Sustainability and Ski Resort Development

I'm kind of a dork like Snoloco when it comes to dreaming up of ski area design but lately I find myself constantly thinking about sustainability.

I look at these east coast areas that have a ton of natural snow trails and tree skiing and wonder, is it sustainable? I mean, how much effort and money does it take to maintain those areas and keep them skiable even during mid natural snow depths? In a ten year span what is the average amount of the ski season that they are actually opened and skiing well?

I think about the real estate ski lift pods and real estate developments. If you look at Sugarloaf there is that long flat lift that reaches out to the far viewers right to access real estate. I think it was developed many years ago, now that the properties have been sold the ski area still has to maintain the lift and they should be blowing snow on at leat ones ski run there for the homeowners but is still a priority and how often is it open? I wouldn't be very happy being a home owner off a pod like that if it was only open for 4 or 5 weeks out of an average season. It seems like a shortsighted and bad idea to me but I'm not sure. Do the ski areas make enough money off these real estate pods to continue the maintenance and upkeep of the trails, snowmaking and lifts that it makes any sense or will they eventually fall to disrepair making that real estate less valuable?

I wonder about the snowmaking and the amount of trails some of the larger ski areas have, in a warming world does it make sense to have so many acres?

Sugarloaf over the last few years has also developed the largest east cost side country area by thinning out the forests off of Burnt Ridge, awesome idea and I'm sure it's really fun to ski but will it remain sustainable to maintain? How is it maintained? Can they get machines in there or does it take a crew doing hand work all summer long?

Take these ideas into account with our global weirding weather and things become even more concerning imo.

Anyways, I'm curious what you all think and how if you were in a position of ski area management and development how would you be looking at this? How could you create a profitable and sustainable ski area on the east coast or beyond? How can already existing ski areas look toward the future and planning?

I'll probably have to put more thought into this, but here's a first kick at the can.

A while ago I was told that there were clauses in purchasing yet-to-be-built slopeside accoms at an EC resort.  Those clauses included the dwelling being within x feet of a yet-to-be-built ski lift.  I'm sure there are some stipulations/"guarantees" - or should be from a buyer's point of view - about prioritization of snowmaking or number of days that a given trail will be open.

I wonder about the sustainability of some of these giant-wide trails.  The Can-Am trail at Jay, Skyward at WF, etc.  These trails are exposed to the sun a whole lot and often the wind blows the snow right off the trail.  I would have thought that some strategic tree stands or snow farming would be more prevalent, i.e. offset the need for snowmaking.

As energy is probably the largest cost, I would want to design to limit my needs.  Using geothermal, passive solar for heat/cooling, photovoltaic to offset electricity, use grey water for toilets, direct runoff into snowmaking ponds

For the glade trails, some of them exist because the ski area doesn't need a permit, so long as trees below x" diameter and below y' of elevation are cut.  Also, even if they aren't used, from a marketing point of view they are a nice complement.

Random thoughts . . .

Jiminy Peak doesn't have to worry too much about tree skiing.  However, they have put a lot of effort into the power issue.  There is a bank of solar panels in the valley.  There is one of the big windmills at the top of the mountain, right next to the snowmaking pond.  Read somewhere that Jiminy doesn't use all the power generated by the windmill, so the extra goes into the grid.

What I find interesting is that Jiminy is one of the ski resorts owned by a REIT.  However, clearly the local management is making all the long-term decisions in terms of spending money on infrastructure.

Plattekill gets help annually from volunteers to help with maintenance of the trees.  I assume MRG does too.  So there are successful models for smaller ski areas that are dependent on natural snow.

From a business standpoint, figuring out how to generate revenue during the summer is as important as getting enough people to buy lift tickets or ski season passes.

No Snoloco on here?

Dude! You are letting me down on this one. :(

Maybe sustainability doesn't fit your ideal all pods by Christmas open, no exceptions model?

Well snowmaking is definitely key to opening a lot of terrain early.

You ideally want to be located next to a river that you can draw water from without harming the environment.  Also, you want to have a snowmaking reservoir so that you can draw more water during times the river is running high and less when it is running low.  

Whiteface and Gore have pretty much unlimited water supply as they are connected to rivers and they are permitted to draw significantly more water than they currently do.  Before Gore tapped the Hudson River, they had to be careful about making snow in marginal temps and early season because if the reservoir drained, they were done till next year.  Whiteface does not have a snowmaking pond, so they get all the water out of the Ausable River that runs through the base.  They are permitted to draw more than they currently do, but should the snowmaking capacity in acre feet per day be doubled (like I want it to), they might not be able to draw enough water to keep things running at full capacity.  That's when a snowmaking pond is needed.

