Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

Here's a little piece of my mind...

<br><br>I've done a lot of reading recently about the campaign to establish the North Cascades National Park in the 1960s. The scale and stakes of that campaign make the Mt Adams resort question seem pretty small.<br><br>I agree with your position on Mt Adams, but I don't think your way of expressing it serves your cause well. The gist of your argument is that wealthy people make you uncomfortable. Having read about the public hearings on the North Cascades, I'm trying to imagine how that argument would fly in front of the people who actually make decisions on these things. I don't think it would go over well. If you want to be effective in opposing developments like this, I think you should frame your arguments a different way.<br><br>If anybody is interested in the North Cascades hearings of 1966-68, I've dug up a few newspaper references below:<br><br>www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/ms/wsp-clippings.html

www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/ms/lds-ncnp.html

I have nothing against wealthy folks, indeed, it is not cheap to become a backcountry skier! In fact, I protest this resort idea because I couldn't bear to see so many innocent wealthy people get fleeced by MHM, and in the process be cheated out of what is really special about Mt. Adams, which is that it is a huge, majestic, peaceful place, far mightier than Riley's investment capital!<br><br>Let us not be enslaved by infrastructure! We are better than that...

Your comments make it clear that you don't know what this part of Mount Adams is like

<br>

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

<br><br>Amar, You are dead wrong about me being unfamiliar with the east side of Adams. I've hiked to Bird Creek Meadows several times as well as up Little Mt Adams. It is neither polite nor accurate to assert I do not know what I'm talking about solely because I hold different personal wilderness values then you do. I do agree with you that the east side of Adams is a special and unique place. I believe that there are numerous such special and unique places in the Cascades that are of equal value; to name a few personal favorites of many: anywhere on Rainier, the Northside of Adams, 3FJ's Canyon Creek Meadows, Chamber Lakes in 3 Sisters, Goat Rocks, the northwest side of Hood, etc. I list these places not only because they are special, but because they are in wilderness/protected areas and will never see development (yes I do realize MRNP isn't a designated wilderness). I truly believe that the east side of Adams will continue to be special after careful and reasonable development. I understand you disagree with this.<br><br>In your posts you've highlighted that the east side of Adams is very seldom visited. You also stated the area is closed from October to July. From the descriptions of your visits it sounds like you have experienced much happiness and personal enrichment from visiting Adams. I can relate well to these feelings. I believe that mountains significantly enhance and enrich our lives. It is unfortunate more do not visit the east side of Adams but it is understandable given the difficulty of access. A properly implemented resort would change this. A reasonably implemented resort would make access easier resulting in more visits so many more can experience similar happiness and enrichment to what you have. I imagine you will argue that the experiences you had would not have been of the same quality if a resort existed. I believe in this particular case this argument is outweighed by the fact that a greater volume of people will experience enrichment from an Adams resort so that even if it is to lesser degrees then what you experienced--which I don't believe it will be since they'll be skiing astounding terrain in an amazing location--their aggregate enrichment will be greater then the aggregate of the rare visitors now. <br><br>Increased access to a beautiful area is not my sole reason for supporting a reasonable Adams resort. I do not believe every special place should have a highway leading to it, certainly some special areas are better off being difficult to access as this is what in part makes them special. In each instance of potential development it is imperative we carefully weigh the cost versus the benefit. This includes, but is most certainly not limited to, analyzing the current volume of recreation (quite minimal), analyzing the impact development would have on current recreation (it'd increase it), synonymous undeveloped areas, and the recreation interests of near communities. <br><br>There is absolutely no question resort skiing is a very popular activity. In northern Oregon this is easily evident by the massive crowds at Mt Hood's resorts. Of the Hood resorts Mt Hood Meadows is the most crowded, this is because they have the most interesting and diverse terrain although relative to Crystal, Stevens, Baker, Whistler, Alpine Meadows, Squaw, etc. the terrain is not very interesting. To me the massive crowds clearly indicate there are interests in another resort with diverse and exhilarating terrain near the Portland area. People love skiing. Just as being on an amazing mountain like Adams enhances our lives so does the bliss of sliding over snow. Combine the two and you have what I believe is one of life's utmost