The Evolution of Sustainability: From On-Mountain Efficiency to Environmental Activism

By Kate M. Prendergast Department of Environmental Science Allegheny College Meadville, Pennsylvania

April 2011

Name: Kate Prendergast Date: Spring, 2011 Major: Environmental Studies Thesis Committee: Dr. Michael Maniates, Dr. Richard Bowden

Title: The Evolution of Ski Resort Sustainability: From On-Mountain Efficiency to Environmental Activism

Abstract:

Because ski resorts rely on stable environmental conditions and pristine mountain landscapes for their success, the resort industry has a major stake in the climate change issue. This research project examines the steps the industry has taken to address its environmental impacts, from on- mountain mitigation strategies to political advocacy. Research into ski resort impacts and mitigation and interviews with industry leaders were conducted to gather the data used in this project. There is significant data available regarding resort impacts, but little academic information that addresses the current state of ski resort sustainability. Resorts must be taken at their word regarding many environmental claims, and the industry has been accused of greenwashing. Therefore, further research into ski resort sustainability is needed to close this gap. Moving forward, the industry must find strategies to encourage broader participation in sustainability frameworks and climate policy to ensure the future of and snowboarding. This study found that a stronger industry sustainability framework, national policy, and clean energy development may protect ski resorts from the negative effects of climate change on winter weather and mountain ecosystems.

1 Table of Contents

Abstract 1

Acknowledgments 3

Introduction 4

Chapter 1: 10 Environmental Impacts & Mitigation of On-Mountain Operations

Chapter 2: 27 Do Ski Industry Organizations & Voluntary Environmental Programs Actually Benefit the Environment?

Chapter 3: 43 Resorts as Environmental Stewards & Activists

Chapter 4: 58 The Future of Ski Resort Sustainability

Appendix 1: 64 Tables

References 65

2 Acknowledgements

Thank you to my family for their constant support and encouragement throughout the research process. I'm sure I drove everyone at home crazy this past year, but somehow they kept me sane.

I would also like to express my appreciation of Auden Schendler and Jamie Schectman, who answered all of the questions I posed to them. Thanks especially to Mr. Schendler for pushing me in a different direction than I had originally planned – my work turned out far better as a result.

And to my adviser, Michael Maniates, who asked enough tough questions to get me thinking about their answers.

3 Introduction

Ski and snowboard resorts are popular winter recreation destinations for outdoors enthusiasts; however, the industry has a paradoxically negative impact on the natural environment that skiers, snowboarders, and mountain resorts depend upon for recreation. These resorts rely on pristine mountain landscapes and snowy conditions to entice skier and snowboarder visitation. In the winter resort industry, business success and environmental conditions are intertwined: great quantities of and the appearance of an unspoiled mountain can draw more people to a resort. Increasingly, though, the industry is recognizing climate research that shows receding snow pack levels and changing patterns of winter precipitation. Against this background, the concept of ski resort sustainability is evolving as a measure to protect ski seasons for future generations. There are many reasons to ensure the vitality of the ski resort industry. Economically, it is an important sector, especially for the communities surrounding resorts (Del Matto, 2007). During the 2009-2010 winter season, 471 American ski and snowboard resorts (NSAA, 2010) catered to 8.7 million skiers and 6.2 million snowboarders (NSGA, 2010). The resort industry generated $2.5 billion in the same season (Ibisworld, 2010); this figure does not include the additional profits from retail sales of skiing and snowboarding clothing and equipment. Based on the amount of participants in these sports and the income generated by resorts, ski areas are an important sector of the tourism industry nationally. Ski resorts also have a major impact on their local economies by bringing in customers for area business and providing employment for residents of ski towns (Del Matto, 2007). Although the resort industry is an economically positive force in many ways, resort operations have intense negative impacts on the natural environment. These impacts include land clearing for resort and lodging development; energy and water use for lift operation and ; air, water, and soil pollution; vegetation disturbance and wildlife displacement from trail construction and maintenance; altered soil hydrology from ski trail grooming; and waste disposal. The everyday activities of ski and snowboard resorts stress the ecosystems on which the winter sports industry depends. These numerous environmental impacts are intensified by the innate fragility of mountain ecosystems and their slow rates of recovery (see Milne, et al,

4 2009; Schmidt, 2006; and Williams & Todd, 1997). Recent trends of increased development of new skiing trails and terrain parks further enhance these environmental concerns (NSAA, 2005). Because skiing and snowboarding are highly weather- and landscape-dependent activities, ecosystem protection is becoming an important industry goal. Ski resort sustainability means that resorts should aim to protect the mountain environment by reducing the impact of their operations. There may not be an economically-feasible way for resorts to achieve zero impact, however, so it should be noted that the term “sustainability” is not being used in the theoretical sense of having no impact on the environment, but instead is used here to indicate the minimized environmental impact that allows the skiing industry to prosper without degrading the mountains on which the industry relies. The International Institute for Sustainable Development defines sustainability for the business enterprise as “adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future” (IISD, 1992). This was among the first definitions for sustainable business practices; the definition is important because it stresses the dual goals of meeting practical business needs while also protecting the environment. Motivated by increasing public awareness of environmental issues and the risk of climate change vulnerability to resorts, the industry is attempting to increase its efficiency and decrease its impact on the mountain. In response to this public pressure and perceived risk, an industry- wide sustainability commitment was set in place by the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA). Many individual resorts have been progressively active in efforts to reduce their environmental impact, as evidenced by programs such as Aspen ’ Environment Foundation, Vail’s Echo program, Grand Targhee Resort's emissions inventory, and many other efforts. Resorts across the are investing in renewable energy credits, building wind turbines and solar arrays, conserving water, and instituting environmental awareness programs that target the skiers and snowboarders who visit their resorts. Some are endorsing climate legislation or actively lobbying Congress for stricter environmental regulations. This study focuses on the actions of ski areas located in the American West, which is defined as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, , Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and . The major players in the arena of ski resort

5 sustainability in this region include the NSAA, the Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition (SACC), and the Aspen Ski Company, who can boast three resorts in a recent ranking of the nation's top ten most sustainable ski resorts (SACC, 2010). The NSAA and SACC have developed standards for water and energy use, waste reduction, and local habitat protection; these standards serve to encourage sustainability, and in the case of the SACC, they are the basis for evaluating ski resort efforts at protecting the environment. The NSAA is a powerful interest group whose member resorts comprise 70% of annual American skier and snowboarder visitation (NSAA, 2010). The organization encourages ski resorts to become more sustainable and also sponsors a grant program for resorts looking to invest in renewable energy and other impact mitigation programs. Since the NSAA has such widespread influence, their Sustainable Slopes program shows that ski resort sustainability is an important issue for the industry. Sustainability is also significant for the mountain towns that depend economically on the success of area resorts, and for approximately 15 million Americans who participate in recreational skiing and snowboarding each winter. The major question facing ski resorts with an interest in sustainability is where to focus their energies on the most effective sustainability initiatives with the greatest potential to protect the local environment. On the issue of climate change, individual resorts probably will not affect much change without collaboration with larger forces, such as utilities, environmental organizations, and federal, state, and local governing bodies. Some of the more progressive resorts, such as those operated by the Aspen Skiing Company, are actively pursuing change in all of those arenas. Looking beyond on-site issues evidences the change from a business-as-usual mindset. The focus of this project will be tracking the evolution of “sustainability” thinking in the ski resort industry. Some of the biggest challenges facing ski resort sustainability today, as identified by Del Matto (2007), are long-distance travel to and from the ski resort, water use in snowmaking, and multi-season use of ski resorts; additional challenges include the impacts that result from resort expansion and development (Rivera & de Leon, 2004) and lodge operations. Resort expansion and development have prompted many environmental organizations to fight ski area expansion proposals (Tenenbaum, 2001). They argue that development puts pressure on the natural environment and reduces wildlife habitat; however, there are frameworks in place by the EPA and U.S. Forest Service to review expansion proposals and their effects on the resort’s

6 surroundings. Another major challenge for resorts is increasing ski lodge sustainability. Green building guidelines such as ISO-140011 and LEED2 certification address the issue of lodge water, energy, and waste impacts; these programs can be applied to retrofitting or new construction. This area of the ski resort is thus well serviced by current programs, though they are not widely applied. According to Del Matto (2007), skier and snowboarder travel to and from ski resorts creates another sustainability challenge for the industry. Most of this travel is done on airplanes, whose emissions occur at heights of 10-12 km where they have an increased effect on the atmosphere and warming; it is estimated that between 80-97% of energy consumed during tourism activities is associated with air travel (Gössling, 2002). This challenge, however, cannot possibly be addressed by individual ski areas. Even if it were feasible to restrict use of a ski area to locals, this would severely reduce resorts’ bottom lines and economically handicap the industry. Skier and snowboarder travel to and from resorts is thus an external choice to be made by individual travelers and, though a major component of the industry’s impact, cannot realistically be controlled by resorts. Resorts attempt to mitigate the impact of skier and snowboarder travel by offering carbon offsets to travelers and by providing public transportation from the mountain bases to the resorts’ lifts. Beyond these measures and consumer education about the extreme environmental impact of airplane travel, there is not much resorts can be expected to do about this externality of ski and snowboard tourism. Resorts beginning to think about sustainability should focus on reducing their on- mountain environmental impacts. Three major areas of such impacts are snowmaking, and trail maintenance, and resort development. These focal areas are addressed later in this paper from the perspective of their resource use and resulting environmental impacts. Snowmaking encompasses water and energy issues, while operation and trail maintenance includes energy use and land clearing concerns. Development requires land clearing and strains the

1 The International Organization for Standardization says its ISO-14001 standard “provides a framework for a holistic, strategic approach to [an] organization's environmental policy, plans and actions.” http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials 2 The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program for third-party verification of “practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.” http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988

7 natural environment by packing hundreds of people into condominiums and multilevel hotel complexes. The majority of ski resort resource use goes into the snowmaking process, which consumes large quantities of water and energy, while lifts, trails, and developments have a more telling impact on the landscape. Snowmaking and chairlift operations are interesting because of the intense water use for snowmaking and the fossil fuels that power both processes. Mountain hydrology and air quality are significantly affected by snowmaking and ski lifts, and both practices are essential to ski resorts. Taken together, these areas of resort operations and development should give a broad view of the impacts that ski areas have on mountain ecosystems. Snowmaking, chairlift, and trail maintenance improvements represent efficiency gains, which are important because efficiency reduces resource use. To really have an environmental impact, however, the resort industry will need to move beyond these short-term solutions. There has been a gradual evolution of ski resort sustainability from short- to long-term thinking beginning with on-mountain and ski lodge efficiency gains and progressing toward 100% renewable energy use, environmental education programs, and community collaboration. Whether this evolution will catch on with the entire ski resort industry, or if it leads to significant environmental improvement remains to be seen. This introduction lays the foundation for understanding the current sustainability issues American ski resorts face. The following chapters examine various steps in the evolution of ski resort sustainability. Chapter one discusses the impacts of snowmaking, , and ski trails in greater detail and suggests options for reducing those impacts. Resort development impacts and controversies are also discussed. Chapter two considers the rise of coalition-sponsored environmental accountability; other groups founded to promote sustainable skiing and snowboarding also appear here. Chapter three uses a case study of best practice ski resorts to examine sustainability efforts that look beyond the immediate area of the resort. The four Aspen ski areas are the resorts chosen as an example of best practices and progressive action on climate, environment, and sustainability. Two other resorts are also discussed for their sustainability achievements. Those resorts are Grand Targhee and Squaw Valley. The project concludes by answering the question of whether the new direction ski resort sustainability is heading in will result in positive environmental outcomes; whether the new

8 sustainability thinking has achieved anything effective to date; and where ski resort sustainability efforts should progress. This evolution of sustainability in the ski and snowboard resort industry demonstrates legitimate concern for the environment, but it does not amount to anything unless real change happens as a result. The American ski industry must become more active in a broader sense in order to achieve better environmental standards nationally and to protect their greatest asset: the mountain.

9 Chapter One: Environmental Impacts & Mitigation of On-Mountain Operations

The evolution of ski resort sustainability began with improvements to on-mountain activities such as snowmaking, chairlift operation, trail grooming, new trail and terrain park construction, and lodge operations. All of these processes have intense impacts on the mountain ecosystem. As resorts recognized those impacts and came under scrutiny by environmentalists, they began to improve the efficiency of their operations. This chapter discusses the environmental consequences of running a ski resort and the strategies used to mitigate the impact of ski resorts on the landscape. There are, of course, several obstacles to implementing these strategies, including budget restrictions and resort willingness to participate in voluntary environmental programs sponsored by organizations such as the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and the Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition (SACC). Snowmaking is discussed first, since it demands the greatest water and energy inputs of any ski resort operation. Next, the impact and potential mitigation of ski trails and chairlifts is addressed. Finally, ski lodge efficiency and resort development are examined. The chapter concludes with an explanation of why these initiatives, while environmentally beneficial, do not have a broad enough impact to truly protect the ski industry from changing environmental conditions.

Snowmaking Benefits to Ski Resorts

In a business where the amount of snow that falls in a given day, week, month, or season can make or break a ski resort’s bottom line, it is essential to ensure adequate snowfall from the beginning of the season until the end. Artificial snowmaking is the industry’s answer to achieving a predictable amount of snowfall throughout the winter. The following sections discuss how snowmaking systems work, their benefits, and their environmental impacts. In response to industry competition, ski resorts have expanded their resorts by building more trails and lifts while increasing their snowmaking capacity increased competition among resorts and decreased natural snowfall have caused ski resorts to depend on man-made snow to stay in business, despite stagnate skier and snowboarder visitation (Niraulu, 2006). Without

10 snowmaking operations, resorts would be unable to compete in a demanding market and possibly go out of business. Snowmaking has become an important response to climate change and altered patterns of snowfall in alpine regions. Winter droughts and unpredictable weather caused 91% of American ski resorts to produce artificial snow during the 2003 ski season (Leao & Tecle, 2003). This illustrates the skiing and snowboarding industry’s widespread dependence on artificial snow. As climate change continues to alter weather patterns, this dependence will only increase (Scott et al., 2003; Vanham, et al., 2008). Snowmaking serves many purposes for ski resorts. It is used to create a base layer of snow on ski slopes at the start of the season (Steiger & Mayer, 2008). This ensures a timely opening for the resort so that ski companies can advertise their opening days with confidence that snow will be on the ground – whatever the weather. Artificial snow also supplements high- traffic ski trails where the base layer of snow is quickly worn away. Snowmaking is especially important during winter droughts, so that when little natural snow falls, ski resorts can stay open throughout the season. Low-altitude resorts are more susceptible to decreased snowfall and warmer winters, so they depend on artificial snow not just to supplement natural snowfall, but also to stay in business despite increasingly adverse winter weather (Steiger & Mayer, 2008). Essentially, snowmaking takes natural weather variation out of the equation and creates a more reliable skiing and snowboarding season. Artificial snow often guarantees quality skiing and snowboarding conditions, as well as the quantity of days available for ski resort operation. This renders snowmaking essential to the ski resort industry (Steiger & Mayer, 2008).

How Snowmaking Works

Natural snowfall occurs when water vapor in clouds condenses and falls to the ground; if this occurs at cold enough temperatures, the condensed water forms snowflakes (Guido, 1999). Weather conditions must be just right for snow to fall; temperatures below freezing, low humidity, and the relationship between the temperature and humidity – referred to as the wet bulb temperature – are essential to the formation of natural snow. When the proper conditions are met, water droplets undergo nucleation, which means they attach to debris particles in the air and other water droplets to form the six-sided ice crystals we know as snow.

