Does a trail bridge belong in the wilderness?

[LoneStranger]

The beam cabled to the shore technique is used a few places in BSP with good result. In some spots two beams meeting on a rock midstream that just need to be set back on the rock if flood knocks them off. I know another spot in NH that uses that technique but won't say where because I think the rules say it shouldn't be there.

Did they clean up better when they took out the Thoreau Falls bridge pb? My last trip there was in '19 and I happened to catch them as they were winching the stringers to one side. Stopped going there because it got too crowded for me, not because they took the bridge out. I was starting to meet people out there which always seemed odd after years of going there to be alone. Will be headed through there this June, but thinking I will head up Shoal Pond to avoid trying the TFalls crossing. That trail still exists, right?

[peakbagger]

I have not been to the TFT bridge site since precovid. They had cut up the stringers into short lengths and had them stacked in the woods and had a couple of debris piles on the south shore. Shoal Pond Trail is still there, its decidedly wet from the south shore to the beginning of the railroad grade so best done after a dry spell. It is somewhat popular with trail runners but in general the upper reaches of the Pemi are far less used and abused than 35 years ago.

[Patrickjd9]

It just isn't very practical to do substantial construction more than a couple of miles from road access. The number of people who can build high and long bridges with natural materials found on-site is quite small, and the further from road access, the more of the work week is taken up simply getting to and from the site.

Older shelters built from materials found on-site are small for good reason. You can also see the difference in the intensiveness of trail construction, such as more use of rock steps, within a couple of miles of a road crossing.

[peakbagger]

It all comes down to the "stroke of a pen", Any FS surpervisor can waive wilderness area policy by just filing out a form to do repairs after critical infrastructure is damaged. Build the bridge off site and helicopter it in.

[Alligator]

It all comes down to the "stroke of a pen", Any FS surpervisor can waive wilderness area policy by just filing out a form to do repairs after critical infrastructure is damaged. Build the bridge off site and helicopter it in.

Are you a yes or a no on the bridges in wilderness areas? It's not about whether the FS is or is not going to put a bridge in or the logistics really.

[petedelisio]

While I understand the sentiment of wanting to keep the wilderness wild, we are not out there bushwacking or cutting trail. This is an established trail so it's already not technically "wilderness."

I can remember crossing quite a few bridges in other wilderness areas in other states and never thinking it was ruining my experience.

If it is such a big deal to

Let's define wilderness.
You can't, until it is gone.

[soilman]

I think we need to build more paved roads along with the bridges so more people can safely access these areas.

[Traveler]

FWIW - Given the intent of the Wilderness designation I don't support building structures, roads, bridges, or the use of mechanical equipment like chainsaws and motorized vehicles. I am a little torn on blazing established trails, but lean toward no blazes.

In my view, these areas should be left wild or as areas added to the wilderness designation returned to it over time for those who want true wilderness experience. As Alligator points out there are plenty of trails with man made features one can enjoy, relatively few that provide the solace of wilderness in the lower 48.

[Slugg]

I’m in the “bridges don’t belong in designated wilderness areas” camp. These areas are special and it’s ok have an extremely literal interpretation of the rules to leave them as wild as possible. I freely admit my perspective is based primarily on the SE where we don’t deal with the waters changing from snow melt.

[GoldenBear]

Let's check the law on this matter:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/wildern.../W-Act_508.pdf

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;

It's hard for me to read these words and conclude that an area that is designated by the federal government as "wilderness" could have a permanent improvement such as a bridge, or that any such construction could be substantially unnoticeable.

[zelph]

Nature provides bridges. Find them and blaze a new trail to utilize them

Screenshot 2023-04-09 12.15.20 PM.png

[TJ aka Teej]

I believe the OP is confusing an issue in NH's Whites with Maine's 100 Mile Wilderness.

