Does a trail bridge belong in the wilderness?

[somers515]

On an AT Facebook group I read a post recommending that people write to the Maine Appalachian Trail Club and ask them to consider putting bridges over the more dangerous water crossings in the 100 mile wilderness. Some of the comments I read were supportive mentioning the safety issue and pointing out that backpackers may have limited time off or a plane to catch by a certain date and therefore not have days to wait out for the water crossing to be safe and thereby potentially encouraging a risky decision. There were also a lot of comments against such a proposal arguing a trail bridge diminishes the wilderness, ie "keep Maine wild". One comment suggested the old AT could act as a high-water route.

I've read trail journals of hikers making "sketchy" crossings over the years in Maine and this post also got me thinking about the NH Whites bridge over the Pemi (not on the AT) that was taken down instead of replaced because it was damaged and in a wilderness area and just the overall philosophical question of do trail bridges belong in the wilderness?

I think I'm in the pro-bridge camp. The trail itself is already a compromise and people who want wilderness can go off trail. A trail allows for more people to access and gain the benefits of the wilderness. If you invite people in with a trail then I would think providing a trail bridge over dangerous water crossings is an appropriate part of the trail. I haven't seen anything in my brief search that indicates that a trail bridge (built without motorized equipment) would be prohibited by The Wilderness Act of 1964. And if you want to be more Maine specific, Baxter State Park has a lot of trail bridges in their wilderness. But I think there could be valid arguments on both side of this debate and I'm genuinely curious for the consensus opinion of whiteblaze! Other pros and cons of putting in a trail bridge that I'm not thinking of?

https://www.nhpr.org/north-country/2...the-wilderness

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/wilderness-act-1964

[Seatbelt]

I always heard that trail bridges in Maine would not withstand the force of the rushing[high] water and debris when the snow melts off at higher elevations. Just hearsay on my part having never experienced this firsthand. I'm sure this has been considered many times previously.

[garlic08]

I agree with you that if there's a trail, it should be safe, and a man-made object is acceptable.

I've helped build bridges on state and county open space trails, with power tools and motorized transport. I respect the decision not to attempt to build one in a wilderness area. Seasonal closures are to be expected.

[TJ aka Teej]

It's not wilderness. So, yeah, build a bridge.

[fudgefoot]

I am totally opposed to installing bridges across the stream fordings in the HMW. A wilderness or not, it is still a very special section of the Appalachian Trail, relatively free from human encroachments. The fordings help lend a special character to this stretch of the trail. It does not need to be dumbed down. The goal should not be to make the trail as easy as possible - it's supposed to be difficult and challenging.

[LoneStranger]

I had a "discussion" on this topic with the FS regional mucketymuck who championed the removal of the bridge over the East Branch in the Pemi years ago. He insisted that people were being deprived of the opportunity to experience the true wilderness because of that bridge. I told him that people seeking the true wilderness experience wouldn't be following the trail and so wouldn't be bothered by the bridge, but he was pretty sure he was right so I told him I'd be telling everyone it was his fault. I really liked that bridge because while most of the time that river is hoppable, when it isn't, it really isn't. A good storm can leave you stuck either waiting for it to go down or adding a lot of miles. I once waited a day because the river was so nasty I didn't even want to cross the bridge

Doesn't this look sufficiently wild?

IMG_3795.JPG

RIP old friend

To deal with the runoff you have to build very high. That requires good siting and a lot more construction, which they really frown on in designated wilderness. I think they should let them build the bridges, but require them to be rustic looking. Don't care if they use steel I-beams, but cover them in wood. Let people have a wilderness feeling without having to risk their lives. With the the surging popularity of the HMW these folks are right to worry about someone making a bad choice out there.

[Old_Man]

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 some people, can't they simply not use the bridge and cross underneath?