11 Artificial snowmaking requires the same conditions as natural snowfall, with the addition of machinery called snow guns or cannons. The process is believed to have been pioneered by Walt Schoenknecht, the New York state forest manager who implemented the first “commercially viable” snow gun (Guido, 1999, par. 2); Wayne Pierce developed and patented the method for making and distributing snow that Schoenknecht used (Pierce, 1954). By the 1970s, snowmaking was a widespread practice among the ski resort industry. Today, nearly every American ski resort uses artificial snow to supplement natural snowfall. The methods to turn water into skiable snow are complex and varied, but all snowmaking machines operate on the principle that cold water droplets must be supercooled in the air to produce snowflakes (Guido, 1999). The snowmaking process involves spraying water into the air with snow guns, which atomizes it into a fine mist of droplets that freeze in the air and fall to the ground as snow; this usually requires temperatures below –7 °C unless snowmaking additives are used to raise the freezing point of atomized water droplets (Rixen, et al., 2003). According to Peaks to Prairies3 (2002b), there are two general types of snowmaking systems: water/compressed air systems and “airless” systems. In a compressed air snowmaking system, two pipes enter the snow cannon, one carrying cold water, and the other pumping air into the cannon. The compressed air serves to atomize the water into droplets that are propelled into the air outside the cannon where the droplets freeze in the cold air and fall onto ski slopes as snow. Compressed air systems can employ internal or external mixing; the difference is that in external mix systems, the compressed air and water are combined outside of the snow gun. Whether internal or external mix snowmakers are used at a particular ski resort depends on the advantages of each system. Internal mixing is less affected by wind and higher temperatures, yet noisy; external mixing is more energy efficient because it requires less compressed air, while its drawback is a higher initial investment – these machines cost more than internal mixers. (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b) The other type of snowmaking system is sometimes called “airless” because it requires less compressed air than internal or external mix snow guns; however, air is still used in this system. A fan is used to propel water droplets from many different nozzles within the snow gun

3 Peaks to Prairies is an environmental organization that encourages pollution prevention in EPA region 8, which includes Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

12 into the air, where they freeze and fall to the ground as snow. This type of system is more energy efficient than the compressed air method. (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b) A wide variety of makes and models exist within these basic types of snowmakers, complicating ski resorts’ decision about what type of equipment to choose. The snowmaker with the least required energy and water inputs can be viewed as the most environmentally-friendly option, but it is not always the most business-friendly one because more efficient snowmaking machines are often the most expensive (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b). In addition to the snow guns themselves, the process of making artificial snow requires infrastructure that cannot typically be seen by skiers and snowboarders because it is located underground or in maintenance buildings far from the trails. Compressed air systems require pipes for pressurized water and air, and “airless” systems require piped water. Both systems involve electrical infrastructure, especially when the systems include automatic on/off switches and electronic monitoring equipment. Pipelines and pumping systems are run by control valves that maintain adequate pressure so that the optimal mix of air and water reaches each snow gun (Grouse Mountain website, “Snowmaking”). This extensive underground infrastructure must be maintained and occasionally replaced, which increases disturbance to mountain terrain caused by the snowmaking process.

Environmental Impacts of Snowmaking

While snowmaking is positive from a business standpoint, allowing ski resorts to stay open for a set amount of time despite weather conditions, it negatively affects the surrounding environment in numerous ways. This practice is water and energy intensive; necessitates ski run grooming by heavy machinery called “snowcats,” which spread the man-made snow evenly across ski trails; and affects the local water table and catchment – the area into which snow drains as it melts. Snowmaking consumes significant quantities of water and energy. According to Peaks to Prairies (2002b), approximately 75,000 gallons of water is required to cover a 40,000 square foot area – this equates to less than an acre – with six inches of snow. Large ski resorts use 300-400

13 million gallons for artificial snow annually (Michelson, 2009). This is roughly equivalent to 450- 600 Olympic swimming pools worth of water.4 Because snowmaking occurs during the winter, when natural water availability is at its lowest, drawing snow from rivers for snowmaking can severely strain the riverine ecosystem, already under pressure from low winter water levels. Aquatic plants and wildlife thus suffer from habitat alteration as a consequence of the stress snowmaking places on streams. Another impact results because artificial snow is denser than natural snow, so it takes longer to melt than the natural variety does. Thus, man-made snow melts later in the spring, causing high soil saturation and late runoff which may affect natural vegetative cycles; this impacts the availability of forage available to wildlife during the spring. (Niraulu, 2006) Snowmaking presents a unique problem in areas where mineral mining occurred in the past. Acid-mine drainage from abandoned quarries contaminates nearby water supplies with heavy metals. Ski resorts then use this contaminated water, often without knowing the extent of its contamination, in their snowmaking machines. Artificial snow spread across the resort then carries heavy metals beyond the polluted streams (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Since there are no EPA regulations of artificial snow water quality, some ski areas utilize water from polluted rivers containing “concentrations of cadmium and copper [that] occasionally exceed aquatic life criteria,” and “concentrations of manganese persistently exceed the drinking water supply standard” (USDA Forest Service, 2001, p. i). This particular study of the Keystone ski area showed that man-made snow contaminated by acid-mine drainage contains “considerably elevated” (USDA Forest Service, 2001, p. x) levels of trace metals, including zinc, manganese, and copper. Fortunately, these elevated concentrations had minimal effects on stream water quality, stream macroinvertebrate populations, and plants bordering streams; conversely, the Forest Service indicated that elevated zinc in wetland soil was evidence of snowmaking impacts from ski areas which drain into wetlands. Although streams were not found to be significantly impacted, wetlands surrounding ski areas may be at risk from the spread of acid-mine drainage caused by resort snowmaking (USDA Forest Service, 2001).

4 If the minimum volume for regulation-sized Olympic swimming pools is 660,000 gallons (www.fina.org).

14 In addition to water use and impacts, energy consumption is a major snowmaking concern. According to Ski Area Management, a trade magazine, 67% of all resort energy use is consumed by snowmaking (Smith, 2010). Energy efficient snow machines are therefore essential to reducing energy use and associated emissions at ski areas. As stated above, snowmaking equipment does not evenly distribute the snow that it makes, which means heavy machinery must groom each run that has artificial snow. In addition, snow grooming equipment is used even more extensively in terrain park setup and maintenance because jumps and other features require man-made snow to be moved and shaped. These snow grooming machines pollute the air with diesel emissions and are prone to hydraulic oil line breaks, which occur three to five times annually, according to a survey of ski resorts. Hydraulic oil line breaks are problematic because they are expensive to clean, and therefore they are usually left on the mountain to run off into the water table, thus contaminating it. (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b) Another problem associated with snow grooming is compaction of snow, which adversely affects the underlying soil and vegetation. Fahey and Wardle (1998) studied the impact of grooming operations on mountain ecosystems and concluded that snow compaction results in: • altered hydrology because compacted snow is less porous, which increases runoff; • greater frost penetration into soil, which means soils stay frozen longer into spring; • and growing season shifts due to later snowmelt, which affects vegetation growth and alters plant community structure. Thus snowmaking and trail grooming alter the mountain ecosystem by affecting hydrology, soils, and vegetation. Altered habitat in turn affects wildlife by disrupting natural cycles and the availability of food throughout a shortened growing season. Ski resorts need to be aware of their impacts on mountain ecosystems in order to implement mitigation strategies.

Snowmaking Impact Mitigation Options

According to the National Ski Area Association’s (NSAA) Sustainable Slopes Charter, several options exist to mitigate the impacts of ski resort snowmaking. The charter suggests several ways to reduce water and energy use associated with producing artificial snow (Table 1). Mostly, the charter recommends technologically advanced equipment and increased monitoring 15 of equipment. Other suggestions include converting to alternative fuels, working with utilities to decrease peak load usage, storing stream water in reservoirs for use during the dry winter season, and buying renewable credits to offset high energy use. Ski resorts could benefit from using the most efficient snowmaking technology they can afford to install. This would not only reduce the resorts’ waste of water and energy, but also decrease their utility bills. Working with utilities is another smart business strategy, especially for reducing energy use and cost. By operating off-peak, resorts decrease the price of the energy they must use and lessen the burden on utilities. Water reservoirs also provide a way to work with utility companies; ponds and reservoirs built at the elevation where snowmaking occurs can reduce water pumping distance and allow resorts to fill their reservoirs during off-peak hours, thereby cutting costs. (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b) One of the most efficient snowmaking technologies on the market today is called a “waterstick” system. The waterstick is not run by an external energy source and uses less water than other systems do; moreover, it does not need compressed air, fans, or electricity to make snow. Unfortunately, the waterstick system requires a product to be added to pressurized water to artificially increase its nucleation temperature. An additive called “snowmax” is the most common ice nucleator that ski resorts worldwide use in artificial snowmaking; the product contains the sterilized bacterium Pseudomonas syringae, which raises the temperature at which water can be frozen (Lagriffoul, et al., 2010). The P. syringae bacterium is naturally-occurring, and the protein additive merely binds to water droplets to slow them down and thus lower their freezing point (Robbins, 2010). Current research into the affects of P. syringae bacteria-based additives on the environment is limited and inconclusive. Some studies found no effects from these additives, while others showed inconsistent impacts on plant growth (Rixen, et al., 2003). These bacteria- based additives were not found to have toxic effects on human health, and endotoxins, though present in snowmaking additives, were found to be below safe levels established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, snowmaking additives were found to leach into soil and groundwater, where it can contaminate drinking water. The researchers thus caution that resorts use “water of a quality that is fit for human consumption” (Lagriffoul, 2010, p. 1665). Based on the available information, the waterstick snowmaking system is a viable, cost-effective

16 option to increase snowmaking efficiency, but it should be used with caution as researchers warn that further studies are needed to understand P. syringae’s possible impacts. Another option Sustainable Slopes suggests to decrease the impact of snowmaking is increased monitoring of equipment. In theory, real-time monitoring increases snowmaking efficiency because operators have constant information available to make decisions about the best times to make snow. Monitoring devices record environmental conditions so that snowmaking can start and stop automatically depending on the weather; monitoring would also show operators when equipment was not operating to its full capacity, indicating a problem that needs to be repaired (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b). In addition, increased inspection of equipment would ensure that it was in working order, without leaks or other damage that decreases efficiency (Peaks to Prairies, 2002b). Sustainable Slopes recognizes that ski resorts require snow production when natural water resources are at their lowest. Therefore, the charter suggests that resorts employ man-made ponds or reservoirs to gradually store water during times when the resource is more readily available (NSAA, 2005). Many resorts currently use reservoir systems to offset their withdrawals from water sources during the winter; reservoirs allow year-round water collection during times of higher flow, thus reducing resorts' withdrawals during the winter. An option not addressed by the NSAA’s charter is for resorts to make less snow. Economically, this may not be a viable option because it would open resorts to the risk of snow- adverse weather, thus decreasing skier visits and profits. However, many resorts in the Swiss Alps operate on the “100 days rule,” which refers to the theory that a resort can be profitable if it receives or artificially makes 100 days of snow (Vanham, et al., 2008). Some studies have applied the concept to resorts across Europe to assess which resorts will be susceptible to changing winter weather (see Angelini & Cetara, 2008, for example). Most ski resorts in the American West open in mid-November and operate until warm spring temperatures melt the snow, which could last until the end of April; this equates to about 150-160 skiing days assuming a resort opens November 15 and closes sometime in mid-April – more than sufficient by the Swiss 100 days rule.

17 Chairlifts and Trail Maintenance Environmental Impacts

Almost as essential to ski resorts as snowmaking, the chairlift brings its own environmental impacts and sustainability challenges to winter resorts. Lifts built below the tree line require clear cutting paths through forests, causing habitat fragmentation and disturbing vegetation and wildlife (Wipf, et al. 2005). Lifts built in the alpine zone above the tree line also impact the mountain ecosystem (Martin, et al. 2010, Patthey et al. 2008, Rolando et al. 2007). Since chairlifts often coexist with ski trails themselves, their impacts are discussed together. Skiing trails, or pistes, have similar impacts to chairlifts. Both lifts and trail maintenance require energy inputs that cause pollution; habitat destruction and fragmentation plays a role in both processes (Burt & Rice, 2009); and the expansion or building of new lifts and trails is opposed by many environmental groups, which makes resort expansion difficult for ski resorts. The main impact of these ski resort practices is felt on the land, vegetation, and wildlife. Any changes in the land use of alpine ecosystems will necessarily alter the composition and diversity of its vegetation, and thus impact ecosystem function and stability (Wipf, et al. 2005). Maintaining a variety of vegetation and consistent ground cover is important in preventing soil erosion. This can be dangerous because increased erosion and unstable mountainsides can lead to landslides or avalanches, endangering the safety of skiers and snowboarders, as well risking damage to ski resort property. As touched on in the above snowmaking section, machine-grading of ski pistes causes soil compaction and stresses vegetation, which can also effect mountainside stability. Wipf et al. (2005) found that machine grading of trails causes the most extreme disturbance of mountain soils and vegetation, and they recommend that ski resorts avoid machine grading because it causes damage that cannot be repaired by revegetation during the summer. Despite its inefficacy, revegetation is a common practice at ski resorts, and Sustainable Slopes advocates revegetation in many instances of ground cover disturbance (NSAA, 2005). Habitat fragmentation occurs as a result of clear-cutting forests to create wide-open pistes common to today's ski resorts. Development of new skiing trails causes some animals to avoid the newly developed areas and can disrupt the movements of animals that remain in the area, impacting their eating habits and social interactions. In a study of the effects of ski pistes on small mammal populations, researchers found that leaving woody debris behind on new ski

18 pistes creates cover, and as a result, more small mammals remained after development. Further, this debris and what the researchers refer to as “tree islands,” or stands of trees left on new trails, improve habitat connectivity, thus benefiting wildlife (Hadley & Wilson, 2004). Complete removal of trees, stumps, and other vegetation during the construction of ski pistes is therefore highly detrimental to wildlife because it causes habitat fragmentation. Another impact resulting from chairlifts and trails is their required energy inputs, which create pollution. Energy to run chairlifts mostly comes in the form of coal-fired power from local utilities, while diesel fuel is used for the snow grooming machines that maintain trails (“Cirque Lift,” ASC, 2008). Resorts have been using biodiesel fuel in their grooming vehicles to mitigate these impacts. However, significant emissions result from chairlifts and trail maintenance.

Chairlift and Trail Impact Mitigation Options

There are however, limited options for ski resorts to “green” their chairlift operations: increasing motor efficiency, alternative energy, and reducing habitat destruction during the construction of new lifts are some of the ideas ski resort sustainability advocates such as the NSAA and Peaks to Prairies have suggested. The challenges facing ski resorts include increasing chairlift efficiency and introducing habitat conservation techniques into trail maintenance. There are very few options to mitigate the power usage of chairlifts. According to Peaks to Prairies (2002a), energy efficiency is not the most important criteria in deciding which lift motors to use; they cite cost, technology, and the particular situation as deciding factors in motor selection. In fact, most improvements to chairlifts have few environmental benefits. Resorts can employ top-drive lifts, regenerative drives, harmonics filtering, peak shaving techniques, and energy efficient motors; they can also improve the heating and lighting efficiency in the lift houses where lift operators work. However, these alternatives usually result in monetary savings without a direct gain in environment impact mitigation (Peaks to Prairies, 2002a). Therefore, these mitigation options do not actually alleviate the environmental impact of running chairlifts. A more effective mitigation strategy is to buy renewable energy credits to compensate for the unavoidable need to power lifts with little ability to improve efficiency, though the reliability of such credits has come under scrutiny (NSAA, 2008); consequently, resorts could invest in on-site renewable energy to power lifts.

