California Mountain Resort Safety Report DAG 10-25-2016 Final

California Mountain Resort Safety Report
Page 0
California Mountain
Resort
2016 Safety Survey

Page 1
IMPORTANT NOTICE
AND DISCLAIMER
The contents of this Survey are educational and informational in nature. They are not intended as
minimum standards or recommendations, or other legal or professional advice. The SnowSport
Safety Foundation has not (and does not) approve, certify, verify, recommend or endorse
mountain resort facilities.
The SnowSport Safety Foundation has endeavored to include all appropriate and accurate
statements, but disclaims any and all warranties and/or responsibility for the statements or their
uses in evaluating, managing, operating, constructing or using mountain resort facilities. Users of
this Survey should confer with their own professional advisers for specific input and assistance
concerning their respective issues, projects and topics.

Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION... Pages 3-5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................Page 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Pages 7-8
OBSERVATION AND SCORING PROCESS SUMMARY. Pages 9-10
THE SURVEY TASK GROUP. Page 11
SUMMARY ALL RESORTS COMBINED SCORES AND RANKING.. Page 12
Alphabetical All Resorts 2016 and Comparative (2016 vs. 2010) Scores.. Page 13
Large Resorts Ranking by 2016 Scores...Page 14
Small Resorts Ranking by 2016 Scores............................ Page 15
ALL RESORTS AVERAGE SCORES: IMPACT PROTECTION.. Page 16
Alphabetical All Resorts Average 2016 Scores............................ Page 17
Alphabetical All Resorts Comparative (2016 vs. 2010) Average Scores... Page 18
ALL RESORTS AVERAGE SCORES: TRAIL DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE. Page 19
Alphabetical All Resorts Average 2016 Scores....... Page 20
Alphabetical All Resorts Comparative (2016 vs. 2010) Average Scores... Page 21
ALL RESORTS INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT SCORES: 2016 AND COMPARATIVE (2016
vs. 2010) ....
Page 22
Impact Protection Devices and Systems... Pages 23-38
Trail Design and Maintenance Practices.. Pages 39-57
INDIVIDUAL MOUNTAIN RESORT 2016 OBSERVATION AND SCORING DETAIL
. Pages 58-153
APPENDICES.. Page 154
Scoring Criteria and Methodology... Pages 155-169
Statistical Analyses..... Pages 170-172
Glossary of Terms.. Pages 173-180
REFERENCES.... Pages 181-182

Page 3
California Mountain Resort

Safety Survey 2016
INTRODUCTION
Snow sports are exhilarating and popular outdoor recreational activities in California. The
activity has a far greater risk of accidents and serious injuries then most resort patrons realize or
is publicly acknowledged by the resorts. The risk of death during one hour on the slopes is five
times or greater than during one hour behind the wheel of an automobile. The risk of injury is 15
times or greater. Foundation research reveals a five-year (2007-2011) annual average of over
11,500 hospital emergency department visits and over 630 hospital admissions. The risk of
serious or even fatal injury likely varies significantly from ski area to ski area. However, there is
no available resort specific safety information or any accessible accident statistics. Participants
are completely unable to consider safety in their selection of resorts.
The California Mountain Resort Safety Survey is the only survey of its kind. It is conducted to
document and measure the frequency and consistency as well as effectiveness of use of some of
the more important and commonly available slope and trail safety practices observed at
California mountain resorts. The causes of all injuries fall into two broad categories, falls and
collisions. Collisions (with fixed natural and manmade obstacles, moving vehicles and other
skiers/riders) are the cause of most of the more serious injuries. The safety practices and
safeguards observed and measured in this survey are all directly related to the prevention or
mitigation of those two categories. This Survey is a follow up to the Foundations 2010
California Mountain Resort Safety Report (available at www.snowsportsafety.com). That Report
was intended for multiple audiences to document the actual use of some of the most important
existing safety measures available to the resorts.
This Survey updates the information from the 2010 Report. One goal of the Survey was to
determine if there have been any improvements in the use of safety practices by the resorts,
individually and overall, since the publication of the 2010 Report. It is also intended to serve as a
guide to individuals and parents in making safety a consideration in their selection of ski areas.
Resorts can also use the information to identify opportunities to improve their safety management.

Page 4
Note: The terms ski area and resorts are used interchangeably in this Survey.
As of this printing, no slope and trail safety standards, laws or regulations have been adopted by
Federal or California legislatures, government regulatory agencies, the insurance industry or the
snow sport industry. For all intents and purposes, each resort continues to use its own discretion in
choosing if or when any slope and trail safety policies and practices are followed. The absence of
regulations or standards and the significant variability in ski area use of common safety practices
is highly likely to result in significant variability in relative safety from resort to resort and even
within the same resort. This Survey reports on only process measures of safety. Actual safety can
only be determined from outcome measures. Outcome measures can only be derived from resort
specific injury frequency and severity statistics. Only the resorts have those statistics and they
refuse to disclose them.
This Survey uses the same observation and scoring methodology used in the 2010 Report. It
provides information on some of the more important accident prevention and injury reduction
practices that safety conscious ski area patrons should be looking for in assessing resort safety.
The Survey is based on a single day snapshot of the use of a limited number of commonly
available safety measures. There are other important resort policies, procedures and practices that
contribute to patron safety. However, information about most of them can only be obtained from
or with the cooperation of the resorts.
The Foundations written Resort Family Safety Survey document can be found on the
Foundations website (www.snowsportsafety.org). The information sought in that survey
provides more complete coverage of the additional policies, procedures, methods and materials
that should be considered in a comprehensive resort safety assessment. To date the resorts have
been unwilling to participate in that survey.
The scores and rankings documented in this Survey should not be considered as full assessments
of actual or relative safety at any of the resorts. Excellent or poor compliance with the 17
selected measures may be considered an indicator of the comprehensiveness and/or
implementation discipline of a specific resorts safety management. The information can also be
used to identify relevant personal concerns and to request specific information about those
concerns directly from individual resorts.
One of the areas likely to represent the greatest risk of serious injury at many ski resorts is their
terrain parks. These parks contain jumps and other features that promote dangerous acrobatics
involving significant user speeds and heights that can result in severe head and neck injuries.
Many of these injuries cause lifetime paralysis. This Survey notes observations of some terrain
park safety measures such as signage and fencing to prevent inadvertent entry to the area,
required use of spotters and marking of take-off points for jumps. However, the most significant
risk factor is the design and construction of many of the acrobatic features. At most resorts, their
design and construction appear to involve little or no formal engineering or verifiable standards.
Information about the design and construction of terrain park features as well as the number of
terrain park accidents and injuries is held only by the resorts. To date, all the resorts have
refused to provide such information. Therefore, we have not attempted to score the terrain parks

Page 5
Resort boundaries are difficult to completely survey and the required safety management is
dependent on whether they are open or closed as well as what type of terrain (e.g. wilderness
area vs. a neighboring resort) they border on. Therefore, observations are recorded, but boundary
management is not scored.
This Survey includes no information provided by the resorts. The management at every ski
area in this Survey declined requests to complete the Resort Family Safety Survey
(www.snowsportsafety.org ) made available to them or to provide safety plans or similar
documentation specifying their accident prevention and injury reduction policies, procedures,
methods and materials. They also have declined to provide any accident and injury statistics
(total number, severity and frequency). A complete assessment of safety at any resort should
include a review of its detailed safety plan and those statistics. Refusal to provide that
information to patrons on request should raise considerable concern about a resorts
commitment to patron safety.

