Snow in the PNW 20-21: We may have Corona but Corona doesn't have us!

[altasnob]

Rainier does allow one to purchase day or annual passes online at recreation.gov. The point I was trying to make is thousands of people hike south from Chinook pass, starting outside the park (parking lot East of Chinook), and then the trail stays outside the park except the trail switchbacks into the park for a couple feet on the way to Dewey Lake. The trail passes in and out of the park going south to White Pass from there. This is similar to skiers hiking the King at Crystal who are passing briefly through the park. None of these hikers at Chinook realize they are in the park or that they are supposed to pay (if they, in fact, are supposed to pay). I don't remember any signs advising anyone that they should be paying. There might be a sign saying you've entered the park and to leave your guns at home. Rainier isn't hassling Crystal skiers making them pay. They aren't hassling PCT hikers making them pay. This is the way it should be because in all those instances, you are only briefly in the park.

Buster, why did they hassle you at Sunrise? I know they are anal about skiers on shallow snowpack, contending skiers are hurting the underlying vegetation.

[ptavv]

entering is entering, no? My example is such that thousands of people drive between Big Sky and West Yellowstone, and enter in, and transition through, National Parklands. And with it, many skiers use the said road (or highway, if we're being accurate) to access backcountry ski terrain. Shouldn't they also pay a park fee?

Mainly, this MRNP thing about park fees and entering park borders seems to be totally regional.

Every park that has entrance fees, as far as I know, has an "use fee" for people who use the park without a vehicle. Some parks even specify that it includes skiers (e.g. Yellowstone), others leave it more vague. Usually the pass is good for 7 days, or you can buy an annual pass to that specific park, or you can use an interagency pass (e.g. I have a military interagency pass that covers NP, USFS, etc entrance fees, but not amenities like camping or climbing).

Your initial analogy was people passing through Yellowstone NP territory, who are just using a road that happens to pass through the park, which is a totally different thing than what you described above which are people who are using parkland for recreation. The preservation and access to that land is protected and funded by NP usage fees and they should be paying!

I agree. It would be fairly simple for MRNP to instate a fee system like the USFS does with their recreation passes. Allow users to either buy a day pass or a full season pass. If the price isn't too high I think most people would pay even if enforcement is basically nil.

MRNP has that expectation listed clearly on their website! You are supposed to be paying for a 7-day non-vehicle usage fee, or buying an annual pass (or possessing an interagency pass) to ski within the boundary of MRNP. That a lot of people who don't use a vehicle to enter the park don't pay the fee doesn't change the fact that you're supposed to be paying.

[ptavv]

I noticed that the Rangers at Rainier changed their attitude to the public after Margaret Anderson was shot and killed in 2012(?).

Somewhat understandably.

I hadn't considered that tbh. Maybe what I keep ascribing to a mindset of revenue generation is really just that MRNP Rangers have more of a police mindset than their colleagues at other parks? Food for thought anyway.

[bfree]

Thanks for posting that article.

Question long time i90 travelers…

Prior to the completion of the Avy bridges in that Keechelus zone… How often did the highway actually get buried in a slide?



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Pretty commonly, at least a few times a year. Almost always from control work. Now they can stop traffic briefly for blasting and usually reopen it quickly, whereas before it would be closed for hours while they clean debris off the road.

[Bobcat Sig]

Every park that has entrance fees, as far as I know, has an "use fee" for people who use the park without a vehicle. Some parks even specify that it includes skiers (e.g. Yellowstone), others leave it more vague. Usually the pass is good for 7 days, or you can buy an annual pass to that specific park, or you can use an interagency pass (e.g. I have a military interagency pass that covers NP, USFS, etc entrance fees, but not amenities like camping or climbing).

Your initial analogy was people passing through Yellowstone NP territory, who are just using a road that happens to pass through the park, which is a totally different thing than what you described above which are people who are using parkland for recreation. The preservation and access to that land is protected and funded by NP usage fees and they should be paying!


MRNP has that expectation listed clearly on their website! You are supposed to be paying for a 7-day non-vehicle usage fee, or buying an annual pass (or possessing an interagency pass) to ski within the boundary of MRNP. That a lot of people who don't use a vehicle to enter the park don't pay the fee doesn't change the fact that you're supposed to be paying.

So a road; that requires more maintenance and upkeep shouldn't require a park fee, but recreation - which if in winter, has almost no impact - should have a fee?

Ok...?

That was my point; places like MRNP getting all torqued about fees from minimal skier traffic in a remote corner is asinine compared to what happens at other parks, like Yellowstone.

[ptavv]

So a road; that requires more maintenance and upkeep shouldn't require a park fee, but recreation - which if in winter, has almost no impact - should have a fee?

Ok...?

That was my point; places like MRNP getting all torqued about fees from minimal skier traffic in a remote corner is asinine compared to what happens at other parks, like Yellowstone.

There are lots of sources of road revenue, particularly on roads that cross park boundaries that are designated as state or federal highways (like 191) and their upkeep budget is funded from a variety of agencies with different revenue sources. That's not true of recreational aspects once you're off of the paved road (trails, rescues, bathrooms, etc etc etc).

I'm not sure why it's become a point of argumentation that national parks intend for people to pay to recreate within the park borders, even if people didn't use a vehicle to cross the park boundary. The rules are pretty clear. Enforcement is obviously exceedingly difficult or impossible. If you want to continue using the land without paying, it's very unlikely that you'll suffer a consequence. Making a bunch of arguments about who else ought to pay or whatever is just whataboutism that is being used to justify feeling okay about ignoring the rules and/or not paying the fees.

[Bobcat Sig]

There are lots of sources of road revenue, particularly on roads that cross park boundaries that are designated as state or federal highways (like 191) and their upkeep budget is funded from a variety of agencies with different revenue sources. That's not true of recreational aspects once you're off of the paved road (trails, rescues, bathrooms, etc etc etc).

I'm not sure why it's become a point of argumentation that national parks intend for people to pay to recreate within the park borders, even if people didn't use a vehicle to cross the park boundary. The rules are pretty clear. Enforcement is obviously exceedingly difficult or impossible. If you want to continue using the land without paying, it's very unlikely that you'll suffer a consequence. Making a bunch of arguments about who else ought to pay or whatever is just whataboutism that is being used to justify feeling okay about ignoring the rules and/or not paying the fees.

Umm... I carry a national parks pass, as do those that ski with me.

It's silly to charge skiers for brushing or crossing in the park for a hot minute on their way to ski outside of the park.

[kamtron]

Thread random walk....

Since Baker is now my nearest ski area and runs on 100% fossil fuels--there is no electrical grid connection--I was interested in estimating the carbon footprint of a day of skiing. Maybe you'll find it interesting.

I found some really useful data from 2020 that comes from a clean air agency public notice. It looks like the area was required to update some of their engines to comply with NOx emissions limits. In their spreadsheet is a calculation of 2705 t (metric tonnes, 1000 kg per t) of CO2 emitted per year if they run their generators as much as possible while staying below the yearly limit on NOx.

I did my own little calculation using just the engines that power the lifts + the generator at White Salmon that powers the lodge & C7 based on the total kW of engine power and the given rate of 240 g diesel/kW-hr. For an 8 hr day of skiing, that totals about 4500 L of diesel or 12 t of CO2 per day. Over a 120 day season, that gives 1450 t CO2 per season. I think of these numbers as closer to a lower estimate to the upper estimate of 2705 t.

To put those numbers in context, 12 t CO2 per day is on the same order as the emissions of an average person in the US each year data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US. To drive to the ski area and back from Bellingham, about 100 miles, amounts to about 41 kg CO2. So if >300 people are skiing at the area, I would emit less carbon driving than the per-person fuel used to power the lifts, whereas on a day with <300 visitors, my "share" of the ski area emissions would be larger.


Data:
nwcleanairwa.gov/?wpdmdl=6906
nwcleanairwa.gov/?wpdmdl=6907
nwcleanairwa.gov/?wpdmdl=6908
nwcleanairwa.gov/?wpdmdl=6909
nwcleanairwa.gov/?wpdmdl=6910

[SirVicSmasher]

Scintillating October discussion, much better than last year's kiddie porn fiasco.

Touche

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Dromond]

Kamtron did you work out the average emissions per person on an average day there? I claim ignorance on this as I had no idea Baker was 100% generator powered. I’d be curious to hear how this stacks up against other areas in the region. I don’t think being on grid guaranties low emissions since each municipality has varying power sources.

I’ve seen a breakdown for lift skiing at some euro resorts powered by renewables, and it looks like it can be very low emissions. Best to shred sustainably.

