|
Ski Resorts the New Eco-Enemies?
By Monique Cole
Spiking trees, burning equipment, and booby trapping roads.
These acts of eco-terrorism once were reserved for the arch enemies
of eco-activists, namely the mining and logging industries. The
arson at Vail last October raises a disturbing question: Are
ski areas the new bad guys of the environmental movement?
The majority of ski areas are operated
on public lands under jurisdiction of the United States Forest
Service. "We're no longer a timbering organization,"
says Francis Pandolfi, USFS chief operating officer. At one billion
visitor days per year in National Forests, the USFS is the largest
provider of recreation in the world. And as the Forest Service
changes its focus, commercial recreation is taking the place
of extractive industries as the target of green activists.
"Ski areas are our best partners,"
Pandolfi says, noting that commercial recreation has a much smaller
impact on mountain ecosystems than mining or logging. Still,
the Forest Service often denies permits to ski resorts because
of its equal responsibility to its management partners, its users,
and the ecosystems of the land itself.
Long promoted by environmentalists as
a lesser evil compared with extractive industries, recreation
is now being criticized because of the development that accompanies
tourism. Ski resorts bring people to the mountains where they
use resources, create waste, and disturb wildlife. Proposed expansions
into pristine forest and the accompanying real estate development
on downslope private land automatically bring up issues of wildlife
habitat, water quality, erosion, deforestation, and esthetics.
"We're turning ski resorts into
the Club Meds of the mountains," says Andrea Lawrence, a
Mono County Supervisor who has been critical of Intrawest's proposed
developments in Mammoth Lakes, Calif. While she does not say
no to growth she poses the question how. "We have to look
at the quality of growth and how we direct growth in mountain
communities, whether they are in California, Vermont or Colorado."
"A lot of the impacts from ski
areas come in the lower elevations from rampant development,"
says Jeff Berman, president of Colorado Wild and an outspoken
opponent of Vail's Category 3 expansion. "The Forest Service
cannot approve an expansion if the purpose or need is for the
resort to make real estate profit, they have to prove they are
improving the skier experience."
Berman believes that the consolidation
of North America's top ski resorts into a few publicly held companies
has distorted area managers' focus, switching from a long-term
vision that preserves the environment, to short-term goals to
show shareholders quarterly profits. "Most every activist
fighting the expansions skis, but we also want the ski industry
to be focused on skiing, not on profits."
Not all real estate developments are
bad, Berman notes, citing Copper Mountain as an example. "They
were just increasing capacity on already impacted land, not going
into pristine forest, and they were building up rather than out."
One of Colorado Wild's programs is the Ski Area Citizen's Coalition,
formed to "work with the ski areas so they know somebody's
watching."
In addition to Vail, other Colorado
resorts have been under fire recently by activists, although
not quite so literally. Citing river water quality problems,
Colorado Wild has threatened to sue Arapahoe Basin if its petition
to begin snowmaking is approved by the Forest Service. And Breckenridge's
proposed Peak 7 expansion has been stalled by environmentalists
as well as the Environmental Protection Agency because it may
damage downslope wetlands that are home to protected Boreal toads.
"We have a lot of extremists in
Colorado," says Geraldine Hughes, public policy director
of the National Ski Areas Association, "no matter what ski
areas do it's not enough." Before being hired by the NSAA,
Hughes worked on Vail's Category 3 expansion as a private environmental
attorney and asserts that the resort scaled back their plans
in response to concerns and "bent over backwards with voluntary
lynx mitigation." Hughes now lends her expertise to NSAA
members caught in environmental conflicts.
In other parts of the country, collaboration,
rather than confrontation, is the name of the game. Before even
starting the permit process, the managers of Booth Creek Ski
Holdings host discussions with stake-holders in a proposed expansion,
including the community, special interest groups, local business
people and environmental groups. "Our thrust is to sit down
with stake-holders who have an interest in the project and understand
their concerns and try to work with them to reach some common
ground," says Tim Beck, executive vice president.
This worked wonders at Loon in New Hampshire,
to overcome a long-running stalemate over the "G" Lift
expansion, which was stalled by a lawsuit against the Forest
Service filed by Restore the Northwoods. After Booth Creek took
over Loon, managers instigated several discussions with the environmental
group. Finding an alternative to Loon Pond as a snowmaking water
source led to a settlement with Restore the Northwoods.
"We didn't have any axes to grind
and the issues weren't that difficult," Beck says. "They
were really good to work with once we sat down and talked."
However, there are still some groups who oppose any kind of changes
at Loon. "There will be times when you will reach impasses
and it's up to both parties to realize what is really important."
It's ironic that an adversarial relationship
has developed between groups who often share common ethics.
"The ski industry's long-term goals have a lot more in common
with what the environmental communities want," says Skip
King, of the American Skiing Company. "Part of the problem
is that people want to believe that ski areas are big greedy
corporations; We've been inculturated to believe that any company
that makes money there's something inherently wrong with it."
Environmental ethics actually make good
business sense for ski resorts. "When you look at short-term
gains, oftentimes there is a premium on what you're doing,"
says Chris Lane, director of environmental affairs for Aspen
Skiing Company in Colorado. "When you look at the big picture,
the long-term level, protecting the environment pays dividends,
it doesn't cost you."
Aspen's strong environmental ethics
sometimes pay off in the short-term as well. The resort saved
$10,000 in disposal fees thanks to its recycling program and
received $175,000 in grants from the Colorado Department of Health
and the Environment to conduct a study on ski area energy and
water consumption.
A reader survey by Times Mirror Publications
in 1994 revealed that skiers are much more concerned about ecological
preservation than other outdoor recreationists. "The popular
opinion was that ski areas were not really doing their part to
nurture or save the environment," says Dick Needham, senior
contributing editor of Ski Magazine. "The editors get around
the country quite a bit and we saw some innovative initiatives,
but no one knew about them." In response, the Skiing Company
started the Golden Eagle awards to recognize and publicize ski
areas who had proven good stewards of the land.
But even Aspen Skiing Company, winner
of the overall Golden Eagle award last year and a progressive
industry leader, lacks a system of educating its own customers
about its efforts. Lane can rattle off a long list of innovative
projects, from a wind-powered lift to construction waste recycling,
but is at a loss when asked how guests might learn about such
programs.
Needham agrees that ski areas need to
do a better job of getting the word out on exactly what they
are doing to protect and even improve the mountain environment.
He suggests signage at lodges and hotel lobbies, environmental
messages in brochures, and better positive communication with
local and national media.
And, says the Forest Service's Pandolfi,
who also served as CEO of Times Mirror Publications, resort managers
must remember that "the environment is not the enemy, but
(the skiing industry's) best friend."
|
