SKI RESORT SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW,

WITH A SNOW‐GUN LIFE‐CYCLE

ASSESSMENT
THIBAULT FANEY, HENRI FAUCHER DE CORN, TAMMY HARRELL, VALERIE ZIMMER

CIVIL SYSTEMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT – CEE 268E

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................................................4

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................5

Background of Sustainability Awareness in the Ski Industry..................................................................................6

Voluntary Programs: Keep the Sierra Green, Sustainable Slopes Program, International Organization
for Standardization, and Peaks to Prairies.......................................................................................................................8

Criticism of the Sustainable Slopes Program ...............................................................................................................10

Industry leaders: Aspen Skiing Company and Beyond ............................................................................................12

Ski Resort Boundary for Industrial Ecology .................................................................................................................13

Environmental Assessment of a Modern Ski Resort.................................................................................................17

Functional units ...................................................................................................................................................................17

Energy ......................................................................................................................................................................................19

Conservation and Renewables ......................................................................................................................................25

Water ........................................................................................................................................................................................28

Waste ........................................................................................................................................................................................29

Sustainable Slopes Program Comments and Recommendations:..................................................................30

SKI Area Citizen’s Coalition Comments and Recommendations: ...................................................................31

Summary:................................................................................................................................................................................31

Industrial Ecology Review Of Snowmaking..................................................................................................................32

Goal of the study ..................................................................................................................................................................32

Background on snowmaking systems ........................................................................................................................33

System Boundaries .............................................................................................................................................................35

Data............................................................................................................................................................................................36

Financial findings, results and interpretation ........................................................................................................36

Environmental findings, results and interpretation ............................................................................................39

Global warming potential of the two scenarios .....................................................................................................40

Recommendations and uncertainty analysis ..........................................................................................................41

2
 Conclusion on LCA and LCCA of snow‐making.......................................................................................................43

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................................43

Future Research Directions .................................................................................................................................................43

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................45

References ...................................................................................................................................................................................46

3
ABSTRACT

The skiing industry has begun to consider sustainability issues in the past 10 years, in part due to
conflict with environmental groups, the realization that climate change is likely to adversely affect
skiing, and also a response to increased demand by customers for environmentally sustainable
businesses. This project reviewed the sustainability efforts within the industry, criticisms of
resorts, previous studies, and a limited amount of data in order to assess the environmental impacts
of a modern ski resort, including base lodge and hotel operations. Sustainability programs within
the industry itself vary greatly in breadth, scope, and relevance. Limited data and studies indicate
that energy is the largest and most important impact, although this is not always reflected in
sustainability programs or even by industry critics. Ski resorts consume a disproportionate amount
of energy and water in comparison with other recreational service industries, in large part due to
snow‐making operations. Snow‐making is also the least standardized and most highly variable part
of a resort operation. There is an order of magnitude difference between the least and most
efficient snow‐making systems in energy and water use per acre‐ft (volume) of snow. Therefore,
snow‐making upgrades are currently at the forefront of ski industry sustainability efforts. In the
second part of this research effort, we acquired a client ski resort who requested an economic and
LCA analysis comparing one type of snow gun with a proposed replacement type. The snow guns
that were analyzed are both relatively modern, and as a result consume a similar amount of energy
and water. Therefore, in this particular case, it makes no economic or environmental sense to
replace one with the other. However, there are many snow guns types and configurations, and little
has been published to compare the performance of the different technologies, hence there is a need
for similar studies and a more comprehensive database of snow gun performance and resource
consumption.

4
INTRODUCTION

The skiing industry has come under scrutiny in the past two decades for their environmental
impacts. Press reporting on conflicts with environmental groups has spurred industry‐wide efforts
to become more eco‐friendly and develop rankings that assess the environmental practices of each
ski resort. Although the overall impact of the skiing industry relative to the economy is quite small,
the profile of ski resorts is high enough that the environmental and sustainability impact of this
industry has broader implications and influence, for better or for worse (Schendler, 2009; Clifford,
2003).

Tourism, however, is a significant part of the economy: in the United States it is the third‐largest
retail sales industry (Sachs, 2002), and tourism is estimated to provide 3‐4% of the U.S. Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) (Schendler, 2003; Kass & Sumiye, 2000). For some states, tourism is even
larger; in Vermont tourism provides 15% of the total state output, 22% of state employment, and
26% of the indirect business tax (Lin et al, 1999). 11% of Vermont tourists polled cited skiing as
their reason for coming; most likely, the skiers account for more than 11% of tourist revenue, given
that 26% of Vermont tourists come to visit friends and relatives. In California, tourism is the fourth
largest employer and fifth largest contributor to the gross state product (CTTC, 2009).

In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report quantifying the
environmental impacts of leisure activities. The study looked at environmental indicators to
compare the impact of skiing, fishing, hunting, boating, golfing, casino gambling, amusement/theme
parks, historic places and museums, conventions and conferences, and waterside recreation (US
EPA, 2000). Some aspects outside of the activities such as travel, lodging, and meals are included in
the study; however it is primarily focused on the use phase of the activity amenities and does not
address most upstream and downstream environmental effects. Although skiing makes up less than
1% of the total trips for all activities in the study, it uses 26% of the total water, 96% of which is
used for snow‐making. However, the water use does not take into account the amount of water that
recharges the water supply. Other environmental indicators such as energy use, wastewater
generation, solid‐waste generation and greenhouse gas emissions for skiing were more
proportionate to the participation level. Another significant finding in the report is the high
proportion of energy use for the activity of skiing compared to the total energy use in a skiing trip.
The complete skiing trip includes associated energy use such as lodging, retail and meals. The
activity specific energy use is 61% of the total energy use of a skiing trip. In comparison, the
percent activity specific energy use with respect to the entire trip for amusement parks and
conventions are 43% and 6.8%, respectively. Again, a large contributor to the energy use is in
snow‐making. It should be noted that the US EPA estimates are significantly higher than those
reported by the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), and the discrepancy has not yet been
explained (Sachs, 2002). Nevertheless, the significant use of energy and water by the ski‐industry
warrants an assessment of current practices and options for implementing more sustainable
practices.

Successful sustainable infrastructure must consider economics and social concerns, as well as
environmental impacts; this is called the Triple Bottom Line for Sustainability. The ski and tourism
industry are important economically and may have broader social impacts. The environmental
impacts are the main focus of this study, but awareness of the economic and social realities form the
backbone of the assumptions and direct the recommendations. In this regard, we are reviewing the
5
issue of ski resort sustainability from the principles of industrial ecology. There are few
publications that attempt to address overall impact of the skiing industry from an industrial ecology
standpoint. The main sources of literature are: ecological impact studies, inside‐industry
environmental guidelines and sustainability reports, and outside‐industry assessments, including
allegations of "green‐washing". None of these sources alone provides enough data in order to
adequately assess the sustainability programs, criticisms, or the relative importance of the
ecological impact to the other environmental impacts. What are reasonable environmental
sustainability criteria for the skiing industry? Sustainability efforts within the industry can
currently be assessed by reviewing the NSAA Sustainable Slopes Program (SSP), founded in the year
2000, individual resorts sustainability reports and press releases, and literature published by Aspen
Skiing Company's Executive Director of Sustainability, Auden Schendler.

Are the criticisms and rankings of ski area sustainability efforts reasonable or fair? A quick review
of the main ranking system, the Ski Area Citizen's Coalition (SACC) rankings reveals that > 70% of
the points are awarded for avoiding expansion or new construction (SACC, 2009a; Dorsey, 2004).
The overlap of critical wildlife habitat with ski resort expansion is the main source of dispute
between environmental groups and ski resorts, and the literature is abundant on this point. The
threat posed by global warming in the next century to the alpine ecological systems is probably
greater than that posed by local ski resort development; in fact, if we wait long enough, there will no
longer be snow on which to ski, which may have the additional effect of putting ski resorts out‐of‐
business.

Furthermore, from a first‐order industrial ecology standpoint, new construction and expansion
inherently have an environmental impact, as does all new construction, industry, transportation,
and virtually anything modern human beings normally do. On a second‐order industrial ecology
standpoint, the engineer will ask what niche the new development is filling. In other words, is the
new development replacing older, less‐efficient hotels? Is it reducing or increasing traffic to and
from the resort? Is it replacing cruise line vacations? And, what is the relative environmental
impact of the ski resort development versus the alternatives? While we recognize the value of non‐
development, we also recognize that development is going to occur as a part of the large tourism
industry. Our purpose as industrial ecologists is to evaluate the construction and operational
activities in order to provide information for designing in the most sustainable way possible, and
that means consideration of social and economic, as well as environmental impacts.

The purpose of this study is to collect data on the operations of a modern ski resort in order to help
design reasonable and effective sustainability criteria, to conduct an in‐depth life‐cycle assessment
of a key aspect of a modern ski resort (in this case, snow‐making equipment), and provide
constructive comments on the current state of sustainability programs and the methods for
evaluating (or ranking) ski resort environmental performance.

BACKGROUND OF SUSTAINABILITY AWARENESS IN THE SKI

INDUSTRY

North America ski areas opened in the 1930’s with simple rope tows and one‐room base lodges. As
skiing became more popular and equipment developed, ski areas expanded with chair lifts, larger
base lodges and lodging nearby. The national cost of ski‐lift tickets between 1951 and 1965 jumped
from $2.51 to $4.18, three times the rate of inflation (Fry, 2006). The increased costs of skiing did
6
not stop the growth of the sport. Between 1950 and 1970 the number of skiers increased 15% every
year.

Between 1955 and 1966, 580 new resorts were opened in the United States to meet the demand of
the growing skier population. Many ski areas in the western United States were built on national
forest land, which was encouraged by the United States Forest Service (USFS) after World War II.
The improvement of snow‐making and grooming machines in the 1950’s and 1960’s led to a longer
skiing season and reshaped slopes into wide runs instead of meandering trails. In 1962 four
hundred ski areas formed the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) to share information and
standardize the ski industry.

In the late 60’s ski areas such as Aspen, Northstar, and Park City began building condominiums at or
near the ski area. By the 1970’s interstate highways were built and further increased accessibility to
ski areas. Interstate 80 brought thousands of people from San Francisco and Sacramento to Lake
Tahoe. Instead of building more ski areas, existing areas expanded to include more runs, increased
lift capacity and lodging.

In 1970 President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which required an
environmental impact statement on expanding or building on public land. NEPA complicated
expansion plans for resorts and often resulted in long waits for approval, revisions to plans, or
denial to build. At the same time the Pioneering Act 250 was passed, which required developers to
mitigate damage to the environment caused by construction. This coincided with the leveling‐off of
the ski industries growth. In 1973 Nixon banned gasoline sales on Sundays and limited sales to ten
gallons due to an oil shortage, which reduced the number of weekend skiers. Many small ski resorts
closed. The larger ski resorts experienced increased costs of business from insurance needs and
building permits.

