Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

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.