Skip to main content

A Report Card for Ski Resorts


A Report Card for Ski Resorts

The Park City Mountain Resort in Utah got top environmental marks, followed by the Stevens Pass Ski Area in Washington.Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition  
The Park City Mountain Resort in Utah got top environmental marks, followed by the Stevens Pass Ski Area in Washington.
Green: Living
A ski area report card issued this week by an environmental coalition ranks Utah’s Park City Mountain Resort first, granting it an A, and Arizona Snowbowl in Flagstaff dead last, with a D.

The report, issued by the Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition, evaluated 84 resorts in the Western United States on environmental practices ranging from recycling to watershed protection. Generally, new development lowered a resort’s score. Breckenridge in Colorado scored low, while the lesser-known resorts of Stevens Pass in Washington and China Peak in California won high marks.

The study found a 300 percent increase over the previous year in the number of ski areas that either plan to expand or are in the process of doing so. Yet skier numbers have risen by only a fraction of a percentage point annually since 1978.


In fact, nearly one-third of all Western ski resorts surveyed were expanding, the report said. “Most of those expansions intruded into public lands with long-term impacts on wildlife habitat and the region’s water resources,” it added.

Over half of all alpine ski resorts in the United States are on public lands administered by the Forest Service, according to Jim Bedwell, director of recreation, heritage and volunteer resources for the agency. Suffering from a decline in snow associated with climate change and nearly stagnant skier numbers, roughly half of all ski areas on public land have closed in the last 20 years, he noted. And in many cases those that stayed afloat did so by shifting to a “full service” lodge model, complete with hotels, restaurants, shops and condos, he said.

The report criticizes Forest Service practices on that front: “It is not sound public policy for the Forest Service to continue to approve terrain expansions, without regard” for environmental impacts, it said. The added development, which often involves widening roads, the clear-cutting of forests and snow-making, has rankled environmentalists and some neighbors.

While many of the resorts tend to dismiss the survey results, 50 of the 84 evaluated cooperated with the survey, said Gavin Feiger of the Sierra Nevada Alliance, which compiled the data for the coalition. Among those that did not was Arizona Snowbowl, which this year became the nation’s first resort to make snow from 100 percent sewage effluent.

The resort “chose not to participate in the survey, knowing that the snow-making project would be judged negatively,” said the ski area’s manager, J. R. Murray. “Snow-making is required to remain a viable ski area.”
Beyond information submitted by resorts, the report card relied on information from various Web sites and public documents to rank resorts by 40 criteria in four categories: habitat protection, watershed protection, addressing climate change, and environmental policies and regulations.

The National Ski Areas Association also produces an annual report on environmental sustainability efforts undertaken by its member resorts. Mr. Feiger suggested that the organization’s identity as an industry trade association might lead some people to consider its results skewed. But “they probably think we’re biased, too,” he said.


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 14, 2013
An earlier version of this post misrepresented one resort's response to the Ski Area Citizens' Coalition survey. Arizona Snowbowl was not among the 50 resorts that cooperated.

 http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/a-report-card-for-ski-resorts/?_r=0
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bottled Water Carries Hidden Cost to Earth

Good for You, Bad for Mother Earth? | $1.79 might seem like a small price to pay for a bottle of water. But it costs the Earth far more than that.

Compared to a liter of tap water, producing a liter of bottled water requires as much as 2,000 times more energy, according to the first analysis of its kind. The study also found that our nation's bottled water habit sucked up the equivalent of 32 to 54 million barrels of oil last year.

"The bottom line is that we should understand better the implications of our choices," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, Calif. "It suggests more ways to reduce energy use than maybe we otherwise think of."

Bottled water is a big business that is rapidly getting bigger. From 1976 to 2007, the average amount of bottled water drunk per person per year in the United States jumped from about 6 liters (1.6 gallons) to 116 liters (30.6 gallons).

In 2007, …

HOW AIR POLLUTION HARMS YOUR BODY

HOW AIR POLLUTION HARMS YOUR BODY  DOWNLOAD BROCHURE
Air pollution can cause serious health problems. Rarely, it can even kill people — and we’re not exaggerating. That’s why we care so much about the laws that protect us from air pollution. Read on to learn more about the specific parts of our bodies that are affected by air pollution. Air pollution can be made of tiny particles or gases, and these get into your body when you breathe. Different types of air pollution do different things inside your body. Air pollution can directly irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, before it even gets into the lungs. It can cause runny nose, itchy eyes, and scratchy throat. LUNGS When you breathe in, air moves through your nose or mouth, down your throat into your trachea, and then into your lungs. Pollution can irritate the airways. When that happens, muscles around the bronchi get tight; the lining of the bronchi swell; and the bronchi produce excess mucous. When the airways are constricted, it b…