On June 14, 2000, the National Ski Areas Association's (NSAA) unveiled an "environmental charter" in a bid to demonstrate the ski industry's environmental sensitivity and make a pledge for environmental protection.  Careful scrutiny reveals that it fails to address the most critical environmental issues facing the ski industry however.  Many ski companies that have signed on to the charter, such as Vail, Breckenridge, and Copper Mountain in Colorado, White Pass and Crystal Mountain in Washington state, Pelican Butte Corporation in Oregon, and Snowbird in Utah, are hypocritically undertaking or proposing expansions just as they have signed on to this charter.  The reason is simple: the charter does not include any meaningful environmental protections, and skirts the real damage the ski areas cause:
 

• destruction of wildlife habitat,
• secondary impacts from private land development, and
• depletion of water supplies for snowmaking.

Conservation groups that critique ski area expansions throughout the west, including Colorado Wild, Utah's Save Our Canyons, Washington state's Crystal Conservation Coalition, and others such as the American Lands Alliance, held a press conference after the NSAA unveiled their charter to expose this apparent attempt at "greenwashing".  Other organizations that the NSAA courted to sign on to the charter have refused to do so, including the Sierra Club and the National Environmental Trust (NET).  The NET was even listed as a partnering organization by the NSAA and was scheduled to speak at the NSAA's charter unveiling, but dropped out as the NSAA did not address their concerns over global warming and other issues.

While the charter does address some environmental problems engendered by the ski industry, it does not set any concrete goals to confront these problems. It contains not concrete measures to protect critical wildlife habitat, undeveloped roadless areas and old growth forests in and around ski areas, such as Vail’s Category III expansion, nor does it dissuade ski resorts from engaging in real estate speculation that further entails ecological damage to private lands.

The Charter Condones Ski Area Expansions

Significantly, the NSAA refused to include a discussion of ski area expansions in the charter—easily the most controversial and ecologically damaging undertaking of ski areas.  Nationally, skier numbers have been virtually flat for two decades, barely increasing since 1980.  Since 1985 for instance, skier numbers in the White River National Forest, including such icons as Vail, Aspen, and Breckenridge, has increased 28%, yet skier acreage has more than doubled (a 107% increase).  Expansions continue at an unprecedented rate; the environmental charter would do little, if anything, to dissuade ski companies from expanding.

Ninety percent of ski areas in the western US are on public lands administered by the Forest Service.  There is no need for expanded ski area capacity, yet the Forest Service to date has rubber stamped practically every expansion proposed in the west.  Once again, the White River NF provides a good example – they have NEVER denied an expansion proposal.  (To their credit, they have turned down whole new ski areas solely motivated by real estate development profiteering.)

No specific element of the charter dissuades ski areas from expanding.  Rather the charter seems to condone the marketing and real estate development driven expansion craze as ski resorts nation-wide scramble to compete for visitors from a stagnant pool of skiers. Current expansion proposals with detrimental impacts to forest health and wildlife, that are nonetheless in compliance with the charter, include:

Colorado
 

• Beaver Creek seeks National Forest zoning for expansion into McCoy Park, an area currently used for cross country skiing.  The area contains increasingly rare and important elk birthing grounds given extensive ski resort driven valley development.  Vail Resorts owns more private land in the area; careful scrutiny indicates that the expansion is driven by real estate development plans.
• Breckenridge publicly denied any real estate motivation for their Peak 7 expansion.  Convinced that the expansion was motivated by real estate development on 300 adjacent acres of private land owned by Vail Resorts, the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers held up wetlands destruction permits forcing VR to reveal extensive development plans that embarrassed the Forest Service over their rubber stamp approval.
• Copper Mountain has proposed an expansion that would intrude upon the other side of the Vail wildlife corridor.  They further seek forest zoning to add five lifts west of the ski resort including expansion into undeveloped Guller Gulch, a popular backcountry skiing and non-motorized recreation that includes the Colorado Trail.
• Keystone is planning a three-lift expansion motivated by the lure of real estate development profits on adjacent private land.  The area in question consitutues a critical wildlife habitat in Jones Gulch according to Keystone’s own wildlife consultants (documentation available upon request).
• Vail’s controversial Category III expansion cut the heart out of the Two Elk Roadless Area, a critical wildlife corridor between wilderness areas and the last, best home of the elusive lynx in Colorado.  An road constructed through wetlands in violation of the Clean Water Act was shut down by the EPA with fine and penalties still pending.

