Email this article

Seeing the Forest for the Skis

Ski areas graded for environmental efforts (and impacts)

By Nathan Rice

As the ski season lumbered to another slow, dry start this year, Davey Pitcher wondered what was going on with the weather. "I've been in the ski business for my entire life," says Pitcher, president of the Wolf Creek Ski Area. "These warm, dry spells make you think about things. Something has changed."

As drought conditions in the Four Corners region continue and the specter of climate change shows its face around the globe, ski areas are starting to wonder about the long-term snow forecast. A recent report by Environment Colorado shows a 38 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the state over the last the last 17 years - the fifth highest increase in the country - and the ski industry's massive energy use is no small part.
With that in mind, Wolf Creek is opting out of coal-powered electricity to lift its skiers into the skies. By off-setting 100 percent of its electricity with wind power, Wolf Creek claims to be removing the equivalent of 241 cars per year from the road.
"In our opinion," Pitcher continues, "driving power companies to show economic viability in alternative energy is a good thing. That way they can see that coal-powered energy isn't the only way to go."
Wolf Creek's commitment to green energy is one reason it is leading southwest Colorado ski areas in environmental performance, according to the 10th annual Ski Area Environmental Scorecard, published by Durango's Ski Area Citizens Coalition (SACC) in late November. The scorecard used 35 criteria to grade 92 ski areas nationwide on their environmental performance in four areas: habitat protection, protecting watersheds, addressing global climate change, and environmental practices and policies. The region's ski resorts scored relatively well this year: Wolf Creek scored a high "B," Telluride dropped to a "B" from last year's "A," and Durango Mountain Resort (DMR) got a "C." The "A" grades in Colorado this year went to Aspen, Buttermilk, Aspen Highlands, and Powderhorn. These overall grades are averages of grades earned in the four categories.
While some in the ski industry decry the scorecard as biased, it remains the only comprehensive, non-industry assessment of ski area environmental performance, and it raises issues that most skiers don't stop to consider as they enjoy a day on the slopes. As Paul Joyce of the SACC states, "Skiers [and snowboarders] like to see themselves as green, as getting out into the woods. The reality is that they are having a massive impact."
Indeed, few recreational activities have such a concentrated impact on the environment that supports them as resort skiing. From logging fragile, high-elevation forests, to consuming copious quantities of energy, to diverting mountain streams for snowmaking, ski area operations take a toll on the land. In its comments on the 2000 White River National Forest plan, home of big resorts like Vail, Breckenridge, Copper, and Aspen, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noted that ". . . no other land management prescription on the Forest directly results in more stream-water depletion, wetland impacts, air pollution, permanent vegetation change, or permanent habitat loss . . . more wetland impacts and stream depletions resulted from ski area expansion and improvement than from all other Forest management activities combined, including many direct and indirect impacts that are permanent (irreversible and irretrievable)".
Each of the three large ski areas in Southwest Colorado were docked by the scorecard for past and planned expansion. The Ski Area Citizen's Coalition maintains that "development on undisturbed forest lands is the single most damaging ecological impact a ski area can undertake." Opening up pristine forest and alpine habitat to logging, development, and crowds on skis means losing quality habitat for wildlife and increasing energy use and other impacts. For this reason, the scorecard weights these impacts with a higher score, reflecting their importance. That the scorecard punishes ski areas for simply planning expansions before they actually follow through with those plans is a source of frustration for ski area managers.
"As a ski resort we are in business to provide new terrain and accomodations," explains Beth Holland, public relations manager at DMR. "The scorecard conflicts with any ski area's business plan unless they want to be stagnant and accept the status quo." Holland says DMR's 125-acre Legends expansion was done using environmental practices such as selective tree cutting and leaving downed trees for wildlife habitat, a fact that the scorecard did not take into consideration. DMR gained points for opting out of the Ice Creek expansion in 2008, but lost points for planning 660 acres of residential and commercial development, scoring a "D" in the watershed protection category.
But Holland's observation begs the question: Do ski areas have to be so focused on expansion? According to Joyce, the current trend of profit-driven ski area expansion and real-estate development is feeding the industry's growing environmental footprint. And it's not an increase in skier demand that is pushing expansion, says Joyce. It's increased competition for a consumer group that is not growing much.
"Expansion has doubled compared to skier numbers," says Joyce. "There is twice as much terrain for the same number of skiers. Ski areas in the I-70 corridor are vomiting up new terrain." Other resorts then try to compete for the limited number of skiers by doing the same. "There's a �?keeping up with the Jones' effect."
The SACC cites big, real estate-intensive resorts such as Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge, and Copper Mountain as driving this trend. The group claims that, in the White River National Forest where these resorts operate, skier numbers have increased 28 percent since 1985, yet skier acreage has more than doubled (a 107 percent increase). According to the 2009 Kottke National End of Season Survey, a ski industry report, estimated skier visits nationwide dropped by more than 3 million from 60.5 million visits in 2007-08. Nonetheless, numerous ski area expansions continue into this year despite ongoing economic woes.
Telluride's Revelation Bowl expansion in 2008-09 added 50 acres to the area's 400 total acres of expanded terrain over the past three seasons. New expansion this year includes Gold Chutes 2 through 5 and a reshaped Chute 9, in which explosives were used to remove boulders and widen the top, reshaping the mountain for easier access to this difficult terrain.