Page 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Survey was made possible by a grant from a private foundation to The SnowSport Safety
Foundation. The SnowSport Safety Foundation is a not-for-profit charitable research and
education organization established to improve snow sport safety through research, data
analysis, education and public access to resort specific safety information. Its vision is the
establishment of a recreational snow sport environment where both resorts and their patrons
recognize safety as an important consideration in patrons choice of resorts. To make an
informed choice the necessary information must be readily available to patrons. Part of the
Foundations mission is to provide that information in surveys such as this one.

Page 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The information contained in the 2016 California Mountain Resort Safety Survey is based on data
collected from 19 mountain resorts during the 2015-2016 winter season on mid-week days in
January, February and March. Two resorts in Northern California and all six resorts in Southern
California were not included because of early closure due to low snowfall. The remaining resorts
will be surveyed and added to this survey report as early as feasible in the 2016-2017 season.
During each visit to a mountain resort, attempts were made to observe the use of important safety
practices that could be measured objectively and that didnt depend on, for example, the weather or
the size of the crowd on a particular day. There are additional safety measures and practices equally
important to patron safety, but they could not be observed or measured independently of those
factors. There were four categories of observed practices: Impact Protection, Trail Design and
Maintenance, Boundary Management and Terrain Park Management. Scores reported apply only to
17 practices in the first two categories.
The items surveyed were those a resort patron should expect to see at any resort on a typical day.
To avoid any special preparation by mountain resorts, survey visits were made anonymously and
unannounced. The scores assigned to each mountain resort are based on a snapshot visit on a
single mid-week day. The surveys reflect those safety measures that were observed throughout
most, if not all, the resort. Below is a summary of the observation and reporting process, a
description of the Survey Task Group and the specific scoring methodology applied for each
observed safety measure. All reported safety measures are considered to have equal standing. No
attempt was made or intended to offer a qualitative assessment or value judgment. Rather, the
attachment of alternative significance or importance, if any, to the reported safety measures is left
entirely to the judgment of the reader.
Scoring and Statistical Analysis
For analysis, the resorts are separated into two groups by size as follows: Small: three chair lifts or
fewer and Large: more than three chairlifts. In general, the smaller resorts have much less complex
terrain and less area to cover and should be expected to have higher scores on average than the large
resorts. Their scores on this Survey confirm this expectation; mean and median of 7.33 and 7.01 for
small resorts vs. 5.59 and 6.03 for the large resorts.
Scoring was not adjusted by use of a curve or any other method. In general, the 19 resorts scored
significantly better (mean of 6.5 and median of 6.6) on Trail Design and Maintenance
safeguards vs. Impact Protection practices (mean of 5.5 and median of 5.2). All of the 15 large
resorts surveyed scored under an average of seven out of ten overall. Their overall mean score
was 5.59 out of ten. Their median score was 6.03. The standard deviation was 1.07, indicating that
the greatest number of resorts scored between 4.5 and 6.5. Two large resorts scored less than four
out of ten and four scored less than five out of ten. Only two large resorts had both mean and
median scores of 6.5 or higher: KIRKWOOD AND DODGE RIDGE. Although these two

Page 8
resorts have the best overall average scores, all of the resorts have significant variability in their
scores for many of the 17 practices and safeguards observed and all of them have substantial
opportunities for improvement.
Overall, for five of the practices and safeguards, most of the resorts consistently had mean
scores in the 7.5 to 9.5 range with median scores in the nine to ten range: Impact protection of
exposed air and water snowmaking pipes, Impact protection of vehicles parked on the trails, Impact
protection of beginner trail trees, Safeguards for areas of trail constriction/congestion and
Safeguards for traffic in learning areas. For five other practices and safeguards, most of the
resorts consistently had mean sores between two and four and median scores between two and
five: Impact protection for lift related structures, Impact protection of snow making hydrants and
guns, Impact protection of outbuildings, Safeguards for moving hazards, and Safeguards for
extreme terrain hazards. Scores for the seven other practices and safeguards show wide
variability from resort to resort.
A major cause of consistently low impact protection practice scores among many of of resorts is
their use of inadequate padding or shielding. The padding widely used by most of them will only
cushion an impact of 5 to 7 mph. The average skier travels at over 25 mph and frequently reaches
speeds over 35 mph. Padding rated for impacts up to 35 mph is readily available. Catch fencing
(FIS B Fencing) though not test rated, is also considered to be be effective at speeds up to 35
mph.
On average, the 15 large resorts improved their mean scores by .31 points since 2010.
However, nine improved and six lost ground. Two of the resorts improved their scores by over
two points. Kirkwood showed the greatest improvement at 2.46 points. Only one resort had an
overall average score at or over 6.5 in both 2010 and 2016 DODGE RIDGE. All of the six
mean score reductions were less than one point with the two largest being Boreal Ridge at .9 and
Northstar at .78. Three resorts had mean scores consistently below five out of ten year-overyear Boreal Ridge, Sierra Summit (China) and Homewood. One resort scored consistently
below four in both 2010 and 2016 SIERRA SUMMIT (CHINA). In 2016, seven of the 18
resorts with chair lifts had safety bars on all of their lifts vs. two in 2010.
The average score for the four small resorts is 7.33 out of ten. Two had mean scores between six
and seven and one scored between seven and eight. Granlibakken stood out from the rest with a
mean score of 8.68 out of ten. All of the four small resorts improved their scores an average of
1.18 since 2010 and Granlibakken showed the greatest improvement at 1.81 out of ten.
Statistical analysis of the overall resort average scores as well as the resort scores for each of
the 17 practices and safeguards can be found in the Appendices to this Survey.
Note: Granlibkken is the smallest resort in California. It has only one surface lift that accesses
one slope rising about 100 feet.

Page 9
OBSERVATION AND
SCORING PROCESS
SUMMARY
This Survey takes into consideration two broad areas under which a number of observed safety
measures fall: (1) impact protection devices and systems and (2) trail design and maintenance.
Observations on boundary management and terrain parks are reported, but are not included in the
overall scoring.
Relative to both of the two broad areas, the observation and reporting process is intended to address
two basic issues: (a) what specific injury mitigation measures, if any, are employed and (b) to what
extent (what type, how much, how many, etc.) are they employed. For the purposes of this Report,
"injury mitigation measures" are those devices and systems intended to reduce injuries and mishaps
or to warn of hazardous conditions. Examples include signs and warning markers; pads, fences and
shields; traffic management fences and barriers; and trail and terrain park design. Not all aspects of
the observed injury mitigation measures are included in the Report. Only those characteristics that
are minimally influenced by weather, snow and human variables are considered.
In the impact protection devices and systems section of this Report, scores are based on a scale of
zero through ten where "zero" indicates that no deployment of a specific measure was observed and
"ten" indicates full deployment of one or more measures was observed. For partial or irregular
deployment, intermediate numbers of one through nine were assigned. Written descriptions to assist
the reader in understanding what was actually observed are included where necessary. (N/A was
used where a number score could not be assigned.)
In the trail design and maintenance section of this Survey, observed measures to eliminate or
mitigate these risks were assigned number scores in accordance with a "safety hierarchy" that is
widely accepted within the safety engineering and standards communities to generally prioritize
hazard and risk reduction measures. These measures include:
First Priority:
Second Priority:
Third Priority:
Fourth Priority:
Fifth Priority:
Eliminate the hazard and/or risk

Apply safeguarding technology
Use warning signs
Train and instruct (not considered for this Report)
Personal protection (not considered for this Report)
In accordance with the first three safety priorities, efforts to eliminate or mitigate hazards must
not, themselves, create a hazard equal to or greater than those being addressed. Therefore, only