enjoyable experiences. <br><br>I find nothing "laughable" or trivial about the threat of development to Cooper Spur. Unlike the east side of Adams this is an area that RIGHT NOW is heavily used by backcountry skiers, climbers and hikers. This usage is exponentially greater then that of the east side of Adams, hence its development would impact a much larger number of people then the careful development of Adams' east side. It is important to realize that to Portlanders part of what makes the Cooper Spur area special is that it is within a 90 minute drive of downtown Portland. In Winter and early Spring the east side of Adams is completely inaccessible (both legally and virtually pragmatically). Of course Seattle skiers don't care about this since they're busy skiing the amazing terrain at Crystal, Stevens, Baker, etc. <br><br>In your post you linked to a map of "proposed development" made by Darryl Lloyd who runs Friends of Mt Adams (link here ). The highlighted area and notations on this map are completely bogus. The ONLY notation that has any factual basis is the smaller dark green area. This area was marked on a map that was sent from the Yakima Nation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs ostensibly showing the area the Indians are most seriously considering for development. The basis for the light green area is essentially Darryl Lloyd's imagination and his desire to make development look as undesirable as possible. There are almost an unlimited numbers of scenarios for ski resort development within Yakima Nation land. It does not take a PhD in experimental atomic physics to realize the most unlikely and unrealistic is a gondola to 11,100ft.  Lloyd made his drawing after hearing from a reporter that a possible scenario was the gondola. Lloyd ignores that there are a myriad of possible scenarios, that MHM has likely not made any remotely concrete proposal to the Yakima nation and that he has never see any documentation from MHM to the Yakima Nation. <br><br>A more realistic scenario would be a carefully built resort that has an upper terminus of Little Mt Adams, Ridge of Wonders or Sunrise Camp. Such a carefully built resort would offer very interesting terrain, has the proper elevation for decent snow, would give access to interesting mid-winter backcountry, and would not in anyway be near or visible to the hordes enjoying their "solitude" climbing the South Rib. To illustrate how exhilarating the terrain could be below is a TOPO with hypothetical notations. The red lines represent potential ski runs.<br> <br><br><br>Such a resort would occupy only a fraction of Mt Adams. It would cater to both hardcore skiers as well as families. The majority of Mt Adams would still be undeveloped so you will still be able to enjoy the many special places on Adams in solitude. The drawings on this TOPO are purely hypothetically, I post only to illustrate that there are a myriad of interesting, reasonable development scenarios.<br><br><br>I wish we had another mountain near Portland that had interesting terrain and was of less special value which we could develop. We do not, but luckily we do have numerous other places in the Cascades that are of equal special value and used more frequently then the east side of Adams. Mt Adams is huge and only a fraction of it is needed for a resort. I know that with a reasonable resort Adams will continue to give its gifts of personal enrichment and enhancement to resort visitors as well as to backcountry visitors.<br><br>Reasonable, responsible development will not take Phato's beauty away, instead it will give it the means to touch and influence a greater number of lives.

And from skiiing Camels Hump and skiing Stowe, well, if you want crowds go to Stowe if you want Powder go to Camels Hump.

<br><br>Amar is right: no one here understands the east side of Adams. Your comparision to "Camels Hump" is completely flawed. NO ONE right now skis on the east side of Adams in the Winter or Spring! It is illegal and, if you wish to ignore that, access is incredibly protracted. <br>

Everyone has a lot to say, we need flames by this topic.<br><br>Separately, but almost on topic, my random thoughts are:<br><br>It will be difficult to develop a brand new ski area in the west.  One problem with Adams in the winter is that it's too far from Seattle to go hit easily.  As for Portland, they got some nice area closer to town (if skiers really traveled farther than necessary, Baker would charge more).  Currently, the resorts have crowds, and they get substantially more skier days now that they did not that many years ago, with high speed quads and sixes.  Which tracks out all the fresh snow in minutes (part of why we like to climb all day long).  All this development, and the area&#8217;s are loosing money.  At the same time their insurance rates are going up.  I'm sure we're all crying our crocodile tears for their financial plight.  <br><br>It'll be very hard to develop a new ski area in the American West.  Developers want to build the next Whistler, but come on. This is America, not Canada, the key to the magic.<br><br><br>

As for Portland, they got some nice area closer to town

<br><br>No we don't. I love Mt Hood but the terrain is just not that interesting. With road improvements an Adams resort would be 1.5 to 2hrs from downtown Portland. I'll be going every weekend if you're looking to carpool.