It would likely be very hard to get one approved, and there isn't a whole lot of flat land near Whiteface to build one.  The only spot I could see working is the flat land beyond the end of the Kids Kampus parking lot.

Because of WF's vertical, it is very inefficient to pump water all the way to the summit and keep things pressurized.  It could be more efficient to install booster pump stations at locations mid mountain.

As for snowgun upgrades, there are certain trails that use ground guns now that would be wide enough for fan guns.  Wilderness, Skyward, Victoria, and Cloudspin come to mind here.  The area by the top of the Freeway Lift is also very wide open and I could see installing a couple tower fan guns there.  Bear and Fox use the portable fan guns, but could probably use more hookups.  The issue with using them on Skyward is the wind taking the snow off the trail, but they can always switch back to ground guns if it is too windy for the fan guns.  Mount Snow uses fan guns extensively on their wider trails.  

I would also make a transition to use more permanently mounted tower guns (air water) like Hunter does.  They save so much labor by not having to move sled guns every time they switch where the snowmaking is.  Just hook them up and turn them on.  Pretty much all the key trails on each mountain area should get them.  Ground guns can be used to bring on extra firepower when covering a trail for the first time in a season, touch ups in high traffic areas, and any trails that are too narrow to have towers installed.

Most trails are the perfect width for towers, so I would do a multi year transition to that type of snowmaking equipment.

This would all cost a lot of money, but would greatly increase snowmaking capacity, while making the system more energy efficient relative to the amount of snow produced.

Sounds good Sno. I have to admit, I really don't love the permanent towers, they sort of ruin the atmosphere for me a little. It's like taking an outdoor mountain experience and turning into something that resembles driving down an interstate.

What about a base area? Real estate? Ski run/glade management?

As far as continuing to make snow and operate lifts whose main purpose is to connect to real estate, I think it still makes sense for the mountains. Although they no longer own the real estate. They generally act as property managers  and collect ~50% of the rental income from those owners that rent out for part of the season. Rental rates would be quite a bit lower without such amenities.

tom

raisingarizona wrote

Sounds good Sno. I have to admit, I really don't love the permanent towers, they sort of ruin the atmosphere for me a little. It's like taking an outdoor mountain experience and turning into something that resembles driving down an interstate.

What about a base area? Real estate? Ski run/glade management?

The permanent snow guns have never bothered me, and I don't think the majority of skiers care either.  Because I want to double the snowmaking capacity, it would mean the snowmakers would have to work much harder, so something is needed to reduce the amount of work necessary to make snow.  For them, they much prefer tower guns to ground guns because they don't have to drag them around the mountain to set them up.

I would ideally design a base area with easy access from parking to the lodge.  Don't make the parking lots require a bus to reach the lodge because that just adds an extra step from one's arrival to their first run.  If you must have base development, install a cabriolet lift from the parking lot to the lodge.  While less desirable than parking right next to the lodge, it is still quicker than a bus, and easier for the ski area to operate.

Real estate should be kept confined to the base area at any ski area, or put in dedicated sections.  I don't like skiing through trophy homes on every run.  IMO this is something Stratton is very bad at.  Okemo has excessive development, but they keep it away from the main trails.  Mount Snow has it only in the base area.  Whiteface will never get slopeside housing not only because the APA won't allow it, but because the mountain is too damn steep to build a road up within the ski area.  The lower mountain is also in a valley, so there's very limited space to build anything.

Apparently Vail Resorts and some other major western ski areas have pumped thousands of dollars into the campaigns of climate change denier politicians.

Meanwhile other resorts are taking measures to use clean energy and be more sustainable (Jiminy Peak, Gore, and Killington come to mind).  

Wonder why this is.

snoloco wrote

Apparently Vail Resorts and some other major western ski areas have pumped thousands of dollars into the campaigns of climate change denier politicians.

Meanwhile other resorts are taking measures to use clean energy and be more sustainable (Jiminy Peak, Gore, and Killington come to mind).  

Wonder why this is.

Source(s)?

http://www.powder.com/stories/news/campaign-donations-link-ski-industry-leaders-climate-change-deniers/

Kind of a bogus headline, don't you think?  I mean, most large corporations often donate to both sides of the aisle in states where they do business.  It's not like Vail is going around espousing climate change deniers.  

Some where really small donations too. I mean, 21k for Vail is like the change they find in their laundry

They are trying to prevent legislation that hurts their pockets. Energy for lifts and snowmaking is expensive you know.

"Lots of things have come to light. Lots of in's and out's and what have yous."