Rumors about Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal

[psmart]

thanks psmart! I hate to bring this up, but, is the same process followed for the suspension bridge? If so, I'd like to figure out how to get ahead of *this* process before it's too late as it was in that case.... OK, so maybe I haven't given up..... ~yet~

Yes, the same basic process applies to all "projects". If you want to be heard at an earlier stage (before the scoping is published) you can certainly contact the FS. There is no reason you cannot ask, and talk to, whoever is working on the project.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/contact/

 

[psmart]

I think that one of the great beauties of the Pemi is to see the extraordinary reclamation of wildness after and in spite of the comprehensive logging of the first half of the twentieth century. It gives me hope.

Currently, I neither advocate for the bridge's repair or removal, but I will not be upset in either circumstance (assuming a removal would be completed fully and promptly). But, I remain surprised and disappointed by lack of support, even contempt, for the concept of wildness by so many on this board. We have an incredible number of relatively well-maintained, convenient, normal hiking trails. Is it so awful to strive to have a little bit of mileage that is a little more raw, that requires a bit more wit, yet is short of bushwhacking?

I agree. Although we may not have much "pure" wilderness in the WMNF, Wilderness designation does give us the very rare opportunity to observe the forces of nature at work with a minimum of human intervention. And the natural reclamation of the Pemi is a great example of this process.

 

[cushetunk]

Being a "friend of nature" and a friend of ordinary hikers is not the same thing.

This is true, and from my point of view it has not reflected well on ordinary hikers, especially those who claim to love the mountains.

However, this point is incidental to the hypothetical removal of the bridge, which is all about the level of adventure, challenge, and uncertainty that people want to accept in the wilderness.

 

[Becca M]

There are many many trails which cross rivers that never had bridges, at least for hikers. Most people just pick alternative destinations/trails/etc. during high water times. However, even during low water times, this particular crossing appears dangerous to me, just as dangerous as the Great Gulf Trail's suspension bridge (which crosses the Peabody River, near the "Bluff"), which was fairly recently rebuilt (in a Wilderness area). There is an interesting write-up in the most recent Appalachia about the Great Gulf suspension bridge's history and its future uncertainty as well... an interesting read.

 

[DougPaul]

Could someone please post as to just what is the clear span of this bridge between abutments? That is the most critical of the unknown dimensions.

I haven't been able to get out there with my tape measure, but aerial photos suggest 40-45 ft. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=44.11869,-71.50379&z=19&t=H&marker0=44.04556,-71.67056,Lincoln\, NH
(The photo is a bit hard to interpret and the SE end appears to be in the shade and possibly hidden by a tree. The bridge is the SW-NE line just SE of the cursor.)

Also important is, how close can a truck be driven? Not according to wilderness rules, but physically.

IIRC, one might be able to get a narrow wheeled vehicle as far as the bridge site. Don't know about truck width. However, I'm not sure how difficult crossing Cedar Brook would be and there is a washout beyond Cedar Brook which I believe is slated for repair. (See http://www.vftt.org/forums/showpost.php?p=361561&postcount=1 second photo.) Becca might be a better person to ask--she has been there more recently than I (and without snow...).

Doug

 

[RoySwkr]

Roy: where were these crossings (and Cable Car!?)

The cable car was at the Stillwater site, maybe 1/2 mile downstream of Stillwater Jct

See the 15' map or look up the previous discussion here

Also important is, how close can a truck be driven? Not according to wilderness rules, but physically.

If you look on the 7.5' quad, there is a building near the bridge which was a fish&game cabin they used to drive to weekly before Wilderness. I would suggest a tracked vehicle might be more appropriate today.

But, I remain surprised and disappointed by lack of support, even contempt, for the concept of wildness by so many on this board. We have an incredible number of relatively well-maintained, convenient, normal hiking trails. Is it so awful to strive to have a little bit of mileage that is a little more raw, that requires a bit more wit, yet is short of bushwhacking?

