Is your hill environmentally friendly?

Probabaly not according to the results of the environmental report card issued recently. The results for Washington are not so good: White Pass Ski Area has earned an F and Crystal Mountain has earned a D "grade". The Ski Area Citizens' Coalition has pblished these results and can be found on their webpage at skiareacitizens.com. The grading criteria are outlined on their page, it's pretty interesting and sad to say the least. I am currently a grad student in the environmental studies program at TESC and have been thinking of doing a project on the environmental impacts of ski areas, and I was hoping to get some of your thoughts about this issue. Thanks!!! Hoping for snow!!

That is because White Pass has been fighting groups like the Citizens Coalition to get the expansion that was promised to them 25 years ago.

1984 Washington Wilderness Act removed 800 acres for ski development at White Pass in exchange for 23,000 acres of wilderness. The acres set aside for wilderness were immediately included into the wilderness system, yet almost 25 years later the ski area is still waiting for the agreed upon increase in developed ski terrain..

Give all the F's you want, White Pass is a great family run ski area and one of the best in the state IMO.

Whoa there!

I'm not giving F's nor am I trying to offend anyone. A lot more goes into the report. Look at Alta.
I love White Pass too man. I'm also not suggessting that people not go there either. Just trying to shed some light on a posssible project. Thanks for your input though, it really shows the conflicts involved in the expansion plan.

You do say you are trying to "shed some light on a project" which to me suggests you support these groups that give the F's (meaningless IMO anyway). If you really love and support WP then why would you post propaganda that slams them? Doesn't make much sense.

I really, really like bacon, bourbon, and unprotected sex -- should I be offended at researchers studying the possible negative effects of these things?

Didn't sound to me like the OP had an ax to grind. He's a young researcher, and researchers research. And I'll bet he doesn't hate skiing or skiers, being that he's posting here.

I think a study about the environmental impact of ski areas outside of expansion issues would be a great thesis project. Stevens Pass' website is advertising their relative greenness -- windmills and the like ...

I think it would be interesting to figure an actual per user carbon footprint for various ski areas. How far did each user drive on average to get there? How much energy do the lifts consume relative to # of users? And what about power consumption in base areas? the effects of night skiing? Types of grooming equipment and use patterns? Staff use of snowmobiles to get around versus riding the lifts?

I'd hypothesize that Snoqualmie is the most green simply because it is the closest and most efficient type of driving (uninterrupted highway). But maybe people drive up there solo more often than at other resorts. Maybe the result are different if you look at hours of skiing per units of carbon versus skier visits per unit of carbon.

Sounds like a fun project, particularly if you can write a grant for a seasons pass or two!

Hank J is right. I am just trying to see how people, i.e skiers feel about the issue. Research is worthless and gets me nowhere if no one reads it. There is a lot of information about this subject and this group (myself included) is directly affected by the decisions made about such things as: 10 dollar parking at Alpental for non-carpoolers, some of my favorite stashes getting blown up by a new lift in Northback, increased corporate presence jacking up prices, global climate eliminating skiing altogether, etc. IMO this issue deserves attention because the fate of what we love is at stake in some ways. I dont work for Greenpeace or hug trees, nor am I trying to brew up support for hurting the local mountains. I'm just trying to learn about the effect we all have on the environment that provides us with the sport we live for. Its not about expansion, its about alternative fuels for lifts and cats, lightbulbs, low flow toilets, greenhouse gas emissions on I90, 2, 410, 12 and 542, water quality for the Snoqualmie River (your drinking water). Numerous areas have contracts with the forest service to expand operations, like WP. IMO that is just fine as long as it is done in good taste and foresight for the impacts it will create. As a researcher I am sworn to objectivity. Again I'm not putting up a human barricade and making posters and marching around the lift at WP. It has a lot more to it than WP, it concerns all areas from Maine to Alaska and identifying what can be done to reduce impact.