New non-motorised snoparks

Do you guys have any ideas for ideal locations for new non-motorized snoparks? Where would you like to see them? What would they allow you to do that you can't do now? How difficult / complicated would it be to put them in?

I am mostly focused on the washington cascades, but I would appreciate your thoughts on other locations as well.

IMO, and with experience of recreating in other mountain ranges, the Cascades are one of the hardest ranges to access. Topography, heavy snowfall, rain forest, etc. all contribute. This was the original reason I purchased a snowmobile. I got tired of being limited by the "same old spots", given a limited schedule of "time off" and limited weather windows.

The FS roads that lead to any elevation would require a major snow removal effort on par with the major highways they are near. I think major snow removal would be necessary for it to be useful for accessing an area without a motor. Motorized sno-parks are currently plowed only until the snowpack is sufficient to run a sled. The costs would be huge to provide non-motorized users a significant "assist" to an elevation with good skiing in the Cascades. Non-motorized sno-parks would best be suited to major road sides (passes) or East side approaches. But, I would be interested in hearing ideas as well...

Do you guys have any ideas for ideal locations for new non-motorized snoparks?  Where would you like to see them? What would they allow you to do that you can't do now? How difficult / complicated would it be to put them in?

How about Fryingpan Creek on the White River road in Rainier National Park?

In the 1950 and 1960s (when Cayuse Pass was plowed and open all winter) there was much better access to the White River region than there is today.

A snopark in this area would make accessible north-facing terrain between Cayuse Pass and Summerland that is currently out of practical range for most skiers, unless they use snowmobiles.

Compared to most roads in the Cascades that are currently closed in winter, plowing the White River road would not be terribly difficult. It's a paved road, not too high in elevation, with just a few well defined avalanche zones. But given today's budgetary realities, I can't imagine it happening.

We have one here on the way to Bachelor ski area--it is called Vista Butte.

Most of the time (no exaggeration..) it is filled with snowmobile trailers. The cross country sign gets stolen every season, but even when it is up this small park is still used lots, by snowmobile trailers. Such a nice little jaunt, but unfortunately you better not do "crack-o-noon" ski start as you will most likely have to start at some other sno-park.

I too am thinking about about getting a snowmo...just saying...

So does the lack of responses mean that there aren't many locations where skiers need / would like better access to the goods?

One of the limitations of the current system is that the term "non-motorized sno-park" is a bit of a misnomer -- there a few truly "non-motorized sno-parks" and most of them also require a "groomed trais" permit -- e.g. Hyak, Cabin Creek. A lot of the "non-motorized" sno-parks are like the sno-park as Blewett Pass -- there are non-motorized trails leading from that sno-park -- but the lot is frequently filled with sled trailers -- and sadly sometimes vehicles with ski-racks are vandalized while parked there (due to some sort of territorialsm ???)

A change in the sno-park system that I would like to see is to require a sno-park permit for every 20 feet of vehicle length -- that way the giant RVs with four place snow machine trailers will pay in proportion to the amount of parking area they consume. I think that would be a more appropriate way to fund the program than the doubling of fees we saw last year.

Another irritant is comparing the number of miles of groomed skier trails to the number of miles of groomed snow machine trails -- the ratio is something like 10:1 -- yet skiiers pay about the same for a sno-park permit.

One interesting tidbit I've learned is that the fees collected at the Hyak sno-park end up subsidizing the plowing and grooming all other users -- both motorized and non-motorized. Thousands of people use that sno-park every year to access the sledding hill. It is also true a huge percentage of winter visitors to Paradise are heading for the "snow play / sledding" area.

So from a user days perspective -- what the sno-park system could benefit most from are additional sno-parks with "snow play" areas and sledding hills.

and sadly sometimes vehicles with ski-racks are vandalized while parked there (due to some sort of territorialsm ???)

You sure it wasn't meth heads trying to break in to steal things? Happens often to snowmobiler rigs as well.

Remember that snowmobilers pay a lot of money for grooming and plowing besides the sno-park permit through their gas tax money.  Also, due to budget expenses and shortfalls, snowmobilers are looking to increase the sno-park permit prices that they pay to help with the costs.

I would like to see the Mountain Loop Hwy plowed farther towards Barlow Pass from the South (Granite Falls) side.

I would like to see the Mountain Loop Hwy plowed  farther towards Barlow Pass from the South (Granite Falls) side.

That would be awesome. Actually from either side. Or both. What a lot of terrain that would be fantastic in winter.

You sure it wasn't meth heads trying to break in to steal things? Happens often to snowmobiler rigs as well.

I haven't a car burglarized at a sno-park, but keyed, egged and other nonsense.

So does the lack of responses mean that there aren't many locations where skiers need / would like better access to the goods?

I think people are reluctant to post ideas that are just pipe dreams. TobyT's initial reply in this thread summarizes the problem well.

If we want to list pipe dreams, here are a few:

* Stafford or Beverly Creek (or beyond) in the Teanaway area
* Mountaineer Creek in the Stuart Range
* Something up the Cle Elum River
* Near Heliotrope Ridge on Mt Baker
* Schriebers Meadow on Mt Baker
* Mt Pilchuck
* Something close to Washington Pass
* Something close to Harts Pass
* Something up the Twisp River
* Cayuse Pass
* Anything close to Mt Adams

I previously listed the White River road near Mt Rainier.

Micah's suggestion of the Mountain Loop Highway is certainly intriguing.

Creating new non-motorized snoparks would probably require new user fees to pay for maintenance.

if we're talking pipe dreams...


lake wenatchee
cascade pass
a westside access to rainy pass aka alpental north

Pipe dream but:

Mountaineer creek to Eight Mile Trailhead (Would be used by skiers, climbers, snowshoers.)

Hatchery Creek (Trailhead for Big Jim, Lake Augusta, Chiwaukum, etc.)

Somewhere up by Lake Wenatchee- Little Wenatchee River road, Snowy Creek or Merrit Lake Trailhead?

Legal parking at Jim Hill!

A pull-out at Tunnel Creek with no WSP.

Yes it maybe a pipe dream for a list of them, but what do you think could happen if all of the backcountry user groups got together and made it happen? What if the mountaineers, REI, and other large organizations helped as well? What if the snowmobilers helped out too?

I think the back country users fail miserably when it comes to having a unified voice discussing their concerns. Maybe it is just my ignorance though..

Snoqualmie Middle Fork

I just wanted to post that I like the dialog and spirit of this thread.

Snoqualmie Middle Fork

I was at a forest service breakout meeting last year or so, and there was a guy in the meeting that stated that he was a part of the creation of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and that he used to drive up the middlefork road to access the wilderness. Then they gated the road and he lost access to the wilderness that he helped to create.

I think the FS forgets that one of the biggest issues is access to the forests.

Is there one place that the TAY users could agree would / should be at the top of their priority list?

Are you just doing this for conversation to fill up time in the summer or are you actually looking to organize (inferred in a previous post of yours)? Either one is totally valid, but I feel like you're trying to lead up to something. If so, get on with it . If not, what's the point of seeking concensus? Fantasizing isn't a bad pastime.

With more thought on the subject, I think an excellent location for a non-motorized snowpark would be the Merritt Lake Trailhead:

-It has a reasonable drive time from both the westside and Upper Wenatchee Valley.
-It has a history of ski touring in that area. (See Burgdofer book, Route 49, Mount Mastiff)
-The access road is relativity flat and would be easily drivable in most conditions, even by fwd cars.
-Snowpack is much deeper and more reliable than locations further east, but the area gets more sun and less snow than the crest/pass.
-From the 3000' to 4000' there is excellent tree skiing in midwinter conditions.
-Above 4000', lots of interesting lake basins to ski and explore.
-Relatively easy and less steep access route to both western and eastern ends of Nason ridge. (At least compared to Rock Mountain route.)
-Snow is deep enough for skiing most years from December till May.

