Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal?

[psmart]

The 1963 A.M.C. White Mountain Guide (page 204) states, "At 4.7 m. the trail crosses the East Branch on a new (1962) 60-ft bridge and soon joins the Wilderness Trail at North Fork Junction,..."

So it would seem that the bridge is already more than 50 years old.

????? ?????? ??????

The magic age of 50-years is a myth. Age is only one criteria in evaluating the historical significance of a structure. And even if a structure is deemed to be of historical significance that doesn't automatically require that it be preserved.

 

[Becca M]

The magic age of 50-years is a myth. Age is only one criteria in evaluating the historical significance of a structure. And even if a structure is deemed to be of historical significance that doesn't automatically require that it be preserved.

Basically, there is nothing that can be done if they want to remove it. If they really wanted input they could read this message board.

 

[TJsName]

Devil's advocate: TFT is already an "inherently unsafe during high water conditions" N-S Pemi route due to the crossing at the north end of the trail unless you want to whack to/from the EPT bridge.

We had a dicey crossing there a couple autumns ago - there was some ice making the jump tricky. I just assumed in high water people whacked from the EPT bridge. Of course, in high water season Zealand Road is closed, so the area becomes even more remote. I suspect that most people up for that kind of adventure are able and willing to do small whacks and ford rivers. That said, I didn't really evaluate the potential ford by the bridge when we crossed. I'm wondering how it compares to the Shelburne Trail crossing of the Wild River. From what I recalled, crossing on the SPT was pretty mild in October - we did it without getting our feet wet.

 

[DougPaul]

We had a dicey crossing there a couple autumns ago - there was some ice making the jump tricky. I just assumed in high water people whacked from the EPT bridge. Of course, in high water season Zealand Road is closed, so the area becomes even more remote. I suspect that most people up for that kind of adventure are able and willing to do small whacks and ford rivers. That said, I didn't really evaluate the potential ford by the bridge when we crossed. I'm wondering how it compares to the Shelburne Trail crossing of the Wild River. From what I recalled, crossing on the SPT was pretty mild in October - we did it without getting our feet wet.

The winter Pemi traverse (following valley trails between Zealand and Lincoln Woods) using skis or snowshoes is also very popular. The TFT route is currently the only route that (usually) does not require crossing a river/large stream. (The alternative route uses the SPT which has 4 or 5 sizable stream crossings.)

Doug

 

[sierra]

The keeping or removal of bridges in Wilderness area's is a debate I can follow from both sides of the issue. That being said, in referance to the removal of the 180ft suspension bridge, my first encounter with that bridge was much different then that FS persons. When I was 15 to 17 yrs old, I had no car. My mode of transport was hitchhiking to the mountains. I spent alot of time in the Pemi, it was close to the highway and to me it was a magical place. I loved how big and vast it was, the feeling of being "out there" is one the Pemi provides. I remember the first time, on a mulit-day trek, I came upon that bridge. I was awestruck that a structure like that was so far out in the woods. I walked out on that bridge and thought it one of the best places to be. I was sorry they took it out, do I understand why? I guess, I do. Am I sorry it's gone, yes, I am. There has to be a balance there somewhere, I just don't know where that is.

 

[jjmcgo]

One of the most important Agenda 21 goals is to end access to public lands, eventually emptying rural areas of people. This is bridge removal is part of this plan. People have no say. States have no say.

 

[Jazzbo]

The WMNF Scoping Report is up on WMNF site. Does not look good for the bridge.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/101268_FSPLT3_2552325.pdf

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The WMNF Scoping Report is up on WMNF site. Does not look good for the bridge.

Bye bye bridgie.

Tim

 

[dr_wu002]

The forest service is comprised of the biggest bunch of jerkoffs in the universe and I hope that they rot in Hell.

-Dr. Wu

 

[TCD]

Again, I'm sorry this is happening. Looking at the report, it's pretty clear from the cover that the decision was already made and the rest of the process is a sham. It's not called the "Bridge Decision Project", it's called the "Bridge Removal Project." (Agree with the post above - Agenda 21 is alive and well, even if the people implementing it are useful idiots who don't know that their puppet strings are being pulled...)

