Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal?

KRobi said:

Looks like the "hike" to the bridge took place.
http://nhpr.org/post/white-mountain-national-forest-does-bridge-belong-wilderness

Click to expand...

Yes - many knowledgeable users did go to the site

Unfortunately that article doesn't mention, for comparison's sake, a bridge in another wilderness area that has been replaced AND repaired in recent years for safety reasons: the Dry River suspension bridge - a REAL beauty!!!!

Greetings VFTT

I received the following email from Jeb Bradley. Jeb sent this to everyone on his personal email list. I wrote to him with suggestion I or he post his comments on VFTT. Result was Jeb gave me permission to post his email here. The thrust of his email is to urge hiking community to send comments to WMNF. We both feel that comments sent in to date and interest shown have had an impact and have bought time in so far as the USFS has delayed decision on the bridge removal. Additional comments sent in at this time will advance the cause for replacing the bridge.

Good Evening Everyone

Hope you don’t mind the group email……

I have written to some of you before about the Thoreau Falls Bridge and the very real possibility the US Forest Service will remove this bridge. I hope that all of you will weigh in with the Forest Service. I will explain how and why this is so important.

In early October I went with the Pemigewasset Ranger out to the Thoreau Falls Bridge. But for the effort of the hiking community I think the Forest Service would have made the decision to remove this bridge. There is no question the bridge needs attention. I accept their view that repair is not an option as they claim one of the big stringer logs is compromised. I have to admit I did not see where the cracks are in that log but accept that they are.

So what that means is that the bridge will have to be replaced and they don’t believe they can use logs from that area as the forest has not regenerated enough. The Ranger indicated they would have to use composite wood materials for the 60 foot long underpinnings of the bridge. These would probably need to be delivered with a helicopter which has happened previously in another wilderness area in the White Mountains. So replacement is feasible.

Here is why I believe this bridge should be replaced.

Access will be hampered. Crossing this river in moderate water height will be difficult for many hikers. The trail to Thoreau Falls will be inaccessible often times.

Safety will be undermined. This bridge is 6 miles from Lincoln Woods and further away from access points to the north and east. People will cross this river in difficult circumstances rather than turn around. I crossed the river twice in moderate/low water. In one spot up stream of the bridge, I was in water to my upper thighs. In another spot the water was knee deep but that spot downstream can change from year to year. I have never been at the bridge in winter…but I am told there is usually open water meaning a dangerous crossing potentially. This is a popular cross country ski route. Any safety issues will also impact rescuers.

Does removal of this bridge undermine wilderness values? In my opinion not one bit. Approaching from Lincoln Woods or Thoreau Falls, a hiker does not see the bridge until very close to it. Getting to the bridge from Lincoln Woods on the Pemi East Side Trail is a lovely walk on a straight old rail bed with many ties remaining. This is not the usual idea of wilderness (without human influence) so to me rebuilding this bridge does not undermine wilderness at all—given the nature of the Pemi East Side Trail.

Cost: I was struck by the fact that cost was scarcely an issue mentioned by the rangers during our hike or scarcely mentioned in the literature they gave us.

SO HERE IS WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO!!!!! Write an email to Dan Abbe of the White Mountain National Forest to comment on why this bridge should be replaced. Even if you have done it once PLEASE do it AGAIN. They said they had only received 70 comments. Quite frankly I think that while they are listening to concerns about removal, I believe they would prefer to remove the bridge. That is why continuing to file comments is so important.

Comments should reflect the 4 points I made: Safety, diminished access, not truly a wilderness, and lack of cost concerns. Comments don’t need to be long. I have attached letters I sent to the White Mountain National Forest as well as Sen Ayotte and Shaheen.

PLEASE email your hiking friends as I have emailed you and ask that they file comments also. It is vital they receive as many comments as possible.

Here is Dan Abbe’s e-mail: jabbeATfs.fed.us

And phone: 603-536-6105

I would also ask that every comment you file with Dan Abbe of the Forest Service you also file with Sen Ayotte and Sen Shaheen. Here are the links for them:

https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/ and

http://www.shaheen.senate.gov/

Filing comments with Sens Ayotte and Shaheen is vitally important.

Lastly --- here is a link to an article in the Concord Monitor on the Thoreau Falls Bridge. Its very well written. URL:http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/...ound-fate-of-dilapidated-thoreau-falls-bridge

THANKS VERY MUCH!!!

Jeb

Thanks for the Jeds E-mail, Here are my comments (copied to Ayotte and Shaheen) In reading it after the fact I do have some grammar mistakes but expect it still lays out my opinion.

