St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Discussions and Trip Reports for off-trail adventures and rediscovering lost trails
User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6310
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by kepPNW » November 2nd, 2018, 3:39 pm

retired jerry wrote:
November 2nd, 2018, 3:23 pm
I have an old USFS map that has the text "sugar bowl" just to the right of peak 7681

Maybe that means peak 7681 is sugar bowl?
That was my inclination, too. (Before this discussion; maybe not after?)
retired jerry wrote:
November 2nd, 2018, 3:23 pm
Isn't a bowl, a bowl, not a peak
Maybe think of the Beatles and their bowl cuts? ;)
retired jerry wrote:
November 2nd, 2018, 3:23 pm
so sugar bowl would be like where Nelson glacier is? That's where the text "sugar bowl" is on my old map.
Hmmm, a depression filled with white stuff?
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6310
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by kepPNW » November 2nd, 2018, 3:46 pm

Water wrote:
November 2nd, 2018, 10:28 am
johnspeth wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 5:58 am
It's the terminal location of the second crater rim trail that the FS recently decided to not build.
Can anyone clarify on this or provide a link. When you say second crater rim trail that they decided not to build, do you mean in addition to the south side monitor ridge or is that separate from the 'Crater Glacier View Climb' project they had developed a few years ago, given the reins to MSHI on and said that at some future point it might be open to the public like 'Monitor Ridge'.
This is the best I know of on that...
The Daily News wrote:U.S. Forest Service trail planners originally hoped to establish a route to the top of the Sugar Bowl, a rounded landmark on the northeast side of the volcano. But the Sugar Bowl ascent was too steep and loose, so the alternative goes to a saddle between the Sugar Bowl and Loowit Falls. At 5,225 feet elevation, the saddle is 1,500 feet lower than the top of the Sugar Bowl — but the unobstructed view of the crater is still remarkable.

source citation, 25-Jul-2013
related citation, 31-Oct-2013
Which, if they know their landmarks any better than we do, would put SB at a height of about 6725', huh? Well below that peak 7681. Hmmm... (Chip, do you know about what elevation you topped out on that day?)
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 1612
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by Chip Down » November 2nd, 2018, 5:24 pm

What a fun discussion!

kepPNW wondered where I found a USFS indication of where SB is. From the Windy Pass TH, one can climb a long set of stairs to a viewpoint over Spirit Lake. There are some interpretive signs there, one of which unambiguously identifies SB as the dome I ascended (there's an artist's rendition of various notable features). Of course, that display might be inconsistent with other sources, but I'm confident I interpreted it correctly. But then, I had been drinking, so... :lol:

Water asked "What was it like being at the back of the dome?" It was, of course, really cool. But ya know, I can't say it was the most interesting part of the hike. BTW, I actually started up the lava dome, but thought better of it. In those days, it was pretty steep/high all the way around (as opposed to the current dome, where the south side seems to be pretty easy to walk up). I realized there was quite a time commitment to scramble up to the top, and I was worried something could go wrong along the way. As amazing as it would have been to stand on top of that dome, I've never regretted my decision. It was just too risky.

Bosterson knows what's essential, and asked about my DeStruisse. Yeah, it was fine, but nothing astonishing. I consider their flagship to be Pannepot. I was ecstatic when I recently scored a couple bottles of Pannepot Special Reserva, but I'm waiting until I can find the regular Pannepot so I can enjoy them juxtaposed.

kepPNW offered this quote: "U.S. Forest Service trail planners originally hoped to establish a route to the top of the Sugar Bowl, a rounded landmark on the northeast side of the volcano. But the Sugar Bowl ascent was too steep and loose, so the alternative goes to a saddle between the Sugar Bowl and Loowit Falls. At 5,225 feet elevation, the saddle is 1,500 feet lower than the top of the Sugar Bowl — but the unobstructed view of the crater is still remarkable."
Indeed, the SB I ascended was too steep and loose to be a sensible objective for most, without snow. I found it to be at the limit of my comfort range. Any steeper and I still would have done it, but it would have been unpleasant.

kepPNW asked about my elevations. I think I know where the 5225' saddle is, and indeed I show 5220', so that's confirmed. This is the saddle I described as "right of Sugar Bowl" in my TR. So SB should be 6725'. Let's see what my notes show. Wait, I'm showing 6300'. Drat, everything was adding up until now. Oh well. I really think that 1500' statement is wrong, but who knows. I take solace in the fact that I attained a very well-defined spot, and it's the next obvious goal above the saddle. On the off chance that I wasn't really on the top of SB, it doesn't matter that much. I'll probably get to that higher point, and Dogs Head, next spring. An afterthought: the news source above, which indicated SB is 6725, also described SB as "a rounded landmark on the northeast side of the volcano". That would be consistent with where I ended up, whereas the next obvious goal might be better described as "a prominence on the NE end of the crater rim".