At home here in the ADKs we've had a little of this kind of thing through the years (burning of ranger stations, vandalism of fire towers, etc.), but thankfully most of the whackos have marginalized themselves and more common sense has prevailed in the last few years. Come on over for a visit! Again, sorry about the bridge...

 

[JustJoe]

One could argue these wilderness bridges were built for public safety. Now they're being permanently removed for the same reason.

 

[Will]

One could argue these wilderness bridges were built for public safety. Now they're being permanently removed for the same reason.

I'm happy to clear up that confusion for you.

Fording the river is safer than crossing the bridge.

 

[JustJoe]

I'm happy to clear up that confusion for you.

Fording the river is safer than crossing the bridge.

That's brilliant!

 

[JoshandBaron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bridge in the Great Gulf on the Madison Gulf/Great Gulf Trail looks like it was built after the Wilderness designation. Was it only built to accommodate the AT?

 

[DougPaul]

I'm happy to clear up that confusion for you.

Fording the river is safer than crossing the bridge.

At what water level?

Doug

 

[jniehof]

I am wishing we had (collectively, myself included) paid a little more attention to the details in the forest plan revision, as I think the implications of some apparently minor technical bits are coming back to bite us.

I'll probably be writing a comment based on the Plan, the Wilderness Act, the Eastern Wilderness Act, and the 1984 Act. Something along the lines of "opportunities for challenge and solitude get undermined if access goes essentially to zero." I don't think a Pemi Wilderness with no crossings of the East Branch is really consistent with the goals of those Acts. But it's pretty hard to argue that this one bridge is the Market Garden*. What's really needed is a global assessment of crossings throughout the Pemi. If there's a place that's safely fordable (or could be made so) 90% of the time by 95+% of the people, cool, let's set that up (and yes, that probably would involve construction of some small amount of new trail, and/or resurrection of the old Wilderness Trail). Otherwise let's talk about minimally-invasive assisted crossings, e.g., the plank on the AT by CVR. But this "full bridge is noncompliant, go to nothing" is a little too much trees, not enough forest.

(*Bridge too far...)

 

[dug]

The part that jumped out at me was their desire to get everything in that area consistently in the same Zone. Seems like a good idea from a management perspective, but then you have to consider that the terrain may not always allow for consistency in zoning? I.e., sure...everything else is in Zone B, but nowhere else is their a need for a bridge to cross a swiftly moving river.

 

[Will]

At what water level?

Less than "too high" according to the report. Do try to keep up with this technical terminology, if you hope to understand the brilliant! intellect of these bridge removers.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

And zone B says something in their paper about "typically no bridges"... it doesn't say "no bridges, period."

Tim

 

[egilbe]

I am wishing we had (collectively, myself included) paid a little more attention to the details in the forest plan revision, as I think the implications of some apparently minor technical bits are coming back to bite us.

I'll probably be writing a comment based on the Plan, the Wilderness Act, the Eastern Wilderness Act, and the 1984 Act. Something along the lines of "opportunities for challenge and solitude get undermined if access goes essentially to zero." I don't think a Pemi Wilderness with no crossings of the East Branch is really consistent with the goals of those Acts. But it's pretty hard to argue that this one bridge is the Market Garden*. What's really needed is a global assessment of crossings throughout the Pemi. If there's a place that's safely fordable (or could be made so) 90% of the time by 95+% of the people, cool, let's set that up (and yes, that probably would involve construction of some small amount of new trail, and/or resurrection of the old Wilderness Trail). Otherwise let's talk about minimally-invasive assisted crossings, e.g., the plank on the AT by CVR. But this "full bridge is noncompliant, go to nothing" is a little too much trees, not enough forest.

(*Bridge too far...)

People have complained about that plank, too. It ruins the wilderness aspect of it, even though you just walked across a dirt road and the entire trail is man made. Wilderness doesn't mean it has to be inaccessible.