Changes at Mt Rainier -- road closed Tues, Weds

I agree that the actual savings may not be as much as they hope.

Are those budget figures adjusted for inflation ?   If they are -- then I would agree that NPS isn't being very efficient.   But if the figures aren't adjusted -- i.e. their operating budget now is only four times higher than it was in the '70s -- it is pretty amazing that the park is able to be open at all.

Many other things are 10-25 times more expensive than they were in the '70s  -- My college education in the late '70s was $2K year -- but for my kids it has ranged from $32K to $50K per year.

I remember paying $0.28 a gallon for gas back then

In terms of getting an actual copy of the Mt Rainier current (and past) operating budgets. Just asking the supervisor for a copy probably won't work all that well. However NPS is required by law to respond to "freedom of information act" requests

www.nps.gov/foia.htm

Randy, those figures aren't adjusted, except perhaps by my memory, but I think they speak for themselves regarding NPS 'efficiency'.  Twice the number of employees and far superior equipment have resulted in twice as many closed days and ever-later average opening times. This outfit is so disorganized they can't even mark the lower limit of chains required for descending traffic or communicate the lifting of the chain requirement when leaving Paradise.  The far superior performance of previous decades shows it's a matter of twisted priorities and lack of will, not lack of money. 

James Hamaker has nailed it; details of the NPS budget are treated like military secrets and are often kept from even NPS employees.  In my case, repeated calls, e-mails, and letters to the superintentent were ignored.  I filed a FOIA request and six months later got back a single photocopied page with the previous year's total figure, which I already knew from news articles.  My requests for the budgets of various park departments, or even the nature of those subdivisions, were completely ignored.  If stalling doesn't work, then they can redact most of the information and/or charge you for the search time required  The NPS attitude seems to be that it's none of the taxpayer's business how they spend money.  As far as I'm concerned, that information should be posted on their website, if not every campground bulletin board.  The fact that it is not shows what a sick organization we are dealing with.

I think if their budget currently is really only four times the amount that it was in the '70s -- not adjusted for inflation -- that means that in "real dollar terms" they are working with less actual money they had back then.

According to www.usinflationcalculator.com/ $1 in 1970 is equivalent to $5.96 today and $1 in 1979 is worth $3.19 today.

Dear TAY er's
I am sorry.  For years I argued that if Mt. Rainier could be open why not Hurricane Ridge.  Apparently, they agreed, but instead of opening HR, they closed MR. 

By the way, check this out: As these decisions are being made, Denali is considering opening an additional 9 miles of road.  parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=39554 for about 5,000 visitors all winter.

Would also note that the HR closure started as Tuesday/Wednesday, and as visitation declined ended up losing Mondays and Thursdays also.

Lots of information at freehurricaneridge.blogspot such as the Director's Orders violated and lack of public process should be just as valid at Rainier. Feel free to use as you see fit.

I've always wondered why the road has to be plowed to perfection before opening? I can see why they would want the parking area completely clean but other ski area access roads allow vehicles way before they have completely finished plowing.

Now that everyone is all (justifiably) hot and bothered about access issues, it seems like a perfect time to bring up what I see as an glaring problem for BC skiing: we're a rapidly growing user group with fairly straightforward needs and no organized voice. Without a voice, and an understanding of what that voice should be saying for us, I believe that we can yell until we're red in the face and still not get anywhere. I would hope that everyone could agree that individual emails, localized groups like FHR and echo chamber debates like this are simply never going to make things go our way, and that public outreach, outreach to land managers, and the support of businesses will ultimately be required to get the attention of parks and the elected officials that oversee them. As most of the land managers we'd deal with are at the federal level I think that it would be important to build a group that represents at least the entire state if not the broader region.

I'd be willing to donate a considerable amount of my time and energy to establishing a voice for us but would need the help of others, particularly those who've been here longer than I, in getting the ball rolling. I'm hoping the interest is out there.

