When we last shared news about the Timberline Mountain Bike Park in November of 2012, the US Forest Service had approved a permit for the project and things were set to move forward. That permit was issued after an environmental analysis from the USFS lead to a “Finding of no significant impact” from the trails, roads and other development required to build a “world class” lift-assisted mountain bike riding area on Mt. Hood.
But after that permit was issued, two appeals were filed against the project. One came from a individual citizen and the other was a joint appeal from several outdoor and environmental groups including Friends of Mt. Hood, Bark, Mazamas, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, and Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.
At the end of last month, the USFS affirmed their original decision and denied both appeals.
Now — as Timberline Mountain Bike Park officials prep to begin construction this summer — some of those same groups are seeking a legal injunction against the project.
One of the groups, the hiking and climbing non-profit Mazamas, is on the fence about whether or not to continue their opposition and they’re hosting a public meeting in Portland tonight to help them make the decision.
In an email dated March 6th, Mazamas President Doug Couch wrote that his group has been asked by Friends of Mt. Hood to join the lawsuit to stop the project. Couch said it would be a, “significant and difficult decision” and he is urging both members and the general public to come to the Mazama Mountaineering Center (527 SE 43rd Ave) for their meeting tonight to share input about the project. “There are a multitude of issues to consider,” he wrote, “as well as significant potential costs and benefits on both sides of the decision.”
If you’d like to attend and speak at the meeting, arrive no later than 6:20 pm to get on the list (or your can email Mazamas Executive Director Lee Davis at lee@mazamas.org in advance). Each speaker will be given up to three minutes. After public testimony is received, the Mazamas Executive Council will make a decision at the end of the meeting.
If progress moves forward as planned, Park officials say the 17 miles of new trails and skills park area covering 20 acres of Mt. Hood would be fully operational by summer 2014.
Learn more about the project on the Timberline website and stop by their booth at the PDX Bicycle Show on March 23rd-24th at the Portland Expo Center.
UPDATE, 3/14: Mazamas has voted against joining the lawsuit. A commenter below was at the meeting and has shared a recap.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
A reminder for those who remember the Mt Hood Legacy Act, championed by Earl Bluemenauer: Mountainbikers LOST access to 110 miles of singletrack in the Mt Hood Area, out of the 210 they were legally allowed to ride AND had done so for over two decades. These same recreational riders poured untold hours into the maintenance of these trails that all people could enjoy. This new Timberline MTB park would help to make up for the access mountainbikers lost forever. Please remind Mazamas and the others about these facts! P.S. What is the opinion of OregonWild about this MTB park, anyone know? They were the driving force behind the Mt. Hood Legacy Act……..
If you think of Mt. Hood as a big pie graph, how big would the slice be for this MTB area? Unless my estimation skills are way off, I am betting 1% or less. And of an area already being used recreation.
My point – bring it on! And I say that as someone way to scared to take on such downhill riding.
Without opportunities for non-motorized recreation, many people will never gain an appreciation for nature that turns them into exactly the kind of environmental advocates, donors and voters that groups like the Sierra Club and Mazamas depend on.
Bikes belong.
Having ridden on the course in Whistler I just can’t see how anyone could be against this in Oregon. From what I could tell the environmental impact was no different than the ski resort service roads. None of the trails impacted hiking routs… I just can’t see a real downside.
The upside on the other hand, I imagine this would be a huge financial boost to the area. Timberline obviously, but bike rentals, restaurants, bike shops, hotels… and such a great way to get people outside and enjoying the area.
I’m not getting how some groups are against this.
Well…to start, it’s much worse than a multibillion dollar freeway expansion and bridge replacement. /end snark
Timberline BP–>the “Forest Park” of the Cascade Range
Maybe it’s time for us to protest the protesters?
Why do you suppose mountain biking has such an image problem? I’m asking as a non-mountain biker.
Mountain bikers have no image problem in my opinion, but Strava users sure do. If you could make people understand how I don’t care AT ALL that they yelled “STRAVA!!!!” and that I am going to continue to enjoy myself in exactly the same way I was before they screamed rudely, then we would be getting somewhere.
If someone yelled “strava” at me I would probably laugh, and then slooooooooooowly step off the trail.
“Strava”?