No, but my objections to Wilderness are twofold:
* National groups insist on more Wilderness every few years to justify their existence, so the proportion of normal hiking trails keeps sinking
* These groups want Wilderness created in the wrong place, areas with existing dense trail systems rather than wilder areas nobody has heard of

 

[psmart]

National groups insist on more Wilderness every few years to justify their existence

You can't "blame" national organizations for Wilderness designation. Sure, they play a role, but we have Wilderness primarily because of individuals who are passionate about our public lands, and devote the time and energy to make them better by participating in the planning and management process. You may disagree with their views, but it's unfair to dismiss Wilderness (and the efforts of these individuals) because it also has national support.

 

[RoySwkr]

You can't "blame" national organizations for Wilderness designation.

What burns me up is that they speak with forked tongue. Many years ago there was a "grand compromise" struck in which Wild River was to become Wilderness and the Pemi was not, but the next time around the environmental groups welshed on the deal and pushed for the Pemi also. If they try to justify this by saying it was a temporary agreement, ask what they would say if a snowmobile club asked to get Wild River undesignated.

And while they choose places with the most shelters, bridges, and trails to become Wilderness as opposed to more natural less-developed areas, they don't support replacing those amenities elsewhere.

 

[psmart]

Many years ago there was a "grand compromise" struck in which Wild River was to become Wilderness and the Pemi was not, but the next time around the environmental groups welshed on the deal and pushed for the Pemi also.

I think you have the sequence reversed - the Pemi Wilderness came first. But nevertheless, it's the US congress that makes the final decision on each Wilderness designation, based on the recommendations of the Forest Service that are part of each Forest Plan revision. The recommendations are part of the balance of land designations in each plan. Private groups or individuals can (and do) express their views about this land allocations, but they cannot make any "deals" about what is designated.

The other factor to remember is that conditions change. In earlier forest plans, when the mills of Berlin were still active and processing local lumber, there was understandable concern about keeping Wild River valley in the "timber base". But in the latest plan revision process, timber supply and processing has changed, and there was hardly any objection to Wild River Wilderness designation from the North Country.

 

[RoySwkr]

I think you have the sequence reversed - the Pemi Wilderness came first.

You are correct of course so I fixed it

The other factor to remember is that conditions change.

Yes, and that's another of my objections to Wilderness

Most lands in the NF can switched into different management zones or their uses changed through the forest planning process, but Wilderness can be changed only by Congress and a lot of people think it never can/will be changed. But if enough marginal land is designated Wilderness that should have been Primitive (no logging or development), sooner or later a critical parcel will need to be undesignated. Once the floodgates open there won't be an easy way to distinguish which pieces should actually remain Wilderness and the pendulum may swing too far the other way. I'm thinking of the Alaska pipeline - when the rules and lawsuits got too burdensome Congress just decreed it conforming and ordered it built anyway.

 

[psmart]

Wilderness can be changed only by Congress and a lot of people think it never can/will be changed.

Quite true. But what some may see as a lack of flexibility, others will see as an assurance of long-term protection.

 

[brianW]

Quite true. But what some may see as a lack of flexibility, others will see as an assurance of long-term protection.

After hiking Raven Cliff Falls Trail in northern GA last summer I wouldn't call it "long-term protection" Maybe from logging but that trail is like a herd path along a creek with numerous large campsites. My family and I did another hike, maybe two miles away to Duke Creek. What a difference.

 

[RoySwkr]

Quite true. But what some may see as a lack of flexibility, others will see as an assurance of long-term protection.

Using jargon, the problem with the Forest planning process is that it is "asymmetric", that is the process itself favors some results over others. You can semi-permanently protect land as Wilderness but there is no way for the RMC for example to protect their huts and trail system as permanent Passive Recreation or someone planning a new mill to be guaranteed Tree Cutting (although they tried that in Alaska). If the pendulum swings too far and too much land is designated Tree Cutting it can be corrected in the next plan, but there is no similar way to correct for too much Wilderness.

For an example closer to home, at one time the WODC planned to keep doing minor repairs to their leantos so they would continue to exist in Wilderness, but membership opinions changed and they were allowed to fall down. If a new group of history lovers joins the WODC and wants to bring back the leantos, they won't be allowed to do so - is it fair that one group of people (or even one District Ranger) can make such permanent decisions?

