Relocation of Gale River trail in 2010

[BobC]

Someone on another forum posted this and I thought it was interesting enough to pass along. Sorry if this has already been discussed, I did a search and couldn't find any posts on it.

The latest Schedule of Proposed Actions for the WMNF indicates that the Gale River trail could be relocated to eliminate the first two river crossings. The expected completion date is June, 2010. This would be a welcome relief to anyone that's had some trouble at those crossings (like myself!). I hope this goes through.

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/components/reports/sopa-110922-2009-10.pdf

 

[MichaelJ]

Wow, they will do anything to avoid replacing a bridge.

 

[David Metsky]

Wow, they will do anything to avoid replacing a bridge.

It's just gonna get washed out again.

 

[Raymond]

Wouldn’t the Garfield Trail need relocating, too?

Or is it the bridge that used to be along the trail that you’re talking about?

The crossing didn’t seem like that big a deal when I was there earlier this month. Not as bad as the crossings along the road by a long shot.

Come to think of it, didn’t people in wheelchairs get across that river back about 2000?

 

[MichaelJ]

Back in 2000 there was a bridge. Wasn't that bridge there a long time, too? Washouts are uncommon and bridges often, and especially if well-designed, can be in place a long time.
(fyi, I'm talking about the bridge on the trail, not those on the road; this doesn't propose relocating the trailhead at all)

 

[darren]

I guess I don't fully understand this one. I have done those crossings several times and I don't remember them being that bad at all. In fact I remember crossing shortly after the bridge was wiped out and I carried my mtn bike on my shoulder as I crossed the river and I didn't get wet so I know it wasn't bad. If you can carry a bike across a river it cant be that bad. Now certainly in cases of high water it could get bad - as could any river in the mountains. Not sure why this trail needs to be relocated any more than any other trail with water crossings (just about every trail, huh?).

Maybe there is more of a priority here because they are concerned about families getting in / out from the hut? If that is the case then the AMC should do it and not the feds (private vs tax $). But then as I said, I guess I dont fully understand this one...

- darren

 

[Tom Rankin]

I guess I don't fully understand this one. I have done those crossings several times and I don't remember them being that bad at all. In fact I remember crossing shortly after the bridge was wiped out and I carried my mtn bike on my shoulder as I crossed the river and I didn't get wet so I know it wasn't bad. If you can carry a bike across a river it cant be that bad. Now certainly in cases of high water it could get bad - as could any river in the mountains. Not sure why this trail needs to be relocated any more than any other trail with water crossings (just about every trail, huh?).

Maybe there is more of a priority here because they are concerned about families getting in / out from the hut? If that is the case then the AMC should do it and not the feds (private vs tax $). But then as I said, I guess I dont fully understand this one...

- darren

I think they are trying to reduce the crossings from 3 to 1. Hopefully, they will reduce it to the highest crossing, which should generally be the easiest.

 

[dr_wu002]

I concur -- I've done the crossings in question a number of times (and with some with high water) and have not had a problem.

But when I see the pieces of the cables/footings that are what remain of the bridge that washed out, I wonder what that crossing must have looked like during that particular high water.

Perhaps the relocation is being done more to address the possibility of folks trying to use the trail in the event of another doesn't-happen-often-but-could-be-dangerous-high-water occurrence?

The bridge was washed out during a freak storm in 2005 that, as I recall, wiped out several other bridges (Dry River, Wild River etc). Otherwise it's an easy crossing. Sometimes when the water is high you get your feet wet but c'mon, this if freaking hiking.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Waumbek]

Believe me, it can really rage during runoff periods. But it makes sense to relocate the crossing so no bridge is involved. It is a pack route to the hut.

 

[dr_wu002]

Believe me, it can really rage during runoff periods. But it makes
sense to relocate the crossing so no bridge is involved. It is a pack route to the hut.

If the crossing sucks I guess you turn around or try it anyway and get your feet wet. People who are worried about wet feet are probably not going to hike after a storm anyway.

The route on the West side of the river has been flagged before. I thought it might be some kind of route to get to Hawthorne Falls but it was too foolish -- it went straight through thick sprucy stuff while just 20-30' away was open hardwoods. Perhaps it was the Forest Service, in their infinite wisdom, scouting out a potential route.

You're still going to have to cross the feeder brook coming in from Hawthorne Falls no matter what so while this reroute will eliminate 2 crossings it'll add 1. Why not just pave the whole trail? That way they can put in a hand rail and everything. People should be able to drive their cars all the way to the Hut.

-Dr. Wu

 

[RoySwkr]

I think they are trying to reduce the crossings from 3 to 1. Hopefully, they will reduce it to the highest crossing, which should generally be the easiest.

You're thinking of North Twin/Little River - this one has just two crossings

Not sure why this trail needs to be relocated any more than any other trail with water crossings (just about every trail, huh?).

I did this trail earlier in the month and thought about the option of bypassing both crossings, if the lower one had been any tougher I might have done the bushwhack. But I noticed that the section of trail to be abandoned (on the E bank) is in very bad shape - there are at least 2 places where the footway is now an overflow channel for the river, several places where the trail climbs the bank to bypass muddy/eroded parts of the old road and then drops back, etc. Probably under wetlands rules a lot of work would need to be done to make the old trail conforming - might as well build the bypass on the other side and eliminate the double crossing.

It's nice to see the Forest Service actually building something instead of just destroying things so I will write a letter in support.

 

[David Metsky]

In spring that crossing can be impassible. People have been stranded on the wrong side of the river in high water and had to spend the night. Being the major route to a hut and a popular trail to other destinations it has happened several times. I know at least one case of someone washed downstream and rescued from an island (was that this spot or the crossing just upstream?)