Washington State
 

• White Pass seeks to expand downhill lift skiing into the pristine Hogback Basin Roadless Area, adjacent to the Goat Rocks Wilderness.
• The Summit at Snoqualmie is proposing a major expansion into one of the last large blocks of intact old growth forest near Snoqualmie Pass, with trees several hundred years old.
• Crystal Mountain seeks a huge expansion into pristine, roadless backcountry with major impacts on water quality in downstream salmon-bearing streams, elk and mountain goat herds, nearby Wilderness, Mt. Rainier National Park, and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail.

Utah
 

• Snowbird received Forest Service approval to build a 50,000 sq. foot building on their highest peak at 11,000 feet. This decision, currently under litigation, would allow two restaurants, retail space, interpretive multi-use space and more.
• Snowbasin plans to create “Utah’s next destination resort city” through a land exchange privatizing 1,377 acres of publicly owned land around the ski area.  The proposed development will transform this quaint local ski hill to a posh destination resort.

Oregon
 

• Mt. Ashland has an expansion proposed that would clear-cut 80 acres of old growth forest and intrude into the McDonald Peak Roadless Area.
• Pelican Butte is a new ski area proposed near Klamath Falls that would intrude upon old growth forests and habitat for at-risk wildlife, including bald eagles. The Forest Service initiated an internal investigation in March to determine if Winema National Forest officials violated federal conflict of interest laws in approving the this ski area.

The Charter Condones Real Estate Speculation

Urban-type commercial and residential real estate developments by ski resorts compound the habitat fragmentation impacts of ski runs and lifts, but again the charter fails to address this concern.  Ninety percent of ski areas in the western US are on public lands administered by the Forest Service.  Some ski companies purchase private lands, or engage in land exchanges with the Forest Service, to obtain parcels adjacent to ski areas.  Irresponsible resorts then place ski lifts on the newly acquired lands, which increases their value for development through ski-in / ski-out condominiums and lavish homes.  Such expansions motivated by the lure of real estate development profits bring environmental impacts to both public and private lands.

Colorado
 

• Village at Wolf Creek: This massive development proposal, surrounded by the Weimenuche and South San Juan Wilderness Areas, would create 2,100 condo units and 220,000 square feet of commercial space 1 mile east of Wolf Creek Pass in Southern Colorado.
• Corske Creek Land Exchange: Proposes to privatize and develop a 620-acre parcel of public lands at the base of Ski Cooper along Tennessee Pass, an area widely recognized as critical for lynx movements vital to their survival in the Southern Rockies.

Utah
 

• Solitude Ski Resort: Planning to build an entire village around their relatively pristine base area in Big Cottonwood Canyon 10 minutes from the boundary of Salt Lake City.

Idaho
 

• Squirrel Meadows Land Exchange: Proposing to create a private 195-acre forest inholding at the base of Grand Targhee Ski Resort for an exclusive development.

The Charter Lacks Monitoring or Enforcement

The lack of enforceable provisions and third party oversight further weakens the charter.  Certification inspection teams should be established and periodically visit member areas to monitor whether they live up to the principles.  Without such provisions it appears that the charter has been written so that most ski areas already comply.  Compliance to the charter must be a challenge to ski areas, particularly if it is voluntary.  We fear the charter will act as a symbolic piece of paper for “environmental awareness” to be paraded in front of resort guests, government agencies, the media and even environmental groups, yet lead to no tangible improvements.

The Charter Contains No Concrete Goals

To be worthwhile, the NSAA’s charter must lead to concrete improvements in the environmental performance of ski areas—it completely lacks commitment and accountability.  Written comments to the NSAA from Colorado Wild, Crystal Conservation Coalition and Save Our Canyons, in addition to dialogue at the NSAA’s meetings, suggested ways the NSAA could strengthen the charter, but were ignored.  Just a few examples of suggested concrete goals include:
 

• Recycle a minimum of 20% of waste at ski areas in three years.
• Establish minimum stream flows during snowmaking to protect aquatic life.
• Establish minimum snow depths prior to snow compaction.
• Establish permanent buffer areas between wilderness areas and ski areas.
• Create a research fund for cleaner burning snowmobiles and snowcats.
• Create regional watershed conservation practices for year round resort use.

The charter waters down opportunities to provide real protection for the environment by conditioning many principles with where feasible, where possible and where appropriate.  These loopholes leave little hope that the charter will have any positive impact on the environment.  It appears the charter has been written so that most ski areas already comply.  Instead, it should point out where ski areas can improve so that the final outcome actually goes beyond any of the most basic steps that ski areas must already achieve.  There must be a sense that compliance to this charter will be a challenge to ski areas, particularly if it is voluntary.

The lack of enforceable provisions and third party oversight further weakens the charter. Certification inspection teams should monitor whether member areas live up to the principles. Without such provisions it appears that the charter has been written so most ski areas already comply. Compliance to the charter must be a challenge to ski areas, particularly if it is voluntary.