Great discussion. My 2 cents.<br><br>I live in Wa, near the south side of Adams and frequent the "area". The intrusion of improved roads into the area would destroy much of the primitive nature.<br><br>It takes me almost an hour from Cook-Underwood to reach the south side of Adams. That makes 2 hours from Portland.<br><br>For me, to see a large contingent of commuter skiers/riders would be depressing. Obviously I favor a more primitive setting.<br><br>In terms of access to more terrain; that issue will continue to grow as the population moves from the east to the west. A project doubling of the population by 2025 will certainly result in the need for more recreational opportunites (that's why people move here).<br><br>Ironically, the week before the announced feasibility of a Mt Adams development, I was skiing the south side on a glorious day, with superb views of Mt Hood. Breath taking? Perhaps...<br><br>What would happen to the great horse riding trails established along 141 on the way to Trout Lake?<br>These camps and trails are a wonderful resource for the community in the summer, fall and winter.<br><br>I agree with many others, that it would be more feasible to develop the existing terrain with access features (roads) already in place, than to slice through what is currently rural and relatively "pristine".<br><br>The argument of "not being fair" is one that is used too frequently these days. We need to decide "what is right". <br><br>Maybe I am just an old timer, not wanting change....you tell me.<br><br>

I would think that if a resort was built on Adams it would cater more to the Yakima, Tri-Cities, The Dalles folks then Seattle (except for those who would use as a destination resort).  (It would target those locals that currently use White Pass and Bluewood)  <br><br>As for a highway, I read that there was one built (The Mt Adams Highway) running from the Yakima valley, past the east foothills of Adams and dumping out at The Dalles.  When the DOT decided to build Satus Pass the tribe closed the old highway to the public, but use it for themselves and improved on it through the years. I don't know what kind of condition it is in, but it seems that it could be used as an existing access road if this project actually happened..    <br><br>www.yakimamemory.org/articles/mtadams.html

If the tribe really wanted to persue this I really don't see much to stop them.  The government usually does little to stop what the tribes want to do on their land (Casino's as an example), but from all I've read I really doubt the Yakama Indian Tribe will go through with this idea.  It does make for an interesting discussion though.

I would think that if a resort was built on Adams it would cater more to the Yakima, Tri-Cities, The Dalles folks

<br><br>Huh? It would cater to Portland skiers. It'd be 1.5 to 2hrs from Portland.

I live in Wa, near the south side of Adams and frequent the "area".

<br><br>It's the east side not the south side that is being considered for development. Have you ever skied on the east side of Adams in Winter/Spring? Since it's legally closed most likely not.

I would be willing to accept the development of a resort if:<br><br>-no structures of any sort built above treeline, and an absolute minimum of deforestation.<br>-no gambling, golfing, or faux urbanization whatsoever.<br>-no resort-associated lodging.<br>-not a single penny of Washington taxpayer expense.<br>-strict regulations preventing any of these conditions from being altered, ever.<br>

I'll agree to that.

If the tribe came forward in a unified way and said something like "Our people are falling futher behind economically. This resort will advance the living conditions and opportunities of the tribe, and do it on our own land. It will give us a better future. We'll see to it that it is developed with environmental sensitivity and we will maintain a large amount of control..." etc., etc. I'd throw my hands up, wish them luck and hope for the best, even though I'd be very unhappy to see such a development.<br>For me, that's the only argument that holds any water.