</bewildered >
Ian, personally (after moving here from Colorado) I have found the NW to indeed have a MTB image problem (especially compared to other areas of the country). I have figured it is due to most people associating MTB with Downhill (full face helmet, body armor) MTBing. My view is that to really promote mountain bikind and change people’s opinions, XC riding really has to be featured more. It needs to be shown to people what a great recreation activity it is for all kinds of people (old/young, families, etc.). When the general public thinks of MTB in Portland they think of some punks chugging Monster and ploughing down illegal trails in FP. We need to start to redirect the conversation so they think of a their neighbor or coworker, smoothly pedaling along a rolling trail on the gorge.
It’s all about perception, and I have found that places where the general population is okay with mountain biking tend to have a bigger focus on easier, XC riding (which is accessible to more beginners).
As a roadie who recently got an MTB to ride local hills with friends, I’m learning that there is indeed an ‘image’ problem, but I feel it’s no different than a good deal of the non-cycling public feels about road cyclists. My friend’s informal group now calls themselves the “Mission Peaks Mountain Goats” because we were asked if we had a name when we were interviewed for helping the parks department repair rogue trails. Several letters to that local paper were asking the parks department to ban mountain bikes because they felt they were dangerous descending around the many hikers, and that they caused tremendous damage with their rogue trails – although the reality (confirmed by the ranger) is that the trails are mostly made by hikers. We thought we were just helping out because we all use that hill (both on bikes and on foot), but we were positioned as ‘mountain biking advocates.’
As we’ve come to learn riding bikes on the road – it’s all about perspective and perception.
Personally, I don’t think it does have am image problem. There are new opportunities for mountain biking happening all over the U.S. and the world. I also don’t think it has an image problem here. From what I have read, most people are ok with the sport and are ok with co-existing with mountain bikers on trails. In fact, we coexist on many trails all over the state.
Most people are okay with sharing trails with MBers? I call BS, unless you can show me the data.
As a cyclist and hiker, I think that hiking on a trail shared with MTBs would be extremely unpleasant. If MTB riders rode their brakes and gave hikers a wide berth, it would be fine, but I don’t expect either of those things to happen consistently in practice.
Having spent countless hours on trails, mountain bikers always stop and step off the trail to allow the hiker/equestrian to pass. I have never observed the opposite, and I am not exaggerating.
Always? Never?
A few rotten apples spoil the bunch….
What do hikers have to do with a bikes only downhill MTB park? If anything hikers who don’t want to share trails should be supporting this park because it will concentrate the mountain bikers in one non-hiking location. The Sierra Club and BARK said that other trails could be built to replace the trails that were stolen by the Wilderness Area, but everytime a new trail is suggested they seem to be out there opposing it. I hope the Mazamas will break with them on this. I support their right to climb hood, not sure that these other groups always will.
I’m not aware of any international surveys on attitudes towards mountain bikers. My data is anecdotal based on my experiences as a mountain biker, and as someone who grew up mostly hiking/backpacking with friends and family. My experiences encountering hikers all over the state has been overwhelmingly positive. While I realize that people can be overtly positive while not being happy with our encounter, I am inclined to believe they aren’t faking it.
Following up on this — I totally support MTB trails / a MTB facility (i.e., freeride course, etc) at Timberline…I’d just like for the existing hiking trails to continue to be hiker only, or possibly allow MTBs on the uphills but build MTB-specific downhill routes where they don’t have to share with hikers.
Multiple data points from one observer in one setting:
On Saltzman Rd while ascending I had to learn where the downhill enthusiasts would exit tight turns because they would consistently (>80%) take even blind corners at top speed (>25mph) despite not being able to avoid anything when they exit the turn.
Further, some downhillers would panic regardless of whether I was in their path or not. They would execute panicked avoidance maneuvers that would endanger hikers and leisure walkers not counting on potentially deadly “automotive speed” bike shaped projectiles.
Not saying it can’t work I just don’t see how to make a single path work for even forewarned walkers and hikers when the same path may randomly contain +30mph cyclists anywhere and everywhere.
“despite not being able to avoid anything when they exit the turn”
Followed by:
“then they would execute panicked avoidance maneuvers”
Sounds like “anecdotal hyperbole” to me. Hey, did I just coin a phrase?Seriously, anybody can say they saw anything happen once. My experience is that serious conflicts really only occur on trails when different users unexpectedly encounter one another on a trail. On designated multiple use trails such encounters should not occur. With the exception of flagrant violators, such as dogs off leash or MTB’s exceeding trail speed limits (often 15 mph). Why do you suggest that the extreme example is the norm? Did you ever see an encounter between these “opposed” groups that was not a conflict? I’ll bet that you have, yet you did not offer that as your anecdotal evidence! I think that your bias is showing.
