Open Letter to USFS: Improved bridge at Ramona Falls

[chrisca]

I've written a letter to Jen Wade, the Mt. Hood NF recreation manager on the situation at Ramona Falls that claimed the life of a hiker on August 12. You can read the letter here. It includes suggestions on improvements as well as the observation that existing signage doesn't work, needs to reflect the cause of recent deaths, and points hikers at a link with no useful information.

Please let the Forest Service know that the trail needs a safer bridge and improved measures to improve hiker safety. They have a responsibility to the public to reduce the risk of death on this trail.

Thanks,
-Chris.

[retired jerry]

Uh oh - another thread about the Ramona Falls Bridge - how long will this last before it gets deleted?

They were never sure about where Sarah Bishop died. Maybe walking along the bank of the Sandy River upstream of the Ramona Falls bridge. It was after 4 days of heavy rain in September. Almost certainly she did not die crossing the bridge.

I think the Ramona Falls bridge death was a fluke. Wouldn't happen again.

Regardless, if the Forest Service puts up a bridge again, they should put up more warning signs. Given the death, it would be imprudent not to do so.

The problem with a premanent bridge, is the geology. There is geologically recent volcanic ash, and it is in the process of being washed away. Hard to find anything stable to suspend two ends of a bridge from. Same with the Eliot crossing and all the way around the mountain.

I agree with you though, they should put "permanent" bridge in. If it lasts 10 years call it a success. Put warning signs saying it will washout at some point so stay off it if there's any sign of that happening.

[Waffle Stomper]

If I'm correct the crossing is not in the wilderness so a more permanent bridge could be placed there, similar to the one over Clark Creek. Since that is such a heavily used trail with a parking lot that looks like a shopping center on some days, it seems justified. Better signage would be good too, but people really seldom read signs.

[retired jerry]

The wilderness got expanded at some point to include the bridge

The road used to go very close to where the bridge was. There was an undeveloped parking area with cars haphazardly parked all over, driving over tree trunks and stuff. Then they built that new parking area and decommisioned the road. You can sort of follow it, rather than the trail.

[Waffle Stomper]

The wilderness got expanded at some point to include the bridge

I guess that makes a permanent bridge a non-option. More dramatic signage at the trailhead then.

[retired jerry]

are permanent bridges not allowed in wilderness?

They just put in a log with handrails bridge over Ramona Creek that everyone laughs about. That's in wilderness.

[kepPNW]

are permanent bridges not allowed in wilderness?

That's essentially Mt Hood NF's interpretation, as I understand it. Seems nearly every other NF sees it otherwise.

[retired jerry]

then why did they build that over-engineered bridge over Ramona Creek, a short distance further in than the washed out bridge?

[kepPNW]

then why did they build that over-engineered bridge over Ramona Creek, a short distance further in than the washed out bridge?

Which one, Jerry? The one way up by the falls? That's pretty old, isn't it? All I can guess is a change in thought patterns over the years.

[retired jerry]

As you go up from the bridge that washed out, you reach the junction with the river side and creek side Ramona Falls trails. Go left about 0.1 mile and the trail crosses Ramona Creek (that flows over Ramona Falls upstream). A couple years ago they put in a bridge with handrails, a bit overkill for that tiny creek.

That is in the wilderness.