[rhjanes]

There will always be people For it (or something), and Against It.
There will always be issues with funding and with repairs
There will always be issues with building it to withstand what "We think" is worst-case on weather and water.
There is a place I have sometimes hiked at. There are a few places, two Day-Use areas where there are low water road crossings and one place with actually two bridges. The place with two bridges is interesting. It is a Day Use area and up river. Paved lot, picnic tables, two pit-toilets. A walking bridge that is built pretty high off the river. Another bridge that is a short distance away from the day-use area but was actually built as a single lane low bridge road crossing. Do they detract from the "Wilderness"? No, not when there is a developed area there. I've backpacked into the area in the middle of the day to find families out enjoying the wilderness with kids in strollers. They'd not be able to hike down to see all the waterfalls on the river without that pedestrian bridge. What is amusing is farther to the south, were the other day use area is, is very well used. And there are two river crossings there with no bridges, just hike to it. Since it is downriver, it is faster flow and higher water, but zero bridges. I guess people just turn around if they get there and the flow is high. We hikers "in the know" know about checking the USGS water flow meter and know if it's over 4.5 to turn-around-don't-drown.
So.......if it ever comes up for the 100 miles, it will be a spirited debate and if it goes forward, expensive to build and maintain.

[TwoSpirits]

I too think that bridges would be prudent. As already stated, the HMW is not technically a wilderness area, so would be allowed. I wonder if the naysayers who argue that bridges would detract from the "true wilderness experience" feel the same way when they are safe & dry inside one of the many shelters?

[TwoSpirits]

And, respectfully, the AT was never "supposed to be difficult and challenging." A Tough Mudder is supposed to be difficult and challenging (and I can assure you it is), but the AT was meant to be a walk in the woods.

[gpburdelljr]

If there has been significant loss of life due to river crossings in the HMW, then build bridges. If it is just for convenience to avoid hiking delays during high water periods, don’t build bridges.

[Alligator]

sdafljd

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c) 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; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

The question is a bit muddled by the examples provided in the opening post. The areas in Maine are not designated wildernesses. With the above excerpt of the Wilderness Act in mind, a human made bridge is not an unnoticeable alteration. Trails and tracks are made by other animals, bridges are made by humans.

The experience is diminished by having a bridge there, simply by having a problem solved for you by somebody else. The opportunity to get your feet wet is part of the appeal. Instead of saying that others should go off trail, perhaps choose yourself to go some place easier. I recognize there is something of a compromise with the trail itself, but no need to keep compromising. There are plenty of non-wilderness areas that have permanent improvements. Wilderness is a special category that deserves as little compromise as possible. I am not moved at all by somebody needing to get somewhere on time or needing to adjust their travel plans because nature intervened in a wilderness. If a trail leads to a specific crossing in a wilderness that is too dangerous to cross without a bridge, that section might need to be left to revert to wilderness instead of building a bridge. I don't think "invite" is the best word choice. Land managers also issue permits, provide warnings and advisories, and take efforts to educate the public regarding challenges to travelling in wilderness.

[Tipi Walter]

Sometimes the bridges themselves are often more dangerous than the actual crossings---i.e. they are too high or too narrow or too slick. So I usually just wade across and use the bridge as a hand-hold.

And this thread reminds me of a crude footbridge over Sassafras Creek in Snowbird wilderness in NC.

Trip 213 (90)-XL.jpg
Here's the footbridge before Hurricane Laura.

Trip 206 (204)-X3-XL.jpg
After the hurricane.

[Tipi Walter]

And if you think about it---footbridges aren't too different than trail shelters---and shelters aren't allowed in wilderness areas.

[gpburdelljr]

And if you think about it---footbridges aren't too different than trail shelters---and shelters aren't allowed in wilderness areas.

I guess the stone cabin on Blood Mountain was grandfathered in, because it predated the Blood Mountain Wilderness designation.

[Lone Wolf]

And if you think about it---footbridges aren't too different than trail shelters---and shelters aren't allowed in wilderness areas.

Old Orchard shelter is in a wilderness area

[TwoSpirits]

This is somewhat tangential, but something I noticed and the irony is...well, it's something.

In early June 2014, on my short, ill-fated SOBO attempt, I saw a couple good (and ice cold) streams within the first three days, a couple in Baxter itself. The water was fast & loud (and ice cold), but it seemed narrow enough for my new two companions to try crossing. I stayed on the bank to watch them (as though I could have helped had anything gone wrong -- ha!), and listened to them shriek some unreachable octave as the water went up past their waist, watched them both get swept maybe 30' or so and then laboriously struggle up the opposite bank. (I took the high water bypass, an extra mile I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way.) A short time later, I encountered my friends again -- they had just emerged from the 2nd crossing, which they described as much worse than the first. In fact, another hiker we were with had lost a Nalgene and some other items (including his tent & wallet, as I recall) in the current. [He did make it all the way to Springer though.]