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12530
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by retired jerry » November 2nd, 2018, 6:21 pm

DSCF2615.JPG
DSCF2614.JPG

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12530
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by retired jerry » November 2nd, 2018, 6:32 pm

On that map, the Dog's Head is that clear area just to the left of the "D" in Dog's Head

So Sugar Bowl must be to the left of "Sugar Bowl", where peak 7681 is

Although it could easily be that Sugar Bowl was mis-identified on that map.

Another interesting thing on that map is that Nelson Glacier was at the boundary between sector 3 and sector 10. Ape Glacier below that. On Karl's map Ape Glacier has moved up to the bottom of sector 3 and Nelson Glacier has moved to just below peak 7681

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 1612
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by Chip Down » November 2nd, 2018, 6:47 pm

The main benefit I get from Jerry's map is that I finally understand why they call it Wishbone Glacier!
There's been some discussion that the modern Dogs Head isn't in the same place as the historic Dogs Head, but I don't know about that.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12530
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by retired jerry » November 2nd, 2018, 7:18 pm

Dog's Head was at the bottom of sector 3, a bit to the north of peak 8180 on Karl's map.

Peak 8180 was just part of a slope pre eruption

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6310
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by kepPNW » November 3rd, 2018, 4:05 am

Found the 1958 USGS map here, which I think was reprinted for Jerry's 1968 example. It can be downloaded directly, too.

capture.jpg

Love the observations on how "things have moved!" Jerry's got a keen eye, as Dog's head was "definitely" in section 3 pre-eruption. Nice spot on the old Wishbone Glacier shape, too.
Chip Down wrote:
November 2nd, 2018, 5:24 pm
From the Windy Pass TH, one can climb a long set of stairs to a viewpoint over Spirit Lake. There are some interpretive signs there, one of which unambiguously identifies SB as the dome I ascended (there's an artist's rendition of various notable features). Of course, that display might be inconsistent with other sources, but I'm confident I interpreted it correctly. But then, I had been drinking, so... :lol:
I know that sign, and I agree with the interpretation! Heh...

Image
Click for larger view.

And also dug out another article for Matt...
The Daily News wrote: The Forest Service has mapped out a route from Loowit Trail No. 216 up to a saddle west of the Sugar Bowl. Earlier, a trail was considered to the Sugar Bowl, but Forest Service workers couldn’t find a safe location for it.
...
Romano said the Forest Service wants to know how search-and-rescue would be accomplished on the route before opening it up to the general public. Public climbing would likely be by permit only, similar to south side climb, she said.

citation, 17-Jan-2013
These articles still chafe pretty bigtime. Clearly, the intent was to allow the public onto public lands, but that all got side-tracked somehow. I have heard some justification that the Volcano Rescue Team didn't want any part of it, but that could've just been scuttlebutt?
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

johnspeth
Posts: 121
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 8:33 am

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by johnspeth » November 3rd, 2018, 5:07 am

kepPNW wrote:
November 3rd, 2018, 4:05 am
Love the observations on how "things have moved!" Jerry's got a keen eye, as Dog's head was "definitely" in section 3 pre-eruption. Nice spot on the old Wishbone Glacier shape, too.
I'd like to stress kepPNW's comment. It's probable that the post-eruption map makers didn't want to rename features so they did their best to keep the set complete at the risk of being inaccurate. Those old maps are key to understanding it. Thanks for the old maps, folks.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12530
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: St Helens: Searching for Sugar Bowl

Post by retired jerry » November 3rd, 2018, 5:20 am

much better image than my picture of a paper map :)

the paper map say "based on USGS quadrangles with recreation data added by Forest Service".

it appears that the old Timberline campground was not part of the blast zone, I wonder if there's anything there? It could be covered with ash... 4300 feet elevation, about 3/4 mile from Windy Pass, between N and NW.

Post Reply