Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[peakbagger-paul]

I'm confused about the status of the bridge right now. Is it closed, or is it open until they start removing it? I was planning on hiking up the Signal Ridge Trail Carrigain tomorrow, going down the Desolation Trail and over to Stillwater Junction, and then hiking the entire length of the Wilderness/Lincoln Woods Trail back to Lincoln Woods. Is this still possible or am I too late?

 

[smitty77]

Kevin, I'm sorry you misread my post. I was not responding to Dr. Wu. I was responding to Smitty, as I stated. Smitty referred to the stewards of the area needing "...to be replaced with some that have a brain and use it rationally." That is the statement I equated with "calling people stupid."

And do take note, that was a comment regarding wilderness management principles other than the removal of the bridge which is a project I don't agree with but can see the other side of the argument.

To have a Ranger repeatedly hike 18 miles round-trip to remove a small, relatively unobtrusive sign from the summit of Owls Head, and remove a trail marker made of natural materials (rocks), and then to erect two signs, with sign posts, in another area of the Wilderness just baffles me and IMO crosses the line into "stupid". Would it not be a wiser decision to erect such signs at the Wilderness boundaries, where they do not violate the current management philosophy?

To refresh your memory:http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=31308

 

[SteveHiker]

And do take note, that was a comment regarding wilderness management principles other than the removal of the bridge which is a project I don't agree with but can see the other side of the argument.

To have a Ranger repeatedly hike 18 miles round-trip to remove a small, relatively unobtrusive sign from the summit of Owls Head, and remove a trail marker made of natural materials (rocks), and then to erect two signs, with sign posts, in another area of the Wilderness just baffles me and IMO crosses the line into "stupid". Would it not be a wiser decision to erect such signs at the Wilderness boundaries, where they do not violate the current management philosophy?

To refresh your memory:http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=31308

FWIW, the signs that are 200 feet apart are not in the Wilderness.

 

[smitty77]

FWIW, the signs that are 200 feet apart are not in the Wilderness.

Then I stand corrected. I wrongly assumed from the thread they were placed within the wilderness. Should have carefully noted the "western boundary" reference. My apologies.

 

[psmart]

What about chaining ourselves to the bridge? If we can last through the winter, then the bridge will be 50 years old. It seems like it might be our last chance to save her.

Jason

50-year age does not equate to historic status - it just requires an evaluation of historic status, which the FS and State of NH did anyway. So waiting another year would not have made any difference in this regard.

And even if the bridge had been deemed to be of historic significance, that would not necessarily mandate retention or preservation. Historic structures (such as the 100 year-old WODC shelters) can still be removed under certain circumstances. But that's another thread. Suffice to say that the 50-year mark is not a magic point that would have saved the bridge. This is a myth.

 

[ferrisjrf]

Well, I still think it's worth a shot. ;-)

Worst case scenario, I should be in a great position to witness Wu come floating by, all slimed up with Barge glue and bacon grease.

Jason

 

[giggy]

should make a big party out of it - light the fcker up with fuel - bring a few barrells of suds in, portable weber grill, good loud portable sound system and party all night... at the end of the day - destroying things is quite fun - and even more when your half in the bag.

thats my version of the "pemi bridge removal project"

 

[kltilton]

Just make sure you limit your group to 10 people or less.

should make a big party out of it - light the fcker up with fuel - bring a few barrells of suds in, portable weber grill, good loud portable sound system and party all night... at the end of the day - destroying things is quite fun - and even more when your half in the bag.

thats my version of the "pemi bridge removal project"

 

[erugs]

How many individual groups of ten can there be?

 

[--M.]

Apparently there are no formal appeal rights to this decision but I sent a comment to the Regional Forester asking that it be overturned. I will write to Senator Gregg next.

I invite others pro & con to do the same.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/contact/

This seems to be the most relevant point to future action: the only thing that will prevent the FS from acting is an injunction prompted by political pressure from the powerful. This is exactly the kind of thing one appeals to one's Congress-people for. Ted Kennedy's eulogies come to mind, but Senators Kerry, Snow, Gregg and others are more in a position to do something about it now.

If you want removal delayed for review, request an injunction-type action from your elected representatives.

I supported repair over removal, and will ask my Representative and Senator to help out.

--Mike

 

[Waumbek]

For the detractors, I would ask: How many government agencies actually ask for your opinion about a project, and then respond to it directly in their decision? Even when we don't like the decision, we should be grateful for this level of participation in an administrative process. Would we rather that the FS made these decisions with no public input?

