Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

arghman said:

No, this is Wilderness, not wilderness.

Click to expand...

ahh yes, please forgive me for not capitalizing, it really makes it much more dramatic.

expat said:

When the Pemi Wilderness was created, we were all ecstatic to think that there would be a wilderness, or something as close to it as possible, in our backyard. The Pemi is probably the most isolated of the mountainous areas, when you consider that there are only a few vantage points within the wilderness where signs of ongoing human activity are available.
.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I was not part of the "we" and would have preferred the Kilkenny. The Pemi is literally littered with artifacts from the logging and later eras. Anybody who has gotten deep into it knows you'll come across old camp sites, pans, buckets, woodstove parts, and other relics, not to mention bridge abutments and larger structures. We are solemnly admonished not to remove these "human-made" artifacts, and that is as it should be.
One's sense of wilderness can, in fact, be enhanced by coming across them, as anyone who travels in the Pemi with their eyes open always does. Enhanced in the sense that these surprise discoveries remind one how quickly the forest takes over. But, as I have said before, "wilderness" is a highly subjective designation, both philosophical and aesthetic, hence prone to legitimate controversy. For that reason, I really do believe there should be a legitimate appeal process, not just an extended comment period. There isn't. If you're going to contact your representative, you have today and tomorrow to do so before removal, or some form of it, is slated to begin.

Trail closure and bridge removal in progress

A little blurry but still legible. Seen at the Mt. Garfield trailhead Wednesday AM:

MichaelJ said:

Seems quite counter to the claim it will be done in winter on frozen ground to prevent trail damage.

Click to expand...

The plan (from the decision letter IIRC) was to start disassembling the bridge immediately, stack the large pieces, and backpack out the small stuff. The winter removal via mules, etc, was only for the large pieces.

MichaelJ said:

I suspect the bridge will still be there for some time, and I bet they'll even be using it, and that the work will start with the trail closure and reroute. Can't brush a trail once snow's on the ground.

Click to expand...

You may well be right about this, but on the other hand they may post thebridge closed on Monday. That's certainly the implication of the trailhead signs. The decision letter also said that they felt the bridge would have to be posted unusable at the end of this season.

I'm done with this one, it's a dead horse, but what I take away from it is to remember for future DM occasions like this that the "extended comment" period substitutes, in fact, for the appeal. It's all legal, no sense beating one's head against the wall (other than to change the law). The extended comment period is the time to pull out the stops, invoke the political process, and contact your elected representative(s) for support.

expat said:

It makes sense to me that we should have an area that is as free from possible from human intervention, and that puts the hiker more into the wilderness than anywhere else possible in the Whites.

Click to expand...

Then the bridge over Dry River should have been removed as well, and hikers would have to "plan their trips accordingly" (paraphrasing and often-used phrase in the decision memo). I'm tired of the willy-nilly application of Wilderness policies and the overall forest preservation "ethics" of the Forest Service. If travel is meant to be challenging in a Wilderness setting, then there should be no bridges in any of the Wilderness areas in the Whites. The term "challenging" or "deadly" can be applied to either crossing at appropriate water levels, so there is little difference between the two. I'm fine with removing man-made structures, but let's keep the criteria the same for every structure in question.

What really strikes me is the bifurcation of the Wilderness into two halves, where the only way to cross between them is to now hike back out of the Wilderness into a crowded human environment at Lincoln Woods and cross the river on a bridge within sight of a man-made highway and re-enter the Wilderness on the opposite side. Having to do this would ruin my "Wilderness experience" more than any wooden suspension bridge ever could.

smitty77 said:

What really strikes me is the bifurcation of the Wilderness into two halves, where the only way to cross between them is to now hike back out of the Wilderness into a crowded human environment at Lincoln Woods and cross the river on a bridge within sight of a man-made highway and re-enter the Wilderness on the opposite side. Having to do this would ruin my "Wilderness experience" more than any wooden suspension bridge ever could.

Click to expand...

I've followed this mostly without comment, but I think that you have made a very good point here depending on the water level. Although I've never tried it, there are times when the river looks fordable to me, although it might be that you would have to walk a ways to find the right place to cross. Is it really more difficult to ford than the Franconia Brook on the Lincoln Brook trail?

Joanna woke me up this morning and in response to the NPR story that was airing on the alarm clock, asked, "Hey, did you know about them removing the bridge in the Pemi?"

I replied, "Yeah, but don't worry - Wu has a plan." then I rolled over and ignored the radio for a while longer.

See, Wu? I've elevated you to super hero status!

smitty77 said:

What really strikes me is the bifurcation of the Wilderness into two halves, where the only way to cross between them is to now hike back out of the Wilderness into a crowded human environment at Lincoln Woods and cross the river on a bridge within sight of a man-made highway and re-enter the Wilderness on the opposite side. Having to do this would ruin my "Wilderness experience" more than any wooden suspension bridge ever could.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see a wilderness with a river running through it as a problem. It's only a problem when there's a perception that some unnatural entity should provide access to both sides.

expat said:

I guess I don't see a wilderness with a river running through it as a problem. It's only a problem when there's a perception that some unnatural entity should provide access to both sides.

Click to expand...

I just don't see a wilderness. And IMO, unnatural entities provide access all over the Pemi- trails.

If you (the general you) read the end of the comment section it mentioned possibly reviewing if a bridge could be built outside the "Wilderness" area. How funny would that be- take this bridge down and build it 3.1 miles away. Would people really feel better if that happened?

