MAKING SNOW THE CROSS-COUNTRY WAY BY PETER OLIVER Low-snow winters have convinced some operators to embrace small snowmaking systems.
for an initial cost of less than $100,000. That said, initial installation is just a piece of the price-tag pie. Operating costs, especially energy costs, can add up. In addition, grooming equipment might require an upgrade. The grooming method used at many smaller areas—a snowmobile dragging various imple- ments—will likely be insufficient to break down and redistribute whales of man-made snow.
than $10,000 a month.
When it comes to natural snow, the climate these days isn’t always forth- coming. It was especially stingy last winter in the Midwest, where states like Minnesota and Wisconsin saw almost no snow. This kind of discour- aging winter is increasingly pushing cross-country ski areas to follow the lead of their alpine brethren and rely on snowmaking in order to make up for what nature seems unwilling to produce consistently. “Midwestern and Eastern areas in particular have suffered for years,” says Reese Brown, executive director of the Cross Country Ski Areas Association, in reference to the dearth of natural snow- fall. “And if you aren’t open, there is no revenue stream.” Or, put simply, snow is money. Even a “small square” of snow— if only for teaching beginner lessons or to attract notice of cars passing by—can make a difference. “Anything you’ve got is something,” says Brown. Snowmaking possibilities, however, cover a wide and complex matrix, with area size, cost, equipment, manpower, water resources, and other factors to be considered. What makes sense at one area might be foolish elsewhere.
Where will the money come from? Unlike alpine resorts, most of which are privately owned, for-profit enterprises, ownership at cross-country areas is much more variegated. Thus the source of capital for new investments can be more ambiguous. There are, to be sure, many privately owned cross-coun- try operations, but there are also many that are municipally owned, many that are operated by local clubs, some that are owned by schools or colleges, and so on. Any area considering the investment in snowmaking would be wise to scan a broad field of possibilities in seeking potential sources of capital.
CASE STUDIES
SPIRIT MOUNTAIN, MN Community support was crucial. Spirit Mountain, in Duluth, Minn., is an alpine-Nordic area owned by the city. Spirit began investing in a cross-country snowmaking system in 2018, starting with a 1.5-kilometer loop, as part of a longer-term recreation plan that includ- ed the Duluth Cross Country Ski Club (which raised significant private dollars), the City of Duluth, and Spirit. One of the driving forces behind the move to cross-country snowmaking— essentially expanding the snowmaking system already in place on the alpine terrain—was to provide local school children with a place for reliable race training. That is the kind of incentive you might expect at a publicly owned
In the grooming-machine market, a smaller used PistenBully or Prinoth snowcat can run $100,000 or more (or less for older cats). Snow Rabbit groom- ing machines, designed for operating in tight spaces and grooming cross-country ski and snowmobile trails, run in the low six-figures new. Another option is to lease a snowcat, which can run more Snowcats are needed to distribute machine-made snow on the XC trails at Spirit Mountain, Minn.
TOP CONSIDERATION: COST
The question of cost: is it worth it? The first consideration, undoubtedly, is cost. While the cost of snowmaking sys- tems at alpine areas typically run well into the millions, Brown says it is possible to install a smaller cross-country system
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator