goes (Stillwater? I don't have a map with me).

I can see the logic in this. One less sign needed in the Wilderness, and we know how they like to remove signs.

 

[FARMER]

Soil compaction may not be significant as most of the logging was in winter on snow over frozen ground. My vote is that while the roads were grubbed out the surrounding woods already had an understory with a head start on a new forest. Animals would walk the old roads and eat birch shoots as they appeared, so revegetation occured mostly with spruce.

The plaque at Lincoln Woods say Henry had 3 locomotives and 160 horses, year not given. I doubt that he used creosote in his ties except maybe on the main line, most of the tracks had to last only a few years before the rails were pulled to use elsewhere.

I would agree that most of the actual harvesting was done in the winter months. Not that they were worried about impact. But do you think they "built" the roads and grades while the ground was frozen?

 

[TCD]

It was interesting to read that safety was the driver for the bridge removal. Again, I don't hike in that area. But I expect people will continue to cross the river, conditions permitting. It will be interesting to measure how many people are injured crossing the river in the next ten years, and bang that up against the cost of repairing the bridge vs. removing it, to see if safety has really been served...

 

[RoySwkr]

I would agree that most of the actual harvesting was done in the winter months. Not that they were worried about impact. But do you think they "built" the roads and grades while the ground was frozen?

Obviously not, but construction doesn't involve the heavy loads or multiple trips of bringing the logs out. And removing the topsoil and vegetation puts that area far behind the adjacent woods as far as restoration - not as you say, that they cared.

 

[MichaelJ]

It was interesting to read that safety was the driver for the bridge removal. Again, I don't hike in that area. But I expect people will continue to cross the river, conditions permitting. It will be interesting to measure how many people are injured crossing the river in the next ten years, and bang that up against the cost of repairing the bridge vs. removing it, to see if safety has really been served...

Then what's needed is a volunteer to take the plunge, as it were, then their next-of-kin can file a lawsuit to really emphasize the need for a bridge there. Then we can argue about what a stupid idea it would be to require a bridge be built.

 

[SteveHiker]

It was interesting to read that safety was the driver for the bridge removal. Again, I don't hike in that area. But I expect people will continue to cross the river, conditions permitting. It will be interesting to measure how many people are injured crossing the river in the next ten years, and bang that up against the cost of repairing the bridge vs. removing it, to see if safety has really been served...

Serving safety was not the issue, preserving the "Wilderness" was. Which always seemed strange to me. Something like an Owl's Head sign or a canister must be removed as it's nonconforming and the "Wilderness" is not supposed to show the signs of man's presence. And yet something like the train trestle, which is clearly a sign of man's (past) presence is ok? Seriously, why isn't that removed too? As Indiana Jones would say, "it belongs in a museum."

 

[RoySwkr]

It was interesting to read that safety was the driver for the bridge removal. Again, I don't hike in that area. But I expect people will continue to cross the river, conditions permitting. It will be interesting to measure how many people are injured crossing the river in the next ten years, and bang that up against the cost of repairing the bridge vs. removing it, to see if safety has really been served...

I think what is more realistic is a bridge just outside the Wilderness at Franconia Brook, which could be constructed with power tools and heavy equipment. One version of the Wilderness Plan years ago suggested this, but there was no money for a new bridge at the time of the removal.

I know that the Zealand hut crew liked to do a Bonds loop, but I think the FS is correct that most hikers will just go up the appropriate side of the river and skiers won't try the loop so there will be few people trying to cross.

And yet something like the train trestle, which is clearly a sign of man's (past) presence is ok? Seriously, why isn't that removed too?

See Gene Daniell's quote from the WMG - is it a non-conforming item that by law must be removed or an historic artifact that by law must be preserved?

The suspension bridge was deemed non-historic so that law didn't apply.

 

[Becca M]

As a once-frequent skier of that loop, I haven't been back since the bridge was removed. It was a fun goal to get to the bridge, cross, and return on the other side of the river. Instead, for an out-and-back, Greeley Ponds is MUCH more pleasant (IMHO!!!).

 

[Willoughby]

I've heard from a very knowledgeable source that the section from the Wilderness boundary to the Bondcliff Trail is going to be renamed as "Bondcliff Trail".

That is correct. Here's a snapshot of the trail map in the Lincoln Woods parking lot yesterday:

 

[SteveHiker]

I think what is more realistic is a bridge just outside the Wilderness at Franconia Brook, which could be constructed with power tools and heavy equipment. One version of the Wilderness Plan years ago suggested this, but there was no money for a new bridge at the time of the removal.

Maybe they could have gerrymandered the Wilderness boundary so the bridge was outside of it. Like how it looks near AMC huts. But of course at this point it's .... water under the bridge.

See Gene Daniell's quote from the WMG - is it a non-conforming item that by law must be removed or an historic artifact that by law must be preserved?

The suspension bridge was deemed non-historic so that law didn't apply.

Yeah I'm aware of that but it seems like bureaucracy run amok. Has it ever been settled in court? Seems like the courts have better things to do, but still this kind of thing is ludicrous.

Does anyone else see the irony in having to preserve in the Wilderness an artifact that's very existence was to further a purpose diametrically opposed to the stated goal of Wilderness? I guess it could be construed as serving as a warning but that seems like giving way too much credit for foresight to a government agency.

 

[TCD]

From the decision memo:

Quote:
6.1 This structure is being removed because it is unsafe for use and it does not conform to management direction in the Wilderness Act.

So safety was mentioned first, then wilderness. But it seems to me that presenting two reasons allows for convenient dodging back and forth depending on who's asking.

 

[SteveHiker]

From the decision memo:

Quote:
6.1 This structure is being removed because it is unsafe for use and it does not conform to management direction in the Wilderness Act.

So safety was mentioned first, then wilderness. But it seems to me that presenting two reasons allows for convenient dodging back and forth depending on who's asking.

Good point. But if not for the Wilderness, perhaps the bridge would have been repaired instead.

 

[RoySwkr]

Maybe they could have gerrymandered the Wilderness boundary so the bridge was outside of it. Like how it looks near AMC huts.

Or Franconia Falls...

There are lots of "fishing pole" Wilderness boundaries along roads out West

Does anyone else see the irony in having to preserve in the Wilderness an artifact that's very existence was to further a purpose diametrically opposed to the stated goal of Wilderness?

Sure, but let's look at it from another point of view:

That bridge is an irreplaceable historic artifact while the fraction of an acre it takes up has minimal biological effect on the surrounding Wilderness. Now that the section of trail is closed there is no need for any hiker to see it that doesn't want to. If it bothers people who live in New York who never go there that there is a contaminant in their pristine Wilderness I'd tell them to get over it.

 

[TCD]

And therein lies much of the issue. At least here in NY, the predominant constituency for "pristine wilderness" are people in NYC who will never set foot in it. They will tear out your bridges, and ban your activities. To date, hikers and paddlers have had a strong enough voice to preserve their "facilities" (like trail markers, boat launches, etc.). Rock climbers and bikers lost out years ago; their activities are being aggressively curtailed, even in areas where hiking and paddling are supported.

Now I see in NH that even hikers are starting to get pushed out, with blaze removal, bridge removal, cairn destruction, etc. That's part of the reason I never want the Adirondacks to have any federal oversight; that would just kill off what we have left.