Amar, You are dead wrong about me being unfamiliar with the east side of Adams. I've hiked to Bird Creek Meadows several times as well as up Little Mt Adams.

<br><br>PDXSkier, I apologize for my unwarranted assertion. But my assumption was largely based on your comparison of the east side of Adams with the Crystal, Baker and Whistler ski areas. I guess I'm shocked that anyone who has actually hiked to Bird Creek Meadows could possibly make this comparison with a straight face, or could believe that there is such a thing as a "tactfully placed resort on Adams" especially in that area. <br><br><br>

I believe that there are numerous such special and unique places in the Cascades that are of equal value; to name a few personal favorites of many: anywhere on Rainier, the Northside of Adams, 3FJ's Canyon Creek Meadows, Chamber Lakes in 3 Sisters, Goat Rocks, the northwest side of Hood, etc. I list these places not only because they are special, but because they are in wilderness/protected areas and will never see development (yes I do realize MRNP isn't a designated wilderness).

<br><br>Now you're talking, these places are very good comparisons to the east side of Adams. By the way, MRNP is actually a designated wilderness, 97% of the park (see www.nps.gov/mora/ ). But so is almost all of the area for the proposed Adams ski resort. There is a line marked "Wilderness Boundary" on the Mt Adams East 1970 topo, which is partially visible on your map above (it has vanished from the new 1998 USGS topo). The areas you have marked as "premier steep terrain", "upper base area", and "intermediate area" all lie north of this line, and this is designated wilderness. My understanding of the 1972 treaty which returned Tract D to the Yakama Nation was that the tribe had agreed to respect this pre-existing wilderness designation as one of the conditions of the transfer. Therefore the tribe has no right to develop that land. (I don't know where to find the treaty to check if this is actual fact.) Areas that lie south of this wilderness line include the steep sunny south slope of Little Mt Adams (= no snow retention), along with Bird Creek Meadows, Heart Lake, and Bench Lake. Not much interesting ski terrain there, except maybe the bit you marked "more steeps", it is certainly far worse than Mt Hood Meadows or even Timberline.<br><br><br>

I truly believe that the east side of Adams will continue to be special after careful and reasonable development. I understand you disagree with this.

<br><br>Of course it will still be special, whatever has not been paved over or clearcut. The astounding views would remain, but the Hellroaring and Bird Creek Meadows and Bench Lake would certainly be destroyed or ruined by ski area development. But I suppose that the Paradise parking lot is also considered "special" by some. <br><br><br>

I find nothing "laughable" or trivial about the threat of development to Cooper Spur. Unlike the east side of Adams this is an area that RIGHT NOW is heavily used by backcountry skiers, climbers and hikers. This usage is exponentially greater then that of the east side of Adams, hence its development would impact a much larger number of people then the careful development of Adams' east side.

<br><br>I don't care if backcountry skiers (including myself) are negatively affected by development of Cooper Spur, this is irrelevant and just a self-serving view. Development and protection decisions should be based on the quality/fragility of the area, not the desires of some user group. I oppose development of Cooper Spur on an environmental basis, not because it would affect me personally as a backcountry skier. I refuse to adopt a self-serving position unless there are other valid reasons to support it.<br><br>These kind of self-serving arguments are also used by snowmobile and OHV groups to keep numerous areas open to those extremely destructive vehicles, by claiming that user groups and businesses would be harmed by keeping snowmobiles out of you-name-it (Mt Baker, St Helens, Newberry, Yellowstone, ...). Unfortunately, I do realize that development and protection decisions are rarely based on the correct reasons (quality/fragility of an area), but almost always on the incorrect self-serving ones (users = votes, businesses = money, the two pillars of politics). <br><br><br>

It does not take a PhD in experimental atomic physics to realize the most unlikely and unrealistic is a gondola to 11,100ft. Lloyd made his drawing after hearing from a reporter that a possible scenario was the gondola. Lloyd ignores that there are a myriad of possible scenarios, that MHM has likely not made any remotely concrete proposal to the Yakima nation and that he has never see any documentation from MHM to the Yakima Nation. <br><br>A more realistic scenario would be a carefully built resort that has an upper terminus of Little Mt Adams, Ridge of Wonders or Sunrise Camp. Such a carefully built resort would offer very interesting terrain, has the proper elevation for decent snow, would give access to interesting mid-winter backcountry, and would not in anyway be near or visible to the hordes enjoying their "solitude" climbing the South Rib.