Page 10
those safeguards and warning measures that reduce the potential for injury, or that "give" or
"collapse" on contact, were considered.
With respect to the last two priorities, at the time of observation, it did not appear that skiers and
riders were required by any resorts to have special training or instruction prior to using lifts or
other facilities. Nor did any resorts appear to require the use of personal protection equipment
such as helmets, goggles, guards or pads before using the trails. Therefore, no scores were based
on the fourth or fifth priorities.
It should be noted that to be consistent with the safety priorities, rope and ribbon barriers should
have "breakaway" construction (designed to collapse upon impact) to keep an inadvertent
collision from causing garroting. Due to time and resource constraints, for the purposes of this
Survey, rope and ribbon barriers were not checked for "breakaway" construction during field
observations.
Resort boundary policies and practices vary according to whether the boundaries are open, closed
and/or gated (see Appendix, Scoring Criteria and Methodology). Resorts operating on U.S. Forest
Service or B.L.M. land are required to abide by federal policies. Resorts on private land establish
their own policies. Therefore, mountain resort boundary observations are listed by type and
according to geographic location.
With respect to terrain parks at California mountain resorts, six observable elements contributing
to terrain park safety were reported as further detailed in the Appendix under Scoring Criteria and
Methodology. One, if not the most significant element, Feature Engineering, cannot be determined
by observation alone and the requisite information was not provided by the resorts. Therefore,
terrain parks were not scored.
References to known peer-reviewed and authoritative literature are noted in this Survey to inform
and educate the reader. Additionally, a glossary of frequently used terms and, if available, photos
are included in the Appendices.

Page 11
THE SURVEY TASK

GROUP
Members of the Survey Task Group (STG) were selected based on their independence, objectivity,
experience, education, qualifications and knowledge of safety measures and practices within the
mountain resort industry. The surveyors have agreed to maintain their anonymity in order to
preserve their independence and objectivity for future surveys. To maintain balance and objectivity,
a minimum of two members from the STG participated in each resort survey. Onsite observations
were made on mid-week days during hours of normal resort operations. If it was determined during
the observation process that special circumstances, such as poor visibility due to inclement weather,
inaccessibility, etc., abnormally affected the safety measures being observed, the members either
omitted the specific observation from the Report (with a written explanation where appropriate) or
returned at a later date to the resort to update the observation.
The onsite observations, scoring and reporting as well as the preparation of this Survey document
were done under the supervision of the Foundations Chief Science Officer, Richard Penniman. Mr.
Penniman is a legally qualified ski safety expert. He also serves as a Trustee of the Foundation. A
summary of his career and qualifications can be found under About/Board of Trustees on the
Foundations website (www.snowsportsafety.org).

Page 12
ALL RESORT
COMPARATIVE*
AVERAGE SCORES AND
2016 RANKING
*2016 vs. 2010

Page 13
Total Overall Average

Page 14
Total Overall Average Scores and

Ranking Large Resorts

Page 15

Page 16
Total Overall Average Scores and

Ranking Small Resorts

Page 17

Page 18
ALL RESORT AVERAGE

SCORES: IMPACT
PROTECTION

Page 19
Impact Protection
Average Scores

Page 20
Impact Protection
Comparative Average Scores

Page 21
ALL RESORT AVERAGE

SCORES: TRAIL DESIGN
AND MAINTENANCE

Page 22
Trail Design and Maintenance

Average Scores

Page 23

Comparative Average Scores

Page 24

Page 25
ALL RESORTS
INDIVIDUAL
COMPONENT
SCORES: 2016 AND
COMPARATIVE
IMPACT
PROTECTION,
DEVICES AND
SYSTEMS

Page 26
Lift-Related Structures
(Protection of Lift Towers, Posts, Buildings and Low
Chairs in Terminal Area)

Page 27

Page 28
Lift-Related Structures
(Protection of Lift Towers, Posts, Buildings and Low

Page 29

Page 30
Protection of Snowmaking Hydrants,

Guns and Other Posts and Poles
on Trail

Page 31

Page 32
Protection of Snowmaking Hydrants,

Guns and Other Posts and Poles
on Trail

Page 33
Protection of Exposed Snowmaking Air

and Water Supply Pipes

Page 34
Protection of Exposed Snowmaking Air

and Water Supply Pipes

Page 35
Protection of Parked Vehicles on Trails

Page 36
Protection of Parked Vehicles on Trails

Page 37
Protection of Out Buildings (Other than

Lift Terminals)

Page 38
Protection of Out Buildings (Other than

Lift Terminals)

Page 39
Protection of Beginner Trail Trees

(Isolated Trees on Beginner Terrain)

Page 40
Protection of Beginner Trail Trees

(Isolated Trees on Beginner Terrain)

Page 41
Protection of Side-Slope Trails

(Trails that Tilt to One Side with
Obstacles Below)

Page 42
Protection of Side-Slope Trails

(Trails that Tilt to One Side with
Obstacles Below)

Page 43
Chairlift Restraint Bars

Page 44
Chairlift Restraint Bars
N/A

Page 45
ALL RESORTS
INDIVIDUAL
COMPONENT
SCORES: 2016 AND
COMPARATIVE
TRAIL DESIGN AND
MAINTENANCE

Page 46
Safeguards for Blind Intersections

Page 47
Safeguards for Blind Intersections

Page 48
Safeguards for Intersections of

Advanced and Intermediate/Beginner
Trails (Advanced into Beginner)

Page 49

Page 50
Safeguards for Intersections of

Advanced and Intermediate/Beginner
Trails (Advanced into Beginner)

Page 51

Page 52
Safeguards for Trail Congestion Areas

Page 53
Safeguards for Trail Congestion Areas

Page 54
Safeguards for Inappropriate Traffic

Through Designated Learning Areas

Page 55
Safeguards for Inappropriate Traffic

Through Designated Learning Areas

Page 56
Safeguards for Controlling Speed

Through Slow and Family Areas

Page 57
Safeguards for Controlling Speed

Through Slow and Family Areas

Page 58
Safeguards for Surface Hazards

(Sinkholes, Drainages, Road Cuts, etc.)

Page 59
Safeguards for Surface Hazards

(Sinkholes, Drainages, Road Cuts, etc.)

Page 60
Safeguards for Extreme Terrain

Hazards
(Cliffs, Avalanche Terrain, etc.)

Page 61
Safeguards for Extreme Terrain

Hazards

Page 62
Safeguards for Moving Hazards

(Vehicles Except Emergency Vehicles and
Low Hanging Chairs)

Page 63
Safeguards for Moving Hazards

(Vehicles Except Emergency Vehicles
and Low Hanging Chairs)

Page 64
Safeguards for Inadvertent Entry into

Natural or Unmanaged Areas

Page 65

Page 66
Safeguards for Inadvertent Entry into

Natural or Unmanaged Areas

Page 67
INDIVIDUAL
RESORT
OBSERVATIONS
AND
SCORES

Page 68
ALPINE MEADOWS
Impact Protection (Click Here for Scoring Methodology)
Trail Design and Maintenance (Click Here Scoring Methodology)

Page 69
ALPINE MEADOWS
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
LIFT-RELATED STRUCTURES (All

Lift Towers, Posts, Buildings and Low
SCORE COMMENTS FROM FIELD OBSERVERS
1.88
SNOWMAKING HYDRANTS AND

GUNS AND OTHER POSTS AND
POLES ON TRAILS
3.5
EXPOSED SNOWMAKING AIR

AND WATER SUPPLY PIPES
10
PARKED VEHICLES ON TRAILS

OUT BUILDINGS (Other than at Lift
Terminals)
BEGINNER TRAIL TREES (Isolated
Trees on Beginner Terrain)
SIDE-SLOPE TRAILS (Trails that Tilt
to One Side with Obstacles Below)
CHAIRLIFT RESTRAINT BARS
8
2
0
8
10
Towers: All had open cell foam pads (3 pts.).