James Abbe

Pemigewasset Ranger District
Forest Headquarters 71 White Mountain Drive, Campton, NH, 03223
[email protected]

Regarding the removal of the Thoreau Falls Bridge in the White Mountain National Forest


I am writing to oppose the removal of the Thoreau Falls bridge without a suitable replacement structure .This replacement is ultimately required for safety of the hiking and skiing public, the inclusion of a manmade structure for safety purposes has been a long term accepted part of the Wilderness Act.

The bridge is a necessary link to access the Thoreau Falls area which is a publicized special attraction in this area of WMNF. Thoreau Falls is a combination of significant elevation change and terrain along a major drainage unlike any other area in the WMNF. Unlike the upper crossing of the North Fork of the Pemigewasset which can be crossed with a combination of the Ethan Pond Trail bridge crossing the North Fork and off trail navigation through a wet area back to the Thoreau Falls trail, there is no viable safe access across the East Branch of the Pemigewasset. One of the Wilderness Act's primary purposes is to declare areas for use and enjoyment of the American people and in order to enjoy an area it has to be accessible. Compared to the alternatives, the logical route to these falls are via the already in place hardened well graded former logging railroad path system which includes Thoreau Falls trail.

I recently had a chance to visit the bridge after an overnight rainfall on a sunny day. In my and my companions estimation there was no safe place to cross downstream or upstream that did not require wading through potentially chest deep water with a significant current. We both have been actively hiking in the WMNF for in excess of 30 years and both have backgrounds in trail maintenance. Although a deep water crossing may be pleasant on a hot day in mid summer, it seriously limits access for the majority of the year. Given the remoteness of this location, many less experienced individuals may elect to take the risk to make an unsafe crossing due to the lack of viable options to cross.

The summer and early fall of 2016 has been a near record dry period for the region with borderline drought conditions and many of the early USFS trips to the bridge conveniently have occurred during periods of record low water flow so any observations of possible crossings of the East Branch without a bridge, were not applicable to the majority of a typical year. This bridge is a popular winter time cross country ski route which is generally run in a southerly direction, the lack of this safe crossing is potentially dangerous for some parties as the option to turnaround due to high water or marginal ice conditions involves a significant elevation gain back to the point of origin compared to the fairly flat well graded exit after the bridge crossing.

The potential impact to the area for a bridge replacement is low if proper methods are utilized including the use of a helicopter to bring in the primary bridge supports. Unlike the original bridge's current primary supports, an appropriately treated pair of glue laminated wooden beams would have a far longer life. The trail immediately upstream of this crossing consists of hardened former railroad grade with a opening in the canopy over the hardened former logging camp area, thus there is already an area in place to stage in materials in place and transport the materials a short distance to the bridge. This area is already impacted by the historical usage and extensive debris in place from the logging era, so any short term impact due to the bridge replacement is minimal for such an important safety project.

A WMNF staff member has advocated that there is a viable alternative to this trail using the Shoal Pond trail to the east. This trail has a long term reputation of a substandard trail bed that is frequently under water during wet periods or long stretches of mud pits during less wet periods. It too is dependent on an unbridged crossing of the East Branch and thus is not a viable high water route of passage. In order to upgrade the wet area of the Shoal Pond trail to a viable four seasons route, extensive trail bed upgrades would be required that are more out of character with a wilderness area. The Shoal Pond trail completely skips the Thoreau Falls area and thus should not be considered a viable alternative in any way to the Thoreau Falls trail.

As for costs for this project, the WMNF has linked the deterioration of the bridge to impacts from Hurricane Irene, although its current condition is also a sign of long term deferred capital maintenance. There were funds appropriated for this recovery. There are several high profile projects in the area of far less importance than this bridge that were substantially overbuilt including the recently finished excessive reconstruction of the East Side Truck Road (FS 87) which is 2.5 mile major road with three new bridges whose entire purpose is to access a vault type pit toilet with a standard septage pumping truck. The Thoreau Falls trail bridge deterioration has been known since Hurricane Irene and my and others contention is that the WMNF elected to ignore this bridge until the point where they had spent whatever recovery money on overbuilt higher visibility projects.

BTW, 2016 isn't here yet....

I did the same to Mr. Abbe and Ms. Ayotte. I'd prefer to remain unknown to Ms. Shaheen if possible

Peakbagger

That is one well written statement. I'm sure dozens of members would have been happy to sign on to it had there been a way to do so. I hope members will not hesitate to write to USFS due any deficiency in writing skills and breadth of knowledge. The comment process is what it is I guess. So please write to USFS whatever your talents and make your opinion known.

Jazzbo

I got a nice reply from Senator Ayotte basically referring her prior letter to the FS reinforcing the Jeb Bradley's comment.

I am curious if others went to the extra effort to actually send a comment to the FS and copy the senators?

peakbagger said:

I got a nice reply from Senator Ayotte basically referring her prior letter to the FS reinforcing the Jeb Bradley's comment.