19 When it comes to building new lifts, resorts should choose the most efficient motor that is practical for the location of the lift. Further, the lift construction impacts can be mitigated by using human labor instead of heavy machinery such as bulldozers, as was accomplished by Aspen Skiing Company when it built its Cirque Lift. The lift was built above treeline without any bulldozers or mechanical equipment; the building crews carried in supplies over multiple paths so as not to create trails; further, all equipment was removed after construction to leave no trace besides the ski lift poles on the mountain. Construction was stopped during wildlife mating and nesting times on the recommendation of a wildlife specialist. Aspen selected a platter pull instead of a chairlift to reduce the visual impact of the construction. A platter pull involves a bar which skiers and snowboarders hold on to and are pulled up the mountain. This design was also selected to limit the number of people using the lift, which may have a marginal environmental impact by reducing skier and snowboarder traffic in the area. (“Cirque Lift,” ASC, 2008) As far as trail construction and maintenance are concerned, neither the Peaks to Prairies green ski resort handbook nor the Sustainable Slopes charter offer concrete examples for avoiding the environmental impacts associated with building new trails or keeping up existing ones. The NSAA's charter merely recommends that resorts design trails with “less tree removal and vegetation disturbance” (NSAA, 2005, p. 7); the charter makes no mention of grooming impact mitigation. This may show a lack of concern or incomplete knowledge about the negative consequences grooming has on soil and vegetation, or it may indicate that there is not much that can be done to mitigate those impacts short of leaving trails ungroomed, which could create dangerous conditions for skiers and snowboarders. It is not clear which of these explanations best address the lack of grooming mitigation options. According to Tonge (2005), machine grading during the construction of new skiing trails can be less invasive if the topsoil is removed before grading and replaced afterward to maintain the original vegetation and avoid reseeding of the disturbed area; this technique of trail construction has not been studied, however. Nevertheless, this shows that there are options available to ski resorts that could be explored as potential mitigation options in the future.

20 Lodge Impacts & Mitigation

The impacts that result from ski lodges result from their construction and then from their daily use. Building a lodge involves land clearing, building of access roads, and increased traffic from construction vehicles. Land must also be cleared for roads and parking lots to accommodate employees and guests once the lodge is completed. Land clearing impacts have been discussed above, but briefly, this increases the potential for erosion and landslides and destroys wildlife habitat (Williams & Todd, 1997). Higher runoff from paved areas such as access roads and parking lots can increase sedimentation and affect the local water quality. The materials and methods used to build a ski lodge also effect its overall environmental impact. The NSAA Sustainable Slopes charter recommends using long-lasting and low maintenance materials. They suggest that ski resorts establish best management practices prior to construction projects, including the use of efficiency techniques and sustainable building practices. Transportation and road building on the mountain area should be minimized, and over- snow transport should be used to decrease the impact of carrying construction materials over soil and vegetation. Building can also be completed in phases in order to reduce the environmental impact of construction projects. Finally, resorts should seek LEED certification for new construction projects to ensure that their lodges are built to the highest sustainability standards. (NSAA, 2005) Once built, lodge operation accounts for a large part of the resource use at ski resorts. Inefficiently designed lodges can waste water and energy, and consequently, many resorts have attempted to improved their resource conservation. For example, resorts have retrofitted their lodges to use CFL and LED lighting; some have also converted their heating systems to be more efficient. Water use is another major area in which ski lodges have increased their conservation efforts. Resorts have installed low flow fixtures and purchased water efficient appliances. On top of resource use, waste disposal is also an issue, especially in ski lodge dining operations. Recycling and composting are some basic options to reduce waste; changing the products available from ski lodges is another option that can be implemented by eliminating disposable dishes at lodge restaurants in favor of reusable ones, for example.

21 The Sustainable Slopes charter proposes that there are many stewardship options in the daily operations of resort facilities such as ski lodges. These opportunities usually involve resource conservation and efficiency increases which are meant to benefit the environment while also providing a cost-saving benefit to the resorts, and some examples of those options were listed above (NSAA, 2005). It is not feasible for ski lodges to mitigate all of their resource use, but through reduction and conservation, lodges can reduce the impact of their resource needs. When resources must be utilized, the total life cycle of building materials and products purchased for lodge use should be taken into account to improve lodge sustainability.

Resort Development

Resort development includes the lodges within ski areas and the hotels surrounding them. Unlike improvements to snowmaking, chairlifts, and trails, no matter how “green” or sustainable resort development projects become, this will always remain a controversial issue because environmentalists do not see it as a necessary process due to stagnant skier and snowboarder numbers and the intense impacts which new developments necessarily have on the landscape (Tenenbaum, 2001). However, this is the area where ski resorts make most of their money, since lift tickets are rarely profitable in today's competitive winter sports tourism market (Rivera & de Leon, 2004). For this reason, it may be difficult to adequately mitigate the impact of ski lodge and housing development. Currently, the recommendations for alleviating the environmental impact of resort development and operations include the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra; green building practices such as those established by ISO-14001 certification and LEED standards; and avoiding construction in sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian zones (NSAA, 2005). Despite these recommendations, ski resort development still faces vehement opposition by environmentalists, as evidenced by the SACC ski resort report card, which is weighted against resorts planning or undertaking development projects (SACC “How Are Ski Areas Graded?” 2011).

22 Obstacles to Implementing Mitigation Techniques

There are major obstacles to mitigating almost every aspect of the ski resort industry. Money often plays a significant role in the debate over business as usual versus environmental stewardship. Ski resorts operate on very marginal profits from season to season and may not possess the capital necessary to make meaningful environmental improvements. Ski area managers may operate under the attitude that you shouldn't try to fix what isn't broken; in other words, the way they run their resorts has worked for decades, so why change now? Ski resort business practices are engrained and potentially hard to change. These general obstacles must be overcome before specific aspects of resort operations can be made more sustainable. One of the least sustainable practices in the industry is creating artificial snow, but greening the snowmaking process faces many obstacles. First and foremost, ski resorts are a business and must protect their greatest asset – the snow that draws skiers and boarders to their resorts. Snowmaking is a marketing tool, and the race to be the first open resort is highly publicized each season (see the Aspen Times during October, for example). As a result, the suggestion of reducing snowmaking with the goal of lessening the impact of this process on the hydrologic cycle counteracts the business instincts of ski resorts. Further, snowmaking has bred an expectation from skiers and snowboarders that there will always be quality snow on the mountain. Reducing snowmaking capacity at ski resorts would let down those expectations. On the other hand, snowmaking can become extremely expensive because of its high water and energy demands; by some accounts, it could cost about $1000/acre for a single inch of snow (Clifford, 2003). This might create an incentive for resorts to limit their snowmaking only to those times that it is absolutely essential, such as at the beginning of the ski season to ensure adequate snow cover for opening day. As resorts increase the efficiency of their snowmaking operations, cost will be less of a limiting factor. In regards to chairlifts, the major obstacle to sustainability is the lack of mitigation options that are actually environmentally beneficial. Resorts cannot be expected to shut down their chairlift operations because few skiers and snowboarders would be willing to hike up the mountain in order to ride down it again. Further, the alternative lift construction technique

23 demonstrated by Aspen is extremely time-consuming and labor-intensive, which may not be practical for all ski resorts. Where trail construction and maintenance are concerned, there are fewer obstacles than with chairlift operations. Chairlifts are an integral part of ski area operations, but trail maintenance can be improved to benefit the environment. Some examples of mitigation techniques have already been suggested. Another idea is to create glades instead of open trails. Gladed trails involve less destruction of forest because these runs are meant to be filled with trees. If a ski area wants to expand its trails, it could consider creating glades to avoid clear- cutting of forest, a practice which is associated with increased erosion (Tonge, 2005) and habitat fragmentation (Hadley & Wilson, 2004). This is not a complete fix, however, because gladed trails still subject the wildlife living amongst the remaining trees to disturbance by skiers and snowboarders. Increasing signs to deter skiers and snowboarders from entering off-limits, forested areas might be another possible solution. In these situations, skier and rider behavior is important; mountain visitors can choose to obey or ignore posted warnings to leave wildlife areas untouched. Visitor behavior is thus an obstacle to ski resort sustainability; education efforts could be important in solving this issue. Another obstacle to implementing sustainable practices at ski resorts is the NSAA’s charter. While the best practice recommendations are useful, it is a voluntary charter, and its recommendations are not enforced with incentives for compliance or penalties for non- compliance (Rivera & de Leon, 2004). Further, it gives the impression that there is an adequate framework for sustainable ski resorts already in place, despite the fact that most resorts who endorse the NSAA program have been found to do more environmental harm than resorts who do not participate in the program (Rivera & de Leon, 2004; Rivera et al., 2006). Ski resorts are more likely to adopt resource conservation programs with immediate cost-saving benefits but little positive environmental influence (Rivera et al., 2006). The high cost of genuine environmental protection is therefore a major deterrent to sustainability at ski resorts. Therefore, achieving the environmental standards listed in the Sustainable Slopes charter can be a challenge. The NSAA program assumes that resorts have the resources to invest in new technology. More efficient snowmaking equipment requires a major upfront investment that may not pay off for years (Clifford, 2003). New snow machines for an

24 entire mountain resort requires a handicapping upfront investment that not all resorts are equipped to take on. The NSAA recently began to sponsor grants for ski resorts planning to improve their infrastructure, which is a positive step toward resort sustainability that is discussed in the following chapter.

Conclusion

Ski resorts depend on certain practices to stay in business and to provide the ideal skiing and snowboarding conditions for their guests. Most important among these practices, snowmaking ensures a reliable ski season and predictable snowfall despite natural variations in weather conditions. However, this common industry practice has intense impacts on the mountain environment and surrounding watersheds. Snowmaking impacts the hydrologic cycle, stresses local streams at their lowest flow, and impacts vegetation and wildlife. Snow grooming presents another set of sustainability challenges which include air pollution, soil compaction, and hydraulic oil spill runoff. Water scarcity in the American West is projected to increase, which means that ski resort water withdrawals will have an even more pronounced environmental impact on mountain ecosystems in the future. As water scarcity increases, climate change is also projected to increase; ski resorts will come to depend on snowmaking just as natural water availability declines (Scott et al., 2003). Beyond the environmental impacts of snowmaking discussed here, the practice is economically insecure because of the high costs associated with operating and upgrading snowmaking equipment. According to Steiger and Mayer, “more frequent warm winters will force ski resorts to intensify snowmaking capacity with consequences for their financial vitality” (2008, p. 297). The practice is neither environmentally or economically sustainable in the long-term. In addition to the impacts of snowmaking, other resort operations affect the environment. Local air quality may suffer because of the increase in energy necessary to operate more snow machines; air quality is also threatened by chairlift operations, trail construction and grooming, resort development, and increased traffic resulting from ski area expansion. Ski resorts involve intense resource use for snowmaking, chairlifts, grooming, and ski lodge operations. They pollute the local environment, and can also have serious impacts downstream and at lower

25 elevations due to erosion and their use of streams to supply water for snowmaking. Resorts fragment habitat, destroy vegetation, and disrupt wildlife. All of these are serious environmental issues that ski areas have begun to address through programs such as NSAA's Sustainable Slopes charter and individual resorts' efforts. Other industry and environmental interests are organizing to promote more sustainable ski resorts in response to these issues, the threat of climate change, and a perceived consumer demand for winter sport sustainability. While locally beneficial, these efforts will do little to improve the environment or mitigate the effects of climate change on the ski industry. Such issues are much broader in scope than ski resorts can tackle alone. Therefore, the next chapter demonstrates how the ski industry is moving beyond mere regulatory compliance and voluntary resource conservation to a more collaborative future. This evolution of ski resort sustainability may benefit the environment more comprehensively than the basic “reduce, reuse, recycle” efforts that have been standard at ski resorts for over a decade.

26 Chapter Two: Do Ski Industry Organizations and Voluntary Environmental Programs Actually Benefit the Environment?

The previous chapter mentioned several industry organizations that are invested in increasing sustainability at ski resorts. This chapter is concerned with the overall effect those organizations have on resort sustainability. The organizations discussed here are the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and the Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition (SACC). The NSAA administers the Sustainable Slopes Program and partners with the National Resources Defense Council to run another program called Keep Winter Cool, both of which are analyzed here. In addition to these ski industry organizations, independent programs focusing on education and activism are becoming an important part of the sustainable skiing and snowboarding effort. Initiatives such as Protect Our Winters (POW), the Save Our Snow database of eco-friendly skiing information, and the similarly named Save Our Snow (SOS) Foundation are part of a push by individuals invested in skiing and snowboarding to educate and unite the winter sports community around environmental issues. Some of these organizations provide frameworks to increase ski resort efficiency, others rank resort sustainability and environmental impact, and still others offer partnerships to raise awareness about environmental issues and climate change. While the mission and scope of each organization may be different, each represents a step in the evolution of ski resort sustainability. From simple efficiency gains to a broader environmentally-focused platform, the proliferation of these organizations signifies the importance of the ski industry protecting the environment on which it depends. This chapter discusses each organization individually, with a focus on its members and partners, its mission statement, and its environmental accomplishments. Then the chapter describes the impact of industry organizations and voluntary environmental programs on the overall sustainability of the ski and snowboard resort industry.

The National Ski Areas Association The NSAA is a trade group comprised of ski area owners and operators. Its members manage ski resorts across the United States. The NSAA represents 329 ski resorts and over 400

27 suppliers of equipment, goods, and services to the mountain resort industry (NSAA website). As a trade organization, the NSAA is often accused of being biased more toward business and industry interests than environmental concerns (Steelman & Rivera, 2006). Nevertheless, it administers several industry-wide environmental initiatives focused on environmental stewardship as a means to draw skiers and snowboarders to member resorts so that the industry prospers (NSAA, 2005). The Sustainable Slopes environmental charter and the Keep Winter Cool initiative are designed to encourage sustainable resort management and to publicize member resorts' environmental efforts. This is motivated by the desire to both raise awareness about mountain sustainability issues and also to create a positive image of the ski industry as a steward of pristine mountain landscapes where people will want to ski and snowboard.

