Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal - 30 Comment Period for Revised Assessment

[TJsName]

Thoreau Falls is not the only alternative to doing a Pemi Ski traverse. Also in the event of doing this trip being a through trip a certain amount of recon is prudent IMO anyhow. This is a long day and usually done mid to later season. The half a dozen times I have done it I have always got into shape skiing out and back from the North and South turning around at the mid point. Which also affords again recon of trail conditions. This can be a reasonably smooth trip under the right conditions and quite difficult when conditions are not ripe. On another note the removal of the bridge adds another element of a necessary skill set. So be it. It's a designated Wilderness area. Stick to the rules.

I generally agree. I don't think there are a lot of people that are attempting this traverse that aren't more experienced. My concern is more around the snow-free times when amateurs can explore and push themselves with less obvious consequences. In winter, someone who is not a strong skier will probably stop having fun well before they get to the crossing - in either direction. But when conditions are right, it's a really fun way to explore deep into the Pemi.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Can we make floaties the 11th essential?

 

[TCD]

This all makes sense as long as people know what they are getting into. I'm not a fan of signs, which largely are ineffective, but there should be large, clear signage at trailheads that tells people what to expect regarding bridges over the watercourse.

Here in NY, when a bridge is out that is 3 miles in from the parking, the "managers" will put up a "bridge out" sign 100 yards before the bridge. Naturally, anyone who has committed to the first 2.9 miles is not going to turn around or change plans, but instead will attempt a hazardous crossing. This is where people can get in trouble, and land managers own some responsibility. Just saying "You should have memorized the Wilderness Act, so it's your fault" will probably not be good enough when the family sues.

 

[JoshandBaron]

This all makes sense as long as people know what they are getting into. I'm not a fan of signs, which largely are ineffective, but there should be large, clear signage at trailheads that tells people what to expect regarding bridges over the watercourse.

Here in NY, when a bridge is out that is 3 miles in from the parking, the "managers" will put up a "bridge out" sign 100 yards before the bridge. Naturally, anyone who has committed to the first 2.9 miles is not going to turn around or change plans, but instead will attempt a hazardous crossing. This is where people can get in trouble, and land managers own some responsibility. Just saying "You should have memorized the Wilderness Act, so it's your fault" will probably not be good enough when the family sues.

They still have signs up at Lincoln Woods about the Wilderness Trail bridge they removed almost a decade ago.

 

[Stan]

I doubt "large, clear signage at trailheads that tells people what to expect regarding bridges over the watercourse" will make a difference ... there are too many things that some people need a large clear sign for. Maybe a series of signs like the vintage Burma Shave roadside ads will help ...

I do agree that many old maps and guidebooks remain in use well after new editions have come out and signage for such a major change should be obvious. As for the conditions themselves, a reliable indicator is the condition of the drainage at or near the trail head. Even then, some judgement is required as conditions upstream can vary depending on time, distance, precipitation, snowmelt etc. Anyone who's experienced in the dramatic changes that can occur in short times probably has a keen sense of what to expect at the trailherad. Technology may obviate the need for judgement and experience, such as sensors at crossings feeding real time data into a trail app you can keep your eyes on but, in my mind, that will be another detraction from the back country experience.

 

[skiguy]

Does the word "Wilderness" not evoke a certain realization of what one might encounter. Where is the line drawn between what is considered public responsibility and individual responsibility?

 

[Grey J]

While my personal feelings (though not particularly relevant) leaned in favor of repairing and maintaining the existing bridge, it's hard to argue with the logic of the decision to remove it given the Wilderness designation of the Pemigewasset drainage area. Wilderness is wilderness. Don't expect The Flume. The railroad ties on Lincoln Woods Trail may someday rot away, though not in my lifetime. The trees and underbrush grow back, some views diminish, some disappear. Its a long term natural process. I guess one argument in favor of keeping this bridge and others could be that if you legitimize and maintain trails that you might as well have bridges. A "real" wilderness would have no trails. So inevitably, we are left with this hybrid, semi-wilderness, an area extensively logged in the past and heavily used for recreation in the last 50 years. Its not a virgin wilderness, its a wilderness in a dynamic process of regeneration to which we have continuing access to view the process up close and first hand. I'm ok with that

 

[peakbagger]

We went through this before, the enabling language of the Wilderness act act includes leaving means for the public to have access to the area to be able to enjoy it. I expect other folks could use the preservationist argument that a wilderness is not a Wilderness unless people are excluded from it. The federal wilderness act was not written that way. One step below the act are the body of the administrative rules tempered by lawsuits shaped over the years that allow man made objects to remain and be replaced if they are needed for safety and other specific exclusions. The designated administrator of the area has elected to rule that the bridge does not meet the requirements for exclusion and conveniently ignores the improvements at place at 13 falls that are not covered by the act.