Many ski area owners went bankrupt and were bought by four major companies in the late 80’s and
90’s; American Skiing Company (ASC), Booth Creek, Vail Resorts, and Intrawest. These companies
continued to expand resort facilities and operations despite the lack of growth in the ski industry
over the last 20 years (Rivera & de Leon, 2004). Loss of revenue in ski‐lift ticket sales influenced ski
industries to expand their amenities. In 2002 ski‐lift ticket revenue was about 54% per ticket
compared to over 60% in the mid 90’s. Ski resorts are making up for the lost revenue by offering
real estate, lodging, and retail shops, which now make up about 50% of the industry's revenue. The
ski industry has also focused on offering summer activities such as golf courses, downhill mountain
biking, and hiking trails to help earn revenue in the summer months.

Environmental groups started criticizing the ski industry in the 1970s for having detrimental effects
on local habitats and regionally threatened species (Clifford, 2003). The ski industry was accused of
damaging the forest ecology, causing smog and runoff, and threatening the health of native animals
(Fry, 2006). Ski resorts tend to be accompanied by real estate development and sprawl (Clifford,
2003), which are the cause of the majority of the ecological problems (Fry, 2006). While true that
the actual land footprint of a ski resort and the associated sprawl is small compared to the National
Forests which surround and (in many cases) are part of the ski resort, the development tends to
occur in broad valleys and range‐lands at the base of these mountains. These valleys are also home
to the wintering and calving grounds of large ungulates, wetlands, and wildlife migration corridors,
and much of the remaining wilderness is situated in high elevation forests or rocky passes and is
7
unsuitable for the same wildlife purposes. Environmental concerns have also been raised about the
use of snowmobiles, snow‐making equipment, grooming equipment, and the expansion of resorts.
In addition, since the number of skiers is not increasing, anti‐development advocates argue that
there is no justification for ski area expansion. However, ski industries are finding it difficult to stay
profitable without offering lodging and shopping amenities. The overlap of critical habitat with ski
resort development is the main source of dispute between environmental groups and ski resort
corporations.

In response to growing environmental concerns, the ski industry continues to meet federal, state,
and local regulations and has a high participation rate in voluntary environmental programs. Some
industry leaders, such as the Aspen Skiing Company, are starting to go beyond government
regulation in energy efficiency programs.

VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS: KEEP THE SIERRA GREEN, SUSTAINABLE

SLOPES PROGRAM, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
STANDARDIZATION, AND PEAKS TO PRAIRIES

Several voluntary programs have emerged to encourage sustainable practices within the ski
industry that go beyond compliance of Federal, State, and local regulations. Two of these programs
are Keep the Sierra Green (KSG) and the Sustainable Slopes Program (SSP). Several ski areas have
adopted the voluntary standard ISO 14001 for environmental management systems (EMS), which
was developed by the International Organization for Standardization as a general standard for all
organizations.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a network consisting of representatives

from 162 countries that develop and publish voluntary international standards (ISO, 2009). The ISO
14000 series of standards addresses environmental management and practices, and is broadly
structured to allow implementation by industry or organization. ISO 14001 certification is but one
part of the ISO 14000 series. ISO 14001:2004 and ISO 14004:2006 give general guidelines for
environmental management systems (EMS). The standard does not set environmental performance
conditions but defines a framework to assess an organizations current environmental practices,
define where improvements should be concentrated, and set up a plan for improvement. The
framework includes:

1. Environmental Policy
2. Management Review
3. Checking and corrective action
4. Implementation and operation
5. Planning
6. Continual Improvement

ISO 14001 guidelines are implemented by an organization and verified by external certification
authority. If the EMS meets the standard the organization receives ISO 14001 certification. In order
to maintain certification, an organization has to demonstrate ongoing improvement. Ski areas such
as Aspen Skiing Company in Colorado, Sun Peaks Resort in Canada, and Jackson Hole Mountain
Resort in Wyoming have adopted and been certified under ISO 14001.
8
Two programs that are more specific to the skiing industry are, in California, the Keep the Sierra
Green (KSG) program, and in North America, the Sustainable Slopes Program (SSP). Keep Sierra
Green recognizes businesses that practice sustainable and ecological practices in the North Central
High Sierras and Foothills (KSG, 2009). The program is regional and is not limited to the ski
industry. KSG is voluntary and free for businesses to join if they meet the prescribed requirements
for energy use, waste, water use, recycling, supply purchasing, and pollution prevention. Using a
self‐check method, a business reports that it has met KSG’s requirements and is included as a
member and may advertise as such.

Founded in 2000, the Sustainable Slopes Program is a national program that partners with the
National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), among others (SSP, 2009). SSP offers guidelines for improving
environmental performance that are more comprehensive than KSG guidelines and are specific to
the ski industry. The principles that frame the guidelines are listed below:

1. Planning, design, and construction 11. Waste reduction

2. Water use for snow‐making 12. Product reuse
3. Water use in facilities 13. Recycling
4. Water use for landscaping and 14. Potential hazardous waste
summer activities 15. Fish and wildlife management
5. Water quality management 16. Forest and vegetation management
6. Wastewater management 17. Wetlands and riparian management
7. Energy use for facilities 18. Air quality
8. Energy use for snow‐making 19. Visual quality
9. Energy use for lifts 20. Transportation
10. Energy use for vehicle fleets 21. Education and outreach

In May 2009, SSP reported that 190 ski resorts representing 75% of skier and snowboarder visits in
the U.S. were a part of their organization. SSP also offers guidelines for sustainability for resort
guests through their Keep Winter Cool program and Environmental Code of the Slopes principles.
Rather than using a point system or rating a ski resort, the philosophy that SSP promotes is to offer
guidelines for the ski industry that can be applied to individual resorts as effectively as possible.
Because of the vast differences in ski areas, some guidelines may not be as applicable to a specific
resort. For example, ski areas in Colorado may not use snow‐making to the same extent as western
ski areas, and some ski areas do not have lodging.

In 2008, NSAA published "Taking Sustainable Slopes to the Next Level"; a guide that builds on
previous SSP guidelines and offers advice on the current best management practices and emerging
trends in sustainability within the ski industry (NSAA, 2008). The guide is an account of efforts
within the ski industry to establish sustainable practices and raises many key issues. Key points
include the challenges and success of on‐site renewable energy such as wind‐turbines, vertical‐axis
roof mounted turbines, micro‐hydroelectric, and photovoltaic technology, energy management such
as smart grid systems, and building "living" buildings that go beyond standard sustainable building
design. Within the guide, SSP identifies high impact areas such as energy and water use in snow

9
making and provides options for improving the efficiency in these areas as well as listing areas of
"low hanging fruit" where simple changes can reduce resource use. As a step towards more in‐
depth sustainability reporting, the guide lists advantages of conducting an inventory of greenhouse
gas emissions, using a recognized protocol, in order to determine where to concentrate
sustainability efforts. Furthermore, for the first time in any ski industry guidelines, SSP includes Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) and looking at upstream and downstream impacts. Although LCA has been
used quite a bit in the manufacturing industry, it has not been applied extensively to the service
sector.

Peaks to Prairies (P2) is a pollution prevention information center that works with the EPA in an
effort to give companies access to information that will help them to become more sustainable and
environmentally aware. P2's primary service areas are Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming; areas which have numerous ski resorts. In 2002, P2 released a
Pollution Prevention Handbook for ski resorts that looked at environmental policies, performance
and reporting, community and employee programs, regulations, purchasing, vehicle operations, lift
operations, buildings, food and beverage services, snow‐making, lodging, grounds maintenance, and
sustainable design and construction. The handbook is more technical and specific than other
guidelines we found related to the ski industry. For example, details were given and a sample
analysis showed how to compare environmental and economic benefits of a top‐drive versus
bottom‐drive ski lift, including accessibility measures.

CRITICISM OF THE SUSTAINABLE SLOPES PROGRAM

Some groups have criticized the Sustainable Slopes Program (SSP) as a green‐washing scheme since
it lacks specific performance standards and third‐party oversight (Sachs, 2002). While the SSP
covers a width breath of environmental concerns, it allows ski areas to “opt‐in with non‐binding
obligations”. In other words, a ski area may join SSP and use their affiliation to advertise without
being obligated to do anything or even report back. Furthermore, the data that the NSAA collects is
aggregated so that it is impossible to review the performance of any specific resort.

In 1999 the Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition (SACC) formed to assess ski resorts on their environmental
practices. As an independent entity, SACC’s goal was to establish criteria for sustainable practices in
the ski industry and measure the compliance of individual resorts. Points are given for each
category and a grade from A to F is given based on the total number of points scored. The category
and point breakdown are given in Table 1.

10
TABLE 1. SACC'S PIONTS FOR EACH CATEGORY (SACC, 2009A)

Description Points

Maintaining Ski Terrain Within the Existing Footprint 30

Preserving Undisturbed Lands from Development 31

Protecting or Maintaining Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Candidate Species and 22

Their Habitat

Preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas 30

Conserving Water and Energy by Avoiding New Snow‐making 20

Protecting Water Quality 12

Environmental Policy Positions and Advocacy 15

Renewable Energy 17

Water and Energy Efficiency 18

Transportation 7

Waste Stream Management 9

Purchasing 8

Environmental Reporting and Accountability 4

Community Sustainability 2

Total Points 225

Although many ski areas list their sustainability goals and efforts on their websites, SACC feels the
ski industry is a poor source of information on environmental issues and that individual resorts use
green‐washing to market themselves as environmentally responsible. SACC gathers data by
distributing questionnaires to ski resort, about 25% of which are completed and returned,
researching online information and from the United States Forest Service through Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests (Paul Joyce, Colorado Wild). The number of points for each
category is given based on where SACC determined the largest environmental impacts were. Their
scorecard places significant weight on construction and development outside of the current
footprint of the ski resort. SACC's argument against expanding ski areas is that skier numbers have
increased less than 2% over the last 23 years so there is no reason to expand.

Two papers were published by Jorge Rivera and Peter de Leon that looked at the effectiveness of
voluntary environmental performance programs of western ski areas. The first paper concluded
that voluntary environmental programs were ineffective at western ski areas and that resorts that
participated in the programs actually performed worse than those that were not participating
(Rivera & de Leon, 2004). However, the only metric that was used to assess environmental
11
performance was the SACC scorecard, which is heavily weighed toward non-development: “72%
(of points) are related to avoiding new construction and expansion” (Dorsey, 2004). NSAA
published a response to the first paper (Dorsey, 2004), which resulted in the second paper
published by Rivera, de Leon and Charles Koerber in 2006. In the second paper, for lack an
alternative, they used the SACC scorecard again, but this time re-weighted the points into four
major categories in order to assess the different emphases. This time, the authors concluded that
there were no statistically significant correlations between membership in the SSP and
environmental performance in three of the categories, and that SSP participants performed better
in the fourth category (Rivera et al, 2006).