To throw out a few talking points and hopefully get a debate started, I would propose several long term goals:

1. Full funding for NWAC
2. Continued full-time plowing of paved high elevation roads that are currently being plowed.
3. Eventually opening more paved high elevation access points as funding and interest levels allow.
4. The eventual establishment of a respectable (well-built, toilets, etc), low-impact, winter hut system in WA to help facilitate deeper access to the nearly limitless WA backcountry.

Anyway, food for thought. I'm open to any ideas, critiques, or advice anyone feels inclined to offer.

Maybe its because of the population base that goes up there.  From my absolutely unscientific surveys up there most of the people aren't real experienced driving in snow.  Some of the road bits could probably freak them out if it was less than dry pavement.  I know the same population goes to ski areas but you likely have a more snow driving experienced crowd.  But this is just my opinion and its probably way off base.

Sam, I agree with the need; but is there the will? I've attended a number of public meetings the FS had on recreational access. Motorized vehicle users (motorcycle, ATV, snowmobile) were highly represented, coming in groups, wearing group jackets, and being vociferous. Horse riders would also show up well represented. Environmental/conservation groups usually were ably represented but their focus generally was on reducing public access. Depending on the type of public meeting I've seen heavy organized representation by fishing groups, hunting groups, downhill skiers.. The Mountaineers seem to be active; they are a social organization focused on group outdoor activities.

Those, that from my perspective, don't often show up: real hikers (not tour bus strollers), backpackers, fly-fishers, bc skiers (XC-bc-telemark skiers, alpine tourers to ski mountaineers), etc.. Is it because that in general these people are less group/organization oriented, more interested in solitary our small group endeavors, appreciative of solitude, averse to densely populated events? In Meyer-Briggs terminology--many are introverts (energized by being alone, depleted by being with large numbers of others).

The results are as expected. For example, the Gifford Pinchot defined "high quality recreation" as OHV and horseback activities--that is what they heard from their public and those groups cooperated in trail maintenance and shelter construction. The GPNF also has White Pass. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie has Crystal, Stevens, and Mt. Baker. Many of the Sno-park areas are now featuring motorized activities. FWIW.

Go on facebook and respond there. (as well as all other appropriate places). Get the word out. This sucks.

Good discussion.  It would be interesting to see what the use patterns are for those days in winter, historically.  Treating access like a business (i.e., enough demand/daily fees to justify plowing), would seem to make sense. Of course, the non-plowing infrastructure costs may be dragging the whole thing down, but would still be a good place to start the analysis.  Hard to advocate keeping it open every day, if the numbers don't add up.

And, in the Park's defense, we skied it last Sunday and they had the gate open by 9 AM, with 8" of new the night before.  It was the earliest I've ever seen it open with that much new snow.  

I'd be willing to donate a considerable amount of my time and energy to establishing a voice for us but would need the help of others, particularly those who've been here longer than I, in getting the ball rolling. I'm hoping the interest is out there.

I'm in.  May need some more hands though to get from here ^ to here -> www.accessfund.org

Good discussion. ..
And, in the Park's defense, we skied it last Sunday and they had the gate open by 9 AM, with 8" of new the night before.  It was the earliest I've ever seen it open with that much new snow.  

so they CAN do it..

Sam, I agree with the need; but is there the will?  I've attended a number of public meetings the FS had on recreational access.  Motorized vehicle users (motorcycle, ATV, snowmobile) were highly represented, coming in groups, wearing group jackets, and being vociferous.  Horse riders would also show up well represented.  Environmental/conservation groups usually were ably represented but their focus generally was on reducing public access.  Depending on the type of public meeting I've seen heavy organized representation by fishing groups, hunting groups, downhill skiers..  The Mountaineers seem to be active; they are a social organization focused on group outdoor activities.

Those, that from my perspective, don't often show up: real hikers (not tour bus strollers), backpackers, fly-fishers, bc skiers (XC-bc-telemark skiers, alpine tourers to ski mountaineers), etc..  Is it because that in general these people are less group/organization oriented, more interested in solitary our small group endeavors, appreciative of solitude, averse to densely populated events? In Meyer-Briggs terminology--many are introverts (energized by being alone, depleted by being with large numbers of others).

I thought a lot about this as I typed my earlier post, and I really agree with your concerns but feel that they aren't insurmountable. When times are good, the need for an organization such as I've proposed is non-existant; access is easy and people, understandably, can't be bothered to get organized since there isn't any pressing need. I would seriously doubt though that any of the groups you've mentioned would be as organized as they are without having felt their access rights threatened at some point and I think that BC skiers are now at that point. I think BC skiers share a lot of similarities with climbers in terms of demographic, so though I think your analysis of the persona of the BC skier is generally spot on, I also believe that if the access fund can make it work for climbers, there is no reason to believe that its impossible for skiers.

I realize this is likely beside the point for the most passionate of you, but how much traffic is going up to Paradise mid-week in the winter? Perhaps the answer is "We don't know because the NPS is more secretive than the 1980s KGB."

While I totally agree with Lowell that the ban on camping/human-powered access is absurd and fundamentally wrong, I'm having a hard time seeing how keeping a road open so you can ski is some kind of crucial issue or entitlement meriting a letter-writing campaign to Congress. Go somewhere else! I-90, U.S. 2, 542 and 12 are all open year round, and are FAR more important to commerce.

Yes, it would be great if the Paradise road, road to White River/Sunrise, etc. were consistently open year round and I'd probably use them occasionally in winter (though not much, because the weather is usually awful). They're not, so I go somewhere else. Big deal. If I'm going to write a letter to Congress about an issue, one road in one park for recreational purposes - especially when there are perfectly viable alternatives available - is WAY down the list of priorities.

To me, there's an enormous difference between denying access (you're not permitted to go above Longmire, for example) and simply not providing it (we're not going to plow the road, but hike/ski wherever you want). Denying is dead wrong. No providing is simply a matter of budget and priorities.

I'd feel differently about this if mid-week traffic was substantial enough to generate significant economic activity. I suspect it isn't, who knows? I doubt breakfast at Tall Timbers and a gas station or two qualifies as "substantial." Are the local businesses making a stink about this? It seems to me they'd be more influential than cheap skiers, but maybe not given the Hurricane Ridge experience.

One man's opinion....

I've always wondered why the road has to be plowed to perfection before opening? I can see why they would want the parking area completely clean but other ski area access roads allow vehicles way before they have completely finished plowing.

The official reasoning behind this is that the road is pretty narrow -- particularly around certain bridges and the numerous hairpin turns -- that they want the plows to have returned to Longmire before openning the gate.  

Commercial ski areas avoid this problem by simply having the plows start clearing the road and the lots at 4AM so they are ready for customers at daybreak.    

But MORA doesn't have the plow drivers start at 4AM -- 'cause then they would have to pay them shift differential -- and if addtional plowing was required during the day to deal with addtional snow fall they would end up having to pay overtime.  

... I'm having a hard time seeing how keeping a road open so you can ski is some kind of crucial issue or entitlement meriting a letter-writing campaign to Congress. Go somewhere else! I-90, U.S. 2, 542 and 12 ... more important to commerce.

Yes, it would be great if the Paradise road, road to White River/Sunrise, etc. were consistently open year round and I'd probably use them occasionally in winter (though not much, because the weather is usually awful). ...

I'd feel differently about this if mid-week traffic was substantial enough to generate significant economic activity. I suspect it isn't, who knows? I doubt breakfast at Tall Timbers and a gas station or two qualifies as "substantial." Are the local businesses making a stink about this? It seems to me they'd be more influential than cheap skiers, but maybe not given the Hurricane Ridge experience.

One man's opinion....

As far as I know the Park did not consult with local Inn Keepers (I purposefully asked one) or with the Public. National Parks, under their enabling legislation, are specifically for the enjoyment of the people; they are funded with taxpayer dollars and user fees for that purpose. I don't recall seeing "benefit to small business" as one of the reasons for National Parks, although small hospitality businesses of course gravitate to them. IMHO and having been told so, it is important for the Park to keep the road open to safeguard the bridge and the infrastructure from Longmire to Paradise; I do not see how they can forego plowing, especially after a big dump, that would substantially increase the difficulty and danger of clearing the road. They are going to keep the first 7 miles of the road open and staff will be on duty. So what is the problem? They haven't bothered to say. Just that relatively few people would be affected. What is the cost of allowing the public up the road on the 2 days it will be closed to the public. I'm glad you like I-5.