The Sustainable Slopes Program

As discussed in the previous chapter, the NSAA sponsors the Sustainable Slopes program, the first comprehensive recommendations for environmental best practices in the ski industry outside of legal regulations (Sachs, 2002). According to the initial Sustainable Slopes charter, the goal of the program is to encourage “responsible stewardship and improved environmental performance industry-wide” (NSAA, 2005, p. 1). This goal is achieved through voluntary environmental management programs and charitable contributions from NSAA’s corporate partners which fund environmental pilot programs at ski resorts. The charter focuses on different aspects of sustainability and lists many “options for getting there” that resorts can mix and match to fit their particular needs as they develop more environmentally-friendly operations (NSAA, 2005). The Sustainable Slopes charter was endorsed by 187 ski resorts in 2008, representing about 36% of American ski resorts and 75% of annual skier visitation (NSAA, 2008b). These resorts adopted voluntary environmental measures involving energy and water conservation, waste management, wildlife habitat protection, vegetation management, pollution prevention, and community outreach and education – the main target areas outlined in the environmental charter (NSAA, 2005). Ski resorts can follow the Sustainable Slopes program by endorsing the charter, then implementing its principles in their operations; resorts are meant to report their

28 sustainability progress to the NSAA each year, and their progress is compiled in an annual Sustainable Slopes report (Sachs, 2002). In practice, many endorsing resorts do not report annually to the NSAA (Tonge, 2005). This program has been criticized by scholars because of its voluntary nature (Steelman & Rivera, 2006; Little, 2010). It has also been criticized as greenwashing5 because it allows resorts to claim that they are working toward environmental sustainability without taking any real action to benefit their natural surroundings (Rivera & de Leon, 2004; Little, 2010). Another criticism of the program is that the NSAA is first and foremost a trade organization, and it therefore represents industry interests above those of the community and environment, which implies that sustainability will only be supported if it serves a business purpose (Steelman & Rivera, 2006). Perhaps in response to these critiques, the NSAA released a document titled “Taking Sustainable Slopes to the Next Level” that expands upon its initial 2002 and 2005 environmental charters (NSAA, 2008b). This document focuses on programs that have been successfully implemented at resorts across the United States. In addition, it stresses the importance of collaboration between resorts, communities, and environmental organizations. The publication also responds to critiques of greenwashing, advising resorts to be honest when reporting their environmental successes, failures, and future plans (Fig. 1). Though the NSAA warns against greenwashing, the organization does not impose penalties against resorts that do so; because environmental reporting is voluntary and not verified by any third party, this hardly guarantees that exaggerated claims will not be made.

Figure 1: A warning against greenwashing claims (from "Taking Sustainable Slopes to the Next Level," NSAA, 2008, p. 40).

5 Greenwash: disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. (As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary) 29 While this effort to take Sustainable Slopes to the “next level” represents a step forward in the NSAA's thinking, the document does not fundamentally alter the nature of the program. That is, the program still depends on voluntary participation, which is problematic in ways that have been mentioned and that are elaborate on later in this chapter. Furthermore, this anti- greenwashing statement does nothing to actually prevent resorts from making exaggerated claims; it merely counteracts critics who accuse the NSAA organization itself of supporting greenwashing by resorts. More recently, the NSAA has moved away from their annual survey of ski resorts' sustainability programs – voluntary reporting by ski resorts that has seen mixed success as far as participation has been concerned, as mentioned above. However, the NSAA has shifted the approach of its Sustainable Slopes initiatives from voluntary guidelines and reporting of environmental projects toward a grant program designed to help resorts actively implement large-scale plans. Beginning in 2009, the NSAA Sustainable Slopes Grant Program has funded sustainability projects at resorts that would not otherwise be able to afford things such as expensive upgrades to snowmaking equipment or on-site renewable energy installations (NSAA, 2010). Some of the criteria in awarding a grant include whether the project is innovative, if it could be replicated at other resorts, and its ability to raise environmental awareness once completed (NSAA, 2010). This shift in the direction of Sustainable Slopes represents a positive change to the program. While still voluntary, the NSAA has begun to implement incentives to encourage participation and innovation on the part of ski resorts. The lure of grant money may be magnetic enough to attract more resorts to the environmental cause by increasing the resources available to address environmental issues (Darnell & Sides, 2008); the NSAA grant program would act as a subsidy of sustainability. Since the program began only two years prior to this research, it is difficult to say whether it will have a long-term impact on the industry, but it certainly has the potential to encourage forward thinking innovations and to eliminate financial obstacles to sustainability at ski resorts. Because the grant program operates within the Sustainable Slopes framework, it also serves as a mode for information-sharing among NSAA member resorts. One resort's successfully implemented environmental initiative therefore becomes an inspiration to other

30 resorts. This arguably moves the Sustainable Slopes charter from a voluntary program to an incentive-based best practices framework. If successful in the future, Sustainable Slopes grants may increase the number of best practice example resorts, which could catalyze the remaining resorts to improve their sustainability as well.

The Keep Winter Cool Initiative

Run jointly by the NSAA and the National Resources Defense Council, the Keep Winter Cool program was designed to raise public awareness of global warming, its effect on skiing and snowboarding, and the programs used to combat global warming throughout the winter sport industry. The program makes claims that the ski industry is leading the fight against global climate change by supporting legislation, developing clean energy, and encouraging more environmentally-friendly consumer behavior. These claims are met with the same skepticism as the Sustainable Slopes program (KWC, 2005). Nonetheless, the Keep Winter Cool program has led ski resorts to purchase or construct renewable energy and to support carpooling, according to a press release issued by the program (KWC, 2005). Additionally, 11 resorts collaborated with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, a non-profit that supports renewable energy development; these resorts bought green power from Bonneville and offered “mini green tags” to customers, giving skiers and snowboarders a chance to support clean power when buying lift tickets (KWC, 2005). Resorts participating in the program have committed to energy reductions and offsets and to using biofuels in resort vehicles. As discussed above, they also offer benefits to visitors who take steps to mitigate the emissions of their ski trips through carpooling, public transportation, and green tag offsets. While this empowers consumers, it may eliminate resorts' feelings of responsibility for environmental impact mitigation by transferring that responsibility to the resorts' guests; on the other hand, the idea of consumers purchasing offsets expands environmental efforts beyond ski resort borders, thus increasing the scope of mitigation.

The Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition This organization is a partnership between environmental organizations such as Colorado

31 Wild6, the Sierra Nevada Alliance7, Friends of the Inyo8, Under The Sleeping Buffalo Research9, and others. The organization’s mission is to influence more eco-friendly business practices by raising consumer awareness of ski resort sustainability. Beginning in December 2001, the SACC has administered an environmental scorecard that distinguishes between ski resorts that claim to be environmentally progressive versus those areas that actually contribute to the sustainability of the ski industry (Tenenbaum, 2001). Through this scorecard, the environmental organization hopes to motivate ski resorts to green their operations by encouraging skiers and snowboarders to buy lift tickets only from the most sustainable ski areas (Tenenbaum, 2001). The SACC acknowledges on its official website that while ski resorts have historically caused negative environmental impacts, skiing and snowboarding are an appropriate use of the nation’s public lands. The coalition is staunchly against ski resort expansion on the grounds that it destroys habitat and threatens already declining wildlife populations; they also argue that because skier numbers have remained level for two decades, expansion of skiing and snowboarding terrain into untouched areas is not necessary (Tenenbaum, 2001). As a result, the SACC environmental scorecard is weighted in favor of issues related to habitat and watershed protection and against resort expansion – that is, not developing beyond the existing footprint of a resort. These land-based scoring criteria account for 139 points out of a possible 230 (SACC, “How Are Ski Areas Graded?” 2011). The SACC is critical of the NSAA and their Sustainable Slopes program beyond resort development issues; the other scoring criteria used by the SACC demonstrate their concerns with wildlife and habitat protection and community involvement, for example. In a way, the SACC scorecard evaluates the extent to which resorts are seriously implementing the principles of the Sustainable Slopes charter by assigning a numerical score for different sustainability categories. This scorecard weighs heavily on development issues because of the organization’s

6 “Colorado Wild was formed in 1998 to protect, preserve, and restore the native plants and animals of the southern , focusing its efforts on habitat protection of Colorado’s forested, roadless, public lands and other ecologically important areas.” (www.coloradowild.org) 7 A union of conservation groups in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. (http://www.sierranevadaalliance.org) 8 A California-based non-profit conservation organization “dedicated to the preservation, exploration and stewardship of the region's public lands.” (http://friendsoftheinyo.org/foi/) 9 A non-profit that provides research and support for conservation of Canadian mountain areas. (http://www.mtnforum.org/en/node/5883). 32 aforementioned stance against ski resort expansion; many resorts have refused to provide data to the SACC based on this perceived bias (Janofsky, 2000). Though ski resorts are not held accountable to the SACC scorecard, the hope is that skiers and snowboarders will chose to visit the highest-scoring, most environmentally-friendly resorts, thereby rewarding more sustainable resorts for their efforts. The SACC scorecard offers an outside interpretation of the NSAA Sustainable Slopes program by advertising resorts' environmental performance. However, many ski industry representatives dismiss the report card because it does not influence skier and snowboarder visits in a meaningful way – by impacting resorts’ bottom lines (Janofsky, 2000). Since the main objective of the SACC report card is to exert economic pressure on resorts, and resort managers feel that this does not occur, the SACC does not seem to have found a successful tool to exert the pressure that they intended to. Thus, both the NSAA voluntary program and the SACC rating system are flawed, but offer ski resorts and winter athletes the option of incorporating sustainability into skiing and snowboarding decisions.

Protect Our Winters Professional snowboarder Jeremy Jones founded Protect Our Winters in 2007. This organization aims to unite the winter sports community around mitigating the impact of climate change on mountain sports and local communities. POW collaborates with corporate partners to raise awareness and change consumption behaviors among skiers and snowboarders. The organization focuses on education and activism within the snow sports community. Professional winter athletes work with POW and its partners to spread the non-profit’s message in schools and communities. POW also produces skiing and snowboarding films that focus on increasing public awareness of climate change and its impact on the snow sport industry, and the organization is also involved in federal lobbying for strong climate policy. One such film, Generations, was screened in Washington, D.C., to raise awareness surrounding climate change legislation during Congressional voting on a climate bill. (protectourwinters.org) While not directly affiliated with ski resorts, the POW program has worked with some resorts to fundraise for local initiatives such as education at local schools, area renewable energy projects, and community-based activism. The Grand Targhee Resort is the only ski resort that

33 contributes to POW, and two ski resort sustainability executives sit on the organization’s board (protectourwinters.org). Thus POW has a limited direct connection to ski resorts while still working with them periodically. This may free the organization from industry influence, allowing unbiased collaboration between individual resorts and this non-profit organization. The reason Protect Our Winters is part of the evolution of ski industry sustainability, even though it does not partner with ski resorts directly, is that it represents a collaborative effort on many levels within the snow sports community. POW works with ski and snowboard manufacturers, professional athletes, ski resorts, and the community to raise awareness of environmental issues affecting the ski and snowboard industry. This moves beyond the efforts of Sustainable Slopes and the SACC scorecard, which principally deal with the actions of ski resorts. Engaging all levels of the snow sports community is an important step in achieving true industry sustainability because resorts are not the only actors that affect the industry.

Save Our Snow In 2005, journalist and downhill skier Patrick Thorne founded the Save Our Snow website, which was originally a collaboration with the Ski Club of Great Britain to rank ski resorts from around the world on their environmental impacts, much like the SACC score card. Thorne wanted his research to have a wider effect on the skiing community, so he also launched an independent informational website to publicize environmental information about ski resorts world-wide (Conlin, 2006). According to the website, Save Our Snow's mission is to provide unbiased information about climate research and the effect of receding snow lines on the ski resort industry. The site is also intended to link to other relevant data and organizations, essentially organizing the skiing community's knowledge about climate and sustainability. While acknowledging that downhill skiing and snowboarding are inherently detrimental to the environment, Thorne says the industry has an opportunity to work together on climate change issues: “The ski industry represents the tip of the iceberg for global warming and could be an example for us all,” he says, indicating that because ski resorts are so vulnerable to the effects of altered weather patterns, they are in a prime position to raise climate change awareness and advocate for broader mitigation efforts (Conlin, 2006). This has been a major point made by others in the industry; since skiing and snowboarding are extremely weather dependent, many

34 people agree with Thorne's argument that the industry is well-placed to raise awareness and set a positive environmental example. This organization is perhaps the most objective of all those discussed in this chapter. Because Thorne is a journalist by trade, he is interested in providing impartial information that is neither too environmentally “extreme” nor biased by ski industry influence or resort sponsorship (saveoursnow.com). To that end, Save Our Snow is not affiliated with any other organizations and explicitly refuses endorsements. Though it provides links to the NSAA Sustainable Slopes website and the to companies offering carbon offsets or carbon-neutral skiing travel packages, these resources are meant to be informative rather than an advertisement for the organizations. Because Save Our Snow lacks affiliation with any resort or environmental group, it focuses mainly on educating the ski and snowboard community about eco-friendly winter sports practices. This limits the ability of Save Our Snow to exert industry-wide influence or to encourage resorts to be more environmentally progressive; in this model, it is the consumers' responsibility to find information about ski resorts and and to apply that information when they decide where to ski and snowboard. This is similar to the SACC report card, whose purpose is to educate the public to make environmentally-conscious decisions. In addition to the climate change information and ski resort rankings Save Our Snow provides, the site offers visitors links to other educational tools in an effort to increase the resources available for skiers and snowboarders to make informed decisions about the environmental impacts of winter sports.

The Save Our Snow (SOS) Foundation Founded in 2006 by professional downhill skier and environmental scientist Alison Gannett, the SOS Foundation is unaffiliated with Thorne's resort-ranking operation. The foundation is funded by donations and also sponsored by the maker of Clif energy bars. Its mission is to spread the message that environmental solutions can be cost-effective, and that green technology and clean energy can help preserve outdoor recreation areas. The foundation hopes to improve the nation's energy economy by educating school kids about sustainability; working with athletes, musicians, and other celebrities to spread its message; partnering with ski and snowboard areas to encourage innovation and promote what resorts are already doing; and to work with politicians to integrate sustainability into the nation's legislation (SOS website).

35 Each year, founder Alison Gannett speaks about climate and sustainability on her Global Cooling Tour (Behar & Higgs, 2009). Gannett's mission mostly focuses on environmental education and climate policy, but by partnering with ski resorts and winter athletes, she is able to reach an audience that will be directly impacted by changing snowfall – skiers and snowboarders with a passion for snow. The popularity of winter athletes also allows Gannet and SOS to reach a wider audience by creating a personal connection to the climate change issue. Witnessing professional skiers and snowboarders interested in protecting the environment could motivate others to take an interest as well.

