Open Letter to USFS: Improved bridge at Ramona Falls

[Koda]

What I think is funny is how nobody cares the NWFP revenue doesn’t go to trail maintenance but people want spend thousands of dollars for a bridge on a 3.5 mile trail that has done fine with a temporary bridge for many years. I probably shouldn’t have said that….

I think the perspective here is that this trail just happens to be popular but its not a state park where it would be expected to accommodate many visitors. Ramona falls IS a wilderness hike and there are NO requirements for accommodating visitors in a wilderness. I say throw a huge log across the stream and let everyone shimmy, puts the wilderness back into perspective and would teach visitors what the real dangers of a wilderness stream crossing really is. A bridge is just taken for granted.

Note washed out bridge debris… this popular NW trail has never been repaired that I know of.

[adamschneider]

The death was a fluke: the bridge (which, yes, was very raft-like and didn't pretend to be otherwise) happened to give way at the exact moment someone was on it. You can't prevent every flukish accident unless you fence off the entire mountain.

[Koda]

I respect your opinion but I have been to trail heads at the Mt hood wilderness and NF and hiked trails. power lines, logging visible until you get high on the mountain. Then at the right place you have ski areas? Most other busy NP, NF and wilderness dont look look this.

Just because no bridge repair or proper one built is not a good reason with the exploding population.


.

Some wilderness areas were created recently, after logging or other unnatural impact has taken place. I agree its an eyesore. The issue with the Mt Hood Wilderness is unique due to its close proximity to Portland which is why we don’t see this in other places.

So I hear and respect what your saying too. Im not saying its wrong to accommodate better access to all. Ultimately this is a just a difference in opinion on how wilderness is perceived or valued. This is based on my own anecdotal experiences recreating in wilderness areas I see more and more impact and overcrowding issues as population grows. Ultimately it cant be stopped. But what is the meaning of wilderness? Why designate something as wilderness only to develop it so it can accommodate the increasing population?

[Koda]

I am an outsider but I will contact the MNFS on this mater and explain my position.

What is an outsider? What do you mean by this? just curious!

[mandrake]

Putting in a "permanent" bridge in the middle of a geologically unstable drainage/floodplain does not seem like money well spent to me. The reason there's been a temporary bridge (e.g. "temporary" as in a bridge seasonally installed, rather than one of shoddy construction) there is that the Sandy is known for experiencing monster floods during the winter/spring season. Three years ago in Jan 2011, a flood knocked out the Lolo Pass Road. Doing a little googling, apparently this flood was the third highest on record & the river channel migrated hundred's of feet from its previous position. Other winter high water events have been recorded in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2006, 2008, and 2009.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... tions.html

[Grannyhiker]

No matter what is built, the inevitable frequent floods will take it out, or the river bed will change so that the bridge will be across dry land. The volcanic debris that makes up the area is just too unstable.

As a result of all this hullabaloo, I predict that the Forest Service will decide on no bridge at all! If people insist on nanny government protecting them from all possible obvious hazards (certainly floodwaters lapping at a bridge are very obvious), then the USFS can't risk the liability exposure. They may even close the trail to Ramona Falls and threaten fines, just as they have done with the Timberline Trail across Eliot Creek. There is no money in the USFS budget for expensive bridges that won't last, and I very much doubt that Congress will provide such funds. If Congress should actually act as proper stewards of our (taxpayers') money, they won't!

[kepPNW]

As a result of all this hullabaloo, I predict that the Forest Service will decide on no bridge at all!

Exactly what I've been expecting ever since hearing about the idiot talking heads on the local "news" programs. Then we have a newb in here spewing flames at USFS, going on endlessly about liability, and that can only encourage them to adopt a "F'it!" attitude. Why wouldn't they?

[mandrake]

As a result of all this hullabaloo, I predict that the Forest Service will decide on no bridge at all!

Exactly what I've been expecting ever since hearing about the idiot talking heads on the local "news" programs. Then we have a newb in here spewing flames at USFS, going on endlessly about liability, and that can only encourage them to adopt a "F'it!" attitude. Why wouldn't they?

Yep, that's the logical outcome here: no bridge at all. Guessing the seasonal bridge was probably grandfathered in when they extended the Mt. Hood Wilderness. Now that it's in Wilderness, that's more weight to the argument that it not be replaced. I'm trying to think of any other major creeks around Mt. Hood that currently have bridged crossings. Don't think there are any. Used to be one on the Muddy Fork in heading from Ramona Falls up to Bald Mtn, but it's gone. (Did that one wash out too?) The bridge on the Elliot crossing was never replaced.

A lot of the discussion I've seen seems to be centered around the merits of bridges. Per my two cents: a seasonal bridge seems quite appropriate for access to this popular area (what happened was a terrible tragedy, but it was also an unusual summer flashflood event) -- although just to explore the notion, I'm curious about potential other options such as rerouting both trail & trailhead to a new location north of the Sandy, perhaps somewhere off FR 1828 on Last Chance Mountain. This would avoid any need to cross the Sandy (in its current location) - although the Muddy Fork would still need to be crossed. May add some elevation on the hike out. There may well be good reasons why this is a terrible idea.

[Splintercat]

Folks, per my post in the "wilderness" thread, "joesef" is a troll -- a banned user coming back under a fake name to mess with the community. This account ID is now closed. Thanks again to those who PM'd me today to report this - helps to keep this sort of behavior rare on the forum!

Back to the discussion..!

Tom

[Lumpy]

But you sent away the person we were cussing, er, discussing with!