I am not a "detractor" but a dissenter, and, no, I would certainly not prefer no public input. But I would appreciate, indeed expect, an appeals procedure, and there is none here. Once again, I think this points to the flawed "closed loop" nature of decision making in the process of the Decision Memo (DM). The plaintiff in the suit named in the excerpt below may concur. (I don't know how to find the text of this case.) The excerpt comes from page 14 of Ranger Fuller's DM (link in post #1):

"8 Administrative Review or Appeal
This type of activity is not covered by the 2005 Earth Island Institute v.
Ruthenbeck court ruling. Therefore this decision is not subject to appeal in
accordance with 36 CFR 215."

As someone said earlier, write to your politician; it's the only recourse available.

 

[Willoughby]

I'm confused about the status of the bridge right now. Is it closed, or is it open until they start removing it? I was planning on hiking up the Signal Ridge Trail Carrigain tomorrow, going down the Desolation Trail and over to Stillwater Junction, and then hiking the entire length of the Wilderness/Lincoln Woods Trail back to Lincoln Woods. Is this still possible or am I too late?

At the Mt. Garfield trailhead today was a sign saying the bridge will be closed as of 9/21 - Monday. So you should be fine for your loop tomorrow.

I took a snap of the sign, will post it tomorrow if it came out.

 

[Waumbek]

At the Mt. Garfield trailhead today was a sign saying the bridge will be closed as of 9/21 - Monday. So you should be fine for your loop tomorrow.

I took a snap of the sign, will post it tomorrow if it came out.

The 9/21 start date for the bridge removal is being announced in NH newspapers:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...HOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

[arghman]

The 9/21 start date for the bridge removal is being announced in NH newspapers:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...HOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

That is WAY too fast. No time between decision announcement and implementation.

 

[Waumbek]

That is WAY too fast. No time between decision announcement and implementation.

Since there is no actual appeal available by law, it's probably a moot point now. The so-called appeal period was included before the final DM, that is, the comment period was extended in order to acknowledge the controversial nature of the proposed action. But then the same person (or people) who made the initial decision to remove the bridge judged the case again and found that they were right in their initial decision. That should either comfort one that they were correct the first time or make one wonder how disinterested they could be the second time around. I'm not a legal expert but my basic sense of the American justice system is it that favors the latter position and provides for independent review on appeal. There is no provision for independent review of this DM. It strikes me as a flawed system.

 

[MichaelJ]

That is WAY too fast. No time between decision announcement and implementation.

Seems quite counter to the claim it will be done in winter on frozen ground to prevent trail damage. I suspect the bridge will still be there for some time, and I bet they'll even be using it, and that the work will start with the trail closure and reroute. Can't brush a trail once snow's on the ground.

 

[ryan207]

hooray for removal

I will rejoice the day that stupid bridge is removed. This is wilderness we're talking about, if we can't experience it without people paving the way for us then find another form of recreation, or a different hiking circuit.

 

[--M.]

Since there is no actual appeal available by law, it's probably a moot point now. The so-called appeal period was included before the final DM, that is, the comment period was extended in order to acknowledge the controversial nature of the proposed action. ....

Despite this, I have nonetheless written both my US Representative and my (one remaining) US Senator to express my feelings and request their help. This is an inherently political process and I'd appreciate their eyes on it. I encourage others to do the same; the more public the debate, the better.

"That is all,"

--Mike

 

[expat]

I agree with the removers

When the Pemi Wilderness was created, we were all ecstatic to think that there would be a wilderness, or something as close to it as possible, in our backyard. The Pemi is probably the most isolated of the mountainous areas, when you consider that there are only a few vantage points within the wilderness where signs of ongoing human activity are available.

Although the bridge has been convenient, it was there before this area was a wilderness. If this had been a designated wilderness before the bridge was built, then it never would have been built there.

There are places in the Whites for all levels of natural experience, from a zipline, and from driving up Mt. W., to having huts available, and tent platforms with nearby outhouses, to wilderness. If you want a different natural experience than is available in one area, go to an area that has the level you are looking for.

It makes sense to me that we should have an area that is as free from possible from human intervention, and that puts the hiker more into the wilderness than anywhere else possible in the Whites. Sure, we may not be in the same type of wilderness as is available in some areas of the western US, Canada, or Alaska, but it's as close as we're probably going to get to in our local area.

Will the removal of the bridge make some trips less convenient for me? Sure, so I'll just have to plan differently, and determine what I can safely do in this new wilderness environment. I don't need no stinkin' bridge there. If I want a bridge, I'll go somewhere else.

 

[arghman]

This is wilderness we're talking about, if we can't experience it without people paving the way for us then find another form of recreation, or a different hiking circuit.

No, this is Wilderness, not wilderness.