Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal - 30 Comment Period for Revised Assessment

[Tom_Murphy]

Thanks. If I understand it correctly, the abandoned trail is no longer part of any 200' measurement - it is from the river bank instead.

Is it safe to presume that the predicted increase in illegal campsites is due to the inability to cross the river? It would seem that one would have to head out there with camping gear to avail oneself of an illegal campsite.

Tim

It is my impression that there has been a significant increase in camping along the East Branch along the section of the Wilderness Trail that was abandoned. i.e along the north side of the river that can be accessed via the decommissioned trail beyond the East Branch & Lincoln Railroad Trestle # 16 over the Black Brook.

I could easily see the spur to the Thoreau Falls bridge being decommissioned and the same thing happening there.

 

[skiguy]

Yes, but I would argue that those camp sites are illegal per ORDER NO.2007-12.

What does Order No. 2007-12 say? Thanks in advanced. I’m too lazy to try to find it.

 

[iAmKrzys]

One could easily go as far as to suggest an area be closed to people. (This is not a new idea. It has been done in some areas of the National Forest, notably in sections of El Yunque, in Puerto Rico.) So for example, in the Thoreau Falls case, one could remove the bridge, and also remove the trails. And consider banning human entry. THAT would be consistent.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where things end up in 30 or 50 years. Anyways, I'm not sure if the kids currently growing up glued to their phones will notice. They will probably be content visiting the area virtually if they somehow feel a need to do so.

 

[peakbagger]

It would require a major revision to the wilderness act. One of the requirements is that public access has to be retained for designated wilderness's. At one point in the mid eighties permits were required to get into the Great Gulf and that approach is used elsewhere.

Realistically IMHO, the FS is using the guided "entropy" approach. Pull the means of accessing the area, switch over to minimal signage, blazing and maintenance and public use drops. Add in increased climatic activity which means more tropical storms and hurricanes which trash the trail network and the need to exclude people from the area is really not needed as few will go there. Of course if folks do elect to go in these area make a nightmare for S&R. That experiment was started in the Dry River a few years ago.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

What does Order No. 2007-12 say? Thanks in advanced. I’m too lazy to try to find it.

Are you teasing me?

See post # 57.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

I believe there is a place for "true wilderness," even here in the NE. It would be quite feasible to set aside an significant area and have NO man-made features in it. One could easily go as far as to suggest an area be closed to people. (This is not a new idea. It has been done in some areas of the National Forest, notably in sections of El Yunque, in Puerto Rico.) So for example, in the Thoreau Falls case, one could remove the bridge, and also remove the trails. And consider banning human entry. THAT would be consistent.

In Baxter SP, the Klondike area is effectively closed to people.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Yes, but I would argue that those camp sites are illegal per ORDER NO.2007-12.

I was referring to the sites that are currently there by the TFT bridge. The ones to the east of the bridge are completely legal. The ones to the west of the bridge are not. I don't really see the number of sites there increasing given that's where people were camping before the bridge was closed and usage of the area probably won't be increasing now.

 

[peakbagger]

In Baxter SP, the Klondike area is effectively closed to people.

I agree its effectively closed due to its inaccessibility and the rule that camping is only allowed at designated campsites in the park but its not officially closed as far as I know. Folks do on rare occasions visit it, via the slide on the East face of Coe



I plan to attempt a visit to the ravine this fall.

 

[skiguy]

Are you teasing me?

See post # 57.

No I'm not teasing. I said I was lazy. Sorry I missed your post. Send me to VFTT jail. I'll do better next time. I promise.

 

[peakbagger]

Looks like the paper work for the foregone conclusion has finally been completed

http://www.nhpr.org/post/dilapidated-white-mountains-footbridge-will-be-removed#stream/0

Wonder if the debris removal will go as well as with the last bridge

 

[TJsName]

So one of the ten essentials is to know the precipitation forecast and its impact on rising waters? Given the bridge's location, I suspect it's primarily used by backpackers, who may not have been able to check the latest forecast for several days. Precip forecasts can change significantly in 48 hours. This seems to be an acknowledgement that the crossing is dangerous while simultaneously putting the blame on any future victims. It would be more respectable if they just said 'we're removing the bridge to make the area more wild - deal with it'.

 

[JoshandBaron]

So one of the ten essentials is to know the precipitation forecast and its impact on rising waters?

I feel like that should be a skill anyone who ventures out should have. Always chalked that one up to common sense: rain makes waters rise, regardless of forecast. It stands to reason if you crossed the north end of the trail you'll have no issues crossing at the south end. If you're at the south end and can't cross you have options of other trails to use. If you had to use the North Fork bridge and whack at the north end you're probably not making a good decision to continue to the south end expecting a reasonable crossing. There are safe alternatives for pretty much every route this bridge factors in to.

 

[sierra]

So one of the ten essentials is to know the precipitation forecast and its impact on rising waters? Given the bridge's location, I suspect it's primarily used by backpackers, who may not have been able to check the latest forecast for several days. Precip forecasts can change significantly in 48 hours. This seems to be an acknowledgement that the crossing is dangerous while simultaneously putting the blame on any future victims. It would be more respectable if they just said 'we're removing the bridge to make the area more wild - deal with it'.