As far as I know the Park did not consult with local Inn Keepers (I purposefully asked one) or with the Public.  National Parks, under their enabling legislation, are specifically for the enjoyment of the people; they are funded with taxpayer dollars and user fees for that purpose.  I don't recall seeing "benefit to small business" as one of the reasons for National Parks, although small hospitality businesses of course gravitate to them.  IMHO and having been told so, it is important for the Park to keep the road open to safeguard the bridge and the infrastructure from Longmire to Paradise; I do not see how they can forego plowing, especially after a big dump, that would substantially increase the difficulty and danger of clearing the road.  They are going to keep the first 7 miles of the road open and staff will be on duty.  So what is the problem?  They haven't bothered to say.  Just that relatively few people would be affected.  What is the cost of allowing the public up the road on the 2 days it will be closed to the public.  I'm glad you like I-5.

Who said anything about I-5? ??? If they're going to plow the road anyway and not let the public up, that is indeed silly, if that's really the case.

I don't recall "keeping roads plowed year-round" appearing in the enabling legislation either. Everyone has a different definition of enjoyment. Ask the gun people what they think about not being able to carry on NPS land.

The fact is that having multiple business owners (and THEIR local elected officials) telling Congress that this decision will negatively impact economic development will be infinitely more impactful than writing emails quoting law and complaining about the lack of public hearings. Want your road open? Play the game.

As others have already mentioned in this thread, the lack of a skiing contituency puts us at a disadvantage.

...Ask the gun people what they think about not being able to carry on NPS land.

The fact is that having multiple business owners (and THEIR local elected officials) telling Congress that this decision will negatively impact economic development will be infinitely more impactful than writing emails quoting law and complaining about the lack of public hearings. Want your road open? Play the game. ...

BTW, Obama made it so gun owners can carry their guns on NPS lands with a state concealed carry permit.

I do play the game ... I lobbied for repair of the park road after the 2006 flood.  And I helped form a non-profit (I'm still a Director) of Ashford-area residents and businesses to lobby for upgrading the levee to protect the road to Paradise and SR706 from Ashford to the Park entrance to ensure continuing access to the park; we met with Congresspeople, their staffs, County, State, and Federal agencies as well as preparing reports and white papers on the social, environmental, and economic impacts of not upgrading the levee; more than 2/3 of it has been upgraded now by the Corps of Engineers and Pierce County; we also argued and lobbied for funds for the Park to actively manage the Tahoma Creek-Nisqually Confluence to protect infrastructure, environmental values, and access to the park; the park now has a good report from a consultant on what needs to be done and, I believe, the proposal for funding is in the pipeline.  I personally spent well over 100 hours in meeting for these efforts; some of our Directors spent much more; and we all spent considerable time on the computer.  I'm an environmental management consultant and I usually charge $1500/day (but did this work for free), so I feel I made a contribution above and beyond my entrance fees, the $5,000/year I pay in federal taxes to support Mt. Rainier NP (I don't believe in most of the other federal programs so I assume my tax dollars don't go to them), and the state and local taxes I pay to keep the local roads open and schools for park employees kids LOL ;D

BTW, I am also a member of and on the ski patrol of the non-profit all-volunteer Mt. Tahoma Ski Trails System that is on DNR and private Timberlands just outside the Park so people can have a family-friendly place to ski and snowshoe.  Isn't it interesting this Trails system couldn't get Park or National Forest participation?  It gets higher visitation during the week than the Park.  I'm also an advisor to the Nisqually Land Trust that has been buying up timber lands to provide a scenic corridor to the park and was an initial advisor to the NLT sponsored Nisqually Community Forest that is striving to buy private timberlands to provide forests for community  sustainability and activities--isn't that a hoot in a community surrounded literally by millions of acres of public land (National Park, National Forest, WADNR, and UW Pack Forest)!  The Park provides us with a hard-working community outreach person for this activity.