[peakbagger]

During the Thoreau Falls removal permitting I did a lot of research on bridges in Wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act has multiple purposes and one of them is to get people into visit to see what wilderness looked like and that requires trails and in some cases bridges. The AT goes over a bride in the Great Gulf Wilderness. The Wilderness act had to be modified to even allow the wildernesses out east as it originally only allowed to inclusion of areas that never were impacted by man. Given that the designated Wildernesses in the White were extensively logged using loggign railroads and extensive road building they could not be accepted as Wilderness until the act was changed to allow that the potential to revert to Wilderness was added. Given many of the trails in the wilderness areas follow these roads and bridges I dont think anyone is fooled. What most folks dont understand is congress passed the broad laws but it's up to the individual departments to come up with the actual administrative rules to actually manage these areas. The "stroke of the pen" rule for emergency repairs and access is an administrative rule.

With respect to bridges in Wilderness areas, I have no problem building and maintaining them where public safety is an issue. The Dry River Wilderness has the remaining army corps built suspension bridge which was repaired recently after a hurricane. The Dry River is not very dry certain times of the year and trying to cross it in high water is dangerous, In this rare case the FS supervisor authorized the repair. In most cases they do not. My guess is if the Great Gulf Bridge washed out, they would replace it as crossing that river can be dangerous due to the flows. BTW there is bridge on the eastern side of the Pemi upriver ffrom Thoreau Falls, the Wilderness boundary is about 10 feet to the west of it.

There is some flexibility in the rules, the FS allows AMC to run a campground with hardened sites and a caretaker at 13 falls in the Pemi.

[somers515]

I believe the OP is confusing an issue in NH's Whites with Maine's 100 Mile Wilderness.

I honestly apologize for any lack of clarity in my original post, I was trying to ask a philosophical question about people's thoughts on whether bridges belong in the wilderness and hear pros and cons. That's why I put those questions in bold in my original post. As a trail maintainer myself I've given this type of stuff a lot of thought but I was interested in hearing other points of view. I did mention the NH bridge and the Maine 100 mile wilderness as examples (and because the Maine wilderness lack of bridge's Facebook post is what prompted me to think about this issue again) but yes I understood that the NH bridge is in a federally designated wilderness in a national forest and Maine's 100 mile wilderness is not federally designated. I didn't explicitly state that because I, personally, wasn't as interested in legal interpretations (but I'm fine if people want to do so!). I'm a retired attorney so I could look up the statutes. I'd be surprised if it wasn't allowed (kinda of along the lines of what peakbagger just posted) as I have hiked thru many wilderness areas that have trail bridges.

I think perhaps the better way for me to have asked the question would be to ask, if you were in charge of making the rules for a wilderness area, would you allow for a trail bridge over a dangerous water crossing and if yes why and if not why?

Thank you to all who have provided thoughtful comments, I've very much enjoyed reading the discussion so far. I wrote down what I thought the pros were in my original post but I fully recognize the cons as described by others. Alligator's post about how a bridge solves a problem for you I think was a neat way of putting it. And there were many other interesting takes - like the idea for placing boulders that allow for people to safely get across or that some bridges could be more dangerous than just fording, and many other thought provoking posts. For me personally the pros slightly outweigh the cons but I respect that others may feel differently and that's ok too.

TJ, if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, I'd be interested in your take to my bolded question. But no worries, if not!

And just so I'm 100% clear, please whiteblaze do not feel limited by my bolded question, I'm here for all of the discussions whether they be about shelters in the wilderness or trail blazes. Personally I'd rather have the least possible intrusive bridge over dangerous water crossings and would be happy to do without extra trail blazes or shelters. I also think that trails are already a manufactured man-made thing because of the water bars and bench cuts etc. etc. but I can respect the argument that they are less in your face about being man-made than a bridge is. Again thanks all!

[Alligator]

If I had supervisory authority for an untouched wilderness area, I wouldn't put a bridge in at all provided you could walk into it somewhere. If it was so large to take a week to get to the far side, eh maybe a bridge or tunnel or a boat service or something to get started. If it was untouched wilderness, the humans would soon find the easiest places to cross any streams and rivers. If you have to put trails in, that would be the way to do it.