I’ve personally witnessed 3 incidents with 4 cyclists.
All were quite polite after the fact and they slowed down after.
All were easily going over 20mph.
Each of these incidents occurred at a bit of steep terrain that not only obscured visual warning but topography severely dampened any warning sounds.
The only “real” warning is the deep MTB tire ruts obviously made by high speed turns.
My 1st was a near miss (passed within 12″) with a Doppler shifted “SORRY!”
My 2nd was the same location a few weeks later with 2 bikes following each other way too close. I guess the guy behind the 1st bike tried to panic stop assuming the guy in front was going to slow down. Loud sincere sorries shouted out followed by the rear guy fish tailing because the spring leaf litter was deep, wet and very slippery.
The last on was a combo of too fast MTB’er and a pack of off leash dogs with their owner. Cyclist on seeing the mess layed down the bike and ditched. It was so funny when the dogs rushed over to see if he was ok; he was.
I didn’t ride this daily like i should have but the few times i did it was not uncommon to see this shared path being used as a DH speedrun.
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with mountain biking, mountain bikers, or the bike park at Timberline. Sharing trails with hikers is not even the issue at hand since these will not be hiking trails.
Please explain how to ensure hikers won’t just enter these MTB only trails and how the legal liability plays out for the inevitable high speed crash.
Who ultimately pays for the Life Flight chopper: the hiker, the MTB’er or the facility owner?
Why do you presume that it does have an image problem?
I perceive an MTB image problem by the amount and vigor of resistance many proposals to expanding mountain bike facilities in Oregon.
I’m sure it’s a “few bad apples” situation, but hiking Tryon Creek Park is truly unpleasant after MTBers have been “bombing” the trails.
Inrceased mtb facilities in the last two years:
1. Sandy Ridge Trail System
2. Pump track on SE 114th and Stark
3. Eichler Bike skills park in Beaverton
4. XC and freeride trails in Stub Stewart State Park
5. Increased singletrack in Forest Park (in process)
6. Access to trails in Riverview
7. Singletrack Trail improvement plan at Powell Butte
Dang. I forgot to include the ever increasing trail network in Cascade Locks. These are just examples from the Portland area. There are great things happening in places like Bend, Oakridge, etc. I don’t think it is about image any longer. Moms and dads are now riding downhill trails with full face helmets, and cross country trail riding is very common among all age groups these days. The resistance comes because we are challenging the deeply engrained, historically dominant paradigm in this area. This resistance is to be expected, and the process takes time. It should. Sweeping changes shouldn’t happen overnight when it comes to how our public spaces are used. Eventually, logic will win out and mountain biking will be given the access needed for a quality experience fort all types of riders. It is already happening. Great conversation.
Brian, thank you for remembering Cascade Locks Easy CLIMB system! It’s recently improved and a great place for beginners and families to experience single track.
they have no problem protesting this MTB trail project but they do nothing on massive and destructive CRC project.
…or Equestrian trails… which btw, cause way more erosion than off road motorcycles, let alone bicycles.
I have no evidence of this, but this issue does smell (no pun intended) like the wealthy horse owner lobby is behind this. If the MTBs can’t have it, I say the horse people should be denied as well.
Seriously … how can you even compare a mountain bike trail to a ski resort in terms of environmental impact?
Of course what we really need is a freeway from downtown PDX (preferably feeding right off the new CRC) up to the mountain so more SUVs can make it to the parking lot.
while MTB erosion of hiking trails – which aren’t designed for bicycles – may be an issue, a trail properly designed and built specifically for MTB use should not have a significant erosion problem.
From experience I would say that erosion is the worst when it is wet and muddy. Most of the wet season this trail will be under snow. With proper maintenance and care during the melt it should be ok.
Interesting subject.
I suspect the motivation of the opposition is not specifically the impact to the immediate forest or alpine meadows. The meadows are quite sensitive, but proper design and fencing can address that. I think the real issue is the real-estate development in the adjoining areas. Ski areas don’t make money, but the condos and cabins they develop do. By having 4 season activities you further promote this. A number of years ago, Mt Hood Meadows tried to build 3 18-hole golf courses and residences for 3000+ over by Cooper Spur. This was stopped by the same coalition opposing this development. Ultimately they made a land swap for more developable land in Government Camp and the Cooper Spur area is more protected. So, I would ask everyone to look at this issue in the wider view and not just concentrate on sweet single track.