Criticism of Voluntary Environmental Programs There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of voluntary industry programs aimed at protecting the environment. On a positive note, these programs may encourage resorts to enact environmental initiatives that go beyond compliance with current government regulations, possibly achieving greater environmental protection at a lower cost than through legislation; voluntary programs are also said to encourage innovation where official regulations would not (Rivera & de Leon, 2004). On the other hand, these programs are accused of greenwashing their results and not achieving measurable progress; in the process, they may hamper governments from enacting effective regulations by masking the need for such regulation (Rivera & de Leon, 2004). The issue with such programs, then, is that they are voluntary, and their results cannot be guaranteed. In two studies of Sustainable Slopes, researchers found that ski resort participation in the NSAA's voluntary sustainability program correlated with weak environmental performance (Rivera & de Leon, 2004; Rivera et al., 2006). Participants in the program did not demonstrate superior management of their development and pollution, or improve wildlife and habitat conditions (Rivera, et al., 2006). The initial study found that resorts certified under the NSAA charter performed worse than uncertified areas (Rivera & de Leon, 2004); the follow-up study discovered that certified resorts had equivalent but not superior levels to those resorts that did not endorse the charter (Rivera, et al., 2006). The only positive association between Sustainable Slopes participation and environmental performance was in the area of natural resource conservation (Rivera, et al.,

36 2006). Researchers suggest this is because ski resorts are more likely to invest in resource conservation and efficiency, which improves their bottom lines, unlike costly wildlife and habitat protection investments (Rivera, et al., 2006). Furthermore, the lackluster performance of ski resorts that endorse the Sustainable Slopes charter may be attributed to “free riding” behavior: resorts with poor environmental records join the NSAA program so that the public thinks the resort is “green” regardless of whether it actually increases its sustainability (Rivera & de Leon, 2004). Since the NSAA's charter is voluntary and does not penalize resorts for non-compliance, they are able to take advantage of the positive environmental reputation associated with endorsing Sustainable Slopes without actually implementing environmental initiatives. Because of this, the NSAA and its Sustainable Slopes program were selected by The Green Life, a non- profit environmental organization based in Boston, as one of the top ten greenwashing organizations (Johnson, 2005). The results of these two studies are suggestive of the effectiveness of voluntary environmental programs. First, such voluntary frameworks for ski resort sustainability have not demonstrated a widespread increase in environmental performance. Policymakers should not assume that voluntary programs can replace stricter environmental regulations. Second, despite the increase in the number of resorts endorsing the charter, ski resort participation in environmental self-assessment reporting declined between 2002 and 2005. While 90 resorts (52%) endorsing the Sustainable Slopes charter in 2002 submitted self-assessments to the NSAA, this fell to only 54 resorts (30%) three years later – a 22% decline in self-reporting of ski resort data (Rivera et al, 2006). This underscores the major issue of the Sustainable Slopes charter: because it is voluntary in nature, it has no real authority over its member resorts. Not only does the charter lack authority to enforce improvements in environmental performance, it does not even bind the resorts to annual assessment and reporting, without which environmental improvement is impossible. Not only are voluntary environmental programs limited in their effectiveness, but a recent survey found that skiers and snowboarders have little knowledge of such programs and that they are not influenced to visit a mountain resort based on its environmental management strategies (Little, 2010). Specifically, voluntary environmental programs influenced less than 20% of skier and snowboarder visitation at the Mt. Bachelor ski area in Oregon; factors that determined

37 visitation included the resort's variety and difficulty of terrain, number of trails, scenic views, and the amount of snowfall (Little, 2010). These results suggest that voluntary environmental programs do not impact ski resort visitation. There are several implications of Little's findings. First, if the NSAA intends for the Sustainable Slopes program to improve the public's perception of ski resorts as environmental stewards, it has clearly failed to do so based on the fact that few skiers and snowboarders knew about any of the sustainability programs in place at Mt. Bachelor. Second, if the purpose of the NSAA's Keep Winter Cool program is to increase the visibility of resorts' sustainability programs and to increase public awareness of environmental and climate issues, this too has failed. Therefore, the NSAA needs to take a more proactive role in raising awareness about their programs. Little's findings also reflect on the other organizations discussed here. The SACC uses its rankings to publicize environmental performance at ski resorts, but skiers and snowboarders did not seem aware of Mt. Bachelor's sustainability efforts. Therefore, the scorecard needs to become more effective at spreading its message if it is to have a viable impact on the ski resort industry. The same is true of the Save Our Snow rankings; the goal of SOS is consumer education, but few ski and snowboard consumers in Little's study were aware of the issues. Another conclusion that can be drawn from Little's results is that the ski resort industry has its work cut out for it: skiers and snowboarders have been shown in national polls to be more environmentally-conscious than the general public, but if only about 20% of skiers and snowboarders base their travel and recreation decisions on environmental factors, awareness of the impact of tourism may be even lower among the general public. If the ski industry is to lead the way toward more sustainable business practices beyond mountain resorts, it must first demonstrate an ability to educate its own patrons. Encouragingly, the study also found that once skiers and snowboarders were made aware of the environmental programs at Mt. Bachelor, approximately 23-39% said they would be influenced to return more often if the resort increased its implementation of sustainability programs (Little, 2010). This indicates that with improved skier and snowboarder awareness of ski resort sustainability in general and individual resort performance in particular, environmental considerations may play more of a role in deciding which resorts receive the most visitors; this would give the NSAA charter more leverage to

38 encourage winter resorts to enhance their environmental performance in order to attract more skiers and snowboarders. Reporting is an issue for both the NSAA Sustainable Slopes program and the Ski Area Citizens' environmental scorecard. For both organizations, ski resort reporting is voluntary. This is problematic for the reasons discussed above: self-reporting to the NSAA has dropped significantly in the past, and NSAA member resorts have refused to submit data to the SACC because of perceived bias in their ski resort sustainability scoring criteria. Both of these organizations are thus at the mercy of individual resorts for collection of resort environmental performance data. This is troublesome because other initiatives depend on this data to inform skiers, snowboarders, and the general public about the environmental track records of ski resorts. Without incentive to self-assess environmental performance, ski resorts cannot know which areas of their operations could become more sustainable, and they cannot be transparent about their environmental track records. This may be a reason for some of the cynicism surrounding ski resort sustainability and the attitude that ski resorts only undertake environmental programs for the advertising benefit of calling themselves “green.”

What are the Environmental Benefits? Despite the criticisms levied against the Sustainable Slopes charter, and the fact that skier and snowboarder education does not seem to impact resort visitation the way the SACC or Save Our Snow would hope, there are some positive environmental benefits created by these organizations. For example, ski areas are generally increasing their resource conservation (Rivera, et al., 2006). Their conservation is criticized as profit-motivated and arguably has a very small impact on the environment overall, but reducing resource use could be a small step toward more sustainable thinking at resorts. Another environmental benefit these organizations create involves renewable energy. After reducing energy consumption, the NSAA recommends that resorts invest in clean power, either by purchasing offsets or by constructing on-site renewable energy (NSAA, 2005). The SACC and Save Our Snow rankings take resorts' energy policy into account, and the SOS Foundation and POW both promote renewable energy at ski resorts. The NSAA estimates that resorts involved in Sustainable Slopes and Keep Winter Cool purchased 351,381,000 kWh of

39 clean power in a single year, offsetting nearly 500 million pounds of carbon emissions (NSAA, 2008a). This has been calculated as equivalent to planting 20 million trees,10 avoiding 197,000 round-trip flights between New York and San Francisco,11 or removing 44,470 cars from the road for a year.12 It's very difficult to quantify the environmental benefits of these organizations because their results are mostly qualitative. The environmental reporting challenges outlined in the previous section also make data collection difficult. Further study is needed to quantify and understand the environmental impact of ski resort sustainability. Mandatory, standardized reporting to the Sustainable Slopes program may help generate the data necessary to evaluate real world environmental impacts. The SACC scorecard and Save Our Snow resort rankings provide some idea of the performance of resorts relative to each other, but both systems lack a quantitative assessment of environmental performance. The environmental impact of Protect Our Winters and the Save Our Snow Foundation is likewise difficult to quantify. Both organizations aim to raise awareness about climate change, and it can be challenging to measure the direct environmental impact of the knowledge these programs share with the public. On the other hand, many of the organizations discussed here are interested in passing federal climate legislation; if or when that happens, it would be considered a significant, though unmeasurable, environmental impact due to the activism of organizations within the skiing and snowboarding community.

Conclusion The above organizations demonstrate the proliferation of sustainable concepts within the ski resort industry and among passionate skiers and snowboarders partnering with winter resorts. These organizations also highlight some of the problems relating to the industry’s environmental stewardship. First and foremost, these programs are voluntary and do not incorporate sanctions against poorly-performing resorts (Rivera & de Leon, 2004; Rivera et al., 2006). This means that however well-intentioned each organization or sustainability program is, it cannot compel resorts to comply with its environmental ideals. The industry is as free to ignore sustainability as it always has been. Further, the interests served by some of these programs are questionable in that

10 One tree removes 25 pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere. 11 Flying from New York to San Francisco and back creates 2,530 pounds of CO2 emissions. 12 Equivalences calculated by EPA tool: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results 40 they are not inclusive (Steelman & Rivera, 2006). Despite these shortcomings, many of the programs enacted by Sustainable Slopes, Keep Winter Cool, and Protect Our Winters have achieved real environmental results, especially in emissions reductions, declined resource use, and increased resort efficiency. It is clear that voluntary environmental programs and collaborative industry efforts are making measurable progress. Whether this progress is enough to sustain the industry in future decades may be questionable. Clearly, some resorts make more efforts to protect the environment than others; there are disparities in environmental performance across the industry. The annual SACC environmental scorecard highlights these disparities, with scores ranging from a low of 48.3% to a top score of 89.2% (SACC, 2011). Some argue that voluntary environmental programs are not a viable means to ensure the future of ski resort sustainability because such programs are subject to non-compliance and free rider behaviors (Rivera & de Leon, 2004; Rivera, et al., 2006). The NSAA, however, has responded to criticism of its voluntary sustainability charter. The organization argues that ski resorts are already subject to federal, state, local, and environmental regulatory compliance. The Sustainable Slopes charter is meant to encourage “beyond compliance” environmental best practices that individual ski resorts of varying size, resource availability, and location can apply to their unique situations in ways that make sense for their environmental and business settings, rather than forcing each resort to implement every sustainability suggestion (NSAA, 2005). But if the trend of sub-par environmental performance at resorts which endorse sustainability charters continues, government intervention may very well be necessary to improve ski resort sustainability. With only a handful of resorts actually performing beyond environmental compliance, it is clear that something more substantial than the voluntary Sustainable Slopes program is needed. Since Sustainable Slopes is the dominant ski industry environmental performance framework, it is important that organizations such as the Ski Area Citizens and Save Our Snow continue to rank resort performance as a means of holding ski resorts accountable to the public until stricter environmental regulations are developed or the Sustainable Slopes program can demonstrate real improvements in the environmental performance of the resorts who endorse the charter. Additionally, other organizations such as Protect Our Winters and the Save Our Snow

41 Foundation are also vital in an educational capacity. These programs partner with resorts and cater to the public, so they may provide a forum for public debate about the sustainability of ski resorts. If the ski industry is serious about sustainability, it may need to look beyond voluntary environmental programs to those that have legitimate enforcement powers. Sponsoring local, state, and federal legislation may be one pathway to achieve mandatory ski resort participation. This is problematic, though, because of the costs associated with increasing sustainability efforts beyond resource conservation. Few resorts will be interested in increasing the regulations with which they must comply or increasing their expenditures on regulatory compliance.

42 Chapter Three: Resorts as Environmental Stewards & Activists

The previous chapter established the ongoing debate over ski resort sustainability. Many environmentalists criticize ski industry sustainability as a greenwashing technique or marketing tool to improve the public perception of ski resorts; the same critique is levied against the main ski resort environmental improvement framework. Academic research has backed up some of these claims, arguing that the Sustainable Slopes charter's voluntary nature means most resorts free ride off of the green image without actually improving their operations. Skeptics have valid reasons to doubt the ski resort industry's claims. There is therefore an attitude of cynicism surrounding sustainability in the resort industry. However, there are many resorts taking a leadership role in improving the sustainability of the winter tourism industry. Examples from individual resorts abound. This chapter is concerned with those resorts that are actively demonstrating their commitment to the environment through on-mountain action and off-mountain activism. The resorts discussed here are leaders in ski resort sustainability. They were the first in their field to take on various sustainability challenges, and they continue to lead the industry forward toward a more environmentally responsible future. This chapter presents several resorts to illustrate the major accomplishments of industry leaders. Those resorts are the Aspen-Snowmass areas, Grand Targhee Resort, and Squaw Valley. Aspen was selected because the resort has an international reputation for leading the ski industry in sustainability initiatives. Grand Targhee was the first ski resort to complete a nationally recognized emissions audit, which is why this resort was selected. As the highest scoring resort on the recent SACC report card, Squaw Valley was another appropriate choice for study. The following sections examine the environmental programs of these three resorts in greater detail. First, their environmental achievements are briefly enumerated. Then, the conditions that enabled their environmental leadership are examined. Finally, the effects of Aspen, Grand Targhee, and Squaw Valley's achievements on the ski industry and other arenas are also discussed in order to better understand the ski industry's activism. The chapter concludes by calling attention to the similarities shared by these three resorts, with the hope of understanding which enabling conditions could encourage leadership from other ski resorts.

43 The Aspen Skiing Company The Aspen ski area is made up of four peaks in Colorado: Snowmass, Aspen Mountain, , and Mountain. The resort first opened in 1947; today the four ski areas are spread over 5,000 acres and accommodate 1.4 million skiers and snowboarders annually (ASC, 2007). Aspen has been a leader in ski resort sustainability in many ways, beginning with its pioneering environmental affairs department and their efforts in resource conservation and habitat protection, and extending to the present-day partnerships and advocacy that are integral to the way Aspen practices sustainability.

Environmental Accomplishments

Before the NSAA began collaborating with environmental and industry experts to create its Sustainable Slopes charter, the Aspen Skiing Company formed the first environmental affairs department in the ski industry (Centrella & Hecox, 2003). According to the company's first sustainability report, the environmental department was fully integrated with senior management as a testimony of their commitment to sustainability and stewardship (ASC, 2000). Since its creation, the environmental affairs department has reduced resource use, increased efficiency, practiced green building for both retrofits and new construction, and invested in renewable energy and alternative fuels at Aspen's group of ski resorts (ASC, 2000). Despite efforts to reduce energy use, however, the resort has experienced relatively unwavering energy use and its carbon footprint has actually increased, which motivates the company to improve its performance (ASC, 2007). Aspen has led the industry in its environmental accountability since releasing the industry's first sustainability report for their 1999-2000 season. Though the resort's environmental director indicates that Aspen's standards are usually higher than third-party certification, the company recognizes the need to demonstrate public accountability (A. Schendler, personal communication, February 27, 201113). This led Aspen to secure ISO-14001 environmental certification in 2004, and they have been recertified several times since then (Aspen-Snowmass website, 2008). Aspen's President and CEO, Pat O'Donnell, called his company's ISO certification a “necessary next step” to move beyond “project-level

13 Henceforth referred to as (Schendler interview, 2011) for brevity. 44 environmental work” and initiate “systemic change within the organization” (First Tracks Online, 2004, par. 2). In other words, ISO certification holds Aspen to a higher standard of environmental management, rather than implementing occasional sustainability projects at random. Two years after Aspen was certified, joined ASC as the only other ISO certified ski resort in America (Aspen-Snowmass website, 2008). Not only did Aspen lead the industry in its certification, it is one of only two resorts to undergo the ISO auditing process. This shows Aspen's environmental leadership; it also proves that ASC is one of the few ski resorts that actively demonstrates its commitment to environmental stewardship beyond the boundaries of ski resorts. The company's environmental director, Auden Schendler, said that being held accountable by a third party meant Aspen's environmental commitment was “institutionalized... durable, and evolving” (First Tracks Online, 2004, par. 6). Echoing this sentiment, the lead ISO auditor commented that Aspen intended not only to reduce its local impacts, but it also wanted to commit to broader environmental advocacy (First Tracks Online, 2004). This represents a microcosm of the evolution of ski resort sustainability. Resource conservation and efficiency improvements are only the first step in developing sustainable ski resorts; the resorts must move beyond conservation and efficiency to broader goals such as supporting clean energy and national climate legislation. Joining the Chicago Climate Exchange is another demonstration of Aspen's commitment to broader progress on climate issues. Aspen was the first and only resort to to join the climate exchange (NSAA, 2005). Before the exchange closed, this constituted a legally-binding emissions reduction commitment for Aspen (Schendler interview, 2011). This represented Aspen's guarantee that the resort would reduce its electricity consumption and carbon emissions, further demonstrating their serious commitment to mitigating climate change. ISO certification and Chicago Climate Exchange membership are legally-binding, unlike the NSAA's voluntary Sustainable Slopes charter. According to Aspen's environmental affairs department, the charter has had zero influence on their environmental initiatives (Schendler interview, 2011). By committing to programs that carry penalties for non-compliance, Aspen shows that it is atypically serious about improving environmental performance in an industry with an uneven track record of endorsing voluntary sustainability measures.