Posts and poles: Some had breakaway rope
and bamboo, most had open cell foam pads.
Steel poles for mazes (1.5 pts.). Buildings: All
had breakaway rope and bamboo (1+.5
(breakaway) = 1.5 pts.). Low chairs: All had
breakaway rope and bamboo (1.5 pts.). Total:
7.5 pts. 4 categories = 1.88 pts.
Hydrants/guns: All had closed cell foam pads
(3 pts.). Other posts and poles: All had open
cell foam pads and ropes (3 pts.). Crews
removing hydrants on Weasel to clear trail
(+1). Total: 7 pts. 2 categories = 3.5 pts.
None observed (10 pts.).
Vehicles observed parked behind trees except
at base area (8 pts.).
All had rope and bamboo and/or off
trail/behind trees (2 pts.).
Trees observed on Meadow/Subway - no
mitigation (0 pts.).
One observed on Meadow with diversion berm
(8 pts.).
Eleven out of eleven chairlifts had restraint
bar (10 pts.).

Page 70
ALPINE MEADOWS

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
INTERSECTION (Advanced into
Beginner)
TRAIL CONGESTION AREAS
EGRESS INTO BEGINNER
LEARNING AREAS
EGRESS INTO SLOW AND FAMILY
AREAS
SURFACE HAZARDS (Sinkholes,
Drainages, Road Cuts, etc.)
EXTREME TERRAIN HAZARDS
MOVING HAZARDS (Vehicles Except Emergency Vehicles and Low
Hanging Chairs)
INADVERTENT ENTRY INTO
EXEMPT TERRAIN

7
Mid-mountain Chalet to Scott unmarked.

Otherwise all had signs or markers. Total: 8 -1
= 7 pts.
All had signs or markers (8 pts.).
All had signs (6 pts.).

Designated learning area was geographically
isolated. Promised Land entry not an issue (10
pts.).
Map is very misleading. Weasel points of entry
had signs (6 pts.).
10
6
6
5
5
N/A
Most had markers (6 pts.).

Most signed, some cliffs not signed (6 1 - 5
pts.).
Low hanging chairs roped. (8 pts.).
Snowmobiles moving slowly with flags and
headlights (2 pts.). Total: 8 + 2 2 = 5 pts.
None designated on trail map (N/A).

Page 71
ALPINE MEADOWS
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
STAFF POSTED AT EXIT
GATE
W = West
S = South
OPEN
N EWS
CLOSED
N EWS
X X X X
* *
GATED
N EWS
NOT DESIGNATED
*The lower west boundary at

White Wolf is closed with signs.
The south boundary between
Wolverine Saddle and Idiot's
Delight is closed with signs.
Note: South boundary at
Wolverine/Beaver traverse is
mismarked. Boundary signs are in
Desolation Wilderness.

Page 72
ALPINE MEADOWS
Terrain Parks
Three parks observed.
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
*
X
X
X
X
*Mixed difficulty at entrance signs only.

Page 73
BADGER PASS

Page 74
BADGER PASS
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
1.94

POLES ON TRAILS
6.5

10

Terminals)
0
0

Posts and poles: All had open cell foam pads
(3 pts.). Buildings: All had rope and bamboo
(1 pt.). Low chairs: Most had rope and
bamboo (6/8 = .75 pt.). Total: 7.75 pts. 4
categories = 1.94 pts.
Hydrants/guns: None observed (10 pts.).
Other posts/poles: Padded (3 pts.). Total: 13
pts. 2 categories = 6.5 pts.
One observed parked in open at bottom 9. (0
pts.).
Three observed in trail with no mitigation (0
pts.).
10
10
3.33
One out of three chairlifts had restraint bar

(3.33 pts.).

Page 75
BADGER PASS

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
10
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10
5.6.8 into base observed, but no mitigation

necessary because of wide open visibility (10
pts.).
10

LEARNING AREAS
10
Learning area (Turtle) geo-isolated and had

fences (10 pts.).
N/A

AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
Marked with bamboo (7 pts.).
N/A
None observed (N/A).
10
None observed, but one parked on trail (10

pts.).
N/A
None designated on trail map (N/A), but

possible confusion at Beaver going out to
cross country trail.

Page 76
BADGER PASS
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
1 1
2
1 - Upper SW (strategic signs)
with continuous rope to #7 on the
map. Lower SW closed with signs.
Upper E (strategic signs and
continuous rope).
2 - West boundary had no signs;
Lower east had no signs and
possible mistaken entry into XC
trails.
Note: Numerous hiking trail exits
along boundaries could be
mistaken for ski trails in bad
weather.

Page 77
BADGER PASS
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
X
X
X
X

Page 78
BEAR VALLEY

Page 79
Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY INTERSECTION
(Advanced into Beginner)
EGRESS INTO BEGINNER LEARNING
AREAS
AREAS
EXTREME TERRAIN HAZARDS (Cliffs,
Avalanche Terrain, etc.)
MOVING HAZARDS (Vehicles - Except
Emergency Vehicles and Low Hanging
Chairs)
INADVERTENT ENTRY INTO EXEMPT
TERRAIN
N/A
10

Page 80
BEAR VALLEY
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION

POLES ON TRAILS
Terminals)
1.75

Posts and poles: All had rope and bamboo (1
pt.). Mazes had plastic poles and ropes (+1
pt.). Buildings: All had rope and bamboo (1
pt.). Low chairs: All had rope and bamboo (1
pt.). Total: 7 pts. 4 categories = 1.75 pts.
Hydrants/guns: Few guns observed with pads;
mobile guns off slope in parking lot; added
points for very few present on trails (7 pts.).
Other posts/poles: Open cell pads (3 pts.).
Total: 10 pts. 2 categories = 5 pts.
10
10
Snowmobiles parked out of traffic (10 pts.).

Most had rope and bamboo and one had no
mitigation (.5 pt.).
0.5
10
9
1.3

One observed on Mokelumne West with rope
and trench catchment area (9 pts.).
One out of eight chairlifts had restraint bar
(.13 pts.).

Page 81
BEAR VALLEY

Page 82
IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
Most had signs and breakaway ropes.

Breakaway ropes add 1 pt. Total: 7 pts.
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
Beginner areas all in slow/family area. All had

signs and markers (8 pts.).
10
Grizzly closed; none observed elsewhere (10

pts.).

LEARNING AREAS
N/A

AREAS


Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
Slow/family area is also their beginner area

(see above). All had signs and markers (8
pts.).
Pipes for low access snow fence on Snow
Cross Course near area boundary unmarked
or protected. No others observed (10 -2 = 8
pts.).
Grizzly not open (unobserved). One of 6 cliffs
observed had signs only (1 pt.).
No low chairs. Three snowmobiles had flag

pole only no flag. Total: 10 + 0 2 = 5 pts.
Mayan Cliffs closed area on trail map is

accessible; controls not observed. Assumed to
be signed based on other area observations
(6 pts.).

Page 83
BEAR VALLEY
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
Grizzly closed; boundaries not

observed; see map.
Backside west boundary was
closed with signs, barriers and
warnings.
Backside east boundary closed;
no signs. Groomed road and signs
on south boundary.
Front side east roped, signed
above Highway 207; below that
no signs down to parking lot.
Corral Ridge west boundary signs
and warnings.
Tuck's Traverse not designated
boundary on map, but it is signed
as such on west half with rope
and signs.
Tuck's Traverse on east half has
just signs and row of bamboo.
Boundaries very confusing and
unclear on map and on site.