Sheep Mountain Alliance in Telluride has challenged the resort's expansions and criticizes its impact on the land. "It's hard to be objective [about Telluride's environmental performance] after all the activities this summer," says Hillary White, executive director of the Alliance. "They used a massive amount of explosives to make a new road on a rocky, high mountain ridge. We all heard it down in town, and all of the wildlife were probably affected."
As for the ski area's preliminary investigations into expanding terrain into Bear Creek, White promises strong opposition from the Alliance if they move forward. "We are very much opposed to the expansion. We will wage the biggest battle we can to keep that from happening."
Even with all of the controversy over expansion and development, there are other ski area business models that have substantially less impact on the land. This year's ski area scorecard recognizes "Little Ski Areas that Rock," promoting a "small is beautiful" ethos. While too small to be graded, ski areas like Hesperus and Silverton Mountain get credit for limiting their size and impact. "Unlike ski resorts, they aren't in the real-estate game and they don't feel the impetus to constantly expand and �?improve,'" the scorecards explains. "As a result, these ski areas are good environmental stewards of the public and private lands upon which they operate and deserve recognition as such."
While larger ski areas can't shrink developed terrain or shut down spendy gondolas, there is a middle ground between Vail and Hesperus - where ski areas take a more modest approach to growth. Wolf Creek's less aggressive development model and past opposition to the proposed 2,100-unit Wolf Creek Village has served its environmental record well.
"There's a balance between no growth and a little growth," says Pitcher. "It's very important for the public to feel comfortable with what we are doing. We're not adamant about anything anymore. If we make a proposal and it gets shot down for logical reasons, we can live with that. That's a change in philosophy that really needs to take place with all developers in this country. [Growth] can be incremental and organic."
Wolf Creek has no new terrain this year, but precursory considerations to expand up to 1,000 acres into the San Juan National Forest's Treasure Mountain Roadless Area lost it points on this years scorecard. Part of those plans include alternative development methods with a focus on tree skiing. "We are reluctant to fall into the infill development model by building more and more lifts," Pitcher continues. "That's industrialized, big box skiing." But even with Wolf Creek's more modest approach to growth, it's clear that the urge to continue expanding terrain is still strong among the larger local ski areas.
While expansion causes the most obvious environmental impacts, efforts to reduce carbon emissions, waste, and resource use are easing ski areas' impacts in other ways. Telluride has won several environmental awards including the National Ski Area Association's (NSAA) Golden Eagle Award for Environmental Excellence in 2002 for environmental practices used in the Prospect Basin expansion. It buys renewable energy for three lifts, uses biodiesel in some on-mountain machinery, and donated $5,000 to planning the regional biodiesel production facility. It has a comprehensive recycling program, waste reduction policies, and improved water and energy efficiency retrofits. These efforts earned them an "A" in the environmental policies and practices category of the scorecard. As Telluride Golf and Ski CEO Dave Riley said over email, "We believe that ski areas can operate and develop in a way that protects the function of the natural resources and alpine environment that people come to the mountains to enjoy - and that is our responsibility."
Durango Mountain Resort scored a "B" in environmental practices for focusing on alternative transportation to reduce its carbon footprint. With a new shuttle serving Durango, skiers and snowboarders can leave their cars at home ($10 roundtrip). DMR also provides cash incentives to employees who carpool as well as a free employee shuttle bus. It uses biodiesel in a majority of on-mountain machinery and recycles its fryer oil for biodiesel production. It has also retrofitted much of its infrastructure with water- and energy-saving technology and is looking into on-site renewable energy.
The NSAA's voluntary, nonbinding Sustainable Slopes charter encourages ski areas to adopt such environmental intiatives. With these efforts is an implicit recognition of industry impacts on the environment and a shared concern about a diminishing snowpack and its potential effects on the industry. As Telluride's Riley notes, "Climate change is a big issue for ski areas. If not addressed, it will lead to less snowpack and a shorter ski season."
Despite these efforts, Joyce doesn't see much reason for celebration. "Here's the kicker," he says. "The number one worst performance category across the industry is protecting the climate. For the ski industry to not address that is blatant disregard."
The prospect of fewer snowflakes in the future also conjures a situation of increasing ski area impacts, says White. "With climate change reducing snow levels, ski areas will have to make more snow in order to stay viable, taking more water out of the natural flow. It will be harder and harder for ski areas to truly be environmental stewards."
Notwithstanding the Ski Area Citizen's Coalition sometimes-harsh criticism for the ski industry, the focus is on encouraging good stewardship, Joyce insists, as well as informing consumers who want to support responsible ski areas. "We want to give ski areas credit for what they are doing right. That's what the scorecard is all about. But we can't do that without talking about the bad things."
Meanwhile, as the Wolf Creek snowcat hauled snow around the mountain to cover up early season bare spots, Pitcher was staying positive. Despite the 20 percent increase in energy costs to cover renewable offsets, he said that environmental investments are "absolutely" good for business. "We hear from our customers that they appreciate it."
"We're staying our course," Pitcher continued. "The ski business is good for communities, but I think it has been distorted to some degree. It's the same thing that has ruined a lot of things in this country - the drive to profiteer all the time. [Skiing] has got to be a way of life, then you go from there."

NATHAN RICE writes from Durango, Colo.