45 Other efforts Aspen has taken to increase its sustainability include building the Cirque chairlift without heavy machinery, fully powering the lift with wind power, retrofitting the lighting in buildings to reduce energy use, using aqueous washers in their parts department instead of hazardous solvents (ASC, 2000), constructing four LEED-certified buildings (Aspen- Snowmass website), and building retention ponds to reduce the resorts' demand on local streams (ASC, 2000). They were also the first in the ski industry to purchase renewable wind energy credits to offset their full energy use (RETI, 2008). Since that time, however, Aspen's sustainability department has become critical of renewable energy credits because they have little influence on the development of alternative energy (Elgin, 2007). As a result, Aspen has proactively constructed its own on-site renewable power in the form of solar-powered buildings and a micro hydroelectric installation (RETI, 2008). These are only a few of the many programs Aspen has taken on since establishing its environmental guiding principles in 1997. For their efforts, the resort has earned five Golden Eagle Awards, which are bestowed by the NSAA and CLIF Bar upon those in the ski industry who demonstrate environmental excellence, and 11 Silver Eagles for achievements in specific areas of sustainability (NSAA, 2011). Since 1994, the Aspen Skiing Company has won more than 40 awards for its superior environmental performance (ASC, 2007). This is a testament to Aspen's leadership of ski resort sustainability. The important question to ask next is: what has enabled the company to become an environmental leader?

Enabling Conditions

Arguably one of the most important factors contributing to Aspen's environmental dedication is the management structure of the company. The company's previous President and CEO, Pat O'Donnell, is a passionate environmentalist, which helped generate a corporate culture of sustainability when the environmental department was in its infancy. O'Donnell's successor, Michael Kaplan, is also a champion of the environment and climate issues. With environmentally-conscious leaders in charge of ASC, sustainability has become one of the company's top three business priorities, and it is integrated into their long-term plans (Schendler interview, 2011). This environmental concern has influenced the way the company views potential projects. Business principles such as return on investment are no longer the main 46 deciding factors in approving projects because the company now also values non-financial aspects of proposed projects (Schendler interview, 2011). Another characteristic of Aspen's leadership is that it extends its environmental commitment outside the realm of skiing. Auden Schendler, the Vice President of Sustainability at Aspen, notes that collaboration with the community, corporate partners, environmental organizations, and other ski resorts is “hugely important” to the way ASC operates; furthermore, influencing climate policy both locally and nationally is a “key focus” of the company (Schendler interview, 2011). Aspen's involvement in politics is discussed at greater length later in this chapter. Another reason Aspen has become a leader of industry sustainability is that it is a successful ski resort with many resources at its disposal: “Aspen is a place that can help create a road map to sustainability because it has the money and resources” to do so (Schendler, 2009, p. 69). In a way, this turns the assumption that “green” is easy and saves money on its head by implying that capital and other resources are necessary to sustainability, but it is also a demonstration that Aspen's management does not sugarcoat the challenges faced by ski resorts and other industries. Being realistic about the climate issue is an important quality for an organization that leads its industry in sustainability.

Environmental Activism

While the company has managed to green its on-mountain operations, the more significant contribution ASC has made to environmental sustainability is its stance on broader issues such as climate and energy policy. This represents a unique aspect of its environmental commitment not typical of the ski industry: that environmental improvements cannot be limited to short-term, on-mountain resource efficiency gains. This belief has led Aspen to partner with local communities on such diverse issues as education, wilderness restoration, and healthcare issues (ASC, 2010). Climate and energy policy is one arena in which Aspen sets itself apart from other ski resorts. While many resorts (71) signed a letter of support for the U.S. Senate McCain/Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act and its companion bill in the House (KWC, 2005), Aspen is unique in the fact that its CEO Mike Kaplan personally visited Congress three times in 2010 and twice the

47 previous year to lobby on behalf of climate legislation; Sustainability Manager Matt Hamilton has also lobbied Congress on the climate issue (Schendler interview, 2011). This is a display of the strong internal leadership ASC posses, as well as the company's commitment to affecting legal change in the way the United States deals with emissions and climate issues. Essentially, anyone can sign a letter of support, but personally appearing on behalf of an issue sends a much stronger message. Aspen therefore demonstrates a resolute stance on climate and the environment at a national level. This is the only scale at which the environmental director and others within the Aspen organization believe real progress can be made: “If a business is serious about its green efforts but hasn’t yet sent its CEO to Washington to lobby for climate action, it’s missing the point,” Schendler said by way of emphasizing Aspen's strong position on developing a national climate policy (ASC, 2010, p. 5). Aspen takes its stance on climate very seriously and shares its opinions with those in government. For example, in March 2007, Schendler told members of the U.S. House of Representatives that industry will not make significant environmental progress without federal greenhouse gas regulations (Elgin, 2007). This is one of the few examples of major companies, not just ski resorts, asking the government to make regulatory compliance more stringent; it is a testament to the serious approach Aspen takes to the climate issue. In addition to national lobbying efforts, ASC has been politically active within its home state of Colorado. The ski resort campaigned to remake the board of Holy Cross Energy, which supplies Aspen with its energy. Over a three year period, ASC managed to replace conservative and pro-coal board members with people who act more favorably toward clean energy (ASC, 2010). According to Schendler, this was an important project because Holy Cross makes some of the area's most important decisions regarding energy; it was a successful step toward a clean energy future for the utility's customers, including Aspen (Schendler interview, 2011). Not only does this demonstrate dedication to clean energy, it shows that Aspen is willing to enter the political arena to generate a positive environmental outcome for the community outside of ASC. Typically when resorts work with utilities, they arrange renewable energy credit purchases, but Aspen moved beyond this business as usual approach to ensure clean local energy that doesn't need to be offset by renewables produced elsewhere.

48 Another important facet of Aspen's activism is its community involvement. ASC has partnered with the Colorado Rocky Mountain School to install a solar array that the school would use for its energy (ASC, 2007). In addition, the company collaborates with a community organization to operate the Environment Foundation, which is a nonprofit dedicated to protecting and preserving the Aspen region (Aspen-Snowmass website, 2008). Along with political activism and community partnerships, Aspen is using its green reputation to influence other businesses. For example, the Harvard Business School studied Aspen's role in boycotting Kimberly-Clark, one of their major suppliers, because Kimberly-Clark used materials from temperate rainforests in British Columbia (Toffel & van Sice, 2010a). Aspen joined the boycott, led by Greenpeace with the support of 700 businesses, because of what the company's management saw as their responsibility as a prominent part of the ski industry; they also felt that it was a unique opportunity to influence the environmental performance of another major business (Toffel & van Sice, 2010b). After Kimberly-Clark negotiated with Greenpeace and the NRDC, Aspen ended its boycott of the company, even though not all of their demands were met in the negotiations. The management at Aspen decided that Kimberly-Clark had agreed to make small changes that would create a significant impact because they are such a large and influential corporation (Toffel & van Sice, 2010c). Aspen had influenced business in the past through their purchasing agreements – rewarding the most sustainable bidders with contracts – but this was the first time ASC had a firsthand impact on the way another business operates (Toffel & van Sice, 2010a). Aspen was able to leverage its role as a ski industry leader to have an important impact on temperate rainforests in Canada. This is a prime example of a ski resort leading environmental efforts beyond its own borders. Also, it shows how powerfully the ski industry may be able to influence its suppliers if resorts organize like the 700 companies who participated in the Kimberly-Clark boycott. Because ski industry suppliers also work with other industries, even agreements to make slight improvements to the sustainability of the supplier's operations would have a widespread impact on the environment.

49 Grand Targhee Resort Located in Alta, Wyoming, Grand Targhee was the first ski resort to join the Climate Registry, a national carbon footprint reporting agency; furthermore, it was the first member organization to submit a full emissions report and become “climate registered” (Grand Targhee, 2009b; The Climate Registry, 2009). This means that Grand Targhee conducted an audit of its emissions of six major greenhouse gases to establish a baseline upon which the resort can improve through emissions reductions (Grand Targhee, 2009b). In practice, registering with the Climate Registry means that Grand Targhee is conducting its sustainability programs with extreme public transparency, which demonstrates a much stronger commitment than endorsing a voluntary charter like the majority of the skiing community. For all these efforts, Grand Targhee was recognized as the “greenest” ski resort by Skiing Magazine (Grand Targhee, 2009a).

Environmental Accomplishments

In an effort to improve upon the baseline emissions recorded in their Climate Registry audit, Grand Targhee has undertaken many in-house sustainability efforts to achieve an aggressive reduction of the resort's carbon footprint over the long term. The resort has established a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions 18% below the 2007 baseline levels by 2012, successfully eliminating 166 metric tons of CO2 in 2008, the first year of the program

(NSAA, 2009). Put in perspective, this is equivalent to the amount of CO2 sequestered by 1.6 acres of forested land.14 Grand Targhee Resort undertook to reduce its overall emissions by 10% in 2010. This would be accomplished by using the money that would normally have gone into the purchase of renewable energy credits; though the resort no longer buys offsets as of 2011, preferring to reduce energy consumption rather than offsetting it (Grand Targhee website). Last winter, Grand Targhee managed a 10% reduction from its 5-year average through an energy conservation program geared toward guests and employees, accomplishing the goal it set for the season (NSAA, 2010).

14 Equivalences calculated with EPA tool: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results 50 While reducing emissions, the resort also continued to divert waste and glass use in a continuing effort to cut back on the amount they contribute to landfills. Because glass recycling is not cost- effective and most glass actually ends up in landfills, Grand Targhee has reduced its glass use by 75% (Grand Targhee, 2009a). This initiative, along with increased recycling and incorporation of reusable instead of disposable dining items, helped the resort to reduce overall waste by 8.23 tons (9%) from 2008 to 2009 (Grand Targhee, 2009a). As part of this effort, Grand Targhee plans to eliminate bottled water sales to reduce plastic use (NSAA, 2010). Another project being considered is the construction of a composting greenhouse to further divert the resort's waste from landfills (Grand Targhee website). Goals for the upcoming 2011 season include achieving a further 50% waste diversion and maintaining a 10% annual energy reduction rate (NSAA, 2010). Grand Targhee is also interested in actively encouraging other resorts to implement similar measures, which shows that industry sustainability leaders are concerned with replicating their successful projects at other resorts.

Enabling Conditions

Undertaking a third-party emissions audit was an important factor in establishing Grand Targhee Resort's sustainability goals. As a result of the audit, the resort focuses most of its efforts on reducing its carbon footprint, which is a broad approach to sustainability that encompasses many resource and energy use issues. The environmental department has set goals for aggressive reductions in the resort's carbon footprint, and this gives the resort a sense of overcoming a serious challenge, which can be a motivating factor for employees and management. The resort's location has an impact on its sustainability actions. The Teton Valley experiences 500 inches of annual snowfall on average, so Grand Targhee does not require much snowmaking (Grand Targhee website). This keeps their water and energy use low since snowmaking is usually the biggest contributor to ski resort water and energy usage (Smith, 2010). Because water and energy use were already low from minimal snowmaking, the resort must make reductions in other areas of resort operations. The SACC report card indicates that Grand Targhee uses one solar generator, despite having full sunshine days for only one-third of the year (SACC, 2011). Consequently, the resort cannot rely on solar power to significantly

51 reduce its emissions; the solar generator currently accounts for just 1% of the resort's energy needs (SACC, 2011). However, they are researching wind, geothermal, and biomass energy options to compensate for the natural lack of solar potential in Alta (Grand Targhee website). A unique approach has also contributed to Grand Targhee's successful energy and emissions reductions. The resort ran a pilot program with a grant from Bonneville Power Administration and the Fall River Rural Electric Co-Op – the local utilities – to challenge guests to reduce their energy use while staying at Grand Targhee's hotels; guests received a prize for reducing their consumption, and the resort found that guests who took part in the pilot program actually did use less energy than those who did not participate (Grand Targhee, 2011). Engaging the client base is a unique approach to cutting energy use in an industry where most of the emphasis has been on making expensive changes to infrastructure in order to reduce consumption. Previously, guests at ski resorts have been engaged through lift ticket strategies such as carbon offset tags or discounts for carpooling. Grand Targhee's pilot program demonstrates that skiers and snowboarders are interested in helping resorts reduce energy consumption through a conscious effort on the part of ski resort guests. This willingness of Grand Targhee's guests to contribute to its sustainability goals has enabled the resort to further reduce its emissions.

Environmental Activism

Grand Targhee is not content merely registering with the national Climate Registry. The resort shared the knowledge it gained through its emissions audit and subsequent actions with others in the ski industry at a presentation on carbon footprints, climate plans, and current resort measures to cut emissions (NSAA, 2010). This shows Grand Targhee as an industry leader interested in helping ski resorts nation-wide to improve their operations through efficiency and emissions reductions that will benefit both the businesses and the environment. Grand Targhee is also active in the surrounding community. Last year, resort employees completed over 500 hours of community service (NSAA, 2010). In addition to service hours, Grand Targhee also matched $10,000 in employee donations raised in association with Protect Our Winters, and the funds supported local nonprofits that organized environmental projects in

52 the surrounding community (NSAA, 2010). The ski resort consciously strives to build a strong relationship with the community to improve the area's overall environmental health. On top of service and donations, Grand Targhee leads community workshops on sustainability topics such as green building, renewable energy, and organic gardening, and has also led a sustainability fair (Grand Targhee website). These efforts to extend sustainable concepts beyond the ski area show that Grand Targhee has a long term vision for the environment. In addition to industry and community involvement, Grand Targhee is interested in environmental stewardship on and surrounding the ski area. The resort employs a natural scientist as part of the Resort Naturalist Program, whose purpose is to develop on-site environmental education and, during the summer, to lead nature hikes that teach visitors first hand about the landscape of the Teton Valley (Grand Targhee website). The resort partners with the town of Alta, Wyoming 4-H, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the state fish and game departments of Wyoming and Idaho, a research organization and a veterinary clinic to monitor area wolverine populations (Grand Targhee website). Other research efforts into Whitebark Pine and Douglas Fir beetle infestation management have involved Grand Targhee in partnerships to protect the ecosystems surrounding the resort; there is also a program to monitor glade habitat and diversity of vegetation and wildlife (Grand Targhee website). All of these efforts illustrate the importance Grand Targhee places on environmental stewardship. Their many partnerships also demonstrate a commitment to the community. Moreover, partnering with POW, the community, state and federal government organizations, and scientific researchers shows that ski resorts cannot protect the environment alone and that it takes more than efficiency gains to be a sustainable ski resort.

Squaw Valley Squaw Valley is located north of Lake Tahoe in California. The most recent SACC environmental report card ranked Squaw Valley as the most environmentally friendly ski resort in the . The resort has earned three consecutive “A” scores from the SACC (Squaw Valley USA, 2010). The resort received full marks for habitat and watershed protection, which includes not expanding beyond the area's current boundaries, a major scoring criteria; the resort also scored well for its support of local environmental issues and federal climate

53 legislation (SACC, 2011). In addition to the SACC's top honor, Squaw Valley was voted Best Ski Resort in the TreeHugger Awards15 for excellence in sustainability (Squaw Valley USA, 2010).