Tuco said:

If you (the general you) read the end of the comment section it mentioned possibly reviewing if a bridge could be built outside the "Wilderness" area. How funny would that be- take this bridge down and build it 3.1 miles away. Would people really feel better if that happened?

Click to expand...

I'd be happy with that as a solution and think more access and more trails to hike in relative safety would spread the crowds out and give those of us who travel so often to our beloved mountains more ways to experience them.

Tuco said:

IIf you (the general you) read the end of the comment section it mentioned possibly reviewing if a bridge could be built outside the "Wilderness" area. How funny would that be- take this bridge down and build it 3.1 miles away. Would people really feel better if that happened?

Click to expand...

There are already stepping stones right at the Wilderness Boundary by the Franconia Brook campsite. I've crossed on those without a problem. No good in high water but fine the rest of the year.

Not really sure where they are planning to look at, but seems like taking down a bridge to rebuild down the river seems wasteful. Probably not a real chance, just a response to a comment. As you say Dave really no need at the boundary...

The .7 miles of the trail area will be closed to then be more reflect wilderness-but who will see it. If a tree falls in the wilderness does anybody hear it?

Good luck to all............

Waumbek said:

I'm done with this one, it's a dead horse, but what I take away from it is to remember for future DM occasions like this that the "extended comment" period substitutes, in fact, for the appeal. It's all legal, no sense beating one's head against the wall (other than to change the law). The extended comment period is the time to pull out the stops, invoke the political process, and contact your elected representative(s) for support.

Click to expand...

I also take away from this process that you cannot win in a battle of wits with the USFS, as I still think that this decision was in part for spite over the Owls Head situation. At least the sign reads "....no river crossing is available." rather than "....no river crossing is allowed."

smitty77 said:

What really strikes me is the bifurcation of the Wilderness into two halves, where the only way to cross between them is to now hike back out of the Wilderness into a crowded human environment at Lincoln Woods and cross the river on a bridge within sight of a man-made highway

Click to expand...

Smitty, I'm not sure I would consider that a bifurcation. Its not the Berlin wall. It's a fairly benign water crossing (unless your greased and naked ). Certainly at all the times I have seen it. There are lots of places I have had to do water crossings in the Whites. I don't understand why this one is being portrayed as reducing access in any substantive way.

I really cannot get too excited about this.

Keith

Waumbek said:

I'm done with this one, it's a dead horse

Click to expand...

I'd call it a ship set to sail, rather than a dead horse... I still plan to contact my Congressional representatives, regardless of whether this has an impact on the immediate bridge-removal project.

Again, this instance is merely a symptom of a larger problem that is worth discussing. For the bridge removal, I don't put any blame (except maybe the unnecessarily speedy implementation) on USFS staff; they're basically forced into this outcome by the larger policy issues of Wilderness, with very little wiggle room.

I've capitalized the W, because Congressionally-designated Wilderness has a legal distinction from your garden-variety little-w wilderness, of which I can thankfully still get plenty of in southern New Hampshire without having to drive all the way up to the White Mountains. It may not allow me to hike for 11 miles without running across a road or a bridge, but it does let me enjoy solitude and trails without running into a bunch of people like many places in the WMNF.

The sign that Willoughby posted the picture of is also on the Wilderness Trail at the Wilderness boundary. However, there were no signs by either bridge.

Here are pictures of the two "offending" bridges taken yesterday.

Black Brook bridge



Suspension bridge

Ed'n Lauky said:

Although I've never tried it, there are times when the river looks fordable to me, although it might be that you would have to walk a ways to find the right place to cross.

Click to expand...

Lots of people including kids in bathing suits swimming at Franconia Falls ford the river
by Franconia Brook Campsite, but the Forest Service supposedly rearranged the rocks to make this tougher. Obviously this is less attractive in high water or cold weather. Skiers
may find the river frozen or maybe not, and going in that far from the road could be serious. And people who are hiking this loop exactly because it is easier than most trails will find any ford too much.

Is it really more difficult to ford than the Franconia Brook on the Lincoln Brook trail?

Click to expand...

I would say that the watershed is 4 times as large although somebody with a planimeter or mapping software may correct me. And note that a lot of people choose to bypass that Franconia Brook crossing by bushwhacking. I fully understand why the FS wishes to discourage crossing there.

What I haven't yet figured out is what the FS will do when the Thoreau Falls Trail bridge needs replacing (I always thought it looked worse than the suspension bridge), there is no good alternate route for that.

RoySwkr said:

What I haven't yet figured out is what the FS will do when the Thoreau Falls Trail bridge needs replacing (I always thought it looked worse than the suspension bridge), there is no good alternate route for that.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. When we last crossed this bridge I was hanging on due to the sloping and greasy surface... http://tuco.smugmug.com/gallery/3485010#196241880_P29t7-L-LB

SAR-EMT40 said:

Smitty, I'm not sure I would consider that a bifurcation. Its not the Berlin wall. It's a fairly benign water crossing (unless your greased and naked ). Certainly at all the times I have seen it. There are lots of places I have had to do water crossings in the Whites. I don't understand why this one is being portrayed as reducing access in any substantive way.

Click to expand...

Even when taking into consideration the closure of 0.7 mile of trail? Apparently the Forest Service thinks the crossing is (or could be) substantial enough that they have taken steps to discourage people from traveling in that direction.