INDUSTRY LEADERS: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY AND BEYOND

The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) is the clear industry leader in sustainable design for ski resorts.
ASC is the top resort in the SACC rankings, was instrumental in designing the SSP, and receives far
more media coverage for their environmental programs than any other resort (This is, in part, due
to the high celebrity profile of Aspen Mountain Resort (Schendler, 2009)). Even ski industry critic
Hal Clifford, who writes vivid narratives of starving elk calves near Aspen and Snowmass (also
owned by ASC) in his book Downhill Slide, begrudgingly admits that "the Aspen Skiing Company is
leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the ski industry in its attempts to reconcile capitalism with
environmental and social constraints" (Clifford, 2003).

ASC CEO and President Pat O'Donnell created the first environmental affairs department in the
skiing industry in 1997 (Schendler, 2003). ASC is one of the few skiing companies with a dedicated
in‐house sustainability expert; Auden Schendler, ASC's current Executive Director of Sustainability,
was hired in 1999. Schendler's approach to sustainability programs at Aspen started by identifying
"low‐hanging fruit", e.g. programs that required minimal cost, minimal disruption, and high return‐
on‐investment (ROI) (Schendler, 2009, 2003, 2001). Even so, he met a surprisingly high level of
skepticism and resistance to change, and some of his early attempts failed, or nearly failed.
Schendler's unusual approach is to document (and reveal) the successes and failures at ASC, in some
cases criticizing his employers, on other cases criticizing himself and the programs he implemented.
Notably, ASC was the first skiing company to purchase renewable energy credits (RECs) to offset
100% of the resort's emissions (as claimed by the RECs), a move which inspired many other resorts
to do the same. One year later, in a cover story in Business Week, Schendler declared that the RECs
were "empty boasts" (Elgin, 2007). The candor with which Schendler publicly admits failure has, so
far, not cost him his job, which is perhaps not surprising: ASC remains the industry sustainability
leader, and publicity (even critical) in a magazine such as Business Week is valued at well over
$1,000,000 by ASC's own marketing department (Schendler, 2009).

ASC started by conducting an assessment of their own environmental impacts and released their
first Sustainability Report on the web in 2000. They also started looking at ways to save energy by
installing lighting retrofits and a modern Energy Management System (EMS) in the luxury Little Nell
hotel, which allowed for smart energy decisions (and ultimately resulted in 683,000 kg of CO2
equivalent emission reduction during the winter of 2001‐2002) (Schendler, 2003). ASC has been

12
proactive in building design, designing to LEED standards and pushing efficiency in new buildings,
although not all of their designs have lived up to expectations. ASC has also installed snow‐making
air compressors that are 30 to 40% more efficient, experimented with bio‐diesel blends in their
snow‐cats, and replaced a solvent‐based parts washer than uses carcinogenic solvent with one that
is non‐toxic and water‐based. ASC generates about 480,000 kWh of renewable electricity in‐house,
in the form of a 115 kW micro‐hydroelectric plant that produces electricity during 2‐months of
snow‐melt and a 167 kW of solar electric (ASC, 2009). (While this is impressive, it accounts for less
than 1% of the company's power consumption (Elgin, 2007).)

ASC is not the only skiing company making business decisions based on sustainability criteria. For
example, Jiminy Peak, in Massachusetts, has installed a 150 MW wind turbine that provides
approximately 4,600,000 kWh of power per year, the equivalent of 65% of the electric power used
by the resort, and ten times the renewable power generation of Aspen. Jiminy Peak is a tiny resort,
but it does have 96% snow‐making coverage, and probably consumes 10‐20% of the energy of a
"large" ski resort. (Jiminy Peak, 2009; ASC, 2009). Other resorts are starting to take Jiminy's lead:
Kirkwood in California is under contract to build 600 MW of wind turbines in the near future. In
addition to the wind turbine, Jiminy Peak has also cut electricity usage by 25% through
conservation, demonstrating that it doesn't take big projects like wind turbines to cut electricity
use. Several resorts now have LEED‐certified buildings, and many others are designing buildings to
meet EnergyStar and LEED requirements.

Most ski resorts in the United States have started environmental sustainability programs and
started implementing the principles laid out by the SSP, demonstrating an industry‐wide awareness
of sustainability. The successes (and sometimes failures) of ski industry sustainability programs are
touted by the resorts themselves, although specific data is very hard to obtain. One of the purposes
of this report is to review the various claims and piece together a general assessment of the state of
sustainability programs, and where these programs ought to be headed in the future.

SKI RESORT BOUNDARY FOR INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY

The modern ski resort integrates the skiing operations with real estate development, to the point
that ski resorts currently generate half their revenue from other activities, often in the form of
village development at the skiing base. Therefore, ignoring the visitor services at the base of the
mountains neither follows the economic boundaries of the ski corporation, nor the geographic
boundaries of a modern ski resort. Technically, the boundary of the ski resort's impact lies far
beyond the corporate economic or geographic limit, and any life‐cycle assessment of any component
of the ski resort's operation should attempt to extend this boundary to primary materials and
energy extraction. Significant environmental impacts can include traveling to the ski area and
development around the ski area to provide services and lodging to tourists. However, a complete
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a ski resort is outside the scope of this project. The purpose of this
section is to provide useful information about the economic and environmental impacts in order to
identify where improvement efforts may best be directed. Therefore, a boundary must be drawn in
a tangible and useful manner.

13
The ski resort is defined, for the purpose of this study, as the operations and real estate that are
financially part of the ownership corporation and geographically within a small, well‐defined area
surrounding the mountain on which skiing occurs, and which are activities that occur in association
with a skiing vacation, including lodging, food, and retail facilities (at this time we are ignoring other
summertime resort activities that may exist, such as golf courses). The boundaries are shown in
Figure 1. Ski resorts frequently sub‐contract their retail space, but charge a premium for the space,
generating revenue in order to cover building‐associated fees (as well as collect profits). While we
will not include analysis of the activities within the retail space itself, we do include the facility
maintenance, and therefore the cleaning products, waste, and energy use of the facility itself.

The boundary is currently time‐limited as well, except where specified otherwise. This means that
we are ignoring the materials, construction, and end‐of‐life phases of the ski resort, for the reason
that these facilities already exist, and analysis of this nature is unlikely to be of any use to existing
ski resorts. The exception may be for resorts that are undergoing current development and
construction, but even in these cases, we will not conduct any in‐depth analyses; rather, we will cite
outside sources and encourage resort developers to conduct LCAs for upcoming projects in order to
understand the true potential for upstream and downstream impacts.

The use phase is defined as that which occurs most days during the course of a ski season.
Maintenance refers to operations that occur at least yearly which directly affect the ski resort's
ability to function effectively. Many operations at the ski resort could reasonably fall into either
category. For example, snow‐making could be considered a "use" while the maintenance of the
snow‐making equipment could be considered "maintenance". However, the entire operation of
snow‐making could be considered "maintenance" of the ski trail itself. Hence, the distinction
between use and maintenance is somewhat hard to draw, and we will consider them both together.
Figure 1 illustrates the activities we consider in the scope of our assessment

14
FIGURE 1. SKI BOUNDARIES FOR INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY

15
Activities that are included in the use and maintenance phase are:

• Skiing Operations
o ski trail maintenance, including landscaping
o ski lift electricity use and routine maintenance
o upgrades to lifts, but not including installation of new lifts
o snow‐making electricity use and routine maintenance, including guns, air
compressors, water, electric lines, and water pumps
o upgrades to snow‐making, including replacement of guns or compressors
o snow‐making water consumption
o snowmobile operations for lifts, snow‐making, ski patrol, and other
o grooming operations, including maintenance and equipment upgrades or
replacement
• Base Facilities
o warehouses for equipment
o buildings for visitors (base lodge, cafeteria, bathrooms)
o administrative buildings
• Lodging & Retail Facilities
o Hotels, Condos
o Ski Shops, Ski Rentals, Ski Tuning
o Restaurants and bars
• Parking, private roads, and walkways

The use and maintenance phase assessment will include, aggregate, and quantify:

• electricity consumption
• renewable electricity generation (excluding RECs)
• fuel consumption and fuel types
• heating: fuel oil, wood, geothermal, etc.
• water consumption and recharge
• wastewater, including reuse
• solid waste, including recycling
• chemicals, including changes in chemical use due to environmental concerns
• biological agents, including changes in biological agent use due to environmental concerns
• ecological impacts and ecological conservation efforts
• improvements in efficiency of any of the above due to upgrades, and potential for further
improvement
• renewable energy or conservation efforts (e.g. passive solar and insulation)
• building energy retrofits

16
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF A MODERN SKI RESORT

The environmental assessment of a modern ski resort presented here is based on publicly available
data about ski resorts, as well as private data on some of Aspen Skiing Company’s operations. In
general, specific data is hard or impossible to find, and no ski resort operator gave us full access to
their operations data. It should be noted, then, that the impacts may vary between different resorts,
even ones of the same size, especially if they operate in different climates.

The greatest environmental impact of a ski resorts operations is its energy use. A medium to large
ski resort will consume more electricity and natural gas in one year than 1800 average U.S. homes
(calculated based on EPA, 2009 reference data). This is significant, considering that ski resorts are
in full operation only five months of the year or less. The main areas of energy consumption at a ski
resort are snow‐making, lift operations, and buildings. Water use from snow‐making and buildings,
including hotels and restaurants, is another resource heavily used by the ski industry. While other
environmental metrics are assessed in this paper, more focus is spent on energy and water use since
they are the most heavily used resources.

FUNCTIONAL UNITS

SKIER‐VISIT: In order to assess the impact of a ski resort relative to other resorts, one must use a
common functional unit. The most basic functional unit common to every resort would be a skier
visit. A skier‐visit is a visit to the resort by one skier for one day. This functional unit is the easiest
to calculate since data on the number of skiers per year is readily available. However, this
functional unit has fundamental weaknesses when used to compare one resort to another, because
different resorts have different operational capabilities relative to the number of skiers who visit.
For example, two resorts with the same number of visiting skiers annually may have differences in
the number of hotel rooms, restaurants, percent of skiers who stay overnight, lift capacity, acre‐feet
of snow‐making, quality of the experience, and climate for that season, which will affect the
operations and overall impact of these resorts. Therefore, while skier‐visit is a convenient
functional unit which we ourselves use, it is not adequate alone, and other units are more
appropriate for specific operations. Table 2 shows other possible metrics.