BTW, Obama made it so gun owners can carry their guns on NPS lands with a state concealed carry permit.

I do play the game ...

Touche on the first, and VERY impressive on the rest (particularly the NLT. I'm a huge fan of land trusts)!

Isn't this issue one where you'd activate that Ashford-area community (and perhaps beyond)? I realize it's likely frustrating to have to in the first place....

As others have already mentioned in this thread, the lack of a skiing contituency puts us at a disadvantage.

I agree entirely, which is why we should all help Samthaman build his advocacy group!  Speaking of which, Sam, check your inbox.

Access is going down, but conversely touring numbers are now going way up (myself included) and will likely continue to do so.  All issues have a tipping point, and hopefully this closure event will serve as one.  I honestly feel that a single agenda group focused on ACCESS is an unrepresented need.

Andrew Carey - your efforts to help your community are very impressive and seem well coordinated.  

Hot off the MountRainierNPS Twitter feed:

www.nps.gov/mora/parknews/winter-access-changes.htm

The park is open for overnight winter camping with a valid permit seven days a week, but vehicle access will not be maintained from Longmire to Paradise on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Therefore, if visitors are parked at Paradise when the road closes on a Monday evening, they should not expect to be able to drive back to Longmire until the road opens on Thursday morning (weather permitting).

wow! very very glad to see that change to the policy.     The road closure is one thing, but their proposed ban to camping on Tues/Wed didn't make any sense at all.

Go somewhere else! I-90, U.S. 2, 542 and 12 are all open year round, and are FAR more important to commerce.

Yes, it would be great if the Paradise road, road to White River/Sunrise, etc. were consistently open year round and I'd probably use them occasionally in winter (though not much, because the weather is usually awful). They're not, so I go somewhere else. Big deal. If I'm going to write a letter to Congress about an issue, one road in one park for recreational purposes - especially when there are perfectly viable alternatives available - is WAY down the list of priorities.

I'd feel differently about this if mid-week traffic was substantial enough to generate significant economic activity. I suspect it isn't, who knows? I doubt breakfast at Tall Timbers and a gas station or two qualifies as "substantial." Are the local businesses making a stink about this? It seems to me they'd be more influential than cheap skiers, but maybe not given the Hurricane Ridge experience.

One man's opinion....

I've basically been approaching this with the understanding that the park is a public good bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars. Like roads, armies, bridges, lighthouses, etc, it provides a good that couldn't be supported economically by a private entity, namely high-quality affordable wilderness access and natural beauty. I don't think that anyone wants to wade into a debate about national funding priorities or even regional funding priorities, we're only aiming to debate the parks use of the money they already receive and generate through fees. Sadly, it seems like this debate is impossible to have since the park is being tight lipped about their budget.

A close examination of the parks founding documents or mission statement (if there is such a thing) is probably called for, but I would suspect that it was founded, at least in part, on the principle of public access or as you suggested for the enjoyment of the public. If the public can't access the park, I think it's pretty conservative to say that they necessarily can't be enjoying it. Further, I would think that a practical minimum level of access to the park should be a priority over the maintenance of visitors centers, gift shops, employee housing, and the like. Access to trailheads and view points are, in my mind, instrumental to the enjoyment of the park.

Your suggestion that there are viable alternatives to skiing at Rainier is spot on, but it misses the point. You basically listed every High elevation trailhead that's open in the winter across a several hundred mile mountain range. Without access to a snowmobile, reasonable day or even two day ski and and snowshoe trips in the Cascades are limited to a handfull of options centered around the passes you listed. Compared to the access the FS road network offers in the summer, the winter access is an embarrassment and yet I'm not suggesting that they plow every road that's open in the summer, just a few high priority, paved access points.

I would bet that open roads combined with active promotion of winter recreation by the park and maybe a guidebook highlighting tour options would lead to a dramatic increase in winter recreation in both ONP and MRNP, possibly even enough to offset the costs of plowing.