Added to the ten essentials? this is a skill that should already be owned. I find the augments for the bridge and the last one interesting. Crossing rivers and streams is wilderness travel 101. I've been doing it for 40 years, to be honest it's a fun exercise. I've spent over an hour trying to cross streams safely in the past. Bridges help, no doubt, many wish they were plentiful and at all major crossing's. I absolutely loved the long one. But, the only liability for water crossing's falls on the crosser, plain and simple. It will be as if the bridge never existed.

 

[JoshandBaron]

I found this interesting:

As mentioned in Issue 1, safety is not an appropriate consideration when
analyzing actions (or no action) in wilderness. As noted in the DDN (p.
7), there is one reference to safety in the Wilderness Act of 1964 which
refers to responding to an emergency situation, but not the prevention of
risk. On the contrary, wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for
solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation, and is undeveloped -
essentially without permanent improvements or modern human
occupation.
Removal of the bridge without replacement, follows law, policy, and
management guidance to, above all other values, protect wilderness
character. The absence of a bridge offers a remote wilderness experience
to visitors where they may choose a level of risk in a primitive setting that
is acceptable to them personally. Wilderness values are protected by the
removal of a structure that currently makes crossing the river more
convenient, but is not essential to the administration of the area as
wilderness.
The EA includes extensive discussion of the river ford. The current and
depth of the water at Thoreau Falls may or may not eliminate this hike a
majority of the year; that decision will depend upon each visitor’s
determination of acceptable risk. During a recent assessment by Forest
Service staff, it was determined that wading across the river at this
location is possible during typical flows encountered in summer and fall,
but the risk levels increase substantially during and shortly after storm
events and during snow melt when stream flows are moderate to high
(EA, p. 2). During the season of primary use, which is July – September,
there is little evidence of flows near this level (above 300 cfs). While the
river is prone to rapid rise and fall in response to storm events, crossing
during times of low to moderate flow (below 300 cubic feet per second) is
considered lower or moderate risk (EA, p. 6).

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/101268_FSPLT3_4425795.pdf

 

[TJsName]

I was talking specifically about the 10 essentials: http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php?page=full-gear-list

I am all for having survival skills, but at least add the bit about knowning the future to the list!

 

[skiguy]

I was talking specifically about the 10 essentials: http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php?page=full-gear-list

I am all for having survival skills, but at least add the bit about knowning the future to the list!

The ten essentials addresses gear to have not cognitive paradigms.

 

[TJsName]

The ten essentials addresses gear to have not cognitive paradigms.

I suppose the letter was actually referencing the first point (1) on the hikesafe page: http://www.hikesafe.com/

Knowing the local weather is fine, but even a weather man going out on a 5 day trip in the Pemi might not have an accurate read.

I think this connects to the larger issue about what role society should take in protecting its members. Perhaps the argument here is really that we stand no chance of losing a valuable member of society by removing this bridge?

 

[Peaks]

Removal adds another challenge to backcountry skiers doing the Pemi Traverse, from Zealand Road to Lincoln woods. By the time you get to the bridge site, it's already been a long day. Just pray that the ice bridges are still in place when you get there.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Removal adds another challenge to backcountry skiers doing the Pemi Traverse, from Zealand Road to Lincoln woods. By the time you get to the bridge site, it's already been a long day. Just pray that the ice bridges are still in place when you get there.

Issue 6: Removing, and not replacing, the bridge will effectively stop any
winter Nordic skiing use. This should be considered, and not just the
“primary season of public use”.
Analysis: In the EA, response to Comment # 26, states “Although the FS
does not have winter use data there is consensus amongst the wilderness
and trail managers that the primary season of use is not during the winter
months. This is evident through vehicle counts at trailheads, visitor counts
at Lincoln Woods, first hand experience on the trails and use levels at
huts.” (EA, p. A-28) “The primary season of use are summer and fall,
although the trail gets some winter use.” (EA, p. 6) During the primary
season of use it is “generally considered safe to ford the river at this
location” (EA, p. A-2).
In Chapter 3: Environmental Effects, in the Recreation Section,
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), Direct and Indirect Effects, there is a
discussion about the potential increase in visitor risk associated with
stream crossings without a bridge, including a sentence regarding fording
the river in winter at the bridge site “Displacement may be more evident
in the winter when visitors would have to cross on ice and snow.” (EA, p.
23)
In the EA, it also notes providing “safe access year round contradicts
wilderness direction found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320 –
16
Wilderness Management” (EA, p. A-2). FSM 2320 also “directs that
replacement of bridges only occur when crossing afoot during the primary
season of public use cannot be negotiated safely” (EA, pp. 3-4).
And, the response to Comment # 24, states “The EA doesn’t discount that
if the bridge is removed, the crossing would be more challenging,
especially in the winter. The responsibility for safety is different than risk,
our studies indicate primary season of use is during low flows, resulting in
low risk for the individual. However, this does not alleviate the
individual’s need to be safe in a remote and wilderness setting and make
good judgement calls for their personal safety in times of higher flows.”
(EA, pp. A-24-25)
Conclusion: The EA documented the primary season of use, which is
summer and fall, not winter. The FS considered winter use and noted that
Forest Service Manual 2320 directs replacement of bridges in wilderness
areas only if the replacement bridge is necessary to safely negotiate foot
crossing during the primary season of public use. (EA, p. 3)

 

[skiguy]

Removal adds another challenge to backcountry skiers doing the Pemi Traverse, from Zealand Road to Lincoln woods. By the time you get to the bridge site, it's already been a long day. Just pray that the ice bridges are still in place when you get there.

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.