17
TABLE 2: FUNCTIONAL UNITS USED AT SKI RESORTS TO ASSESS THEIR OPERATIONS.

Name Type Application Context Embedded Assumptions

Skier-visit skier-day size of resort assess any impact see below
(skiing)
Lift skiers/hour ski lifts; Compare energy use Good - linear scaling of ski lift
Capacity determining between ski lift systems; capacity based on number of
resort size compare size of other passengers per chairlift
systems in context of lift Good - linear scaling of
capacity as a metric of capacity between different
resort size types of lifts (detachable and
fixed)
Fair - similar mix of lift types
and corresponding efficiency
for typical resort
Acres area; snow- assessing size of resort Poor - resort size: high
skiable, making, based on total acres or trails variability in acres counted as
trail, snow- resort size, acres; assessing size of skiable, especially between
making resort snow-making system in east and west coast
(also: snow- character terms of total acreage or as
Poor - snow-making: snow-
making a relative percentage
making acres does not account
percent)
for volume of snow made, or
whether or not all acres are
covered at all snow-making
times
Acre-Ft volume snow-making volume of snow made Good: real measurement of
snow-making operation
Hotel # of rooms size of base assess any base impact Fair- assumes similar
rooms area proportion of hotel rooms and
restaurants at a resort and
ignores differences

The use of the different metrics allows comparison of differently sized resorts, or systems of
different sized resorts. For example, the lift capacity of a resort scales linearly with number of
passengers per chairlift, e.g. a 6‐person chairlift usually has exactly three times the capacity of a 2‐
person chairlift, even if the chairlifts are of different types and technologies. Surprisingly, this holds
between slow‐moving fixed chairlifts and high‐speed detachable chairlifts because the limiting
factor is the speed at which passengers can load: e.g. a lift that moves 3 times as fast has chairs
spaced 3 times as far. This also holds for short and tall lifts: a lift that rises 1500 meters would have
3 times the passengers of a lift that rises only 500 meters, but the shorter lift would carry that same
number of total skiers during a given time period, for a ride 1/3 as long.

Therefore, using a metric that scales in a linear way, such as lift capacity, would allow investigation
into the energy efficiency of a particular resort’s lift system.

18
Table 3 shows the difference in the size of three resorts based on different functional units. Note
that while there are similarities between the units, there are also some differences and
discrepancies, especially in numbers such as “skiable terrain” and “snow‐making percent” reported
by the resorts themselves.

TABLE 3: FUNCTIONAL UNIT EXAMPLES FOR DIFFERENT‐SIZED RESORTS TO SHOW VARIABILITY.

Functional ASC (all 4 Northstar Ratio Jiminy Peak Ratio

Unit mountains) (NaT) ASC ASC
State Colorado California Massachusetts
Skiers per 1,400,000 500,000 0.36 255,000 0.18
year
Skiable Acres 5,303 2,904 0.55 170 0.03
Trail Acres* unknown 502 170
Snow-making 13% 50% 96%
percent
(reported)*
Snow-making 694 251 0.36 167 0.24
Acres
Snow-making 983 unknown 700 0.71
acre-feet
Lift Capacity 55,835 32,500 0.58 12,800 0.23
Hotel Rooms 240 230 0.96 102 0.43
* Trail acres are back-calculated based on snow-making percents and acres
reported: some ski areas base the % on the trail acres (Northstar), others on
the skiable acres (Aspen)
Note: Jiminy Peak is about 1/4 the size of Aspen, but has less "skiable
terrain" because it is located in heavily forested MA. Surely, not all of
Aspen's skiable terrain is skiable by everyone - imagine cliffs, trees, and
other extreme terrain.

ENERGY

Energy use data is was collected from two ski companies with good data reporting (Aspen Skiing
Company and Jiminy Peak) and publications by the EPA in 2000 and the SSP from 2001‐2003 (the
SSP stopped collecting and reporting overall data in 2004). This early data is either based on large
assumptions (EPA), or based on incomplete reporting and large assumptions (SSP). Most notably,
fuel is not considered for any of the SSP reports. Data collected from the Aspen Skiing Company
indicates that this is a significant oversight, and that fuel consumption may account for more than
half of a typical resort’s energy use. Figure 2 shows the total energy use (with fuel missing for all of
the SSP data and Jiminy Peak), while Figure 3 shows the total electricity use for comparison (minus
the EPA data as it was aggregated). The energy "savings" are also shown, as this is the most
common "data" provided by the resorts themselves (and the only data that SSP currently reports).
For Jiminy Peak, savings is defined as the amount of energy that would be additionally consumed if

19
not for upgrading and replacing inefficient lighting fixtures and snow‐making equipment as well as
that saved by circulating excess heat from air compressors into buildings.

FIGURE 2. DATA COLLECTED FOR "TOTAL" ENERGY USE AT SKI RESORTS; NOTE THAT FUEL IS NOT
INCLUDED IN ALL CASES (DATA: EPA, 2000; NSAA, 2001, 2002, 2003; ASC, 2007, JIMINY PEAK FOREVER
GREEN, 2009).

FIGURE 3. DATA COLLECTED FOR ELECTRICITY USE AT SKI RESORTS (DATA: NSAA, 2001, 2002, 2003; ASC,
2007, JIMINY PEAK FOREVER GREEN, 2009).

20
THE DATA PRESENTED IN FIGURE 2 AND FIGURE 3 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH CAUTION SINCE THE
METRIC USED IS "PER SKIER VISIT" WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST METRIC IN ALL CASES. THE MOST
STRIKING THING IS THE LOWER NUMBERS AND INCONSISTENCY (EVEN IN SAVINGS) REPORTED BY THE
SSP AVERAGES COMPARED TO INDUSTRY LEADERS. EVEN WHEN CORRECTING FOR LACK OF FUEL DATA,
THE SSP NUMBERS ARE REMARKABLE COMPETITIVE WITH ASC AND MUCH LOWER THAN JIMINY PEAK.
WITHOUT GREATER TRANSPARENCY, SSP'S DATA IS UNRELIABLE.

THE ENERGY DATA FROM ASC IS REMARKABLE SIMILAR TO THAT ESTIMATED IN THE EPA REPORT.
HOWEVER, THE EPA REPORT COUNTS LODGING ENERGY USE FOR SKIERS WHO STAY ELSEWHERE, AND THE
ASC DATA DOES NOT, SO THE EPA'S 2000 ESTIMATE IS, IF ANYTHING, TOO SMALL. JIMINY PEAK APPEARS
TO MORE INEFFICIENT THAN ASC, HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT JIMINY HAS AN EXTENSIVE
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE NUMBER OF SKIERS WHO VISIT PER SEASON; JIMINY HAS 25‐71% OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE OF ASC, BUT ONLY 18% OF THE SKIERS (

Table 3, above). Therefore, assessment of a ski resort's environmental sustainability is difficult

without baseline data for infrastructure, using per‐skier‐visit as a metric, and without more data
from other resorts.

A closer look at the breakdown of energy use was conducted using ASC's data, shown in Figure 4.
The electricity is primarily used by ski lifts, snow‐making, and building (base lodges, hotels, and
restaurants). The fuels are divided into those used by hotels and base lodges (mostly natural gas)
and those used by skiing operations (mostly gas and diesel). The natural gas is used for building
heat and cooking, and the gas and diesel is used to power snowcats, snowmobiles, buses, and
vehicles. The carbon footprint of electricity is disproportionately large, at 64% (Figure 5) due to the
high carbon footprint of grid electricity from coal‐fired power plants, common in Colorado. The
metrics used for this calculation by ASC are shown in Table 4.

21
FIGURE 4. ENERGY USE AT ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BY ACTIVITY TYPE AND FUEL (DATA FROM ASC 2007).

FIGURE 5. CO2 EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY USE AT ASC (DATA FROM ASC, 2007).

22
 TABLE 4. ASC CONVERSION FACTORS FOR GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL.

lbs CO2/M
Energy Source Unit ASC BTU
electricity* lbs CO2/kWh 1.6 469
lbs
B20 (diesel) CO2/gallon 18.9 151
lbs
gasoline CO2/gallon 19.6 141
lbs CO2/M
natural gas BTU 118 118
*coal makes up a significant portion of Colorado's
electricity mix, and therefore has 25% more carbon
footprint than typical

In order to compare how much energy and water is used for lodging and restaurants at a ski resort,
values were calculated based on available information. Since ASC is an industry leader, we expect
their reported values to be lower than our calculated values. Conversely, we expect the energy
reported by the EPA would be larger since it includes lodging and restaurants outside of the resort.
The calculated value can be used as a benchmark for ski resorts to compare their energy use and
determine how ASC compares to the average.

The energy data from the EPA report is broken into energy use for lodging, restaurant, retail, and
ski. These categories are greatly generalized which makes it impossible to determine where base
lodges, administrative buildings, and maintenance buildings are grouped or if they are considered at
all. Furthermore, the EPA data includes data from total hotel and restaurant use by skiers and not
just the facilities at ski resorts. ASC groups restaurant and lodging data together and reports 37% of
the total energy use from these operations. The EPA reports retail operations make up 6% of total
energy use and 0.5% of total water use for a ski vacation. This number includes retail shops outside
of the resort, therefore would be significantly less for resort operations. Since retail is not a
significant draw on energy and water, the retail spaces are not included in the calculations.

Based on average hotel and restaurant data we calculated the amount of energy (gas and electric)
use at a typical resort. We used data from Intercontinental Hotels Group’s (IHG’s) 2008
Sustainability Report. IHG has over 4000 hotels worldwide and have some of the most detailed data
available for hotel operations (IHG, 2008). We assumed 14.9 million kWh per year and 24.3 million
gallons of water per year, which are numbers from IHG’s report. We assumed a resort with 250
(roughly the size of ASC) hotel beds and the average occupancy rate of 60.4% (Travel, Airline, Hotel
& Tourism Overview, 2008). Restaurant energy and water consumption was calculated for 15
restaurants, which is the number restaurants at Aspen ski resort. Data for restaurant energy and
water varies widely by source and is generally given per square foot of restaurant space. The most
comprehensive data that references its sources is from 1992 and brings significant uncertainty into
the calculation. Using the average energy use of 761,984 kWh per year and water use of 300,000
gallons of water per year, the annual energy and water use is 11.4 million kWh and 28.8 million
gallons of water, respectively for the 15 restaurants (Miller, K.C., 1992, Bertagnoli, 2008). The
results are compared to ASC’s data and the EPA report in percent energy and water use in Table 6.
The results will be different for ski resorts that have fewer or more restaurants and hotel beds and
the values stated above may be used to modify the calculations.
23
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF EPA, CALCULATED, AND ASC REPORTED ENERGY AND WATER USE FOR HOTEL
AND RESTAURANT OPERATIONS.