[californiagrown]

Kamtron did you work out the average emissions per person on an average day there? I claim ignorance on this as I had no idea Baker was 100% generator powered. I’d be curious to hear how this stacks up against other areas in the region. I don’t think being on grid guaranties low emissions since each municipality has varying power sources.

I’ve seen a breakdown for lift skiing at some euro resorts powered by renewables, and it looks like it can be very low emissions. Best to shred sustainably.

I remember being in an enviro engineering class more than a decade ago and hearing that Stevens was on 100% or nearly 100% renewable energy (which i think was wind, woulda thought hydro up here). Might have been based on credits though, not on their actual energy source.

I wonder what the most common renewable energy source is for these resorts? Wind (but they cant spin windmills in high winds and the PNW isnt all that windy)? Water (seems like the obvious choice up here, but...)? Solar (maybe possible at Mission but not so much west of the crest)? Thermal (i mean we have the volcanos...)?

[altasnob]

Does it even matter if a ski area claims it operates on renewable energy? Reminds me of the situation with Microsoft, who was demanding renewable energy from Puget Sound Energy. PSE gave it to Microsoft, but to do so, developed a coal burning town in Montana named, I shit you not, Colstrip. PSE would make up the renewable energy they gave to Microsoft by burning coal in Montana. Microsoft gets to pat their back and claim how "green" they are.

And hydro isn't "green," at least according to the tribes who are suing Seattle City Light for false advertising by claiming their salmon blocking dams on the Skagit are "green."

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-puget-energy/

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-itself-green/

[Norseman]

Reminds me of the situation with Microsoft, who was demanding renewable energy from Puget Sound Energy. PSE gave it to Microsoft, but to do so, developed a coal burning town in Montana named, I shit you not, Colstrip. PSE would make up the renewable energy they gave to Microsoft by burning coal in Montana.

Colstrip was founded in 1924 as a source of coal for the Northern Pacific line.

[altasnob]

Colstrip may have been named back in the era when coal was celebrated. But since 1998, PSE has been part owner of Colstrip and burns coal there to provide energy to Washington and Oregon (in 2015, 60 percent of PSE electricity came from coal and natural-gas plants). Today, PSE, pressured by companies like Microsoft, and the Washington and Oregon legislature, is trying to get away from doing their coal-burning dirty work out of state and is in the process of shutting down the coal plants in Montana. But that also creates a problem for the residents of Colstrip, who, for years, had great paying jobs courtesy of PSE's association and now are left hung out to dry with no other industry in town (Washington's Utilities and Transportation Commission ordered Microsoft to pick up some of the costs of shutting down the town).

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-puget-energy/

[Norseman]

My point was that your language suggested PSE built the town. The plants they bought into were built in the 70s and 80s and the town had been through many a cycle before PSE ever became involved.

[altasnob]

Ya, I shouldn't have implied that PSE built the town. But the town would have died off into oblivion in 1998 but for wealthy people in Washington and Oregon, who are oblivious as to where their electricity comes from, who propped the town up for another couple decades. My greater point is when I hear of a ski area like Stevens bragging that they are running on green energy, you have to look at the finer details to determine if it is actually accomplishing anything, or if is just another marketing ploy.

[Ted Striker]

...I had no idea Baker was 100% generator powered.

It wasn't always. Back in the 1920s there was a hydroelectric facility on Bagley Creek that provided power for the building(s) (obviously, there were no lifts yet). Fast forward to WWII, and the whole operation was abandoned. The first chair was build in 53 (I know because it's on one of my many baker tee shirts) and was a diesel powered Riblet.

The park was designated in the 60s, which effectively put the kibosh on power lines. (there isn't even a phone line to baker)

In the 80s various people/entities explored the idea of resurrecting the idea of hydro-power - both at the original location, and other sites - but for *reasons*, it never happened.

So all of the lifts are diesel except for 7 which has an electric drive, with a big diesel generator that also powers the lower lodge.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Ya, I shouldn't have implied that PSE built the town. But the town would have died off into oblivion in 1998 but for wealthy people in Washington and Oregon, who are oblivious as to where their electricity comes from, who propped the town up for another couple decades. My greater point is when I hear of a ski area like Stevens bragging that they are running on green energy, you have to look at the finer details to determine if it is actually accomplishing anything, or if is just another marketing ploy.

