Ski Resorts

To whom it may concern,

While snowboarding at Mammoth Mountain in northern California, I began to question the environmental practices of the ski resort industry. I had found out that Mammoth used to have night skiing, but terminated the practice when it was determined that the bright lights disrupted nocturnal owls. While this is a small victory that affected operations, this anecdote merely distracts us from the structural and logistical issues facing the nation’s ski resorts. Environmental degradation appears to be a necessary evil to provide recreation opportunities to the public and to generate the funds necessary to ensure continued operations and restoration projects on these federally owned lands. Since most of these resorts were developed out of pristine wilderness, virtually every intervention is an impact on the environment. They require roads for access, power for the lifts and facilities, and water and sewer for the subsequent development. Forests are clear cut to make paths for skiers, development occurs on hillsides and atop significant ridgelines, and undisturbed forests are converted into vast recreational areas. Resort towns that spring up at the base of the slopes are not sustainable and completely reliant on the outside world for goods and services. Additionally, many ski resorts have snow machines, consuming massive amounts of water. Virtually every mountain resort is only accessible by the automobile. A few resorts, like Winter Park in Colorado, do have trains, but for the most part long distance and regional transit systems in this country are inefficient, aging, or non-existent. Since nearly all ski resorts are located within National Forests, what types of conditions could you apply to these businesses to encourage alternative transportation and a more sustainable development pattern?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP