News
If the three South Shore ski resorts were students, one would earn a gold star, another would need some tutoring while the other might be held back a year, according a controversial report.
For the seventh year, the Ski Area Environmental Scorecard provided grades to 77 ski resorts in the western states based on certain criteria designed to evaluate their environmental impact.
While the report, issued by the Ski Area Citizens' Coalition, credited 21 resorts nationwide in buying renewable energy, it stated the same resorts damage the environment in pursuing development.
Autumn Bernstein, land use coordinator for the Sierra Nevada Alliance, noted a good analogy is a person trying to lose weight by exercising only to add additional fatty foods in their diet.
"Buying green energy doesn't make resorts exempt from protecting water quality, old growth forests or wildlife," Bernstein said.
Sierra-at-Tahoe purchased some renewable energy. The resort earned an A, along with Alpine Meadows for resorts in California and Nevada. It was praised for not impacting wilderness beyond its boundaries and avoiding new snowmaking.
John Rice, general manager of Sierra-at-Tahoe, said the report typically frowns upon resorts doing any sort of development but, nonetheless, appreciated the top mark.
"We're pleased to know they look at our environmental practices and feel we're deserving of a good score," he said.
An article titled, "Debunking the SACC Scorecard," in the October 2004 edition of the National Ski Areas Association, attacked the scorecard, saying a majority of the points center on "avoiding new construction and expansion."
"SACC is using the scorecard to influence consumer decision-making about where to ski, hoping it will influence resort environmental performance," the article stated. "However, the SACC Scorecard has no measured effect on skier/snowboard decision-making or on resort operations."
Heavenly Mountain Resort offsets all their electricity costs by buying renewable wind energy credits but received a grade of C by the group. Scores were marked down from not sufficiently protecting threatened species or their habitat, the removal of 15.6 acres of old-growth trees as stated in the 2006 Master Plan and too much snowmaking thus not conserving water or energy.
Other area resorts receiving a C were Dodge Ridge, Mammoth Mountain, Mt. Rose, Sierra Summit Mountain Resort and Sugar Bowl Ski Resort.
As for Kirkwood Mountain Resort, it was the lone F among the 19 resorts listed in California and Nevada. The report listed too much real estate construction, the availability of skiing outside its existing boundaries, roughly 1.5 acres of wetlands possibly impacted by development and a proposal to increase snowmaking capabilities.
Officials from Heavenly and Kirkwood could not be reached for comment.
To view the 2006 report card, visit www.SkiAreaCitizens.com
For the seventh year, the Ski Area Environmental Scorecard provided grades to 77 ski resorts in the western states based on certain criteria designed to evaluate their environmental impact.
While the report, issued by the Ski Area Citizens' Coalition, credited 21 resorts nationwide in buying renewable energy, it stated the same resorts damage the environment in pursuing development.
Autumn Bernstein, land use coordinator for the Sierra Nevada Alliance, noted a good analogy is a person trying to lose weight by exercising only to add additional fatty foods in their diet.
"Buying green energy doesn't make resorts exempt from protecting water quality, old growth forests or wildlife," Bernstein said.
Sierra-at-Tahoe purchased some renewable energy. The resort earned an A, along with Alpine Meadows for resorts in California and Nevada. It was praised for not impacting wilderness beyond its boundaries and avoiding new snowmaking.
John Rice, general manager of Sierra-at-Tahoe, said the report typically frowns upon resorts doing any sort of development but, nonetheless, appreciated the top mark.
"We're pleased to know they look at our environmental practices and feel we're deserving of a good score," he said.
An article titled, "Debunking the SACC Scorecard," in the October 2004 edition of the National Ski Areas Association, attacked the scorecard, saying a majority of the points center on "avoiding new construction and expansion."
"SACC is using the scorecard to influence consumer decision-making about where to ski, hoping it will influence resort environmental performance," the article stated. "However, the SACC Scorecard has no measured effect on skier/snowboard decision-making or on resort operations."
Heavenly Mountain Resort offsets all their electricity costs by buying renewable wind energy credits but received a grade of C by the group. Scores were marked down from not sufficiently protecting threatened species or their habitat, the removal of 15.6 acres of old-growth trees as stated in the 2006 Master Plan and too much snowmaking thus not conserving water or energy.
Other area resorts receiving a C were Dodge Ridge, Mammoth Mountain, Mt. Rose, Sierra Summit Mountain Resort and Sugar Bowl Ski Resort.
As for Kirkwood Mountain Resort, it was the lone F among the 19 resorts listed in California and Nevada. The report listed too much real estate construction, the availability of skiing outside its existing boundaries, roughly 1.5 acres of wetlands possibly impacted by development and a proposal to increase snowmaking capabilities.
Officials from Heavenly and Kirkwood could not be reached for comment.
To view the 2006 report card, visit www.SkiAreaCitizens.com