I know exactly where my electricity comes from. It may not be “green” but it is clean. It is too bad that anadromous fish runs stop at GCD but hopefully someone will find a way to get fish around it someday. The Snake River dams are another story.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

Regarding Stevens, I assume they are 100% hydro powered as half the resort is in Chelan County (Chelan PUD) and the giant power lines on the backside go straight to Rocky Reach dam.

[kamtron]

Kamtron did you work out the average emissions per person on an average day there? I claim ignorance on this as I had no idea Baker was 100% generator powered. I’d be curious to hear how this stacks up against other areas in the region. I don’t think being on grid guaranties low emissions since each municipality has varying power sources.

I’ve seen a breakdown for lift skiing at some euro resorts powered by renewables, and it looks like it can be very low emissions. Best to shred sustainably.

Glad to have prompted some discussion.

FWIW I think the way the grid works is that all the sources connected to the same grid are powering everyone (a little bit). It's a matter of accounting who gets to claim the greener sources. Seattle City Light has mostly hydro in the mix for that reason, whereas my PSE bill is much less green, but really they are the same grid. So I think the mix posted by altasnob is the better way for us to all think of where it comes from.

I don't have the numbers for average number of people up there, but you'd just take the 12 t per day number and divide it by that number of people. If it's 300 people, then you get about 40 kg per person per day. The true emissions may be more; I didn't account for plowing the road, snowcats, sleds, etc. The biggest takeaway I have from this is that my emissions from driving up/down every weekend are significant (if I go 40 times that's 1.6 t) and that my share of emissions from the ski area is also probably in a similar ballpark, unfortunately.

No way that Baker could go to being hydro-powered by Bagley creek, since they need > 2 MW to run that place. I'm sure it would be possible to put a power line connection to Glacier but probably really expensive. My feeling is the Howat clan is just going to keep doing the same exact thing they've always done until they go under when the snow level is consistently too high for snow or something else puts them out of business.

As for other ski areas that actually get their power from the grid, the emissions numbers will be much less but not zero. They of course still have groomers and sleds and backup diesel, but I think it's probably fair to say the bulk of their energy use is running the lifts and powering the lodges.

There really is no way to shred sustainably I think unless you live on the hill or drive a solar-powered electric car to go ski touring. But some choices are less unsustainable than others.

[Buster Highmen]

Something upbeat for the PNW:

La Niña typically brings conditions that are wetter and cooler than average to the Pacific Northwest and northern Plains, especially during the winter.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/weath...021/index.html

[Ted Striker]

No way that Baker could go to being hydro-powered by Bagley creek, since they need > 2 MW to run that place. I'm sure it would be possible to put a power line connection to Glacier but probably really expensive.

Yeah, none of the creeks flow much of anything in the winter, and the Nooksack won't get hydroelectric generation due to other environmental reasons. Baker and Sulfide won't either because they feed the upper and lower Baker dams.

Powerlines through the park are a non-starter. So is expansion of the ski area boundary.

My feeling is the Howat clan is just going to keep doing the same exact thing they've always done until they go under when the snow level is consistently too high for snow or something else puts them out of business.

It's always been "if only there were another 1000 feet of elevation", and that's probably what will eventually do them in, but season's passes sold out in under an hour this year. Every single weekend will be a new-transplant gaper shitshow, guaranteed.

[jslattsbham]

Yeah, none of the creeks flow much of anything in the winter, and the Nooksack won't get hydroelectric generation due to other environmental reasons. Baker and Sulfide won't either because they feed the upper and lower Baker dams.

Powerlines through the park are a non-starter. So is expansion of the ski area boundary.


It's always been "if only there were another 1000 feet of elevation", and that's probably what will eventually do them in, but season's passes sold out in under an hour this year.

Exactly, there is minimal incentive to make any large capital expenditures when you can sell out your capacity easily and the (regulatory and environmental) future is uncertain.

Every single weekend will be a new-transplant gaper shitshow, guaranteed.

I had convinced myself it couldn't get any worse than last year, but I'm sure thats wishful thinking. Especially with our friends to the north back in play.

[Ted Striker]

I wonder how many northern friends will buy the seasons passes that were held back for them vs day tickets? Even though the border will be open, it'll still be a pain in the ass.

[BeardedClam]

Just chiming in to say that the new lifts theyve been putting in are electric and that is that plan going forward. Still diesel gen powered, but almost half the hp/torque/fuel usage to power a lift from a generator than to have it gear driven. Mechanical loss is a bitch