Page 84
BEAR VALLEY
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
HALF
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
Closed
X
X
*
X
X
*No halfpipe observed.

Page 85
BOREAL RIDGE

Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
N/A

Chairs)
TERRAIN
N/A
10

Page 86
BOREAL RIDGE
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION

POLES ON TRAILS
.75
Towers: 90% had open cell foam pads;

misaligned, torn up or defective (0 pt.). Posts
and poles: All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.).
Buildings: All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.).
Low chairs: All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.).
Total: 3 pts. 4 categories = .75 pt.
Hydrants/guns: Most had open cell foam pads;
misaligned; torn up or defective (0 pt.). Other
posts/poles: Same as above (0 pts.). Total: 0
pt. 2 categories = 0 pts.

10
10

Terminals)
2
10
0.5
3.33
One had a catch fence; remainder had rope

and bamboo (2 pts.).
Two observed; Ponderosa (no mitigation) (.5
pts.).
Two out of six chairlifts had restraint bar (3.33
pts.).

Page 87
BOREAL RIDGE

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
Three observed; no mitigation (0 pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
All had no mitigation (0 pts.).

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
10
5
0
7
N/A
1
N/A

Skiers right geo-isolated; skiers left no
Designated slow/family areas mixed with
terrain park features (0 pt.).
One observed with rope and bamboo (7 pts.).
No low chairs. Three snowmobiles observed in
open terrain (1 pt.).

Page 88
BOREAL RIDGE
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
X X
X
W = West
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
X
X
NOT DESIGNATED
Partial north signed/open.

Gaps in boundary signs found on
lower east; 2 sections of west and
2 sections of north.

Page 89
BOREAL RIDGE
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME HALF MOST ALL
DEFINED BOUNDARIES
UNKNO
WN
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS FOR

JUMPS
None
HALFPIPE ROPED OFF Observ
ed
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
X
X

Page 90
CHINA (SIERRA SUMMIT)

Page 91
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION


POLES ON TRAILS

Terminals)
1.5
1.09
0
10
1
10
0
0.14
Towers: Half had no mitigation; some had

open cell foam pads; a few had bean bags
and one had rope and bamboo (2 pts.). Post
and poles: All as needed had rope and
bamboo (1 pt.). Add a point for plastic poles in
maze (+1 pt.). Buildings: All had orange
ribbon (1 pt.). Low chairs: One observed had
rope and bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 6 pts. 4
Hydrants/guns: Some had hard cone covers (1
pt.). Some had no mitigation (0 pts.). All had
crossed bamboo (1 pt.) (2 3 = .67 pt.)
Other posts and poles: Half had no mitigation
and some had open cell foam pads (0 + 3 2
= 1.5 pts.). Total: .67 pt. + 1.5 pts. 2
Lots observed; some had ropes and most had
no mitigation (0 pts.).
All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.).
A few observed (Dynamite, Buckhorn and
Academy); fences rolled and stored and no
One out of seven chairlifts had restraint bar
(1.4 pts.).

Page 92

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10

LEARNING AREAS
8.5

AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
Some had signs or markers (2 pts.). Most had

no mitigation (0 pts.) Total: 2 + 0 2 = 1 pt.
Avalanche and Juniper open terrain had signs
and no mitigation necessary (6 pts.).
Buckhorn/Razorback no mitigation (0 pts.).
Total: 6 2 = 3 pts.
Mainstream Station geo-isolated (10 pts.);
Terrain Based Learning Area roped (7 pts.).
Total: 10 + 7 2 = 8.5 pts.
Most points of entry had signs. (5 pts.)
Most had markers or signs. (5 pts.)
One signed cliff observed; many more cliffs

and drops unmarked (2 pts.).
Several snowmobiles observed on trails; flags

only (1 pt.).
None designated on trail map. However, Lower

Buckhorn and Dynamite are uncontrolled
areas and should have been closed due to unskiable snow conditions (0 pts.).

Page 93
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
**
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
* *
**
*Southwest and west have large
gaps between signs.
**No signs along Firebowl or full
length of lower Buckhorn. Two
signs at bottom of Buckhorn.
NOTE: No area boundaries are
designated on trail map.

Page 94
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Page 95
DODGE RIDGE
Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
N/A
10

Page 96
TERRAIN

Page 97
DODGE RIDGE
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
2.25

Posts and poles: All had open cell foam pads
(3 pts.). Buildings: All had rope and bamboo
(1 pt.). Low chairs: All had rope and bamboo
except chair 6 which had closed signs (1 pt.).
Lift mazes used plastic poles (+1 pt.) Total: 9
pts. 4 categories = 2.25 pts.
Hydrants/guns: None observed (10 pts.).
Other posts/poles: All had open cell foam
pads (3 pts.). Total: 13 pts. 2 categories =
6.5 pts.

POLES ON TRAILS
6.5

10
10

Terminals)
1
10
All but one had no mitigation (1 pt.).

Two observed (Clementine and Gold Nugget;

no mitigation (0 pt.).
No chairlifts had restraint bars (0 pts.).

Page 98
DODGE RIDGE

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS

8
All had signs and markers (8 pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10
None observed (Corkscrew, Nose, etc. closed

at time of observations) (10 pts.).
10

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
9
9
7
5
7
N/A
Designated learning area was geo-isolated;

partially signed and partially roped (9 pts.).
One point of entry had a fence at top of chair
6 (9 pts.).
All had markers; some had signs, too (7 pts.).
Most had signs; some had no mitigation (5
pts.).
One snowmobile observed with flag in middle
of open trail. Elsewhere isolated lanes for
snowmobiles (7 pt.).

Page 99
DODGE RIDGE
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
**
W = West
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
X
X
* X
*
GATED
N EWS
NOT DESIGNATED
*Interior boundary between Quick

Silver and Graceland; out-ofbounds area signed.
**Upper west boundary closed to
access.

Page 100
DODGE RIDGE
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
HALF
MOST
UNKNO
WN
Ropes
X
Sign
M/L/X
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
ALL
X
X
X
X
No halfpipe observed.

Page 101
DONNER SKI RANCH


Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
TERRAIN
N/A
10

Page 102
DONNER SKI RANCH
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION

POLES ON TRAILS
Terminals)
0.75
5
10
Towers: All next to groomed trails had open

cell foam pads (2 pts.). Terminal structure had
no mitigation (0 pt.). Out buildings at off-load
had no mitigation (0 pt.). Corrals; chairs 1, 4
and 6 had rope and bamboo; chair 2 at top
had buried ribbon. Chairs 3 and 5 closed (1
pt.). Total: 3 pts. 4 categories = .75 pts.
Hydrants/guns: None observed (10 pts).
Other posts/poles: No mitigation (0 pt.). Total:
10 pts. 2 categories = 5 pts.
Stalled groomer on groomed trail with no

fence; no marking; no signs (0 pts.).
All had no mitigation (0 pt.).
10
8
0

One observed on Primrose; no hazards below
and side berm (8 pt.).
No chairlifts had restraint bars; exception a
single chair on chairlift 1 had a restraint bar
(0 pts.).

Page 103
DONNER SKI RANCH

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS

10
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)

LEARNING AREAS

AREAS

Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
2
0
N/A

Three at bottom of chair 5; no mitigation; five
at top of chair 4; one signed. Chair 3 closed (1
pt.).
One observed at top of chair 4 with sign (6
pts.).
One half was geo-isolated. One half had no
One slow sign at bottom of chair one.
(Needed more than one for various directions)
(3 pts.).
Multiple unmarked steel posts sticking up all
over; spotty marking (2 pts.).
Cliff to climbers right of chair 4 unmarked;
large cornice under chair 5 not marked (0 pt.).
Small cat observed traveling up east
boundary; snowmobile through heavily
congested base area with no visual/audio
warnings (0 pt.).