I've replied to PM's that have been sent to me, it's encouraging to hear that others are interested.

...
I would bet that open roads combined with active promotion of winter recreation by the park and maybe a guidebook highlighting tour options would lead to a dramatic increase in winter recreation in both ONP and MRNP, possibly even enough to offset the costs of plowing.

I've replied to PM's that have been sent to me, it's encouraging to hear that others are interested.

I know there has been considerable discussion within the Park about public safety and how to contribute to it  without compromising the wilderness setting (practically all areas 1/2 mile from a road are legal Wildernesses) and, I presume as with all federal agencies, without negatively impacting private sector opportunities.  There has been a long standing opinion on the part of some Park employees that the road from Paradise to Longmire should not be open in the winter due to vehicle accidents and lost outdoor enthusiasts.   Other Park employees have quite the opposite opinion.  Obviously the events of last year and the two people lost this year have raised concerns about public safety to a fever pitch.  And, I read in the paper, the Park recently had a big discussion on safety relative to the loss of the LEO last year.  Some things IMHO should have been done long ago.

(1) given the Park vigorously promoted snowshoeing by inexperienced outdoor enthusiasts, they should provide some well marked trails for novice to intermediate snowshoers: say Paradise-4th Xing-Mazama Ridge-Reflection Lakes-Paradise via the Narada Falls Devil's Dip trail and perhaps some loops base on the paved hiking trail system just above Paradise and in Barn Flats.  They have been reluctant to do so because of the wilderness concerns, I've been told, but that is quite at odds with the fact that these areas have paved trails and signs in the summer.  Other trails could benefit from markers in the snow--such as the High Skyline and Golden Gate trails and the route to Camp Muir; these seem to be the places where people most often lose their way.  The markers don't have to be neon lights, just numbered poles that key to maps.

(2) the Park should groom the Paradise Valley Road and sign it to make usable by XC skiers and snowshoers; same with Barn Flats; maybe even Westside Road when appropriate.

(3) the Park should either develop or get a business to develop a really good, easy to use map of Paradise Environs to Reflection Lakes; I believe I have rescued 2 dozen people in real hazard because of the inscrutable little blue map they hand out; there is a very nice large scale map of MRNP for sale at the Summit House in Ashford (I carry it sometimes and sometimes Green Trail topo maps), but it isn't very handy as a guide for the novice. And I don't think a majority of the park visitors are aware of these maps or the very good hiking and skiing guide books that are available.

(4) if staffing shortfalls are a concern relative to safety during mid-week, work with citizen user groups to develop a certification system and only allow certified  bc travelers to go alone or in small groups; uncertified bc travelers should be required to be in a group led by a certified senior bc traveler.  The Mountaineers have had such requirements for ever--basic skills, courses, 10 essentials; the Guide services require certain training as well.  I believe most of the real bc skiers and many of the advanced snowshoers have had compass courses, avalanche courses, 1st aid courses, etc.  This approach should allay Park fears, knowing that many of the people out there have had a significant amount of training and experience in the relevant skills needed for safe travel in the wilderness in the winter.  It might even be possible to have a cadre/call list of experienced alpinists and alpine ski tourers intimately familiar with MRNP that could assist in S&R.

These are just some of the ideas a citizen advisory committee could discuss with Park personnel, and if agreed upon, help develop without any significant cost to the Park.  The MTTA has a volunteer Ski Patrol program that incorporates a lot of this kind of training with about 50 active patrollers.

I think an advocacy group is a great idea. NWAC and the friends of NWAC are really the only region wide groups that deal with backcountry winter recreation, and their missions are focused on avalanche forecasting, avalanche education, and funding those goals. I think creating a single voice regarding winter backcountry recreation access will help bring what may seem to many as a few people occasionally out skiing into focus as a distinct user group on public lands that is larger than it may seem. With regard to the will when it comes to public meetings etc. I think its true that many of us faced with two days off with a public meeting in the middle would rather go for a tour, but having a group that keeps tabs on access issues could speak on behalf of us and help organize our desire to do nothing but hike and ski into a coherent position. I think it would be awesome if a group like this could be somehow connected to friends of NWAC seeing as how that organization currently is funded and in support of the NW snow sports community.

