Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal?

[TJ aka Teej]

Any VFTTers going?

 

[egilbe]

After all this rain, will there be a bridge left? Will the hikes be canceled due to high flood waters? Let's see someone try to ford it now.

 

[Becca M]

I would think the bridge as is would be fine - those logs are HUGE. I would not want to ford that crossing without a couple of waterproof toe tags....

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

The bridge is no doubt still there. Remember it survived every hurricane and Spring freshet since 1962, including Irene! The Forest Supervisor postponed the 10/3 tour until the present water levels go down. Frankly I have my doubts as to whether anything we say will sway the FS, but gaining time to lobby our legislators is a good thing.

Now that we know Senator Ayotte is listening, let every hiker voice their opinion to her. This is one time when your opinion matters, because it will be counted. Those who won't speak up forfeit the right to complain if the final decision goes against them.

 

[Jazzbo]

I rendezvoused (spelling????) with the hike out at the bridge on Saturday. I would have joined the hike, but I hate going all the way out there without doing some inspecting of logging camps (Camp 18 in particular). Camp 17 continues to elude me. We had a lively discussion. It was a friendly meeting. Main take-away is they haven't made a final decision yet. Good Lord willing the bridge will remain in place for this winter for use by the BC skiers. One replacement option that would be considered would be to re-construct the crossing using native timber being more in keeping with wilderness character which I must say has certain romantic appeal to me. There are many talented people out there with the know-how to build such structures. I suggest folks try stay positive and keep an open mind. Like our Congress.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Good morning, Jazzbo.
Since you took part in the meeting at the bridge, might I request a clarification of one of your statements? You wrote that "...One replacement option that would be considered would be to re-construct the crossing using native timber being more in keeping with wilderness character..." Did the ranger leading the trip say that? If so, that is a considerable concession on their part. Please advise.
If the USFS decides to replace the bridge with something more in keeping with wilderness aesthetics, the bridge will likely still consist of native stringers on existing concrete abutments. If the latter are visually offensive they can be surrounded with drystone riprap.
Nowadays we build bridges of PT lumber wherever we can: they stay safer longer because they don't rot nearly as fast. A few examples among many are at msgtc.org/trail happenings. Thoreau Falls bridge could have handrails and posts harvested nearby for a rustic look, but safety and long life/low upkeep strongly indicate that the nailers and deck be PT lumber especially over native stringers that should be kept as dry as we can make them.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

This just in:
Pemi District ranger has decided that the walk out to view Thoreau Falls Bridge is on after all. The ranger and the dispersed recreation supervisor will meet the six hikers who signed up at 9 AM tomorrow Saturday 3 October at Lincoln Woods. Of course, they have no control over random hikers walking the same route...

 

[peakbagger]

If the damage was Irene based, this was a natural disaster and it was and most likely still an event that the local forest district supervisor could sign a waiver to wilderness rules to effect a replacement. This option was available post Irene and used elsewhere but the local supervisor elected not to use it at that time electing to voluntarily follow wilderness guidelines. Unfortunately with the limited FS resources what it meant is that vast amounts of work was not done at all.

I am not advocating rebuilding the trail so that equipment could be driven in but the main structural beams could be fabricated off site and flown in with a helicopter. Once they are set with the helicopter, the rest of the work can be done using hand tools, although the best option would be to preassemble it off the site then disassemble and transport. My speculation is the best "natural" replacement is set of "gluelam" beams treated for exterior use, with cross bracing under the deck due to the length.

The reality is that the impact to the woods for a large crew of timber framers required to obtain local resources and process those resources into an ADA complaint wheelchair accessible bridge is going to be far more than the short term impact of several helicopter lifts. Even if they could staff it, the lumber they cut would have to be graded and signed off by a competent person. To do a complete field fab on site is matter of months for a large crew of skilled individuals that are not typically FS employees. They would have to create a place to camp, an open work area, deal with human waste and in general make a significant impact. Even the amish use chainsaws and sawmills. Folks watching TV dont realize when they are watching the old timer build his cabin in Alaska is that the couple of hours of footage watched during a pledge drive is months of work 7 days a week all edited down and he doesn't have to deal with OSHA and overtime rules.