I am curious if others went to the extra effort to actually send a comment to the FS and copy the senators?

Click to expand...

I got what I'm guessing the same letter back.

me too! Similar letter!

not replacing the bridge is ridiculous. my two cents

To [email protected]
CC Senator Kelly Ayotte Jeb Bradley Senator Jeanne Shaheen

Dear Ranger Abbe,

I am the administrator of Views From The Top - Forums and an avid hiker and skier in the WMNF. My own experience, and the experience of those who post on the forums seem to indicate that removing the bridge is a bad idea. I urge to to rebuild the bridge.

1. Removing it will seriously limit access - crossing the river except for the driest times of the year will be dangerous, and yet people will try it rather than retracing their steps.
2. Removing it will cause safety issues. Being so far from the trail head, people will cross it even when they should not. This will place not only themselves, but any search and rescue or Fish and Game personnel in danger.
3. While I appreciate the idea of wilderness, the WMNF is less than 3 hours from all of New England and the larger cities of Canada. I've hiked on weekdays in bad weather, and in winter, and have run into people on almost every trip. There really is no sense of being truly alone to spoil. Even if you run into no other humans, you surely will trip over a railroad tie or stumble across some old logging camp remains. The bridge itself is pretty unobtrusive as bridges go. It's not visible until you get right up to it (following an old logging railroad bed, no less!)
4. I am, frankly, disappointed by the process used by Ranger Molly Fuller to remove the bridge over the Pemi by Black Brook. The piles of trash, covered in bright blue tarps, and left for years were far more offensive to me than any bridge could ever be. If not for the efforts of some members of vftt.org, more of that trash would still be there.
5. There has been no discussion of cost in any of the scoping memos and it would seem to me that cost would be an important part of any decision involving public funds. Clearly there is precedent for rebuilding bridges in Wilderness as evidenced by the rebuilt Dry River Wilderness bridge.

Tim Lucia


I already got another form letter response from Senator Ayotte.

Tim

bikehikeskifish said:

3. While I appreciate the idea of wilderness, the WMNF is less than 3 hours from all of New England and the larger cities of Canada. I've hiked on weekdays in bad weather, and in winter, and have run into people on almost every trip. There really is no sense of being truly alone to spoil. Even if you run into no other humans, you surely will trip over a railroad tie or stumble across some old logging camp remains. The bridge itself is pretty unobtrusive as bridges go. It's not visible until you get right up to it (following an old logging railroad bed, no less!)

Click to expand...

FWIW, I consider the bridge to be a gateway to Wilderness. I have gone deeper into the wilderness (several times) because it is there and may not have gone at all because of the risky river crossing without it.

Doug

DougPaul said:

FWIW, I consider the bridge to be a gateway to Wilderness. I have gone deeper into the wilderness (several times) because it is there and may not have gone at all because of the risky river crossing without it.

Click to expand...

Don't you think that's the point? That you are the enemy that needs to be kept outside the gate at all costs? My sense is that the argument you present works against the preservation of a bridge there.

Removing the bridge will create death and injury risk because people WILL try to cross. There will be a bridge on the maps people will be using for many years; they will have made too much of a commitment to turn back. The Thoreau Falls Trail is too ingrained in the history and usage patterns; it's not just removing a bridge, it's turning a long-established trail into a death trap.

Will said:

The Thoreau Falls Trail is too ingrained in the history and usage patterns; it's not just removing a bridge, it's turning a long-established trail into a death trap.

Click to expand...

That's a little over the top. The previous bridge removal was a much more used bridge, over a similarly difficult river crossing, and no one that I know of has been hurt there. Trailhead information kiosks and warning signs did a good job of letting people know the bridge was gone. It's not going to be a deathtrap unless people make very foolish decisions after being informed of the situation.

David Metsky said:

That's a little over the top. The previous bridge removal was a much more used bridge, over a similarly difficult river crossing, and no one that I know of has been hurt there. Trailhead information kiosks and warning signs did a good job of letting people know the bridge was gone. It's not going to be a deathtrap unless people make very foolish decisions after being informed of the situation.

Click to expand...

It's only been a few years since that bridge was removed.

The facts haven't been released, but there's a chance we've unfortunately seen the first drowning related to the loss of the Gale River Trail bridge (10 years ago).

DougPaul said:

FWIW, I consider the bridge to be a gateway to Wilderness. I have gone deeper into the wilderness (several times) because it is there and may not have gone at all because of the risky river crossing without it.

Click to expand...

Will said:

Don't you think that's the point? That you are the enemy that needs to be kept outside the gate at all costs? My sense is that the argument you present works against the preservation of a bridge there.