EPA Calculated ASC

Energy (% of total) 32.5% 29.8% 37%

Water (% of total) 5.4% 13.1% 11.9%

ASC’s energy use is higher than both the EPA’s reported value and the calculated value. This is likely
due to what ASC includes in their numbers. For example, ASC may include parking garages, which
must be beyond the capacity of the hotel in order to accommodate day skiers. ASC may also include
retail shops, ski shops, administrative buildings, and the Snowmass Golf Club. Additionally, ski
resorts must have larger lodge areas to accommodate day skiers so their energy consumption may
be higher than the typical restaurant. The energy use reported by the EPA is lower than ASC’s and
only slightly higher than the calculated value. If we include the extra 5% of energy use for retail, it is
almost exactly what ASC reported. However, we expected the EPA’s value to be significantly higher
since it includes offsite lodging and restaurants. The discrepancy is possibly from the
overestimation energy from snow‐making and lift operations.

The disparity between the EPA’s water use compared to the calculated value and ASC’s reported
value is either an underestimation by the EPA on the amount of water used in lodging and
restaurant operations or an overestimation of how much water is used for ski operations. It is
possible that the EPA used vague snow‐making data. While we were researching snow‐making, we
came across many resorts that give misleading snow‐making data. For example, one resort claims
that snow‐making covers 73% of its terrain. On further investigation and talking with experts, the
amount that is reported may include the whole trail regardless of how much snow is made on that
trail and does not necessarily translate into acre‐ft of coverage.

Electricity is only 39% of the energy mix, the rest is transportation fuels and natural gas. Snow‐
making consumes at least 13% of a resort's energy, 33% of the electricity, and is responsible for
21% of the carbon footprint (and probably more when snowmobile use is considered). Ski lifts and
grooming consume another large portion of a resort's energy, but do not vary greatly between
resorts because the technology is standardized (Smith & ASC, 2009). Snow‐making, however, is
very non‐standardized, and is therefore a target for improvement.

A good metric for measuring snow‐making efficiency is by acre‐feet of snow produced. The quantity
of snow is, after all, the product that is needed by a ski resort, assuming quality is relatively
constant. The quantity of snow produced by a given amount of energy (or water) can vary based on
the snow‐making equipment type and condition, as well as the temperature and humidity at the
time the snow is being produced. Therefore, different equipment, maintenance, and management
can drastically alter the resource consumption. The (little) data available to us on snow‐making
energy per acre‐foot is presented in Figure 6. Most of the resorts listed are owned by ASC, in 2007
and 2000 (Snowmass, Ajax, Buttermilk, and Highlands). In addition, there is data from another
large Colorado resort, and Jiminy Peak, which produces almost as many acre‐feet of snow as ASC,
24
but at higher efficiency (lending credibility to their energy conservation data). From this limited
dataset, the amount of energy required to produce an acre‐foot of snow varies by 6 times, and even
proactive ASC has variability energy control (or data collection) between 2000 and 2007, showing
an increase of 50% per acre‐foot.

FIGURE 6. ENERGY USE FOR SNOW‐MAKING PER ACRE‐FOOT (DATA FROM ASC, 2009).

CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLES

Conservation of energy, carbon offsets, and in a few cases, direct generation of renewable energy
are programs that are taking hold at many ski resorts. Data on these programs is readily available,
since the resorts typically tout their "green" programs as part of their marketing scheme, but care
must still be taken to understand and assess these programs. The carbon offsets are typically
occurring in the form of renewable energy credits (RECs). While this is the most popular form of
"renewable" energy, they are not considered in this report due to their indirect nature, lack of
transparency, and wide variability in legitimacy (in our opinion).

Conservation programs are often reported, to varying degrees of specificity. In some cases, the
resorts report on individual programs of replacing light fixtures, snow‐making equipment, or
installing automated systems that smartly regulate energy. Unfortunately, the wide variability of
conservation programs along with the lack of reporting on specifics of energy usage and lack of
baseline data make the assessment of these programs difficult to impossible. Nevertheless, accounts
from within the industry indicate that conservation of energy can reduce consumption by at least
25%, with most of the gains coming in snow‐making and building efficiency.

Some resorts are starting to generate or directly purchase renewable energy. The leader on this
front is Jiminy Peak, in Massachusetts, who installed a 1.5 MW wind turbine on top of their ski hill,
as shown in Figure 7.

25
FIGURE 7. JIMINY PEAK SKI RESORT (PHOTO FROM TIMES UNION BLOG, 2009).

Jiminy's wind turbine produces 4,600,000 kWh of power annually, of which Jiminy Peak uses about
half that power. If Jiminy Peak were to use all of the power that Zephyr produces, than 2/3 of their
current operation would be wind‐powered. Furthermore, Jiminy estimates that they are saving
25% of the energy they would otherwise be using without improvements and upgrades. It is
difficult to tell whether or not these improvements are due to unusual efforts by Jiminy, or due to
just simple technology development (and obsoleteness of older technologies), of which most resorts
are using. Nevertheless, Figure 8 shows Jiminy's theoretical energy use with the conservation and
the full potential of the Zephyr wind turbine.

26
FIGURE 8. ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE GENERATION AT JIMINY PEAK, MA. THE TOTAL
IS THE HYPOTHETICAL TOTAL WITHOUT CONSERVATION EFFORTS (DATA FROM JIMINY PEAK, 2009A & B).

Aspen Skiing Company has installed two solar facilities, a snow‐melt micro‐hydro plant, and is
purchasing wind power directly from a nearby provider. Renewable in their energy mix account for
approximately 5.5%, as shown in Figure 9.

FIGURE 9. ASPEN SKI COMPANY ELECTRICITY MIX, INCLUDING ON‐SITE GENERATION (SOLAR AND MICRO‐
HYDRO) AND DIRECT WIND PURCHASE FROM THEIR POWER PROVIDER (DATA FROM ASC, 2007).
27
The installation of renewable energy generation at ski resorts is a very recent phenomenon, and it is
expected that other resorts will follow in the near future.

WATER

Water use data was collected from Aspen Skiing Company and publications by the EPA in 2000 and
the SSP from 2001‐2003 (the SSP stopped collecting and reporting overall data in 2004), and is
shown in Figure 10. In this case, it appears that the EPA is overestimating water use, and that ASC's
overall usage is comparable to SSP's reported data, although SSP's data varies highly from year to
year. There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy between the EPA and the others: 1)
the EPA counts lodging skiers who stay elsewhere, while the resorts do not, 2) ASC is remarkable
efficient in their snow‐making water use per acre‐foot, and has many skier‐visits to offset the use
(discussed below), and 3) there are large assumptions in the EPA report and unreliable data quality
in the SSP reports.

FIGURE 10. WATER USE PER SKIER VISIT (DATA FROM EPA, 2000; SSP, 2001, 2002, 2003, ASC,
2007).

Snow‐making is clearly the largest user of water at ski resorts by all measurements, but not all
water "used" in snow‐making is consumed. The man‐made snow melts and recharges the local
aquifer in the spring, with a net loss of only 10 to 20 % (the industry standard is an 80 % recharge
rate, which was verified in peer‐reviewed literature) (Stansell, 2009; Eisel et al, 1988). Therefore,
the issue of water use for a ski resort would primarily deal with the building or lodge use, the
amount lost from snow‐making to evapotranspiration, and any issues arising from large water
withdrawals in the early winter season and in different drainages (as is the sometimes the case).

28
Snow‐making is very non‐standardized, as previously discussed with energy, and a good metric for
measuring snow‐making efficiency is by acre‐feet of snow produced. The amount of water required
to produce an acre‐foot of snow varies, in our data, by 12 times, as shown in FIGURE. Although
snow‐making efficiency drops with temperature, it appears to be uncorrelated with the data, most
likely because all of the tests were run at appropriate temperatures. The high degree of variability
under controlled testing conditions shows the range of snow‐making efficiency. Most likely, under
real conditions for an entire season, the variability in efficiency would only increase. An increase in
water usage would lead to an increase in energy usage, so systems using less water would, in
general, also use less energy (this statement is certainly true for pumping and for similar
technologies, but it may not always hold between very different technologies).

The data also show that ASC is the most efficient snowmaker in terms of water usage, which would
close some of the gap between ASC and EPA water use per skier visit.

FIGURE 11. WATER PER ACRE‐FOOT OF MAN‐MADE SNOW FOR DIFFERENT TESTS AT DIFFERENT RESORT.
SNOWMAX IS AN ADDITIVE THAT HELPS INCREASE EFFICIENCY (DATA FROM SMITH & ASC, 2009).

WASTE

Ski resorts generate waste from restaurant activities, lodging, and maintenance of equipment such
as vehicles, ski lifts, and groomers. The amount of hazardous waste that a ski resort generates is
fairly small; medium to large resorts such as ASC are likely to be considered a ‘conditionally exempt
small quantity generator’ by the EPA, which means they generate less than 220 pounds of waste per
month (ASC, 2007).

29
ASC reports about 3.3 pounds of waste per skier per day, while the EPA reports 2.8 lbs of waste per
skier per day (US EPA, 2000). The comparison reveals that the estimation by the EPA are low since
it takes into account waste generated from activities such as dining and lodging outside of the
resort. ASC has the ability to track it’s waste and thus can provide a more accurate number than the
EPA’s. Since waste is largely dependent on the number of restaurants and lodging at the resort, it is
necessary for each individual resort to establish a baseline to set goals.

ASC reports a recycling rate of 39%, but admit uncertainty and state that 39% may be an
overestimation. Comparing this to the national recycling rate of 33% for all municipal waste, it is
plausible that if ASC is promoting recycling that it would be higher than average (NRC, 2009).
Although recycling may be beneficial, the most important aspect of waste management is to limit
the amount of waste produced. By generating less waste, emissions from producing the discarded
product, shipping it to the resort, and hauling it to a landfill will be reduced. Therefore, less
emphasis should be put on recycling rates and more emphasis on waste per skier day.

SUSTAINABLE SLOPES PROGRAM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The SSP has taken a big step forward in the skiing industry and compiled knowledge about
sustainable practices relevant to the skiing industry. While ski resorts are clearly knowledgeable
about sustainable practices, other resorts fold the environmental sustainability manager job into
another existing management position; SSP's guidelines provide an easy starting reference point for
a busy manager. NSAA's most recent publication on the SSP program has a strong emphasis on
energy, which is appropriate, statements on improving the SSP, and encouragement to monitor and
report data (NSAA, 2008). We find these goals to be applaudable, and we hope to see changes to the
SSP program itself that addresses these goals.