Page 104
DONNER SKI RANCH
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
X X X X
NOT DESIGNATED
Lower German Ridge closed

(boundaries inaccessible).
North off chair 5 closed
(boundaries inaccessible).

Page 105
DONNER SKI RANCH
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
No terrain park.
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNO
WN

Page 106
GRANLIBAKKEN

Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
N/A
N/A

N/A

Chairs)
TERRAIN
N/A
10

Page 107
GRANLIBAKKEN
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
6.67

Post and poles: All had catch fences (8 pts.).
Buildings: Two were nearly inaccessible and
fenced (9 pts.). Low chairs: No chairlifts at
resort (N/A). Total: 20 pts. 3 categories =
6.67 pts.

POLES ON TRAILS
6.5
Hydrants/guns: None observed (10 pts).

Other posts and poles: All had open cell foam
pads (3 pts.). Total: 13 pts. 2 categories =
6.5 pts.

10
10


Terminals)
10
Groomer and snowmobiles were parked off

area (10 pts.).
None observed. Lodge at base is uphill from
slope bottom (10 pts.).
10
N/A
No chairlifts at resort (N/A).

Page 108
GRANLIBAKKEN

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
10
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10
10
N/A
No beginner learning area designated (N/A).
10
All terrain appears to be slow and family area

(10 pts.).
10
One observed with a fence (10 pts.).
N/A

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
0
N/A
No mitigation of surface lift up-track (0 pt.).


Page 109
GRANLIBAKKEN
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
X X X
North boundary is base of resort.
No other designated boundaries.

Page 110
GRANLIBAKKEN
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
HALF
MOST
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
No terrain parks at resort.
ALL
UNKNOW
N

Page 111
HEAVENLY VALLEY
(California Side Only)

Page 112
HEAVENLY VALLEY
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION

4.13

POLES ON TRAILS


Terminals)
6.25
10
0
10
Towers: Tram towers had rope and bamboo;

all other lift towers had open cell foam pads
(2.5 pts.). Post and poles: Some had open cell
foam pads; some had rope and bamboo (2
pts.). Buildings: None observed (10 pts.). Low
chairs: Low hanging chairs were all roped (1
pt.); plus 1 pt. for plastic poles in lift maze.
Total: 16.5 pts. 4 categories = 4.13 pts.
Hydrants/guns: Some had hard cone covers;
some had open cell foam pads; some had no
mitigation (1 pt.). Other posts and poles:
Most had open cell foam pads; some had no
mitigation (1 pt.). Total: 2 pts. 2 categories
= 1 pt.
Open pipes observed on Gun Barrel, California
Trail at Tamarack no signs; no mitigation (0
pts.).
Most were parked out of collision paths, but
still near trails (9 pts.).
One at race bottom; two at top of terrain park
protected by bushy vegetation (8 pts.). One at
snowmaking pump house on Lower Maggies
with rope and bamboo (1 pt.) Total: 24 pts. +
1 pt. = 25 4 = 6.25 pts.
One observed at Waterfall and Catrack (0
pts.).
All observed chairlifts had restraint bars (10
pts.).

Page 113
HEAVENLY VALLEY

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
All blind intersections had breakaway ropes

with signs. Some had pre-warning signs up
slope (8 pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
Signs only at West Bowl and none at Fall

Line/Waterfall (3 pts.).
10

LEARNING AREAS

AREAS


Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
8
8.5
8

Designated learning areas were mostly
geographically isolated and partially fenced or
signed (8 pts.).
Signs only except at Waterfall, Fall Line and
Powder Line (5 pts.).
Most rock and log hazards were unmarked.
One road cut on Upper Mombo was wanded
with caution signs (3 pts.).
Pond and creek on Maggies was roped and
signed (8 pts.).
Low chairs all roped; no moving snowmobiles
(8.5 pts.).
Areas next to groomed trails are obvious or
roped and signed; Powder Bowl Woods is
gated and geo-isolated (8 pts.).

Page 114
HEAVENLY VALLEY
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
1 1 1
1 1
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
1,
2
GATED
N EWS
1,
2
NOT DESIGNATED
1 - Southeast strategic signs.

Southwest ropes and signs. West
signs only.
West boundary (top half) had
signs and ropes saying "access
through gates" but no gates
found.
West boundary (lower half) had
some closed signs and then ropes
only to bottom of race slope.
2 - Powder Bowl Woods west
boundary signed and roped.
Roundabout signed and roped.
Tamarack boundary not observed
(north boundary).

Page 115

Page 116
HEAVENLY VALLEY
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
X
X
X**
X
*
No halfpipe observed. **Two pipes observed; one
deck fenced one has no marking.
*Jump takeoffs are flagged; hits are not.

Page 117
HOMEWOOD

Category
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
TERRAIN
Score
5
6
10

Page 118
HOMEWOOD
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
POLES ON TRAILS
Terminals)

1.5

Post and poles: All had rope and bamboo (1
pt.). Low chairs: All had rope and bamboo (1
pt.). Total: 6 pts. 4 categories = 1.5 pts.
All had open cell foam pads (3 pts.) and rope

and bamboo (plus 1 pt.). Total: 4 pts.
10
All parked at inaccessible locations or behind

ropes (8 pts.).
All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.)
10
0
5

Pot o Gold and Sunnyside no mitigation (0
pts.).
Two out of four chairlifts had restraint bars (5
pts.).

Page 119
HOMEWOOD

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
One observed; no mitigation (0 pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
Drainpipe had no mitigation (0 pts.).

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
10
2.5
Cedar Ridge to Childrens Learning Center

no mitigation (0 pts.). Some ropes and fences
at Happy Park (5 pts.). Total: 5 pts. 2
No points of entry had signs (0 pts.).
One observed with signs and markers (8 pts.).
Quail Face cliffs were all signed (6 pts.).
4.5
6
Three snowmobiles observed with flags only

(1 pt.). Low chairs were roped and signed (8
pts.). Total: 9 pts. 2 categories: 4.5 pts.
All points of entry had signs only (6 pts.).

Page 120
HOMEWOOD
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
X X X X
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS

Page 121
HOMEWOOD
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Page 122
JUNE MOUNTAIN

Score
Category
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
TERRAIN
N/A
10

Page 123
JUNE MOUNTAIN
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION

POLES ON TRAILS

1.5
4.75


Terminals)
2.33

Post and poles: Roped (1 pt.). Buildings: All
roped (1 pt.). Low chairs: All had rope and
bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 6 pts. 4 categories =
1.5 pts.
Hydrants and Guns: All had open cell foam
pads (3 pts.) Other posts and poles: Most had
open cell foam pads; finish poles at race slope
had Gilman shield (3 pts. + 10 pts. 2 = 6.5
pts.). Total: 9.5 pts. 2 categories = 4.75
pts.
One observed, almost inaccessible below lift
(J1) (9 pts.).
Most snowmobiles were parked behind fences
and some in open without mitigation (4 pts.).
Most had a catch fence, some had ropes and
some had no mitigation (5 pts. + 2 pts. + 0
pts. 3 = 2.33 pts.).
10
10
Three out of six chairlifts had restraint bars (5

pts.).

Page 124
JUNE MOUNTAIN

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS

8
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10
10

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
Designated learning area on J2 had fences

and partial geo-isolation (9 pts.)
All points of entry had signs (6 pts.).
5
0
7
N/A
Most marked with bamboo. No marking on

Davos Drop, Powder Chute and impractical on
the Face (5 pts.).
Extreme terrain below J1 was un-skiable and
should be closed (0 pts.).
None observed, but one clearly had moved
from the bottom of J3 (7 pt.).