 

[JoshandBaron]

and conveniently ignores the improvements at place at 13 falls that are not covered by the act.

Amen. The inconsistency is irksome at best. I fail to see how the AMC maintaining a developed site for over 2 dozen people is necessary for the administration of the Wilderness.

 

[rocket21]

I don't agree with the decision. Further, I don't agree with the premise that the historic bridge could be removed, yet logging remains that are only a relative few years older must be preserved, because of arbitrary parameters.

I think the Forest Service is, pun intended, burning bridges with their recent bridge removal decisions and implementation strategies. It's very unfortunate.

 

[skiguy]

I don't agree with the decision. Further, I don't agree with the premise that the historic bridge could be removed, yet logging remains that are only a relative few years older must be preserved, because of arbitrary parameters.

I think the Forest Service is, pun intended, burning bridges with their recent bridge removal decisions and implementation strategies. It's very unfortunate.

Definitely needed to be removed being replaced was another matter. I understand possible discrepancies in policy. But comparing an old rotten bridge to pins, rails and old rusted teapots I don’t see the correlation. Unless there is some other structure you are alluding to. As a note “The bridge” was built in the early 60’s where logging operations began in 1894. That is IMO more than just a relative few years.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

There is enough leeway in the WMNF Forest Plan for the supervisor to justify keeping the bridge or removing it. I could easily use the text for the Decisions for the Great Gulf bridge or the Dry River bridge and edit it to justify keeping this bridge. OR the long lamented suspension bridge.

Has there been a single non-AT shelter rebuilt in the WMNF in the last 40 years?

I read here that the GMC was able to amend the GMNF Forest Plan to ensure those shelters could be maintained and replaced. I have never checked if that is true but it so, then the WMNF battle was lost a long time ago.

 

[DayTrip]

There is enough leeway in the WMNF Forest Plan for the supervisor to justify keeping the bridge or removing it. I could easily use the text for the Decisions for the Great Gulf bridge or the Dry River bridge and edit it to justify keeping this bridge. OR the long lamented suspension bridge.

Has there been a single non-AT shelter rebuilt in the WMNF in the last 40 years?

I read here that the GMC was able to amend the GMNF Forest Plan to ensure those shelters could be maintained and replaced. I have never checked if that is true but it so, then the WMNF battle was lost a long time ago.

They replaced the Dry River bridge this year didn't they?

 

[JoshandBaron]

Has there been a single non-AT shelter rebuilt in the WMNF in the last 40 years?

Are there any non AT shelters outside of Wilderness that have been removed? I feel like they've been consistent with the shelters in Wilderness and have done work on ones outside like Sawyer Pond. Ore Hill wasn't rebuilt and it was an AT shelter. Same with Webster Slide and Zeacliff Pond. I'm sure there were others that have been lost.

 

[maineguy]

There was a shelter at Zeacliff Pond??
And by Webster Slide do you mean the old Nauman Shelters below Mt Jackson?

 

[maineguy]

When was the Zeacliff Pond shelter removed? My 1969 maps do not show it

The Nauman site had 2 shelters (stayed there in 67), I always look for the old site when I pass that way. Never been able to locate it.

 

[TJsName]

There was a shelter at Zeacliff Pond??
And by Webster Slide do you mean the old Nauman Shelters below Mt Jackson?

Webster Slide is a mountain south of Moosilauke along the AT. There is a pond, and a side trail that climbs up to the top of the cliff. I suspect the shelter was by the pond.

 

[Hillwalker]

According to my old notes, the old DOC shelter was on top of Webster slide, not actually beside Wachipauka Pond which we locally called Meader Pond. When I lived in NH it was literally in my back yard.

 

[maineguy]

Thanks for the info on the Wachipauka Shelter. I found the info in my 69 guidebook. I had never heard of it, mainly because I have never hiked that area.

 

[Hillwalker]

I used to hike up there from my house to fly fish. Lots of Trout in that pond.