The SSP should address their critics and enact a reward system for exceptional compliance. For
example, resorts that already have highly sustainable systems, are showing significant
improvements, and/or report data to NSAA and release it to the public should be lauded with, for
example, gold, silver, and bronze levels of participation, and these awards should be given out in a
careful manner as to not dilute their meaning. Resorts that sign on to the program should still be
listed as participants and encouraged, but not rewarded until action has been taken.

The SSP should also do a much better job of collecting and reporting data. Reports from 2001 to
2003 were the best at reporting data and unfortunately, the 2008 report contains less useful
information than the 2004 report. SSP should immediately reverse this trend. We recommend that
they collect data on all fuel, energy, water, waste, and certain (toxic) chemicals, as well as data on
the size of the operations such as lift capacity, snow‐making, number of skiers, hotel rooms and
their occupancy rates, and many other metrics, and they should report these numbers to the general
public. Dis‐aggregated data is also useful, particularly if, for example, there are changes from year to
year in certain systems. If there are concerns over privacy of the data, they should allow resorts to
opt in or out of full disclosure specific to that resort, but they should report how many opt‐in, and
how those resorts opting‐in fare overall (otherwise one might mistakenly assume that only the
highest performers are opting in). The current method of reporting energy “saved” and water
“saved” is meaningless without the context as to how much is being used, or could be used based on
the size of the infrastructure. SSP should also publish trends from year‐to‐year, to show the
effectiveness of their program.

30
SKI AREA CITIZEN’S COALITION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

SACC is to be applauded for their extensive data‐mining and consistent set of baseline goals used for
comparisons. Although SACC's baselines may not be the best way to assess a ski resort's
environmental sustainability, they are an excellent place to start, especially in light of the variability
between resort profiles and operations. In addition, the persistence of SACC in compiling this data
for several years running speaks to their motivation and seriousness on the subject.

SACC’s emphasis on non‐development is consistent with reducing the energy usage and carbon
footprint of a resort, as well as minimizing further negative impact to local ecology and threatened
species. Nevertheless, it would be useful to grade and assess separately the operations and the
construction aspect of these resorts, and adjust the amount of points rewarded to reflect
environmental impact from an industrial ecology standpoint (and justify the point distribution).
The reason for the separation is twofold: to encourage already‐developed but inefficient resorts to
improve (rather than continue on as business‐as‐usual), and to recognize efforts (or punish non‐
effort) of developing resorts to incorporate sustainable standards of practice into their operations
(and new designs). Furthermore, the energy use (and corresponding carbon footprint) of a resort is
highly variable; in the long‐term, a new, highly‐efficient resort is preferable to an older, inefficient
resort.

SUMMARY:

We conclude that the most substantial environmental impacts from ski resorts in the use phase are
energy use, water use, and waste generation. Energy use is primarily due to snowmaking, lift
operation, and buildings. Lift operations are necessary and have little room for improved efficiency
at this time. Building energy consumption is continually being improved through better insulation,
heating systems, and lighting technology. Energy use in buildings should be weighted heavily when
assessing a ski resort’s sustainability because there is significant opportunity for improvement is
high and a ski resorts ability to influence this area is high. Another area with great potential for
improvement is energy use in snowmaking: snowmaking has the greatest room for energy savings
and should be highly weighted.

There is sufficient technology for ski resorts to save water in their restaurant and lodging
operations and there is room for improvement. These areas are especially important because,
unlike snowmaking, they result in wastewater treatment, which is resource intensive. Resorts use
water from reservoirs, creeks and wells for snowmaking. The use of reservoirs should be supported
since they do not deplete well and creek supplies and the water is already cooled for better
snowmaking efficiency. The source and amount of water used for snowmaking should be heavily
weighted when determining the sustainability of a ski resort.

Waste generation is part of a ski resort’s hotel and restaurant operations. It has impacts beyond the
ski resort, including shipping emissions as the goods are delivered to the resort and as they are
taken from the resort as waste. Although the upstream and downstream impacts were not assessed
in this report, we conclude that the best practice is for a ski resort to eliminate as much unnecessary
packaging and goods as possible to avoid waste and associated shipping emissions.

Ski resorts have plenty of opportunity to improve their sustainability. Aspen Skiing Company has
made a good start at evaluating and addressing their environmental impacts. Current evaluations
31
by SSP and SACC do not accurately reflect the importance of key environmental metrics possibly
due to the lack of specific and reliable data. We hope that in the future more ski resorts will produce
quality sustainability reports so a true measure of impact and progress will be available to the
industry and public.

INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY REVIEW OF SNOWMAKING

GOAL OF THE STUDY

Snow‐making is a key aspect of a ski resorts operation phase since snow‐making can account for 50
to 80% of ski resorts electricity consumption (NSAA, 2008). Snow‐making involves the construction
of snow guns, air compressors, electricity lines, water and air pipelines as well as the facility, labor,
energy, and water required to operate the snow‐making system. Snow‐making represents an
important challenge for ski resorts due to the complex physics of artificially made snow and the
engineering challenge to set up such a system.

Snow‐making is an important business for ski resorts as it provides the customer the certainty of
being able to use the product they came for; snow. Installing a snow‐making system is a tradeoff
between the costs associated with it (infrastructure installation but also use and maintenance) and
the insurance of satisfying the customer as well as the ability for the resort managers to plan the
season ahead of time (opening and closing date, special events such as competitions). Snow‐making
is very expensive and can cost upwards of $500,000 per year in electricity alone for a medium to
large ski resort: however, a single day’s revenue at the resort can exceed the entire year’s cost of
electricity (Stansell, 2009).

In this paper we chose to carry out a study that would have actual application and value to a ski
resort acknowledging the value of snow‐making to the ski industry. We worked with Northstar at
Tahoe, a ski resort in the California Sierra mountain range; the information they provided us, the
visit we made to the resort, and the economical considerations we had were very valuable to
understand how sustainability concepts can be applied. Northstar has different types of snow guns,
and is particularly interested in the potential benefits of replacing manual snow‐guns with
automatic models with different characteristics. This paper analyzes both the economical and
environmental aspects of two scenarios:

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Northstar resort continues to operate Northstar resort replaces 7 old manual

the existing snow‐making system. “wizards” with new automated
“Polecats”.

32
 No initial expense. Less labor and operating costs.

Obviously, scenario 2 involves a great initial investment and is economically and environmentally
worse than scenario 1 at the start. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a break‐even
point, that is to say if there is a duration after what scenario 2 becomes more viable than 1.

BACKGROUND ON SNOWMAKING SYSTEMS

Physical Principle of snow­making

Snow‐making depends on a multitude of variables, which makes it very complex. To understand the
main parameters and their effects, we first need to focus on artificially‐made snow physics. An
excellent description is available online (www.snowathome.com, accessed 10/25/09 at 6 pm). To
sum it up, water pipelines bring cold water to snow guns, which then propel it into thin droplets
through the air (different technologies exist for snow guns and will be examined below). The
droplets then turn into small ice crystals and conglomerate to make snow.

FIGURE 12. PHYSICS OF SNOW‐MAKING

SOURCE: HTTP://ELSEWARE.UNIV‐PAU.FR/MAINPAGEPUB/SNOWGUN/SNOWGUN.HTML. ACCESSED
10/24/09 AT 7 PM

Physical phenomena, which take place after the propulsion of the droplets and allow formation of
snow are mostly related to heat transfer between the droplets and the air outside (evaporative heat

33
losses). Therefore, incoming water temperature, outside air temperature and surface area of the
droplets (which is controlled by the nozzle shape and size) are important parameters. Humidity is
also an important parameter, as very humid air limits evaporative heat losses. Often, the air
temperature and humidity is combined under one parameter called wet‐bulb temperature. In the
case of compressed Air‐water mixture, a phenomenon of super‐cooling occurs due to the Joule‐
Thomson effect (decrease of temperature due to a rapid expansion of a gas) which enables the
production of snow at higher temperatures.

Functional Unit

The previous considerations show that snow‐making depends on different variable that make it
difficult to model. However, under given external conditions, the amount of snow produced is
proportional to the amount of water consumed. Therefore, the functional unit we have chosen is 1
gallon of water consumed.

Once could argue that this functional unit does not take into account the fact that the snow is
actually useful for skiing. Indeed, one would not want to consider that two guns have the same
efficiency if one is in a very busy place and the other is lost in a place where very few skiers go. But
this is indirectly taken into account in the water consumption because the manager of sky resort
will want to make sure that snow is there primarily in places where people actually ski, and the
snow gun will therefore consume more water. The fact that the snow is used or not is reflected in
the water consumption of the snow gun. Also, this study does not involve any consideration on the
quality of the snow. In fact, depending on the type of gun and on when the snow is produced, a
consensus can be found to agree that the snow is of different quality. But it is difficult to measure
and therefore won’t be taken into account in our scientific study.

Snow guns technologies

The snow guns technologies can be classified between three categories:

TRADITIONAL AIR‐WATER SNOW GUNS: Both a water pipeline and a compressed air pipeline (of
approximately 90 psi) supply the snow gun with cold water and compressed air, which are then
mixed in the nozzle and propelled together. Due to the phenomenon of super‐cooling explained
above, these guns allow snow‐making at relatively high outside temperature, even higher than room
temperature 60s, but the system is extremely inefficient at these temperatures (Stansell, 2009).
These guns have about a 16:1 air to water ratio, depending on conditions, and are relatively
inexpensive at $1800‐$3000.

FAN GUNS: These guns propel water directly through the air with a huge fan. It requires colder
outside temperature to produce an equivalent quality snow than air‐water snow guns but do not
need compressed air infrastructure.

HIGH EFFICIENCY AIR‐WATER GUNS: These new guns have a higher efficiency; however the cost is
also higher. It ranges from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on the efficiency and degree of automation.
Highly automated systems reduce maintenance and labor cost but increase infrastructure costs.

34
 FIGURE 13. GENERAL COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.RATNIK.COM/SNOW‐MAKING.HTML ACCESSED 10/25/09 AT 3 PM

To be precise, the guns that are currently used in Northstar at Tahoe and that might be replaced are
the following:

• 2 Super Wizzard Tower guns

• 1 Super Wizzard carriage mounted gun
• 4 Wizzard carriage mounted guns.
The company called SMI Snowmakers manufactures all these guns. A technical description of each of
the snow guns mentioned above is available online. Northstar at Tahoe also suggested the most
feasible in the given amount of time would be to study the replacement of these guns by guns of the
same technology and by the same manufacturer. So we chose to define scenario 2 as the
replacement of these 7 guns by 7 SMI Polecat that are automated, 5 carriage mounted guns and 2
tower guns.