True, and two of these groups were the same ones who fought vehemently against a Mt. Hood timber sale years ago – even though the timber was dead and the purpose of the sale was to cull the dead trees to avoid disease spreading to the healthy ones.
I think that “taking the wider view of the issue” should not stop at looking at the impact to the immediate environs. Getting more people outside for recreations is a worthy goal from a public health standpoint as well as a conservation standpoint. People whose outdoor experience begins and ends at their driveway will not advocate for future protection of natural resources and will be a future drain on our healthcare system.
Given the F.S. findings; I think the time has come for groups like the Mazamas to focus their efforts along more productive avenues relating to their overall goal of conservation and facilitating outdoor recreation.
The Sierra Club trying to stop mountain biking? Again?
I’m pretty sure it’s in their mission statement.
The Sierra Club doesn’t just want to stop mountain biking, they want to stop all use including hiking. When closing access to a bunch of trails when the new wilderness area came in they were asked about if reduced use wouldn’t lead to many trails and roads becoming overgrown and unusable, their response was something close to “hopefully”.
Sierra Club’s position on mountain biking is stated on the club’s website. It may take a site or web search to find it. Being someone who, for years, has at times, commented in response to bikeportland articles, and possibly have read at least some of them before posting comments, you may have found links in other’s comments, to pages stating Sierra Club’s position on mountain biking.
At any rate, the club doesn’t oppose mountain biking per se, although certain areas aren’t considered appropriate for bike use.
I notice that neither in this bikeportland article, or in any of the comments to it, has anyone provided info about what’s cited in the injunction as reasons for requesting the mountain bike park project be stopped. Maybe the text of, or a pdf for the injunction is located on sites for one or more of the groups joined in asking for the injunction.
Actions speak louder than words, the Sierra Club is consistently against any expansion of Mtn Biking and they have actively and successfully worked to eliminate access to over 100 miles of trails in Oregon in recent years. It is clear that regardless of what their website says they do not support mountain biking.
“…It is clear that regardless of what their website says they do not support mountain biking.” bjorn
The truth of what you say, depends upon various locations you may or may not have in mind. If you’re saying the club opposes the use of mountain bikes…everywhere…you’re probably wrong.
Can you point to any new construction of singletrack for mountain biking that they are supporting? It is easy to find literally dozens of examples where reduced access or outright bans on cycling are referred to as victories for the sierra club.
http://www.socalmtb.com/socal/trails/palos_ve.htm?list=reviews
http://texas.sierraclub.org/press/newsreleases/20120412bb.asp
In an exerpt from another article we find this: In a growing national debate among its members, the Sierra Club has taken an official position against mountain bikes on trails. A spokesperson for the local chapter of the Sierra Club said the club feels that “mountain bikers should design and build their own trails.”
The issue is that they say hey we don’t want any conflict between bikes and other user groups so we want to ban mountain biking on any trail that has hiking, but go ahead and build your own trails. So then when Timberline volunteers to build a fantastic mountain bike area they come in and file appeal after appeal along with injunctions etc etc to try to stop them from doing so. They are also in my opinion trying to send a signal to anyone else who might want to build new trails that they had better have some deep pockets because they are going to be spending a lot of time in court. There is no other way to view the activity of the Sierra Club other than anti mountain biking, unless you consider riding a mountain bike on an existing paved road within the city limits to be mountain biking, they seem fine with that.
“Can you point to any new construction of singletrack for mountain biking that they are supporting? …” bjorn
You’re the one interested in mountain biking opportunities. It seems you wouldn’t mind the support of Sierra Club and other conservation minded clubs for mountain bike opportunities, or at least less opposition from them in places you’d like to ride bikes. If you want their support, get busy, actually searching their site for direct info on their official position, with regards to off-road biking, rather than from off-hand comments from various individuals.
I searched that info out a couple years ago, and posted it in comments to off-road biking articles here at bikeportland. At this weblog, it seems to have been almost completely forgotten.
Your tone on this subject suggests unrestrained hostility, which, from off-road biking enthusiasts, is probably not going to be constructive, in seeking support from mainstream conservation groups.
Bicycle evangelism at its best. Biking cures all social ills, and mountain bikes do zero damage to trails. Anyone who opposes the agenda must have an evil motive. I love mountain biking, but heck, it does damage trails.
Lots of things can damages trails, including deer. I didn’t read anyone stating zero impact. Mountain bikers just do the best job building and maintaining them.