And Congress doesn't always pass the most rational laws - it is possible for them either to ban all trails in Wilderness and require $100 permits or to require that to comply with ADA all trails either be made accessible or closed with use forbidden. I just wish there was some way to guarantee permanent "reasonable" recreation, whatever that is.

 

[psmart]

After hiking Raven Cliff Falls Trail in northern GA last summer I wouldn't call it "long-term protection" Maybe from logging but that trail is like a herd path along a creek with numerous large campsites. My family and I did another hike, maybe two miles away to Duke Creek. What a difference.

That's unfortunate. But this sounds like a failing of the FS to properly manage the land. It's not easy in a high-use area, especially by a popular stream. It's also possible that this high-use area should not have been included in the Wilderness designation, just as the AT is kept outside most Wilderness areas.

 

[Becca M]

Using jargon, the problem with the Forest planning process is that it is "asymmetric", that is the process itself favors some results over others. You can semi-permanently protect land as Wilderness but there is no way for the RMC for example to protect their huts and trail system as permanent Passive Recreation or someone planning a new mill to be guaranteed Tree Cutting (although they tried that in Alaska). If the pendulum swings too far and too much land is designated Tree Cutting it can be corrected in the next plan, but there is no similar way to correct for too much Wilderness.

For an example closer to home, at one time the WODC planned to keep doing minor repairs to their leantos so they would continue to exist in Wilderness, but membership opinions changed and they were allowed to fall down. If a new group of history lovers joins the WODC and wants to bring back the leantos, they won't be allowed to do so - is it fair that one group of people (or even one District Ranger) can make such permanent decisions?

And Congress doesn't always pass the most rational laws - it is possible for them either to ban all trails in Wilderness and require $100 permits or to require that to comply with ADA all trails either be made accessible or closed with use forbidden. I just wish there was some way to guarantee permanent "reasonable" recreation, whatever that is.

WOW - AWESOME points!!!!! Great explanation!

 

[RoySwkr]

NH STATE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SCR0002.html

Sen. Bradley said he's halfway through the 48x12 grid, so while he's way behind HE (and probably losing ground that puts him ahead of most members of this site. He is thinking that keeping the Thoreau Falls Trail bridge should be added to the bill.

Susan Arnold of AMC testified against, she said it was because the state should talk to the FS instead of passing resolutions but remember that the AMC supported the Wilderness guidelines when they came out so she is probably trying to tone down the state's opposition.

My concern here is letting the nh legislature determine what is going on in the W.M.N.F.

The NH legislature has no authority over the WMNF, but they can express their opinion just like the AMC and Sierra Club - and it probably better reflects the opinion of NH voters.

 

[RoySwkr]

One more guy who can't tell the bridges apart:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/scaljourns/calendars/2012/sc 6.pdf see p. 13

Amendment to SCR 2
Amend the resolution by replacing the second paragraph after the resolving clause with the following:
That the general court finds that, in order to encourage safety and public access to the White Mountain National Forest, the United States Forest Service should, whenever possible, repair all existing bridges, including the Thoreau Falls Bridge on the Appalachian Trail, and not remove bridges when removal costs more than repair;

 

[walker]

My Answer to The Above Quote

Amendment to SCR 2
Amend the resolution by replacing the second paragraph after the resolving clause with the following:
That the general court finds that, in order to encourage safety and public access to the White Mountain National Forest, the United States Forest Service should, whenever possible, repair all existing bridges, including the Thoreau Falls Bridge on the Appalachian Trail, and not remove bridges when removal costs more than repair;

My Answer to The Above Quote

 

[sardog1]

One more guy who can't tell the bridges apart:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/scaljourns/calendars/2012/sc 6.pdf see p. 13

This is how wars get started.

 

[Will]

One more guy who can't tell the bridges apart:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/scaljourns/calendars/2012/sc 6.pdf see p. 13

I think we need whatever allies and support we can find. We are faced with an outlier with no connection to White Mountain backpacking. Her enemies are our friends.