Page 125
JUNE MOUNTAIN
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
1 2 X
NOT DESIGNATED
4 3
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
1 2 X
1 2 X
1 - Signs and barrier ropes top

1/3; regularly spaced signs
middle 1/3 and bottom 1/3
strategic.
2 - Top 1/3 ropes/signs/warnings;
middle 1/3 signs/warnings only;
bottom 1/3 no signs.
3 - Lower west boundary had 2
closed signs about 1/2 way down;
no other signs, but dense
vegetation and deep creek.
4 - Lower east boundary had
strategic carning signs at two
switchbacks.

Page 126
JUNE MOUNTAIN
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
1
X
X
X
X
1 - S/M signed at entry; jumps not rated.

Page 127
KIRKWOOD

Page 128
KIRKWOOD
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION

POLES ON TRAILS

Terminals)
2.25
10
7
4.5
10
10
10

Post and poles: All had open cell foam pads (3
pts.). Plastic poles at maze (+1 pt.). Buildings:
All rope and bamboo (1 pt.). Low chairs: All
had rope and bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 9 pts. 4
Hydrants and Guns: Three guns observed with
pads; added points for very few present on
trails (7 pts.) Other posts and poles: Exposed
steel pipes for permanent snow fence with
rope and bamboo marking below Caples Crest
lift (1 pt.). Total: 8 pts. 2 categories = 4
pts.
Two observed; partially protected by lift
loading area and fence (7 pts.).
One had a catch fence and one had wanded
bamboo (8 pts. + 1 pt. 2 = 4.5 pts.).
Two observed; no mitigation required (10
pts.).
Ten out of ten chairlifts had restraint bars (10
pts.).

Page 129
KIRKWOOD

IMPACT PROTECTION

4
Home Run trail crossing had some signs, but

needed more (4 pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
4.5
Maze fences at top of TC Express and Stump

Run (9 pts.). No mitigation at Shotgun,
Conestoga and Short Spoke (0 pts.). (9 2
4.5 pts.)
10
BLIND INTERSECTIONS

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
Timber Creek base area mostly geo-isolated.

One black run (Jeffs) signed coming in from
west (9 pts.).
Signs only (6 pts.).
Most had markers (6 pts.).
5
7
N/A
Most had signs only; some had no mitigation

(5 pts.).
Low chairs all roped. Numerous snowmobile
tracks on trails observed; a few used isolated
vehicle road. All parked had flags. (7 pts.).

Page 130
KIRKWOOD
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
W = West
S = South
OPEN
N EWS
CLOSED
N EWS
4 4
1 3
GATED
N EWS
2
NOT DESIGNATED
1 - Double west boundary. Closer

one closed as needed. Patrol
stated signed at far west
boundary; none observed.
2 - Many boundary signs said exit
through gates, but no gates
observed.
3 - South boundary along ridge
occasionally closed.
4 - Easy Rider boundary roped
and signed (open); Whiskey Slide
roped and signed (closed) and
Red Cliffs boundary to lodge
signed only (open).

Page 131
KIRKWOOD
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
X
X
X
X

Page 132
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN

Page 133
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
POLES ON TRAILS
Terminals)
2.5
7
10
9
1.67
2
0
5.59

Posts and poles: All had rope and bamboo (1
pts.). Low chairs: All had rope and plastic
posts (1 pt.). Total: 10 pts. 4 categories =
2.5 pts.
A few observed (hydrants, no guns) on
Fascination. No other snowmaking observed
because most were removed (7 pts.).
Many snowmobiles observed at top and
bottom lift terminals. Most out of skier traffic;
none had mitigation (9 pts.).
Approximately half had bamboo and rope (1
pt.). Half had a catch fence (4 pts.). One had
no mitigation (0 pts.). Total: 5 3 = 1.67 pts.
One a bottom of Eagle had foam pad; one
other not padded (2 pts.).
One at Upper Road Runner; one at Christmas
Tree; no mitigation (0 pts.).
Thirteen of 22 chairlifts had restraint bars. All
had hanger nets. All had size signs for kids
(5.59 pts.).

Page 134
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN

8
10
4
9
7.5
8
8
4.5
N/A
All had signs and/or markers (8 pts.).

None observed. All such potential
intersections mitigated by open slope
visibility (10 pts.)
Critters to Comin Through no mitigation (0
pts.). Bottom of Eagle had signs and markers
(8 pts.).
Designated learning areas had fences (8 pts.)
plus one geo-isolated (10 pts.).
All points of entry had fences, signs and/or
bamboo (7.5 pts.).
Fumerol was fenced (9 pts.). Road cuts had
bamboo (7 pts.). Lots of minor rocks
unmarked (N/A).
One had a fence; most had signs and markers
and a few had no mitigation (8 pts.).
Low chairs were roped (8 pts.). Lots of
snowmobiles with audio (inaudible) and flags
used with impunity (1 pt.).

Page 135
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N E WS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
* *** * **
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
A
NOT DESIGNATED
*North and west boundaries: no

boundary signs off Road Runner.
There were CO2 warning signs
only. North boundary past Road
Runner is road and base areas.
**South boundary: East portion of
south boundary had signs to just
below Wazoo, then a gap in
signage on Dragon's Back, and
then signed again above Dragon's
Tail.
West portion of south boundary
had signs/berms to end of Red
Lakes Run, then occasional signs
from Hemlock Ridge down.
*** East boundary had ropes and
signs above large cliff. Past cliffs,

Page 136
no signs, but road visible below.

A: Gate at Santiago Bowl and Red
Lakes south boundary.
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN
Terrain Parks
NONE
DEFINED BOUNDARIES
SPEED CONTROLS FOR

JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED OFF
HALF
MOST
ALL
**
X
X
***
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
UNKNOW
N
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER REQUIRED
SOME
X
X
*Some parks had strategic ropes. Most had none.

**Individual features not rated.
***Ropes just below deck and deck had widely spaced flags as well.

Page 137
NORTH STAR
Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
N/A
10

Page 138
TERRAIN

Page 139
NORTH STAR
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
SCORE

1.75

POLES ON TRAILS
1.75
EXPOSED SNOWMAKING AIR AND

WATER SUPPLY PIPES
Terminals)
COMMENTS FROM FIELD OBSERVERS

Towers: All had open cell foam pads (3 pts.). Post
and poles: All had open cell foam pads except for
rigid aluminum fence sections at lift lines (2.5 pts.).
Buildings: Some had rope and bamboo and some
had no mitigation (.5 pt.). Low chairs: All had rope
and bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 7 pts. 4 categories =
1.75 pts.
Hydrants and Guns: All upright posts had open cell
foam pads, but gun nozzles unpadded (1.5 pts.).
Other posts and poles: Most had open cell foam pads
(2 pts.) Total: 3.5 pts. 2 categories = 1.75 pts.
10
10
All ten observed had no mitigation (0 pts.)
0
0
10
Three observed at Ritz Carlton with no mitigation (0

pts.).
Two observed on Gooseneck and Drop-Off with no
Eleven out of eleven chairlifts had restraint bars (10
pts.).

Page 140
NORTH STAR

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
SCORE
10
10
10
9
6
6
N/A

Black diamonds coming into Lumberjack
because green skiers cant get there and
terrain is flat. Same with Delight, Dutchman
and Chute (10 pts.).
Designated learning areas were geo-isolated
and had fences. Very dangerous cables
suspending fence on Woodcutter (9 pts.).
Slow/family areas are poorly identified on trail
map, but well signed on trails (6 pts.).
Most (90%) signed and/or marked (6 pts.).
One snowmobiles observed with flag (1 pt.).
1
8
Sawtooth Ridge area had signs, ropes and

gates. Lookout Glade closed; normally gated
(8 pts.)