I’ve been hiking, mountain biking and building and maintaining trails for 20 years. Mountain bikes don’t damage trails any more than hikers do and much less so than back packers do.
Where was everybody?
Several speakers both for and against the development of the park gave their thoughts. Some of the members asked that they not use their membership dues to fight against another one of their passions which is just as valid of a mountain experience as climbing – While some of the members pleaded to the council to use their money to preserve their mountain and fight any form of development or usage which might ‘scar’ the landscape. There were also non-members who spoke both for and against the park, including a rep from IMBA and a rep from a parasailing club.
Motion was presented to the council to NOT support the injunction against the park.
-The two votes against the motion were concerned about the environmental impact and wanted more studies performed.
-The council members who voted for the motion of NOT supporting the lawsuit against the park cited reasons such as: A parking lot which their lodge will receive from the developers as part of the deal. They did not want to pick a fight against their partners on the mountain, and a couple of them even acknowledged they are not the only people who appreciate and care for the mountain so why should they alienate other user groups who have the mountain in their best interest (other organization’s presence helped!). They considered potential for increased usage of their lodge and potential memberships. One of the members reminded the group that climbers used to be a ‘fringe group’ so she could understand what the mountain bike community is dealing with. One of the council members mentioned that the feedback they have gotten from members has been 50/50 and that wasn’t convincing enough to proceed (feedback is good!).
The council voted to NOT support the law suit. I think it was a vote of 5 to 2.
I did get the feeling that many of the folks who spoke against the park had either not read the Forest Service decision which includes a 30% improvement from existing in silt/runoff/erosion as part of this project – or they simply do not trust the Forest Service.
I felt a little luke warm about the decision as it was more of a ‘Let’s not get involved – But we wish the park wouldn’t exist – Oh well.’ It goes without saying, the opponents of mountain bikes will be keeping a close eye on us so let’s not prove them right.
I note you quoted speakers who said they didn’t want their dues to pay for opposition to the mt bike park. No one bothered to correct them, but it should be noted that Mazamas’ operational money (dues money) would not be used. There are endowments available that are specifically earmarked for conservation and those monies would be used for conservation litigation. (People leave money in their wills that state specifically to be used for conservation — has nothing to do with dues — and this money cannot be used for other purposes.)
Hopefully, it can be a civil discussion that comes to a mutual resolution–at least with the Mazamas. We’ve probably all been on a trail created or tended by the Mazamas at some point. Given the extensive logging and ski trails in the Mount Hood National Forest, 20 acres seems reasonable for MTB.
Hopefully, it can be a civil discussion that comes to a mutual resolution–at least with the Mazamas. We’ve probably all been on a trail created or tended by the Mazamas at some point. Given the extensive logging and ski trails in the Mount Hood National Forest, 20 acres seems reasonable for mountain biking.
I’m also confused, I don’t quite get why there would be opposition at all to this proposal, much less a lawsuit.
I do know that the Sierra Club just sent me a mailer seeking my membership, and yet again I find this to be amongst the reasons I won’t join them again. They’re just too scatterbrained — they oppose mountain biking but not the CRC; they oppose some urban infill projects but not most sprawl projects… they’re just schizophrenic…
I am opposed to the mt bike park. I do not trust the Forest Service as they are in the business of “partnership” with the ski permittee and state they are responsible for business success of Timberline. The environmental damage to the mountain with the construction of the Jeff Flood chairlift was never repaired. The FS was responsible to be sure that silting from that project would not take place, but it has never been adequately monitored. The FS has no money so how do they think they can monitor the mt bike park? Some of us have great concern for the elk herds that currently use this area. They are an important animal species on Mt Hood and are entitled to protection from intrusive humans.
Does everyone know that RLK (Timberline) pours 1M pounds of salt on the Palmer Snowfield every year. This salt eventually works its way into the Sandy River Basin. Obviously RLK cares more for their profit margin than they care about the environment or water quality.
We have to think in terms of ACCUMULATED impacts to Mt Hood. The FS ignored accumulated impacts when they issued their decision. It’s not just this one project that affects the mountain, we have to consider ALL the environmental impacts on the mountain as each permittee tries to maximize business success.
I’m glad BARK is fighting hard against the mt bike park. (thank you!!).
By the way, I read in one of these comments that someone was not aware that RLK had requested addt’l parking. YES! They have requested additional parking — a huge parking lot.