<br><br>Have you seen the proposal which Darryl Lloyd has not? Do you mean to say that a gondola isn't part of the proposal? If a gondola is part of the plan, it sure ain't going to top out at 8400 ft atop the Ridge of Wonders. One of the newspaper articles (Hood River News, Sept 24) certainly implied that a major selling point of the resort (to skiers) is that it would have the greatest vertical drop in North America, 5700 ft. This would have to mean that it goes from Heart Lake/ Hellroaring Meadow(5400 ft) to 11100 ft. The article also mentions 11 lifts. Where are you going to put 11 lifts in the area shown on your map? Obviously a much larger development is proposed by MHM than what you have drawn. <br><br>Your "more realistic scenario" also has another major problem, that of "proper elevation for decent snow". Bench Lake is at only 4900 ft, which may not hold much snowpack into the spring. Mount Adams receives much less snow than either Hood or St Helens, and the area near Bench Lake is probably in a partial rain shadow from South Butte. No snowpack data exists for anywhere near this area, but I assume it gets even less snow than the Hood River Meadows area does (which melts out very early in spring and closes before the rest of MHM). I've heard that you can estimate average maximum snowdepth by the height of lichen collars on trees, I'll make sure to check for this the next time I camp at Bench Lake. <br><br>By the way, PDXSkier, I think you may have set a record for the longest unsigned post ever on TAY. You obviously hold your views quite passionately, so why not stand up for them? You really shouldn't be afraid to sign your real name, no one here is likely to hunt you down. <br><br>

I would be willing to accept the development of a resort if:<br><br>-no structures of any sort built above treeline, and an absolute minimum of deforestation.<br>-no gambling, golfing, or faux urbanization whatsoever.<br>-no resort-associated lodging.<br>-not a single penny of Washington taxpayer expense.<br>-strict regulations preventing any of these conditions from being altered, ever.<br>

<br><br>I guess I'm also in favor of these stipulations (even though they would seem to allow and encourage the destruction of every meadow and lake in the resort area). But the first of them alone would prevent any ski resort development at all. Treeline is at 6500-7000 ft in that area, they certainly would have to locate lift terminals (permanent structures) well above treeline to have a viable ski area of any kind. <br><br>

Two points I'd like to add.<br>1. Having this discussion on a backcountry board more or less pre-ordains how 99% of the readership views this issue. I'd like to see this same issue raised on the SnowboardSeattle or PowderMag boards, or whatever Portland might have that's equivalent. The discussion there might not be as unbalanced.<br>2. Have MHM or the Yakamas had any serious discussions about the insurance issues of depositing typical downhill skiers at 11000 feet on a Cascade volcano? Scores of people have died purely of exposure on each of the local volcanos, either when the weather changed suddenly, or because they weren't using proper judgment by climbing upwards into known bad weather. The Mt Hood church group tragedy being the best example I can think of. Those people were arguably (more or less) equipped mountaineers, carrying packs with extra clothing and gear for at least a modicum of self-sufficiency. Typically these people died at elevations below 11000, and in some cases died during the spring or fall or times when winter weather wasn't necessarily expected. Now, take the potential for all those same bad things to happen on any given winter day high up on a volcano, and add a tramful of typical resort skiers, equipped with just the clothing they have on, and even this chosen probably more for fashion than function. I wouldn't underwrite that.

For the record I don't think this country needs any more ski resorts anywhere. However, as we wait for the real snow to fall this winter I have been thinking that within several decades with global warming that everyone is going to have to be headed for 10000'+ to find snow and there may be no options besides ski areas on the volcanos. In Tokyo they have an artificial indoor ski area so maybe we should start planning for one of those also.