I have ski toured a couple times into this area, and have really enjoyed the variety of terrain, nice views of the surrounding peaks and the slightly more reliable weather/snowpack than further east or west of the crest.

It would be awesome if the ski and snomo community could come together on something like this. Still might be a pipe dream, but doesn't seem all that unrealistic to me.

And to add something constructive: I'd love to have better winter access in the Teanaway Valley.

Toby it seems that the Longs Pass area is not included in the Proposed Wilderness in the DFPR. Also, neither are the VanEpps and Lake Ann areas. Even with the Proposed Wilderness on the Teanaway/ Ingalls crest, it is a division of the available resource, not a complete prohibition of snowmobile riding.

This discussion is just distraction by the snomo guys aided by their TAY syncophants. If anyone is serious about these ideas, they need to get it into the OWNF DFPR comments. Such tangible Proposals would get our endorsement and could garner endorsement of serious Organizations that we work with.

Most importantly, some need to wake up and realize that if new Sno Parks are created, they will be for the benefit of snowmobile riding, since the Wenatchee Forest outside Wilderness does not restrict snowmobile riding except for few small exceptions. WMC and our other affiliate Organizations will continue to work to bring management of snowmobile riding into the Wenatchee NF to replace the current free-for-all that benefits the snomos for use of the offroad Forest.

I would caution the snomo-admirers here that the written principles of WSSA and SAWS state that they will not compromise, they will yield no land for any other use, and are against Wilderness in general. These are the folks being admired here on TAY, an alleged website for skitouring enthusiasts.

We ask that winter non-motorized Forest users describe how and where they recreate, and also share their thoughts about this issue and this need with the Forest Supervisor and the Forest Plan Revision Team. Contact Forest Supervisor Rebecca Heath and the Forest Plan Revision Team: Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Are you just doing this for conversation to fill up time in the summer or are you actually looking to organize (inferred in a previous post of yours)? Either one is totally valid, but I feel like you're trying to lead up to something. If so, get on with it . If not, what's the point of seeking concensus? Fantasizing isn't a bad pastime.

I am not looking to organize back country users, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they need to get better organized.  Not my prerogative, and my time needs to be spent keeping access open to the very small Alpine experience that sledders have available to them.

I think it would be awesome if the non-motorized back country users got together with all the big companies and pushed for more / better access to the wilderness / forests, instead of continually closing it off to more and more people.

Most of the recent threads on that I started on here was to get your perspective.  I was curious so I figured I would ask and see what a small sampling of non-motorized users thought on the subjects.

I'm rather late to this thread, but my first choice would be:

* Schriebers Meadow on Mt Baker

Second choice is so far behind it isn't worth mentioning. This would be an extremely popular area for snowshoers and skiers (of all types) if it was closed to snowmobiles. They could close the road a few miles below this and turn it into a plowed snow park. The folks who want to access the upper country would have a long day of it, but it wouldn't be too hard. The novice cross country skiers would ski the road and then go cross country into Schriebers Meadow. The terrain is rather moderate, so cross country skiing is easy through there. Since most folks wait until the snow has melted (and the snowmobiles are banned) the skiing is much tougher. It is tricky to navigate through the patchy snow.

Also, if the original author wants more input, you might consider posting on nwhikers. I think you are likely to get more input from snowshoers and the cross country skiers who generally stick to logging roads and moderate terrain.

I think people are reluctant to post ideas that are just pipe dreams. TobyT's initial reply in this thread summarizes the problem well.

If we want to list pipe dreams, here are a few:

* Stafford or Beverly Creek (or beyond) in the Teanaway area
* Mountaineer Creek in the Stuart Range
* Something up the Cle Elum River
* Near Heliotrope Ridge on Mt Baker
* Schriebers Meadow on Mt Baker
* Mt Pilchuck
* Something close to Washington Pass
* Something close to Harts Pass
* Something up the Twisp River
* Cayuse Pass
* Anything close to Mt Adams

I previously listed the White River road near Mt Rainier.

Micah's suggestion of the Mountain Loop Highway is certainly intriguing.

Creating new non-motorized snoparks would probably require new user fees to pay for maintenance.

Thank you for thinking about it Lowell, good suggestions. There would be more from the community for sure but many realize they would involve more plowing and don't seem feasible in the current funding methods and availability.
To answer Ruffryder, certainly any lack of suggestions does not mean lack of desire or interest. A good number of ideas could be feasible w/o adding to any motorized/non-motorized conflict as well.
John

On Mt Hood I would like to see some access to the West/Northwest side. Using Lolo Pass Road as the focus a paved 2 lane in the right direction to Lolo Pass. Personally I don't care if it is non-motorized or not. I frequently use Frog Lake snow-park, and have had no problems with sledders, dog sledders, snow-shoers, etc. I think it should be kept simple, so it can be managed. Over complicate it and no one gets anything, as it gets hung up in study.

I'm going to use this resurgent thread to think outside the box a little. Recently the Utah senate approved a tram from Park City to Snowbird/Alta. It got me thinking about trams and gondolas in relation to road access, the ONP issue, etc. Here's some basics.

Roads (in wintertime):
1. Viewshed: Very significant viewshed impact from above (neighboring peak). Rarely an impact from ground level.

2. Access: shuts down easily in bad PNW weather high precip events. physically blocks overland travel.

3. Cost: Capital already amortized for exiting roads. Very high maintenance (I've heard $250,000/year for snow removal thrown around a lot lately, probably a lot more for MRNP and the freeways). Constant need for improvements with growth (ie parking) and summer repairs

4. Environment: Negatively impacts some animal movement. Incredibly inefficient burning of fuel in winter worthy vehicles by many small parties. Noisy.

Aerial Tram or Gondola:
1. Viewshed: Hard to see from above. Very noticeable from the ground level. Tram More so than Gondola due to higher tower heights.

2. Access: Only shuts down in very high wind. Does not impede ground travel.

3. Cost: 15-20 million for recent 10 person gondolas. 30-50 million for recent 60-100 person trams. Maintenance/staffing costs unknown, but likely marginal compared to snow removal.

4. Environment: Does not affect land animals. May affect birds? Extremely efficient and clean way to move people when hooked up to regional electric grid. Some operational noise.

I'm trying to stimulate debate here, so what do you all think? Aesthetically and economically worth it in the long run? Costs too much? Idea too radical? Even bringing this topic up is likely to rile some feathers, so please resist the urge to depart from cogent argument.

so please resist the urge to depart from cogent argument.

But, but, this is the Internet!

Seriously, though, I think that is a good idea. I remember reading an old Sierra Club article talking about Trams in National Parks. The initial reaction is negative (as it strikes people as being a bit like a cross between Disneyland and a ski resort) but when you actually read the advantages and disadvantages (as you have described) it sounds pretty good. One advantage is that it tends to be easier on the wildlife.

Having a tram to a spot just for backcountry use (skiing and snow shoeing) would be very different, but I think it would be great. Imagine a tram that ends at Sunrise. You aren't supposed to necessarily ski down to the bottom (and then get back on the tram) but ski (and snowshoe) from there, and return by tram. I personally would love to do that. Similarly, a tram that ended within a mile or so of Schriebers Meadows would be a blast (again, as long as snowmobiles are not allowed that day)*

* Speaking of which, that is my idea for managing snowmobile/skier conflict, in several places. Allow snowmobiles on alternate days (say, odd days) like they do for bikers on the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie. As long as everyone knew the rules, I think that would make for a nice compromise.

Yes!!!!
Tram to Sunrise or Steamboat Prow.
I have been an advocate for this for years.
Imagine the skiing....the increase in business in the rural area of Greenwater and income for the NPS.

Greenwater could become the WA equivalent of Chamonix!

Great idea!


BTW RossB-alternate snowmo-skier day access...won't work...what skier wants to ski in an area covered by snowmobile tracks from the previous day.....and vice-versa.

Alternate weeks might work somewhat, but alternate days = mostly useless, at least for skiers who tour in part for turns.