Click to expand...

Only if you think that the purpose of the reduced trail and maintenance standards for wilderness is a barrier to keep people out. I don't.

My understanding is that the ultimate reasoning behind removal (expressed in legalistic terms such as standards for trail maintenance and non-conforming structures) is to create a "purer" wilderness experience (with side issues of cost reduction). No access is hardly a wilderness experience...

Doug

David Metsky said:

That's a little over the top. The previous bridge removal was a much more used bridge, over a similarly difficult river crossing, and no one that I know of has been hurt there. Trailhead information kiosks and warning signs did a good job of letting people know the bridge was gone. It's not going to be a deathtrap unless people make very foolish decisions after being informed of the situation.

Click to expand...

I don't think the "death trap" description is over the top. I happen to agree.

By the way, I've crossed at the former bridge location a number of times since removal - it's never a gimme. Actually, I have met several groups (when IN the wilderness) that didn't know it was removed despite all the signage, and, thus took risks at the crossing. I am fortunate to be physically capable of crossing usually, but, as I've said before, I don't expect my luck to last forever either.

It's by no means truly wilderness there what with the campers within 200' of the Pemi on either side in the cleared areas- !!!!! JEEZ!!!!

Here is what I sent the district ranger today:

Please accept my thanks for considering public opinion regarding the future of this bridge in a far more inclusive, comprehensive, and patient manner than we have hitherto experienced. Your good attitude on this matter earns you much credibility in the hiking community who use that bridge.

The short version of why this bridge should be replaced is:

- Much of the use is in winter, when the river it crosses is usually open or with unstable snow/ice bridges. Unless water levels are low, crossing the river at or near the bridge is very risky almost all year. Even in summer, rainstrorms cause water levels to rise suddenly and unpredictably.

- The bridge is a bottleneck on the only low-level north-south route through the Pemigewasset Wilderness. It is 11 miles from the northerly trailhead and 6 miles from the southerly trailhead. Travelers unequipped for camping are only too likely to try to cross the river even if there is no bridge. The Pemi Wilderness is not a pristine untouched wilderness, rather it is all second-growth woods after the federal government bought the land from the timber companies who had clearcut the trees. Many artifacts from logging the Pemi include a good many miles of trails in use for 100+ years.

- The Wilderness Act establishes that federally designated wildernesses are areas where humans are "...visitors who do not remain." Developed or designated campsites would be enabling those visitors to remain, whereas passable trails and bridges where needed for public safety only enable people to visit. Visiting those areas is a use that has equal weight with preservation, according to the Act. This bridge is needed for public safety.

- Our reconnaissance party determined that there is no standing spruce near the bridge from which to hew the 62' stringers to replace the old ones. Also, USFS regs. forbid bridges of native timber longer than 20' cut from the forest. Therefore a new bridge would have to have stringers of glue-lam, trusses, or some other design to achieve the span required. They would have to be delivered by helicopter (whether pre-built or in pieces to assemble onsite) both for logistical reasons and to minimize the impact on the wilderness.

- A new bridge would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars at least. Now here is where we can all work together.
If you decide the old bridge should be replaced, you have the authority to choose from USFS standard designs or cause USFS designers to develop a design that will work on this site. Once you have a design and its costs in hand, we in the hiking community of voting citizens are quite able to ask our lawmakers to appropriate the funds to pay for it. Those lawmakers are already part of this process, and they would eventually deliver.
Lastly. there are a number of hikers who are also carpenters enough to build deck, handrails, ramps etc. to USFS specifications with some guidance on safety and quality control from your staff. A weekend work party or two would accomplish much, and save on paid labor while building a better partnership with USFS.

There as an earlier post this summer where an individual got very confused at the location of the former bridge. Did he die? No, but the potential was there. When I made my day hike a month or so ago, there was no signage explaining the lack of the former bridge and the alternate route to be used when leaving the Pemi wilderness. There were the nice easy to maintain and set in place easels at the entrance to the area but unfortunately people heading out of the Pemi from other locales may not have noticed them.

I was tempted to bring up in my letter that there is fundamental mismatch in policy when the FS allows AMC to run an established campground with improvements at 13 falls. I understand the rational, but allowing a recreational exclusion to the wilderness policy and not allowing a safety exclusion makes no sense. There appears to be far more support in past cases of supporting on conforming structures required for safety than maintaining a improved recreational amenity like thirteen falls campsite. Given that mismatch my contention there is another underlying rational for the decision and my speculation is budgetary.

As noted the cost for the major upgrade to the east side road to essentially access a privy with a pump truck would have covered the cost of the bridge replacement.

I know a lot of folks here want the bridge, I thought this was an interesting opposing view. www.scenicnh.com