Environmental Accomplishments

Squaw Valley focuses its environmental program on the following areas: education and outreach, energy and water use, forest and vegetative management, wetlands, water quality management, transportation, and waste management (Squaw website). The resort's sustainability initiatives have resulted in significant energy savings. For example, in 2000, Squaw Valley upgraded the engine on its cable car and achieved almost 97% greater efficiency in the cable car's operation (Squaw Valley USA, 2007). The resort has implemented geothermal heating and cooling, and it also runs an incinerator that avoids sending 240,000 pounds of food waste to landfills each year and generates enough energy to heat an entire building (Squaw Valley USA, 2007). The resort continues to retrofit and upgrade its infrastructure into the present, earning a perfect score for energy efficiency on the latest ski area report card (SACC, 2011). The resort partners with local public transportation and encourages carpooling, which saves 909,550 vehicle miles annually (Squaw Valley USA, 2007). This is roughly the equivalent

16 to offsetting 500 tons of CO2 per year or planting 2,500 trees. To reduce energy and water used for snowmaking, the resort has upgraded to efficient snow guns and has a strict policy of minimal snowmaking that only occurs in November and December (Squaw website). Each summer, Squaw Valley revegetates disturbed areas with native vegetation and implements erosion control projects (Squaw Valley USA, 2010). Preventing erosion reduces the risk of landslides and minimizes sediment runoff into streams, protecting water quality in the area. Because sedimentation is the biggest threat to water quality in the valley, the resort installed retention ponds to slow stream flow so that sediment can fall to the bottom of the retention pond, allowing clean water to flow downstream (Squaw Valley USA, 2010). The resort has also improved drainage from parking lots and paved areas to filter sedimentation from runoff (Squaw Valley USA, 2010). The use of native plants in Squaw's revegetation efforts is important to

15 TreeHugger.com, the “leading media outlet dedicated to bringing sustainability to the mainstream.” 16 Calculated with: http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-calculator.htm 54 preserving the integrity of the mountain ecosystem; this further distinguishes Squaw from most other ski resorts that are not sensitive to the type of plants they select for revegetation.

Enabling Conditions

The Squaw Valley ski area has been implementing sustainability programs since the 1980s (Squaw website), so they have institutional momentum that influences their environmental performance. Furthermore, the resort's technical director, Hardy Herger, is a visionary environmentalist who has been working with Squaw Valley on energy efficiency and clean power since 1968 (Skiing Magazine, 2009). Having such an experienced designer of sustainable energy systems on the Squaw team gives the resort the edge needed to improve its sustainability. Herger plans to study the potential for wind and solar to power the resort's lifts in the future (Skiing Magazine, 2009). Another plan for the future includes continuing the resort's auditing process and using the results to establish a new sustainability program that will be divided by department to better understand which areas of operation require the most focus and improvement (NSAA, 2010). Though Squaw Valley has been invested in sustainability for a long period of time, the resort is constantly improving the sustainability of its operations and reorganizing its environmental initiatives to keep forward momentum. The resort constantly evolves its sustainability efforts beyond past accomplishments. This shows that ski resort sustainability is a continually evolving process.

Environmental Activism

Squaw Valley participates in the annual Tahoe Truckee Earth Day Festival to raise environmental awareness among the community (Squaw website). The resort also donates to a community education fund to further raise awareness about environmental issues. Squaw Valley's environmental department works with California state researchers to assess water quality in the valley (Squaw Valley, 2007). Strong community partnerships are therefore characteristic of all three resorts in this study.

55 The Ski Area Citizens group has acknowledged Squaw Valley's support of progressive local environmental politics, noting that in 2009, the resort campaigned for a land management act aimed at protecting 700,000 acres and 105 miles of streams (SACC, 2011). Squaw Valley has also urged California's senators and representatives to support climate legislation in Washington, D.C., and endorsed the American Climate Security Act (SACC, 2011). Neither the land management bill nor the climate legislation became law, but Squaw's support helped to represent the ski industry as an environmental steward. The resort saw greater success with its endorsement of a California state measure designed to increase emissions standards for diesel off-road vehicles, such as snowmobiles or grooming machines, a bill which passed into law in 2007 (SACC, 2011). Supporting environmentally beneficial legislation is essential to sustainability; as seen in the previous chapter, voluntary measures are not proven to increase environmental performance, but by supporting stronger state federal regulations, progressive ski resorts can use their leadership to bring about improved environmental performance both within and outside of the ski industry.

Conclusion Aspen Skiing Company, Grand Targhee Resort, and Squaw Valley present examples of environmental leadership. They have improved the operations of their resorts through increased efficiency and reduced consumption. What's more, they have moved beyond on-mountain efficiency and conservation to a more active approach within their communities and on a broader scale by campaigning for progressive legislation and raising environmental awareness. This is the direction in which the entire ski resort industry must move if it is to sustain itself into the future. The industry is well placed to become a catalyst for environmental activism on a broader scale than it has been part of to date. Strong environmental leadership in the implementation of on-mountain sustainability is needed to show the rest of the ski resort industry how to operate with minimal environmental impact, but it is more important for those leaders to show what industry can accomplish to a broader audience, including politicians, other industries, and the general public. The three resorts discussed here are characterized by their active approach to sustainability. Each one has successfully implemented unique environmental initiatives, serving

56 as a model for the rest of the industry – recall Aspen's Cirque lift, which was built without heavy machinery, or Grand Targhee's energy conservation program that rewarded guests for reducing their energy consumption. These techniques and programs are unlike any employed by ski resorts, but because of their success at Aspen or Grand Traghee, others in the industry may implement similar ideas to become more sustainable. It is essential, however, that ski resorts do not just mimic industry leaders. One of the essential features of the NSAA Sustainable Slopes Charter is the ability of resorts to chose the sustainability measures that best fit their businesses and ecosystems. Not all sustainability programs will be successful at every ski resort. That is why it is important for the ski industry to recognize what Aspen, Grand Targhee, and Squaw Valley have already learned: sustainability is a constant process of adaptation. As Grand Targhee's Director of Sustainable Operations has noted, “While we are proud of what we have been able to accomplish, we aren’t perfect, and understand that being sustainable is as much about committing to the process as it is about implementing changes.” (Grand Targhee, 2009a). This statement indicates that sustainable business practices depend on the process of implementation, self-assessment, and constant course correction. Running a sustainable ski resort is not about an endpoint, then, but rather a constant creative process of initiatives designed to respond to new challenges and opportunities. Many resorts start recycling programs and then call themselves green, but the lesson to be learned from these leading resorts is that programs can evolve from that point – they need to evolve if the industry intends to call itself sustainable. And without a constantly evolving approach, resorts will not mitigate their impact on the environment, never mind become a positive environmental force. Therefore, the inclusion of Aspen, Grand Targhee, and Squaw Valley in this chapter is not meant to indicate that these resorts are perfect microcosms of sustainable business practices. Because the concept of sustainability is continually evolving, both in the ski industry and other arenas, the process will never be complete. Aspen's climbing carbon footprint (ASC, 2007), despite their best efforts to reduce it, shows that running a sustainable ski resort requires constant attention.

57 Chapter Four: The Future of Ski Resort Sustainability

More urgently than any other industry, ski resorts depend on the environment for their continued success. A pristine landscape and predictable, steady snowfall throughout the winter are essential to the ski resort industry. Ski resorts themselves create intense negative impacts simply by operating. Therefore, resorts have a serious stake in environmental protection and sustainability issues. The problem, however, is that ski resorts alone cannot feasibly solve the climate problem that increasingly affects their business. The following sections grapple with this issue, tying together the evolution of sustainable thinking at ski resorts in the American West within the bigger picture of climate change. The chapter concludes with implications for the future of the ski resort industry and recommendations for further research.

The Evolution of Sustainable Thinking

For a long time, skiing was seen as an environmentally friendly industry because it brought people closer to nature, but many environmentalists began to criticize the industry for rampant development, habitat destruction, and air and water pollution. In chapter one, the impacts of ski resort development and operation were discussed in great detail, and as seen in chapter two, criticism over these impacts led the National Ski Areas Association to establish a sustainability program for resorts. At the outset of ski resort implementation of sustainability initiatives, the focus was on reducing waste, increasing efficiency, and minimizing resource use (NSAA, 2000). So resorts recycled, installed more efficient light bulbs and water fixtures, and upgraded their snowmaking equipment. Some bought renewable energy credits to offset the energy use that they couldn't reduce. The environmental benefit of all these efforts was reduction of waste sent to landfills and – sometimes vastly – reduced water and energy use. Ski resorts benefited, too, because these kinds of programs are visible to guests and act as positive public relations while also saving the resorts money on utility bills (Sachs, 2002). Relatively progressive resorts such as Aspen, Grand Targhee, Squaw, and others have taken on leadership roles by expanding beyond these simple conservation and efficiency measures. These resorts are auditing their operations to understand the best ways to cut their

58 emissions. They have dedicated environmental departments, they publish sustainability reports, and they participate in third-party certification such as ISO-14001, LEED, or national climate registries. The most important leadership role sustainable resorts play is that of activist. Ski resorts are becoming increasingly involved in their communities, with local utilities and state legislatures, and at the federal level. This environmental activism gives ski resorts the opportunity to create a positive impact outside of their individual operations. Despite this evolution of sustainability thinking in the industry, the conclusion of chapter two noted that the NSAA Sustainable Slopes and resorts themselves are still criticized by environmentalists for continuing to degrade the environment through day to day operations and resort development. Furthermore, the only sustainability framework endorsed industry-wide is voluntary, and endorsing resorts have demonstrated worse or similar environmental performance as those resorts who do not endorse the charter (Rivera & de Leon, 2004; Rivera et al., 2006). The NSAA has instituted a grant program designed to encourage innovation amongst ski resort sustainability efforts; this recent evolution of the Sustainable Slopes program has not been studied to determine its efficacy, but since the major barrier to many sustainability measures is their high cost, it makes sense to provide grants in order to overcome economic obstacles. It remains to be seen whether the new direction of Sustainable Slopes will have a greater environmental impact than its original incarnation, but it is a continuing step in the process of improving ski resort sustainability.

The Big Picture

All of these initiatives are certainly positive steps toward greater environmental sustainability. The problem is that even if every ski resort recycles or uses less water, the industry still has a massive carbon footprint due to daily operations. This is driving the major threat to skiing and snowboarding: climate change induced shifts in weather patterns, which cause warmer, rainier winters and a receding snow pack (Sachs, 2002). As things stand in the ski resort industry today, sustainability initiatives are too narrow in their focus to have a serious effect on the climate issue. This is why industry activism is so essential to the continuing development of ski industry sustainability. By leading the way in sustainability efforts, ski resorts can set an example

59 for other industries and lend legitimacy to their support of favorable environmental policy and industry regulation. Environmental directors at several ski resorts, including those featured here, have acknowledged that while their sustainability efforts have benefited the environment, national climate policy must be developed to ensure the continuation of winter recreation into the future. While ski resorts cannot possibly solve climate change on their own, they can lead the charge for national legislation, and also protect the mountain environment surrounding their ski areas. Some extreme environmentalists have suggested that the best way to ensure the health of mountains is for ski resorts to cease operations, but this suggestion is problematic in many ways. First, ski areas are vital to the health of economies in mountain towns, as discussed in the introduction to this research (Del Matto, 2007). Secondly, skiers and snowboarders tend to be more conscious about the environment than non-participants; winter sports should be encouraged rather than prevented in order to cultivate a culture of environmentalism. Furthermore, winter sports are a good way to get people outdoors and to educate them about the natural world. A third argument against closing ski resorts is that dedicated skiers and snowboarders will find ways to continue to participate in the sports, which will diffuse the sports' impact instead of concentrating impacts within ski areas (Tenenbaum, 2001). Alternatively, skiers and snowboarders may travel to resorts that remain open, which would increase carbon emissions. Another argument against closing ski resorts is the importance of winter recreation to the identity of the American West – and also to the Northeast United States (Scott et al., 2003; Dawson, 2008). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why shut down an industry that has demonstrated an interest in environmental improvements? Other industries could potentially fill into the areas once occupied by ski areas. If logging, mining, or other extractive industries begin to operate in these areas, the environmental degradation could be greater than that caused by ski resorts. Since ski resorts are not the only industry driving climate change, it does not make much sense to punish only resorts, some of which are making serious efforts to reduce their impacts and to advocate for change at the national level. This would eliminate a major industry supporter of climate and emissions legislation, which would be seriously detrimental to environmental sustainability.

60 Research Limitations and Recommendations Though ski resort sustainability has been debated for almost two decades, there has been relatively little academic research on industry response and environmental performance. Much of this paper relies on only a few sources to draw conclusions about industry sustainability. The two main sources of information come from the National Ski Areas Association and the Ski Area Citizens Coalition. Since these two organizations represent opposite ends of the spectrum – industry interests and environmental concerns – they offset each other well and allow for a comprehensive representation of the resort industry. The main sources of information about the ski areas discussed in chapter three are the resorts themselves, which is problematic because of potential bias or greenwashing. The claims of each resort were evaluated objectively by consulting NSAA and SACC sources to confirm their validity from both an industrial and an environmental perspective. Chapter one shows that there is a plethora of research on the environmental impacts of ski resorts, but most academic sources do not focus on resorts' activism efforts. Future research should examine this aspect of ski industry sustainability. This research could focus on individual ski areas, so that resorts themselves are not the only source of information, and also on the industry as a whole. Some questions to consider include: • How effective are individual resorts at mitigating their environmental impacts? • What are the most effective mitigation strategies? • What enabling conditions would increase the importance of sustainability at ski resorts? • How can industry leaders motivate other resorts to follow their example? • What factors could contribute to increased renewable energy use at ski resorts? • And what activism strategies could the industry employ to exert influence at the national policy level? These questions and others could help to increase academic understanding of ski resort sustainability while also providing solutions to some of the major sustainability obstacles facing the industry. The Ski Area Citizens' report cards are a good base to establish better record- keeping, and possible mandatory reporting through the NSAA's Sustainable Slopes may also

61 promote data collection. However, further research into this topic will be needed to understand the processes driving ski resort sustainability.

The Future of the Ski Resort Industry Ski resorts, because of their close connection with the environment, are well positioned to be a role model of environmental sustainability. There are many steps the industry can take in the future to continue the evolution of ski resort sustainability and to exert influence outside of the industry. For example, the NSAA needs to continue to build on its Sustainable Slopes charter. One next step for the charter might include mandatory reporting; that way, even if a resort does not choose to implement the charter's sustainability suggestions, it will be more aware of the impacts of its operations on the environment. This may in turn motivate more resorts to become active in sustainability. Another possible step forward would be to develop standards for endorsement of Sustainable Slopes; this could eliminate free rider behavior, but it could also isolate poorly performing resorts, which is antithetical to the NSAA's mission as an industry proponent. There are several scenarios for the future of the skiing and snowboarding industry. First, resorts could continue on a business as usual trajectory in which the NSAA makes conservative changes to its Sustainable Slopes program and continues to accept free rider behavior of poor environmental performers; meanwhile, resorts invest in relatively cheap recycling programs to maintain a “green” image that does not actually improve their environmental performance. At this rate, many ski resorts will suffer from shorter seasons and increased reliance on snowmaking (Scott et al., 2003). The other option is for resorts to begin taking sustainability seriously as a business strategy. This could continue to happen at a handful of resorts such as Aspen, Grand Targhee, and Squaw Valley; or it could be an industry priority. However, those resorts that do participate in sustainable operations may find themselves in a better position in the future because they will reduce their resource needs and improve their companies’ images at a time when “green” is becoming a consumer concern. Also, if stricter industry environmental standards are passed, the resorts operating at the most sustainable levels will avoid fines and citations for poor performance.