I think an advocacy group is a great idea ... I think it would be awesome if a group like this could be somehow connected to friends of NWAC seeing as how that organization currently is funded and in support of the NW snow sports community.

I agree. Any advocacy group and its members would benefit from close coordination or formal ties with groups likes Friends of NWAC (I'm one), the Mountaineers (I used to belong), Boeing outdoor groups (and others I'm not too familiar with), Tacoma and other S&Rs (I know there are people on TAY that belong), all three National Parks (we even have Park people posting on TAY occasionally), etc. I think such coordination would be the easiest part, most groups and agencies are eager to be kept informed and to have input. The hard part is forming a group and getting a large enough memberships to gain credibility and pay basic costs. As far a costs go, such an organization could/should be all volunteer, but there are some activities that are so time consuming that one can't expect 1 or 2 people on a board to do it all; but I've found that usually there is someone who can have his or her employee do copying of necessary communications and mailings if the cost of that employee and activity (postage) can be covered, or the materials can be given to a copying business. Thus, a membership fee might be all that is necessary (or, eventually, some very minimal annual dues).

The Washington Ski Touring Club (WSTC.org) Nordic Patrol volunteers are the ones that maintain the existing marked trails -- maintaining even those limited routes is a fair amount of work and sometimes it is hard to field enough volunteers.  On an annual basis the WSTC provides about 2000 hours of volunteer patrolling.  A siignificantly expanded set of marked routes  as outlined above would require something like twice as many volunteers.   Grooming the Paradise Valley road would require finding the funds to acquire, operate  and maintain a grooming machine -- as well as provide snow safety control on the avalanche risk zones above the Paradise Valley road -- especially the steep slope that crosses above Narada falls. 

The Washington Ski Touring Club (WSTC.org) Nordic Patrol volunteers are the ones that maintain the existing marked trails -- maintaining even those limited routes is a fair amount of work and sometimes it is hard to field enough volunteers.  On an annual basis the WSTC provides about 2000 hours of volunteer patrolling.  A siignificantly expanded set of marked routes  as outlined above would require something like twice as many volunteers.   Grooming the Paradise Valley road would require finding the funds to acquire, operate  and maintain a grooming machine -- as well as provide snow safety control on the avalanche risk zones above the Paradise Valley road -- especially the steep slope that crosses above Narada falls. 

Out of curiosity, what does maintaining and patrolling the trails entail exactly? Is this simply a mater of grooming, keeping the fences above the snow, and an afternoon trail sweep, or something more intensive? I ask because I'm curious how it would compare to some of the nordic centers I've encountered back east.

No grooming.  "Nordic" is a bit of a misnomer too.  They are really just "trails", used by tourers, BC-oriented nordic types and a fair helping of snowshoers.

They idea behind marking and patrolling them is so that people w/o much experience have a place to go when they want to "adventure" around paradise and not get hopelessly lost in the process.  Nordic Patrol does a lot of "Preventative Search and Rescue"....aka, help and advise people before they get themselves in trouble. Sometimes they end up being first responders to accidents.  Occasionally they assist true SAR efforts too, particularly when SAR requires a large number of competent skiers to dragnet a wide area.

Here is the info page:
www.wstc.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&clu...708&module_id=105465

There is no grooming and there is no machinery used.

All the trail marking is done with bamboo poles and similar signs that need to be reset each week after new snowfall or settlement.  The routes are set to provide low risk routes to reflection lakes from Paradise and Narada falls.  

Some weeks when there has been heavy snowfall, breaking trail and pulling up and reseting the poles takes all day.  Patrolling the unmarked routes happens less frequently, but has become  more important in recent years as more visitors are venturing farther from Paradise.

Most of what Nordic Patrol does benefits visitors with much less experience than people on TAY, but many search and rescue operations have been avoided and in a typical year Nordic patrol is involved with one or more search and rescue operations.