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

In this paper, snow making systems involve the following engineered systems or operations:

• Snow gun
• Electricity provision
• Water pumping
• Air compression
• Operating facility
• Maintenance

Of course, this list does not include many other steps. For instance, this study does not take into
consideration the albedo change of the soil that is covered with snow. But since most of the time
snow making means adding more snow to a place that is already covered with snow, the
modification of the albedo is a minor concern. A complete Life Cycle Assessment pushes boundaries
to their extremes throughout the entire world. The boundaries we chose for this study have the
advantage of being representative of the reality of the environmental impacts as well as being sized
so we can research data within our time constraints.

35
DATA

There were two main barriers to acquiring data on snow‐making. On one hand, data on energy and
water consumption of snow guns is a critical issue for ski resorts because it is a big part of their
energy consumption and is therefore information they might prefer to keep confidential. On the
other hand, it is difficult to get good reliable data simply because this data does not exist. In fact the
resorts have data on their energy bills and labor costs but have trouble identifying what part of it is
due to snow‐making. The two barriers were the lack of quality data and the fact that the data wasn’t
publicly available.

We used several main data sources for our study on the economics and environmental impact of
snow‐making. The first type of data is the data available online. We used the tool IEO‐LCA to deduce
what the environmental impacts were based on costs. To evaluate the costs we also used the
technical specifications provided by SMI, and some consumption data by the report “Energy
efficiency assessment report for Aspen skiing company snow‐making operations” by H. W. Edwards
et al. The other type of data comes from an expert in snow‐making that works at the resort we
visited. Tim Stansell responded to our questions on prices and consumptions so we could go
forward.

FINANCIAL FINDINGS, RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

We based the environmental assessment on the cost estimation of the different scenarios.

Because the scenarios have similarities, the Life‐Cycle Cost Assessment was simpler than an
estimation of the same thing just for one gun. The costs fore each scenario can be grouped into 4
categories:

• Fixed costs (Acquisition or selling)

• Water and electricity cost
• Labor costs
• Maintenance cost

THE OPERATING COSTS VARIED WITH THE TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION IN FAVOR OF THE NEWER SNOW‐
GUNS. THE AUTOMATION WAS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AS WELL. THE RESULTS OF OUR STUDY ARE
SUMMARIZED IN THE

Table 6.

36
 TABLE 6. COST BREAKDOWN FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2.

Scenario 1 Replacement year Normal year

Fixed cost $0 $0

Electricity cost $30 720 $30 720

Labor cost $15 000 $15 000

Maintenance cost $5 880 $5 880

Total $51 600 $51 600

Scenario 2

Fixed cost $182 000 $0

Electricity cost $34 767 $34 767

Labor cost $1 250 $1 250

Maintenance cost $4 200 $4 200

Total $222 217 $40 217

Obviously, the year in which the investment is made shows that the investment is important.
However, for a normal year the automation saves money that is progressively compensating the
initial investment. Figure 14 shows how the net present value evolves with time.

37
FIGURE 14. NET PRESENT VALUE OVER TIME FOR REPLACEMENT VERSUS CONTINUED USE OF THE
CURRENT SNOW‐GUNS

Figure 14 shows that the break‐even point is reached after 29 years. This computation is done
assuming an interest rate of 5%, which is a standard value. Although 29 years seems very high, the
industries that look beyond short‐term goals could possibly take advantage of savings in the future.
On one hand the ski industry is stable and it is pretty safe to say that the ski slopes will still exist in
29 years. On the other hand, the ski resort cannot be sure that the manufacturer SMI will still be
there to provide the pieces and support for broken snow‐guns. This leads to the conclusion that
with our model and under our assumptions, snow‐gun replacement is not likely if the decision is
based purely on a financial point of view.

Another conclusion of our study is that the cost of labor is very important. Figure 15 shows the
relative importance of all the operating costs for one year in the two different scenarios. The most
significant change that occurs from snow‐gun replacement is that the labor costs decrease
consistently. This comes from the fact that when the snow gun is automated, the only labor
associated with it is to check that the snow guns are indeed working when the central computer
says they are.

38
FIGURE 15. PROPORTION OF ELECTRICITY, LABOR, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF NEW AND EXISTING
SNOW‐GUNS.

Now that we have defined the economic ins and outs of the replacement of 7 fan guns with new
automated guns we can focus on the environmental aspect.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

To assess the environmental consequences of each scenario, we have used the Economic Input‐
Output Life‐Cycle Assessment tool (EIO‐LCA). This tool estimates the resources, including energy
and materials, required for various activities in our economy and calculates the resulting emissions
based on a collection of available data.
39
We used the 1997 purchaser price model, in the category “air and gas compressor manufacturing”
of the category “machinery and engines”. This category is appropriate for the snow guns that we
considered since they involve water and air compression. The reason we have used this model and
not the 2002 producer price model is that we wanted to be consistent with the category we used for
the electricity. For the electricity we used the “Power generation and supply” category of “Mining
and utilities”. Since the price we knew was a purchaser price, we had to use the most recent model
available with purchaser price which is the 1997 one. To be consistent, we also used this model for
the manufacturing cost and labor cost. The labor cost was included in the category “other
amusement gambling and recreation industries” which is part of “Arts, entertainment, recreation,
hotels and food services”.

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF THE TWO SCENARIOS

Global warming is a critical issue for ski resorts, as they will be one of the first industries affected by
climate change. We chose the Global Warming Potential (GWP) as the environmental impact to
focus on. Global Warming Potential is a measure of the contribution of an activity or a process to
global warming. The result is given on a relative scale, and the unit is the metric ton of CO2
equivalent. The data that we collected from the EIO‐LCA tool is summarized in Table 7.

TABLE 7. EIO‐LCA GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL DATA.

GWP (MT CO2

Data from the 1997 purchaser price model eq)

Air and Gas Compressors 0,521

Power generation and supply 9,53

Other amusement, gambling, and recreation

industries 0,321

The results are surprising. As expected, the area that contributes most to the GWP of snow‐making
is electricity consumption both for the fan guns directly and for the water pumping. Table 8
illustrates the contribution of electricity and labor to the GWP in the two scenarios.

40
TABLE 8. GWP OF EACH CONTRIBUTOR MEASURED IN METRIC TONS OF CO 2 EQUIVALENT.

Scenario 1 Replacement year Normal year

Initial Investment 0 0

Electricity 293 293

Labor 7 7

Total 299 299

Scenario 2

Initial investment 95 0

Electricity 331 331

Labor 2 2

Total 428 333

The surprising part is that the replacement of the old set of guns by new ones is not a good option
for the environment from a GWP point of view. It leads to an increased consumption of electricity
that implies more GWP due to power generation. It seems surprising that the new guns consume
more electricity than the old one but the idea that new guns are more efficient is in fact wrong. The
technical specifications are the basis for our estimation of the electricity consumptions as they
provide data on the power of the fan, the compressor, and the heater. Even though it is data from
SMI, it appears that the recent guns consume more. The new set of gun consumes more electricity
every year under our assumptions, and it is therefore not beneficial to replace the old guns by new
ones.

It is also interesting to notice the relative importance of the different contributors. Although it is 5
times as important in dollars, the initial investment’s contribution to the GWP is 3 times smaller
than one year of electricity consumption. On top of that, the same idea is valid for the contribution
of the labor cost in comparison to the electricity cost. This leads to the conclusion that the efforts
should be focused on the energy bill in order to reduce the GWP of snow‐making.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

This study shows how important the electricity cost is. It both is a big number on the bill at the end
of the year and the major contributor to the GWP. Therefore, the recommendations that can be
made to the resorts all come from this result. One option to reduce the energy consumption is to
improve the management of snow‐making. As we have mentioned in the background part of this
report, snow‐making is an insurance policy for the resort. It allows the resort to guarantee to its
customers that if they buy tickets to come to lake Tahoe for thanksgiving they will have snow to ski
on. For instance being able to make snow during the night not only reduces the electricity bill
41
because the electricity is cheaper at night but also reduces the water and electricity consumption
because the efficiency of snow‐making is better at lower temperatures. Being able to anticipate the
right moment to make snow, taking into account the weather predictions, the importance of
meeting marketing announcements, current weather conditions, is an art.

Another option to reduce energy consumption is to choose guns that have a better efficiency. Once
again the question is not easy to answer because the efficiency of a gun depends on the conditions in
which it is used, and this cannot be predicted.

A lot of our calculations rely on predictions and means. Our predictions are uncertain and the
uncertainty lies in two different areas. First, there is the natural variability of the weather in a given
year. According to the amount of snow and the moment when it falls, but also to the temperature
and humidity of the season, the snow guns will be more or less efficient and useful. The other type
of uncertainty lies in the models we have used and the assumptions we were forced to make. Our
model is deterministic and therefore doesn’t take into account the natural variability mentioned
above. Also, it is based on data that is not prefect because of the source reliability, the independence
of the supplier, the representativeness, the age, the geographical correlation and technological
correlation. We have assessed on a scale from 1 to 5 the quality of our data, with 1 being the most
reliable, and the results are presented in Table 9.

TABLE 9. DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR SNOW‐MAKING.

Independence
Acquisition of data Data Geographical Technological
method supplier Representativeness age correlation correlation

Fixed costs 2 5 1 1 1 1

Water and
electricity
costs 1 1 3 3 4 1

Labor costs 2 5 1 1 1 1

Maintenance
costs 2 5 1 1 1 1

EIOLCA 1 1 2 4 3 3

Maximum
quality 1 1 1 1 1 1

Minimum
quality 5 5 5 5 5 5

42
CONCLUSION ON LCA AND LCCA OF SNOW‐MAKING

This paper developed a model that analyzed in detail the option of Northstar at Tahoe replacing a
set of 7 snow guns with new ones. Our results highlight the importance of electricity consumption
both on the financial bill but also when it comes to the environment (GWP). If replacing the old
guns by new automated ones reduces the operating costs and leads to a break‐even point after 29
years, on the environmental point of view it is not beneficial to replace the old guns, because the
new ones consume more electricity. The results orientate the decision makers towards the status
quo. Our recommendation to the ski resort is to focus their efforts on how to reduce the electricity
consumption. However, these results should be considered with caution due to the uncertainty
underlying our model and the data collected.

Another contribution of this paper is that it shows the difference in the outcome when one thinks
based on economics or based on environmental metrics. In this assessment the results are the same,
but we do realize how important the electricity generation is even though the amount in dollars is
relatively low. It is very interesting to notice in our society that is becoming more preoccupied by
the environment every day how the financial and environmental issues are reconciled.