Unfortunately unless the timber framers build a covered bridge their fine craftsmanship will be deteriorated in about 15 to 20 years times unless preservatives are used and reapplied. Folks don't realize the main reason to build a covered bridge is to protect the underlying structural supports from the weather. Using modern treated wood products a 40 to 50 year lifespan of the structural components is possible with periodic upkeep. Of course the cable stayed suspension bridges had the least impact and arguably longest service life of the structural components but they are not "natural"

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

peakbagger,
Your remarks offer a good example of the reasons why we prefer PT these days, and therefore why PT is the least long-term impact short of demolishing the bridge. IMO the most cost-effective stringers remain native spruce from nearby, and part of considering what is to be done includes measuring the bridge and the trees within reasonable hauling range. Purchased materials are indeed best airlifted to an LZ nearby and above floods, but I don't know if there is helicopter lift capacity for stringers for this bridge, be they spruce or be they gluelam. Local stringers can almost always be moved into place with rigging, but I can tell you that this bridge looks longer than most, and we still do not know how long it is, as no VFTTer has measured or paced it or counted the deckboards to approximate it. Presumably there is time tomorrow to measure it.

 

[peakbagger]

There are heavy lift helicopters used on the west coast that routinely haul far larger loads. A VFTT member did bring a tape measure recently and determined its 66 feet rather than the frequently stated 60 feet. One of the issues is side to side sway on long thin structures. Assuming that the FS will require wheelchair accessibility the deck will be much wider than current and I expect the stringers will be spaced wider. with proper X bracing at the top and bottom of the beams, the sway can be reduced. Ed Bergeron's firm in North Conway, HEB engineers used to take on designs like this but I am not sure is Ed's spirit carried on when he sold it.

The issue I have with PT is that I find that the underlying southern pine typically used has very wide growth rings leading to a lot of seasonal movement and ultimately splitting on the ends. I and many others have had to replace PT decks that get a lot of sun. The woods not rotted, its just cracking apart. I would be curious if thermally treated hardwood would be even more durable for deck boards http://www.thermaltreatedwood.com/what.html. . There is a sawmill in NH that produces the thermally treated wood and I do like that the decay and fungus resistance is developed by the thermal treatment instead of toxic chemicals. For the main beams, glue lams are pretty much the standard but UMaine was developing carbon fiber reinforced laminate beams that had a lighter cross section

Of course there is the "bridge in backpack concept that UMaine developed http://engineering.umaine.edu/department-research/research-features/bridge-in-a-backpack/ but it would definitely not meet the "natural" requirements for wilderness areas.

Ultimately there is a solution to replace the bridge. It just requires money and staff resources. Unfortunately the FS management goal is to do more with less and that means shedding future maintenance when possible. The other thing politically is that if a politician where to request specific funding for a replacement the "bridge to nowhere" knick name could rapidly be attached to it.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

peakbagger,
I continue to marvel at the breadth and depth of your knowledge, and I am grateful that you are here informing these discussions on VFTT.
So: there are helicopters to move beams that size; the beams must be X-braced with diaphragms between; replacing cracked PT deck is part of routine upkeep (store replacement PT under tarps hidden near the bridge); thermal treated wood is chemical-free so scrap can be recycled in the woods. It really is a matter of will rather than way. THEREFORE: tomorrow's visit is to gather info to be used to convince Congress and the concerned public. The cost is very little compared to the risks of no bridge.
I admit that the people and their tools I work with are used to building bridges no more than 1/2 the length of this one, and the volunteers and gear are rare enough that something as big and remote as this one are probably best built by professionals who have the gear and skills. The volunteers take care to do quality work, but our time, budgets, and knowledge have their limits, and such are best admitted.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Please note new thread just posted: WMNF New Schedule of Proposed Actions. Thoreau Falls Bridge removal is on page 7. Decision expected this November, implementation starts this December. There is not much time to lobby Congress.

 

[DougPaul]

So: there are helicopters to move beams that size;

The Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane has a payload capacity of 20,000 lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-64_Skycrane

Doug

 

[peakbagger]

I had a chance to do a bit of research on exemptions to the wilderness act by adminstrators of those areas. This link seems to cover it

http://www.georgewright.org/283buono.pdf

I think this section of the link covers the legal argument for repair of the bridge that most likely used during the prior FS action. ( I have added the bolding)

The Wilderness Act prohibits nine specific activities, seven of which an administering
agency may waive by invoking a so-called minimum requirement exception. The prohibited
activities that an agency may waive are: temporary roads, motor vehicles, motorized equipment,
motorboats, landing of aircraft, mechanical transport, and structures or installations.8
The Wilderness Act allows the exception “as necessary to meet minimum requirements for
the administration of the (wilderness) area for the purpose of this Act (including measures
required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area)…” (16
U.S.C. 1133(c)).
Note that the "landing" of aircraft is prohibited, a fine line is that a helicopter does not "land" it hovers and does not have to land to discharge loads. Thus its questionable if a waiver is even needed for the use of helicopter.