62 Another scenario for the industry could be an expansion of the trend of small, locally operated ski resorts. Some such community owned areas already run successful mountains,17 and other areas are looking to open local mountains to skiers and snowboarders. For example, the Mountain Riders Alliance is looking to open a ski area in Manitoba that will focus on the skiing experience, rather than resort development. In these community-operated ski area models, creating local jobs and protecting the landscape are prioritized over profit and reputation (J. Schectman, personal communication, March 5, 2011). This model may not be helpful to those large resorts already operating, but their philosophy of environmentally conscious operations clearly has a place at those larger resorts, as demonstrated by Aspen and others. Regardless of which path the industry follows in the future, two things will be important to the sustainability of the ski industry: renewable energy development and increased political pressure to enact climate legislation. Because of the necessary energy inputs for snowmaking and lifts, resorts have limited emissions mitigation options and should try to invest in the cleanest power possible. This interest in renewable technologies can be seen in recent projects at resorts worldwide. For example, Whistler-Blackcomb in Canada invested in hydro-electric power prior to the 2010 Winter Olympics;18 Aspen’s wind-powered Cirque Lift has been discussed in previous chapters; and on the East Coast, Jiminy Peak recently attracted attention for erecting a wind turbine on-site that generates one-third of the resorts annual power needs.19 Furthermore, it is in the best interest of the ski industry to advocate for sustainability and national climate legislation so that the actions and emissions of other industries do not accelerate the change in weather patterns already observable at many ski resorts. Addressing climate change should continue to be a serious industry goal in the future, and ski resorts should increase the scope of their environmental programs. Ski resort sustainability addresses environmental, business, and ethical concerns: resorts are trying to build an image of themselves as stewards of their natural surroundings because it is the right thing to do and because it also protects the reputation and viability of their industry. There are many reasons for ski resorts to actively develop their sustainability strategies moving forward.

17 Bridger Bowl in the west and Mad River Glen in the east are examples of ski area co-operatives. 18 http://ww1.whistlerblackcomb.com/media/environment/projects.asp 19 http://www.jiminypeak.com/wind-turbine-faq 63 Appendix 1: Tables

Table 1. The Sustainable Slopes Charter’s recommendations for mitigating the water and energy impacts of snowmaking (From NSAA, 2005).

ENERGY USE FOR SNOWMAKING WATER USE FOR SNOWMAKING Principles Principles

◆ Reduce energy use in snowmaking operations ◆ Optimize efficiency and effectiveness of water ◆ Use cleaner energy in snowmaking operations use in snowmaking operations ◆ Conduct snowmaking operations in a manner that protects minimum stream flows and is sensitive to fish and wildlife resources

Options for getting there Options for getting there

✓ Use modern, high efficiency snow guns and air ✓ Inspect and monitor systems to reduce water compressors for snowmaking operations loss ✓ Use reservoirs or ponds to store water for use ✓ Upgrade diesel motors or convert them to during low flow times of the year and to maximize alternative clean energy generation sources efficiency in the snowmaking process ✓ Work with local water users and suppliers to ✓ Use real time controls, sensors and monitoring promote in-basin storage projects to offset low flow systems to optimize the system and reduce times of the year electrical demand ✓ Install water storage facilities to recapture snowmelt runoff for reuse ✓ Use on-mountain reservoirs and ponds to ✓ Inventory water resources and monitoring gravity feed snowmaking systems seasonal variations in stream flows ✓ Support and participate in research on the ✓ Use distributed, on-site power generation to ecological impacts of snowmaking avoid or reduce peak demands from the utility grid ✓ Re-use wastewater for snowmaking as appropriate ✓ ✓ Purchase renewable ‘green power’ from energy Use computerized snowmaking equipment for providers improved effectiveness with respect to air compression and better efficiency with respect to ✓ water use Utilize variable speed drives on pumping ✓ systems Use dirt or other alternative methods for constructing terrain features to minimize water use

64 References

Angelini, P. and Cetara, L. Italian Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea. (2008). Data and elaboration on the Italian alpine and pre-alpine ski stations, ski facilities and artificial snowmaking.

ASC. (2000). Sustainability Report, 1999-2000. Retrieved from: .

ASC. (2007). Sustainability Report, 2006-2007. Retrieved from: .

ASC. (2008). “Cirque Lift.” Retrieved 2/10/11 from: .

ASC. (2008). Environmental program highlights. Retrieved 2/28/11 from: .

ASC. (2010). Sustainability Report, 2008-2009. Retrieved from: .

Behar, M. and Higgs, P. (2009). High-country heroes. SKI Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.skinet.com/ski/mountain-life/news/2009/09/high-country-heroes.

Centrella, J & Hecox, WE. (2003). Aspen Skiing Company – A snow business striving to be green. Colorado University and College Consortium for Environmental Sustainability.

Clifford, H. (2003). Downhill slide: Why the corporate ski industry is bad for skiing, ski towns, and the environment. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco, CA.

Conlin, J. (2006, December 24). Thinking green about the white stuff. The New York Times.

Darnell, N. and Sides, S. (2008). Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter? The Policy Studies Journal, 36:1.

Del Matto, T. (2007). Conceptualizing a sustainable ski resort: A case study of Blue Mountain Resort in Ontario (Master’s thesis). University of Waterloo, Canada.

Elgin, B. (2007, October 29). Little Green Lies. Business Week.

Fahey, B. and Wardle, K. (1998). Likely impacts of snow grooming and related activities in the West Otago ski fields. Science for Conservation, 85.

65 Frary, M. (2006, November 11). Can ski resorts be eco-friendly? Resorts are starting to do their bit, but will it have an impact? The Times (London).

First Tracks Online. (2004, April 24). Aspen Skiing Co pushes for climate legislation. Retrieved from: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2009/4/24/Aspen-Skiing-Co-Pushes-for- Climate-Legislation/

First Tracks Online. (2004, November 17). Aspen certified as environmentally friendly. Retrieved from: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/news/stories/110071438234939.shtm

Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change, 12.

Grand Targhee Resort. (2009a). Grand Targhee recognized as greenest ski resort [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.grandtarghee.com/about-us/press-room.php

Grand Targhee Resort (2009b) Grand Targhee Resort becomes first North American organization with a Climate Registered GHG emissions inventory [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.grandtarghee.com/about-us/press-room.php

Grand Targhee Resort. (2010). Grand Targhee Resort awards environmental grants to Teton Valley non-profits [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.grandtarghee.com/about- us/press-room.php

Grand Targhee Resort. (2011). Grand Targhee Announces Lowest Electricity Use in a Decade [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.grandtarghee.com/about-us/press-room.php

Grouse Mountain website. “Snowmaking.” Retreived from: www.grousemountain.com/Winter/skiing-riding/vancouver-bc-skiing-snowboarding- snow-making.asp

Guido, M. (1999). The art and science of making snow. First Tracks Online Ski Magazine. http://firsttracksonline.com/News/1999/6/7/The-Art-and-Science-of-Making-Snow/

Hadley, GL, and Wilson, KR. (2004). Patterns of Small Mammal Density and Survival Following Ski-Run Development. Journal of Mammalogy, 85:1.

Ibisworld (2010). U.S. Industry Report: Ski & Snowboard Resorts. Retrieved 9/24/2010 from: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1653.

IISD. (1992). Business strategies for sustainable development. Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the 90s. The International Institute for Sustainable Development.

66 Janofsky, M. (2000, Dec. 3). Environmental groups’ ratings rile ski industry. New York Times.

Johnson, G. (2005). Don't be fooled. The Green Life: Boston, Mass.

KWC. (2005). Ski Areas Lead in Addressing Global Warming [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.keepwintercool.org/pdfs/NSAA_KWC_050223.pdf

Lagriffoul, A, Boudenne JL, Absi R, Ballet JJ, Berjeaud JM, Chevalier S … and Zini, S. (2010). Bacterial-based additives for the production of artificial snow: What are the risks to human health? Science of the Total Environment, 408.

Leao, D. and Tecle, A. (2003). Possible impacts of snowmaking using reclaimed water on water resources and other related issues in Flagstaff, Arizona. Hydrology and water resources in Arizona and the southwest. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, 33.

Leich, J. (2001) Chronology of snowmaking. New England Ski Museum: Franconia, NH. Retrieved from < http://secure.skimuseum.org/page.php?cid=doc141 >.

Little, CM. (2010). Voluntary Environmental Programs at an Alpine Ski Area: Influence of Recreationists' Knowledge, Motivations, Attachment, Value Orientations, and Specialization (Master's Thesis). Oregon State University.

Martin, C, Pohl, M, Alewell, C, Korener, C, and Rixen, C. (2010). Interrill erosion at disturbed alpine sites: Effects of plant functional diversity and vegetation cover. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11:7. Accessed 9/24/2010 from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GVS-513F5DR- 1&_user=10&_coverDate=11/30/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=se arch&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0 &_userid=10&md5=8b618ea2366710d5aaafe4efe69d98ab&searchtype=a

Michelson, M. (2009). “Skiing is dirty.” Skiing magazine.

Milne, J. E., LeMense, J., & Virginia, R. A. (2009). Mountain resorts: Ecology and the law. Ecology and law in modern society. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.

Ngowi, R. (2009, March 1). Ski resorts toeing green's bottom line. USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-02-28-windturbine_N.htm

Niraula, BK (2006). Ecosystem impacts of artificial snowmaking at Arizona Snowbowl (Master’s thesis). University of Waterloo, Canada.

NSAA. (2005). Sustainable Slopes: The environmental charter for ski areas.

NSAA. (2008a). Sustainable Slopes: Annual report. Retrieved from < http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable_slopes/ssar-08.pdf >. 67 NSAA. (2008b). Taking sustainable slopes to the next level.

NSAA. (2009). CLIF Bar honors eight U.S. ski resorts for environmental accomplishments [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/0809/nc-090514-gea.asp

NSAA (2010). 471 U.S. ski resorts in operation during 2009-2010 season [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/operating-ski-areas.asp

NSAA. (2010). Sustainable Slopes: Annual report. Retrieved from < http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable_slopes/ssar-10.pdf >.

NSAA. (2011). Golden Eagle Awards history. Retrieved from: http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/gea/gea-winners-history.asp

NSGA – The National Sporting Goods Association. (2010). Sporting participation – alphabetically. Retrieved from: http://www.nsga.org/files/public/2009_Participation-Alphabetically_4Web_100521.pdf

Patthey, P, Wirthner, S, Signorell, N, Arlettaz, R. (2008). Impact of outdoor winter sports on the abundance of key indicator species of alpine ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45.

Peaks to Prairies. (2002a). Chapter 8: Lift Operations. In Greening your ski area: A pollution prevention handbook. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Peaks to Prairies. (2002b). Chapter 11: Snowmaking. In Greening your ski area: A pollution prevention handbook. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Pierce, WM Jr. (1954). U.S. Patent No. 2,676,471. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

RETI. (2008). Best practices in the ski resort sector. Publication of the Renewable Energy in Tourism Initiative: .

Rivera, J. and de Leon, P. (2004) Is greener whiter? Voluntary environmental performance of Western ski areas. The Policy Studies Journal, 32:3.

Rivera, J, de Leon, P, and Koerber, C. (2006). Is greener whiter yet? The Sustainable Slopes Program after five years. The Policy Studies Journal, 34:2.

Rixen, C, Stoekli, V, and Ammann, W. (2003). Does artificial snow production affect soil and vegetation of ski pistes? A review. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 5:4.

68 Robbins, J. (2010, May 24). From trees and grass, bacteria that cause snow and rain. The New York Times.

Rolando, A, Caprio, E, Rinaldi, E, and Ellana, I. (2007). The impact of high-altitude ski-runs on alpine grassland bird communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44:1.

SACC (2010). Top ten ski resorts. http://www.skiareacitizens.com/index.php?nav=top_ten

SACC. (2011). How Are Ski Areas Graded? Retrieved from http://www.skiareacitizens.com/index.php?nav=how_we_grade

Sachs, B. (2002). National perspective on mountain resorts and ecology. Vermont Law Review, 26(3), 515-42.

Schendler, A. (2009). Getting green done: Hard truths from the front lines of the sustainability revolution. New York: PublicAffairs.

Schmidt, CW. (2006) Putting the Earth in play: Environmental awareness and sports. Environmental Health Perspectives, 14:5.

Scott, D, McBoyle, G, and Mills, B. (2003) Climate change and the skiing industry in southern Ontario (Canada): Exploring the importance of snowmaking as a technical adaptation. Climate Research, 23.

Smith, R. (2010). Next-gen. snowmaking. Ski Area Management, 49:3.

Skiing Magazine. (2009). Skiing's green all stars. Retrieved from: http://www.skinet.com/skiing/fondue-party/ski-culture/2010/01/skiings-green-all-stars ? pnid=105666#gallery-content

Steelman, TA, and Rivera, J. (2006). Voluntary environmental programs in the United States: Whose interests are served? Organization & Environment, 19:505.

Steiger, R. and Mayer, M. (2008) Snowmaking and climate change: Future Options for Snow Production in Tyrolean Ski Resorts. Mountain Research and Development, 26:3.

Squaw Valley USA. (2007). Environmental initiatives [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.tahoemediacenter.com/pdf/071212_svenvirosummary.pdf

Squaw Valley USA. (2010). Squaw Valley USA receives top environmental ranking [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.tahoemediacenter.com/091203_svgreen

Squaw Valley website. (2011). Environmental programs. Retrieved 3/14/11 from: http://www.squaw.com/environmental-programs#future

69 Tenenbaum, D.J. (2001). The slippery slope of ski expansion. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109:3.

The Climate Registry. (2009). Grand Targhee Resort becomes first North American organization with a Climate Registered GHG emissions inventory [press release]. Retrieved from: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/press/

Toffel, MW & van Sice, S. (2010a). Aspen Skiing Company (Supplement A). Harvard Business School Case 611-002. Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Toffel, MW & van Sice, S. (2010b). Aspen Skiing Company (Supplement B). Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Toffel, MW & van Sice, S. (2010c). Aspen Skiing Company (Supplement C). Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Tonge, V. (2005). A Study of the Literature and Current Research into Responsible Tourism and the Sport of Skiing, Skier Motivation and Destination Choice and Ski Resort Destination Management Strategies. Post-graduate research, International Centre for Responsible Tourism.

USDA Forest Service (2001). Keystone ski area water quality study (executive summary). USDA, Silverthorne, CO.

Vanham, D, De Toffol, S, Fleischhacker, E, and Rauch, W. (2008). Water demand for snowmaking under climate change conditions in an alpine environment. Managing alpine future, proceedings of the Innsbruck conference, Oct. 15–17, 2007, Innsbruck, Austria.

Williams, P.W. & Todd, S.E. (1997). Towards an environmental management system for ski areas. Mountain Research and Development, 17:1.

Wipf, S, Rixen, C, Fischer, M, Schmid, B, and Stoeckli, V. (2005). Effects of ski piste preparation on alpine vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42.

70 Websites Consulted

Aspen-Snowmass: http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/default.cfm

Grand Targhee Resort: http://www.grandtarghee.com/the-mountain/environment/index.php

NSAA Keep Winter Cool: http://www.keepwintercool.org/

NSAA Sustainable Slopes: http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable_slopes/

Protect Our Winters: http://protectourwinters.org/

SACC Ski Area Report Card: http://www.skiareacitizens.com/

Save Our Snow: http://www.saveoursnow.com/index.htm

Squaw Valley: http://www.squaw.com/environmental-programs#future

The Save Our Snow Foundation: http://www.saveoursnowfoundation.org/The_Save_Our_Snow_Foundation/Welcome.html

71