CONCLUSION

Assessing the sustainability of a ski area is difficult without baseline standards and data reporting.
There is a need within the industry to set baselines and performance targets based on operation and
type of system. For example, a catalog of snowmaking performance data could lead to a target
energy and water use per acre‐foot of snow‐produced. Resorts could then determine if they meet
the target or not. Reasons for not meeting the target are varied: it could be that they are using older
technology, making snow at overly warm temperatures, not targeting their snowmaking properly,
or failing to maintain snowmaking equipment, resulting in water or compressed air leaks. Similar
baselines could be applied to other operations at the resort, but first and foremost, more data needs
to be collected from the resort’s themselves.

Currently, very few ski resorts are publishing or sharing their data, and neither is the NSAA. It is
extremely difficult to assess how sustainable a resort is when they just list how much is "saved" due
to "improvements". This type of reporting is the most common in the skiing industry, yet it is the
least useful and leaves resorts susceptible to green‐washing criticism. The NSAA is in the best
position to collect data and establish baselines without needing to publish data specific to a
particular resort. SACC could also be a resource in this area, but they would need access to more
detailed data. Regardless over whether baseline data is collected in the future, it is clear that the
industry leaders are aware of their impact and where improvement efforts may best be directed.
Ski resorts wishing to start serious sustainability programs would be wise to emulate the leaders.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Baselines for resort operational systems must be established in order to assess what the
environmental impacts of a resort are and what reductions are possible. This can be established by
transparent and thorough reporting by ski resorts. ASC is working towards this and has done

43
extensive research on snow‐making efficiency. We hope ASC will share their findings in order to
allow other resorts to reduce their energy use based on the conclusions.

The environmental of travel to and from the ski resort is beyond the scope of this paper, however
the EPA’s estimate of emissions from travel is significant and the subject warrants a more in‐depth
study. In response to concerns by the Sierra Club and SACC regarding resort development, it may
also be a worthwhile study to determine how much emissions are reduced by skiers staying at the
ski resort versus driving to and from an offsite hotel and restaurant. Along the same lines, a study of
the impacts on the surrounding community from the skiers would address some off‐site concerns.
For example, how much are hotels, restaurants, and strip malls impacting the environment to
accommodate skiers? Would this impact be less if skiers had more restaurant and shop options at
the ski resort?

This report did not address the ecological effects of ski resorts. An additive called Snowmax is
regularly used in snow‐making to improve the output of snow per gallon of water. We did not find
any studies that specifically look at the effects of Snowmax as it enters waterways or is absorbed
into the ground. There has been research done on the increased efficiency of snow‐making by using
Snowmax but a direct comparison of the environmental effects and benefits have not been
compared such as energy and water savings compared to the ecological effects.

Our snow gun analysis can be further refined to obtain more accurate results. Future work should
include the following elements:

Positioning of the snow guns: Depending on where a snow gun is positioned, it can produce very
different amounts of snow. Positioning of the snow guns should be therefore be taken into account
in a full analysis.

Functioning mode of the snow guns: Every snow guns can use different functioning modes, with
different ring of nozzles put at work. For simplicity, this report uses an average mode on every snow
gun considered, but it should be differentiated in a deeper investigation.

Impact of the control and water supply facility: Since we compared two scenarios which both
needed the use of the same facilities, we didn’t need to investigate the impact of these facilities.
However a full environmental analysis of a snow gun would need to include the impact of facilities
construction, operation and maintenance.

44
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to all of the individuals and organizations that supported our
research efforts and assisted us with the compilation of this report. Thank you.

Professor A. Horvath at the University of California, Berkeley

A. Schendler at Aspen Skiing Company in Aspen, Colorado

C. Dalton, T. Stansell, and J. Loomis from Northstar at Tahoe, California

J. Dorsey at Brendle Group in Fort Collins, Colorado

B. Alex at Snowmaking Efficiency, LLC in California

P. Joyce at Colorado Wild in Durango, Colorado

45
REFERENCES

1. Aspen Skiing Company (ASC). Sustainability Report 1999­

2000. http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/programs/sustainreport.cfm ,
accessed Oct. 30, 2009 6:28 pm.

2. Aspen Skiing Company (ASC). Sustainability Report 2006­2007.

http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/images/2006‐
2007_ASC_Sustainability_Report.pdf , accessed Sept. 29, 2009 5:15 pm.

3. California Travel and Tourism Commission (CTTC) by Dean Runyan and Associates,
California Travel Impacts by County, 1992­2007: 2008 Preliminary State
Estimates, April 2009.
http://tourism.visitcalifornia.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Industry_About accessed
21 October, 2009 at 3:48pm.

4. Bertagnoli, L., “Save Water, Save Money”.

http://www.chainleader.com/article/CA6535645.html, viewed 6 December 2009.

5. Clifford, H., Downhill Slide: Why the Corporate Ski Industry is Bad for Skiing, Ski
Towns, and the Environment, San Francisco, Sierra Club Books, 2002.

6. Dorsey, J., "Debunking the SACC Scorecard." NSAA Journal, 11‐3, Oct‐Nov, 2004.

7. Edwards, H.W., M.F. Kostrzewa, J. Jonkman, D. Hooper, S. Kinne, J. Masters, E. Ruffel,

Energy Efficiency Assessment Report for Aspen Skiing Company Snow­making
Operations, Colorado State University Industrial Assessment Center, 2001.

8. Eisel, L. M., K. D. Mills, & C. F. Leaf, “Estimated Consumptive Loss from Man‐Made Snow”,
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 24(4), 1988.

9. Elgin, B., "Little Green Lies." Business Week, Oct. 29, 2007.

10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Household Emissions Calculator Assumptions

and References”. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_assumptions.html,
viewed 6 December 2009.

11. Fry, John, The Story of Modern Skiing. University Press, New England. ISBN‐10:I‐
58465‐489‐9, 2006.

12. Intercontinental Hotels Group, “2008 Sustainability Report”.

www.ihgplc.com/files/reports/ar2008/index.asp?pageid=31, viewed 15 November
2009.

46
13. Jiminy Peak, Forever Green,
http://jiminy.lsw.com/page.php?PageID=1445&PageName=Forever+Green+Magazine,
accessed 02 December 2009 12:07 pm.

14. Jiminy Peak, "Wind Turbine FAQ",

http://www.jiminypeak.com/page.php?PageID=1367&PageName=Wind+Turbine+FAQ,
accessed 29 October 2009 at 3:25 pm.

15. Kass, D.I. & Sumiye, O., "U.S. travel and tourism satellite accounts for 1996 and 1997.
Survey of Current Business, vol. 80(7):8, 2000.

16. Keep The Sierra Green (KSG), Sustainability & Waste Reduction Business Recognition
Program, http://keepthesierragreen.org/checklist/, accessed 6 October 2009 at 8:41
am.

17. Lin, T., Halbrendt, C., Liang, C., & Wood, N. "The Impact of the Tourism Sector on the
Vermont Economy: The Input‐Output Analysis." http://purl.umn.edu/21618 American
Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Nashville, TN, Aug. 8‐11, 1999.

18. National Recycling Coalition (NRC). http://www.nrc‐recycle.org/1itsworking.aspx

viewed 6 December 2009.

19. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), Environmental Charter,

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable_slopes/, accessed 6 October 2009
at 8:44 am.

20. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), Sustainable Slopes Annual Report, 2001.

21. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), Sustainable Slopes Annual Report, 2002.

22. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), Sustainable Slopes Annual Report, 2003.

23. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), Sustainable Slopes Annual Report, 2004.

24. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), Sustainable Slopes Annual Report, 2008.

25. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), prepared by The Brendle Group, Taking
Sustainable Slopes to the Next Level, Dec. 2008.

26. Pederson, M., Restaurant Facility Business, "The Hard Facts About Hard Water".
www.culligancommercial.com/.../the_hard_facts_about_hard_water.pdf viewed 15
November 2009.

27. International Organization for Standardization, About us,

http://www.iso.org/iso/about.htm, accessed 6 October 2009 at 9:00 am.

47
28. Rivera, J., de Leon, P., “Is Greener Whiter? Voluntary Environmental Performance of
Western Ski Areas.” The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32 3, 2004.

29. Rivera, J., de Leon, P. & C. Koerber, “Is Greener Whiter Yet? The Sustainable Slopes
Program after Five Years.” The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 34 2, 2006.

30. Sachs, Bob, "National Perspective on Mountain Resorts and Ecology.", Vermont Law
Review

31. Schendler, A., "Trouble in Paradise: The Rough Road to Sustainability in Aspen. How
Failure can be the Next Great Tool in Sustainable Business", Corporate Environmental
Strategy, vol. 8 4, pp. 293‐299, 2001.

32. Schendler, A., Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the
Sustainability Revolution, Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group, New York. ISBN‐13:
978‐1‐58648‐637‐2, 2009.

33. Schendler, A., "Applying the Principles of Industrial Ecology to the Guest‐Service Sector."
Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 7 1, pp. 127‐138, 2003.

34. Ski Area Citizens Coalition (SACC), "How are Ski Areas Graded",
http://www.skiareacitizens.com/index.php?nav=how_we_grade, accessed 16
September, 2009 at 12:28 pm, (a).

35. Ski Area Citizens Coalition (SACC), "Northstar‐at‐Tahoe Report Card",

http://www.skiareacitizens.com/index.php?nav=how_we_grade, accessed 16
September, 2009 at 12:28 pm, (b).

36. Smith, D.C., "Greening the Piste", Re­Focus, vol. 5 (6), pp. 28‐30, Nov./Dec. 2004.

37. Smith, Robin and Aspen Skiing Company (ASC), Aspen Snow­making Operational
Master Plan, Aspen Skiing Company (ASC), April, 2009.

38. Stansell, Tim, Planning and Development Director, Northstar‐at‐Tahoe (Booth Creek
Resorts), personal communication, 2009.

39. Times Union Blog by Pilot Girl, http://blog.timesunion.com/pilotgirl/ski‐resort‐

powered‐by‐green‐energy/534/, accessed 2 Dec. 2009 at 4:13 pm.

40. Travel, Airline, Hotel & Tourism Overview, 2008 data,

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/TravelAirlineHotelTourism/TravelAi
rlineHotelTourismStatistics/tabid/253/Default.aspx viewed 11/15/09

41. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) prepared by Abt
Associates, Inc., A Method for Quantifying Environmental Indicators of Selected
Leisure Activities in the United States, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovations, EPA‐231‐R‐00‐001, Dec. 2000.
48
49