It appears that it comes down to, is the bridge required for "safety" of those using the area?. In the past forest service action, safety was used to justify the retention of the bridge. The current approach appears to be that the bridge should be removed as there are alternatives to the bridge. Thus the tours of the area during the traditional low water time of the year. On the prior bridge removal, the FS was careful to note that there was a alternative to the suspension bridge as the users could use the East Side truck road. Obviously the winter skiing public did not agree.

If the public has a chance of arguing this removal the comments should be that there are truly no reasonable safe alternatives to this bridge for periods of the year when the public may be reasonably be using this trail. Unlike the prior suspension bridge there is no parallel trail on the other side of the crossing. One possible tactic to delay implementation is to require the FS to provide proof that there is a safe reasonable alternative to this bridge over the entire course of a year which would require that a study be done establishing this. A secondary argument is that the wilderness act specific states that the areas be managed for recreation in addition to other equal goals and the loss of safe access to the this trail effectively reduces access to a large area of the national forest as it substantially limits the ability to hike across it.

 

[Stan]

I came across the stream restoration linked here and wondered, with all the logging done in the White Mountains before it became a National Forest, what impact on streams might still exist that could be corrected to improve habitat for wildlife of all sorts ... and maybe provide some safe crossings, with a definite wilderness flavor, in the process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdrvwXUNaDg

 

[Tim Horn]

Disclaimer, I am an avid gardener, skier, hiker, fisherman, wildlife observer, and the mushy headed lefty type. I certainly support high and intensive uses in our National Forests but I also support wilderness lands and laud the goal of setting aside an extremely small fraction of our public lands to be left fallow so they can restore themselves to a state of wildness that we who live today have never and never will experience. Perhaps our Great, great, grand kids will. The forest, the stream and the animals cannot be isolated into isolated special interest groups. The best restoration for the stream, the forest and for the wildlife is to stop trying to "improve" the watershed with human tools so it fits some false human driven ideal state. Let the river flood and let it dam itself up with deadfall from the forest and landslides. Let the banks erode and let the flow cut new channels. Stop "stabilizing" banks with rip-rap and placing abutments for bridges. Let the stream be the living thing that it always was and it will heal itself and the surrounding forest of the insults of our uses over time. Yes we have insulted this specific area in the past by exploiting it for short term gains that were naturally as ephemeral and fleeting as are all the gains from extractive industrial targets. Eventually the vein runs dry and man leaves for greener pastures after trashing the place. It is now time for us to let the Pemi area restore itself. The assertion that wilderness once defiled is gone forever and should therefore be opened up to more defilement is nauseating. We know from experience that nature can, does, and will heal itself if we can just manage to get humans out of the way and let nature follow its course. The manifest destiny mind set that all of nature must succumb to the will of man or it is going to waste must end. A wild watershed is an extremely lofty, admirable and valuable goal and the Pemi is a fantastic place for this to exist once again.
Sorry but I had to say it again even if it does not resonate with everyone on the board. Free the Pemi!

 

[Becca M]

Build a fence? Wall? Maybe razor wire would "Free the Pemi" from humankind? I believe the state (local control) should be allowed to manage this forest but that's not going to happen either.

 

[jniehof]

I believe the state (local control) should be allowed to manage this forest but that's not going to happen either.

The state did. The state chose to sell the land to timber companies. They made rather a hash of it. After much foot-dragging saying it was a local problem and should be solved locally (and wasn't), Uncle Sugar stepped in with his checkbook, at the behest of people across the region, in particular one kid from Lancaster.

 

[KRobi]

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

 

[Becca M]

The state did. The state chose to sell the land to timber companies. They made rather a hash of it. After much foot-dragging saying it was a local problem and should be solved locally (and wasn't), Uncle Sugar stepped in with his checkbook, at the behest of people across the region, in particular one kid from Lancaster.

I hear you, but.... my town owns plenty of forest properties and they are managed responsibly I *do* like having access to them and some of them have really nice non-offensive bridges