Anyway, I had to chuckle just a little when I started hiking north from Amicalola last year and noticed foot bridges across nearly every stream. Like, *every* stream. I swear I could have stepped across a couple of them (if I'd been born with my sister's legs....)

So footbridges in the south over many relatively small waters, but no bridges [and in fact bridges discouraged] over a few rather tempestuous & treacherous waters up north. Ironic.

[Alligator]

It's usually when a structure needs replacement that it gets considered for removal. I don't know about Old Orchard but Blood Mountain Shelter is a CCC shelter. The Lewis Fork Wilderness where Old Orchard is was established in 1984 and Blood Mountain Wilderness in 1991. There's also the provision for historical value. Wilderness areas in the eastern US were established with what is called the Eastern Wilderness Act (1975) to allow for areas that would not qualify under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (not untouched by humans). Eastern wilderness areas may actually have been altered by humans but the intent is for them to revert to wilderness.

[LazyLightning]

Just from memory, most fords in Maine are very wide with a long flat area on each side. It would require very long bridges and substantial work on either side to build a base and raise the bridges high enough, and it wouldn't just be a wood bridge. They would need a truss support or similar design to support the middle and be a huge project all together. This is the main reason I'm against them but I'm also on board with not needing to make the trail any easier. One of the reasons these areas are so nice is because they aren't over run with easy access.

[peakbagger]

At a recent MATC training there was mention that any official bridge on the AT would need to be accessible or it would need to be removed. MATC is slowly replacing outhouses and every new one regardless of the location is made wheelchair accessible no matter what the terrain. The crossing of the South Branch of the Carrabassett near the Caribou Valley Road in Maine had a long plank for years that was attached to a steel cable on one end. When the spring run off inevitably washed it away, the maintainers could hopefully salvage the plank. Not sure what if anything is there now. My understanding is that unless the plant was "accessible" it would not be replaced. This stream is fed steep valley surrounded by 4,000 foot summit drained by this brook, when it melts that stream can flood the woods for 50 feet or more to either side of the stream bed in the spring.

Folks hiking through Maine or NH just do not realize the volume of water that gets released out of the snow pack in spring. Add in ice jams and small streams increase in depth and volume from just a trickle to several feet deep overnight. As an example, this morning its around 20 degrees F in the whites near ground level with 50" of dense compacted snow at Gray Knob on Mt Adams. Temps are expected to get to the mid seventies in about five days. With temps like that the snowpack will start melting rapidly and its all going to go down those streams and they will rise rapidly and any bridges will probably get washed out.

I do like the concept of step stones that are used in some streams subject to flooding. There are step stones on the brook immediately adjacent South Arm Road on the east side of Moody mountain. They are large boulders that were moved into place that during normal conditions are above water but when the water gets high, it just runs over the top of them. It requires rock hopping but are far more durable if the streambed is suitable. On the larger streams they do not work as well as the velocity of spring flooding can move car sized boulders so boulders in the main channel will just get relocated.

BTW with respect to the bridges in the WMNF, the FS spends a lot of time and manpower to justify removal of bridges, its BS, the managers goal is budgetary and they do what they have to justify removal. Years ago there was a large suspension bridge over the East Branch of the Pemi which is dangerous to cross during much of the year. It was a major corridor to much of the Pemi area. It needed minor maintenance but the district supervisor was under orders to get rid of it. There as public hearing and after listening to the public overwhelmingly. supporting repairing the bridge, she let the crowd know that FS regulations required the FS to take public input but it was ultimately her decision to remove the bridge and she had already made that decision to remove it. She was subsequently promoted to pre retirement spot in CA next to where she was planning to retire. On a subsequent bridge decision, the FS led tours to the bridge in question during a record drought, and used that as justification that the bridge was not needed. There was enough public and congresssional push back that they delayed the removal for a year and then issued a second decision to remove it. I both cases despite it being wilderness, they left a mess in the woods for a couple of years as they ran out of money to deal with it.