October 31st, 2008
Eco-unfriendly impacts include the carbon footprint of major condo and resort developments, the felling of alpine forests to make way for ski runs, the displacement of wildlife, the misuse of water and the amount of garbage generated by tourism at these sites.
“Snow-making can have all sorts of negative impacts,” Sykes says, citing one of the less obvious elements. “It often takes water out of streams when they’re at their lowest flow levels of the year, when the water is critical for wildlife that lives in that stream (or around it). The water’s already low and suddenly you’re taking what’s there, then you’re depositing in an area in the form of snow that normally didn’t get that much snow. And in spring that snow melts off and totally changes the hydrology of the area — changes the system of wetlands, causes major erosion and deposits all sorts of sediment in the streams. Another impact is when (resorts and ski-mountain operators) take water from rivers loaded with toxins and heavy metals from, say, a mining area and putting it into a pristine area.”
He mentions another problem – the creation of ”back country bowls” for skiers. In one particular Colorado expansion, he says, the additions invaded Lynx and elk habitats, displacing the wild cats and elk herds.
“So, there needs to be a change in attitude and philosophy, which is hopefully changing. Sometimes it’s (the eco problem) not even affiliated with the ski area operator. It’s the development, it’s real estate development. There’s the ’ski area” and then there’s the ski resort,’” Sykes says. “Operators are essentially in the uphill transportation business…the ski area sells a service, the lift up the mountain. A ski resort predicates its business model on selling real estat, and a lot of times these expansions are there because they think people need a new place to ski on their mountain - because they own property that ajoins that area of expansion.” Or aggressively move to purchase it, an issue we won’t broach here.
Making skiing greener is something that “you have to do in the court of public opinion,” say the SACC representative, a lifelong skier and native of Colorado.
“That’s what our scorecard does. It’s only been the in last 10 years or so that the scorecard got started… The overall impact on existing ski areas has been seen already, in terms of people being aware of it and using the scorecards. We want to keep having this kind of impact. We want to really engage the industry more, so that ski areas can continue to grow as a busines but also protect the wild places, the unique and delicate alpine areas, that they operate on. Every year, a few more ski areas get more involved in this process.”
One of the country’s most eco-aggressive operators is Mount Bachelor, near Bend and Sunriver, Oregon. Mt. Bachelor opens its 2008-09 season on Nov. 22
Located in the middle of 1.2 million acres of preserved forest, the ski operators lease their 3,683 of ski-able acres from the Deschutes National Forest.
How Mt. Bachelor Plays The Field
Mt. Bachelor communications director Frankie Labbe explains that while the ski area is less known than places like Aspen/Snowmass/Buttermilk and Lake Tahoe, it is the sixth largest ski mountain in the country and turns 50 years old this year. It is revered by regulars for its untrammeled back country, 180-plus days of skiing annually and its reputation for impeccable powder.
Unlike many mountains, Bachelor does not have an official resort; it doesn’t have a “fabricated ski village” at the bottom of the runs, Labbe says. Instead, the 9,000-plus peak’s base “camps” are 20 or so miles away, in Bend and Sunriver. To offset that distance in greenhouse gases, employees can catch free biodiesel-powered buses to get to and from work. Also, for $7 skiers can catch biodiesel-powered, 70-seater shuttles from Bend only.
<--Previous : : Next Page-->