The problem with some eastern wilderness areas is that before they were designated wilderness, the trails and bridges were installed. When it becomes a wilderness area and the bridge is removed, the trail may indeed lead to an unsafe crossing. I had this happen once and it almost cost me dearly. A torrential downpour occurred the night before and when I got to the crossing in the wilderness I didn't properly assess the risks involved for the small person I was traveling with. I crossed the stream myself and dropped my pack and returned but didn't consider fully where the water would exactly be on the small person who didn't tie their shoes. The crossing however was at the point where a vehicle bridge was previously. I know this because there was a concrete support 10-12 ft high at edge of the stream for the old bridge. It was a narrow place to cross hence the bridge was put there but there may have been better places to cross for walkers. It was only waist deep at the deepest but about mid-section on the small person who lost their boot midstream. Normally I don't think there were any serious issues at that crossing but it had poured buckets the night before. It wasn't listed as potentially dangerous whereas other points in the wilderness were. I don't think the bridge needs to be put back. At most, consider a broader crossing point perhaps or even a high water crossing. I was the trip leader, it was my responsibility to assess the route and to decide go or no go.

People may not be fooled now that the area was disturbed by humans but letting the land revert to wilderness will make it a lot easier for that to happen in the future if you remove the structures like bridges. There were old colonial roads through woods that you would be hard pressed to identify even if you were right next to them. I've traveled on many old logging roads in NF on purpose only to come to a point where the road essentially disappears into where the forest has grown back.

[Old_Man]

Let's define wilderness.
You can't, until it is gone.

A true wilderness would not have a trail cutting through it.

[Coffee]

I have not been to Maine, but I have hiked extensively in wilderness areas in the Western United States, primarily the Sierra Nevada and in Colorado. While I do not have a map in front of me showing officially designated wilderness areas, I do know that there are numerous manmade bridges in areas that are very remote, including along the John Muir Trail. Perhaps those structures pre-date the Wilderness Act of 1964. While I am sympathetic to the idea of having no manmade structures in wilderness, this has to be balanced with the reality of how public lands are used. I would oppose building any new bridges in wilderness but would think long and hard before dismantling what is already there (or allowing existing structures to decay). As others have pointed out, the existence of a maintained trail is also a manmade creation technically not consistent with untouched wilderness. There are certainly such areas available for those who seek out that type of experience. Finally, I would point out that wilderness exists only because the public supports it through the actions of our lawmakers. To gain long term public support, there has to be a balance between providing access to wilderness and preserving it. Things like maintained trails and retaining (and maintaining/replacing) structures that pre-date the 1964 wilderness act seem like reasonable concessions to public access.

[earlyriser26]

Back in the 1970's I was a section maintainer with the MATC. I realized then that they do thing differently in Maine. Lots of streams to be forded and the non-switchback mindset. Several streams can be dangerous to cross during high water periods. I believe that a few of these crossings should have bridges. The AT is not a pure wilderness experience. Actually, are there any true wilderness experiences outside of Alaska? I don't think so.

[peakbagger]

Sad to say, the longest stretch of the AT north of the smokies with no public or private road crossings is the Mahoosucs (much longer than the 100 mile "wilderness" which has several private logging roads crossing over the AT.

Dave Field and his brother maintained the Pleasant Ridge Shelter for decades and they kept the shelter stocked with an explanation why there were no bridges in Maine. It was pretty simple there had been many bridges but they would wash out on a nearly yearly basis.

[somers515]

. . .While I am sympathetic to the idea of having no manmade structures in wilderness, this has to be balanced with the reality of how public lands are used. I would oppose building any new bridges in wilderness but would think long and hard before dismantling what is already there (or allowing existing structures to decay). As others have pointed out, the existence of a maintained trail is also a manmade creation technically not consistent with untouched wilderness. There are certainly such areas available for those who seek out that type of experience. Finally, I would point out that wilderness exists only because the public supports it through the actions of our lawmakers. To gain long term public support, there has to be a balance between providing access to wilderness and preserving it. Things like maintained trails and retaining (and maintaining/replacing) structures that pre-date the 1964 wilderness act seem like reasonable concessions to public access.

Perhaps a good compromise to those that think there should be bridges across dangerous water crossings and those that want none at all - just keep and maintain the ones currently there. If that was the rule the NH Pemi bridge would have been maintained/replaced and the Maine AT fords would remain bridgeless. Interesting take Coffee, thanks for chiming in! I also agree with your sense of seeking a balance, some access should be provided to maintain public support for preserving wilderness but of course not so much "access" that it destroys what make the wilderness so special.