Page 141
NORTH STAR
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
S = South
CLOSED
GATED
N EWS
N EW S
DEFINED BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS FOR
JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED OFF
Lookout W (roped, signed,

closed); partial observation on
lower section; upper section
inaccessible.
Lookout E - roped, signed, closed.
Pluto SW - roped, signed; appears
to be open, but told by patrol that
it is not and is a constant problem
with poaching. Warning sign at
top is only indication boundary is
closed.
Pluto SE - roped, signed, closed.
Pluto W - roped, signed, gated;
unobserved into Sawtooth area;
A.C. in progress at time of
observation.
Pluto E - inaccessible due to race
course fence.

Page 142
Timberline W - signed and/or

roped, closed.

Page 143
NORTH STAR
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNO
WN
X
X
SPOTTER REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
X
*
X
X
Halfpipe under construction; area closed.

Page 144
SIERRA-AT-TAHOE

Page 145
SIERRA-AT-TAHOE
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
SCORE

Towers: All had open cell foam pads (3 pts.). Post
and poles: All had open cell foam pads plus plastic
poles at mazes (+1 pt.). Buildings: Catch fence on
Lower Main race shack (8 pts.), lift shack semiroped (1 pt.) and Cantina at West Bowl Express had
half fenced (4 pts.) (13 3 = 4.33). Low chairs: All
had rope and bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 12.33 pts. 4
Hydrants and Guns: Most had hard cone covers and
large gun towers had padding (1 pt.). Other posts
and poles: All had open cell foam pads and mobile
guns at top of Broadway had rope barrier (3 pts.)
Total: 4 pts. 2 categories = 2 pts.

3.08

POLES ON TRAILS
EXPOSED SNOWMAKING AIR AND

WATER SUPPLY PIPES
10
10
Two observed with no mitigation (0 pts.)
10

Terminals)
0
3.33
Four observed Sugar & Spice, Upper Sleigh Ride,

Marmot and Castle - with no mitigation (0 pts.).
Three out of nine chairlifts had restraint bars (3.33
pts.).

Page 146
SIERRA-AT-TAHOE

IMPACT PROTECTION
SCORE
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10
Two observed on trail map; neither deemed

necessary for mitigation at the time (10 pts.).
10
One observed at top of Upper Dynamite; no

mitigation necessary at the time (10 pts.).

LEARNING AREAS
10
Designated learning areas were geo-isolated

Broadway and Easy Street (10 pts.).

AREAS

5.5


Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
Bottom of Lower Main needed off-set maze fences

(6 pts.).
Five observed; 3 creeks with signs or markers; road
cuts had rope and bamboo and rocks adjacent to trail
had no mitigation (5.5 pts.).
Cliff band off of Upper Sleigh Ride had no warnings
and no mitigation. Trail map does not show cliffs (0
pts.).
Five snowmobiles observed; all had flags (1 pt.).
Huckleberry Bowl signed, roped and gated at all

downhill access points (8 pts.)

Page 147
SIERRA-AT-TAHOE
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
**
W = West
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
X
GATED
N EWS
X
NOT DESIGNATED
*North boundary ropes are

from top to Lower Castle.
**South boundary ropes with
green breakaway clips
observed from top to half-way
down.
Note: East boundary not
observed. It is beyond closed
Exempt/Unmanaged terrain.
Lower West boundary closed
with signs and Upper West
boundary gated with ropes
and signs.

Page 148
SIERRA-AT-TAHOE
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X (6/7)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seven terrain parks observed.

Page 149
SODA SPRINGS

Category
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
Score
1
2
N/A
N/A
10

Page 150
EXEMPT TERRAIN

Page 151
SODA SPRINGS
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
POLES ON TRAILS
1.25

Post and poles: Most had rope and bamboo (1
pt.). Steel posts at lift mazes (-1 pt.).
Buildings: All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.).
Low chairs: All had rope and bamboo (1 pt.).
Total: 5 pts. 4 categories = 1.25 pts.
Hydrants and Guns: Some padded; all roped
(3 + 1 2 = 2 pts.).
10
10

Terminals)
4.5

Two observed one in trees and one on side
of trail with no mitigation (9 + 0 2 = 4.5
pts.)

10
10
No chairlifts had restraint bars (0 pts.).

Page 152
SODA SPRINGS

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS

9
One observed on the unnamed trail to far east

comes out at top of small chair with ropes (9
pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
10
10

LEARNING AREAS
10

AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
7
0
N/A
5
N/A
Designated learning area (Planet Kids) was

geographically separated (10 pts.).
Cream Puff and Planet Kids were geo-isolated.
Trail above and west of tubing area had no
mitigation (10 + 10 + 0 3 = 7 pts.).
Knolls, road cut and rock outcrops had no
Sleigh Ride Shuttle in base area not
mitigated; no other moving vehicles observed
(5 pts.).
None designated on trail map (N/A)

Page 153
SODA SPRINGS
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
GATED
N EWS
X X
East boundary is road. West
boundary not marked. North
boundary is parking lot and
railroad tracks.
Open South boundary is
strategically signed and South
boundary at Crystal lift is closed
with strategic signs.

Page 154
SODA SPRINGS
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNO
WN
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rope on east side of terrain park; tubing area on
west side.
Tubing area located in the middle of resort terrain
was not roped off.

Page 155
SQUAW VALLEY

Page 156
SQUAW VALLEY
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION


POLES ON TRAILS

0.5
1.17
10
8
Towers: Some (<half) had open cell foam

pads (next to groomed trails only) and
remainder off groomed had no mitigation (1
pt.). Post and poles: Most had rope and
bamboo; some had no mitigation (.5 pt.) (-1
for steel posts in maze). Buildings: Some had
rope and bamboo (40%) and some had no
mitigation (.5 pt.). Low chairs: All had rope
and bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 2 pts. 4
categories = .5 pts.
Hydrants and Guns: Some had open cell foam
pads (unmaintained); some had rope and
bamboo and some had no mitigation (1.33
pts.). Other posts and poles: Most poles next
to trails and off trail posts had no mitigation.
Observed substantial numbers of
unmaintained and unmitigated posts and
poles with no apparent purpose or use. Total:
2.33 pts. 2 categories = 1.17 pts.
Most parked vehicles were parked to side of
trails; no mitigation and groomer was behind
a rope in the snowmaking yard (8 pts.).
One had partial bushy vegetation and
remainder (80%) had rope and bamboo (1 pt.)

Terminals)
10
10
No recreational trails were observed. (10

pts.). B-fence on Red Dog race slope.
10
All chairlifts had restraint bars (10 pts.).

Page 157
SQUAW VALLEY

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
Six observed all with signs and markers (8

pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
Some had signs only, some had ropes and

bamboo speed maze and most had no
All had signs (6 pts.).

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
9.5
6
5
7
1
N/A
One designated learning area was

geographically isolated and one had fences
(9.5 pts.).
Trail map is unclear as to which areas are
slow/family. Mountain Run had signs (6 pts.).
Most had markers and a few had no
Most had signs and/or markers and a few had
no mitigation (7 pts.).
Numerous snowmobiles observed on trails
and all had flags (1 pt.). Low chairs had rope
and bamboo (1 pt.). Total: 2 2 = 1

Page 158
SQUAW VALLEY
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
X X X X
GATED
N EWS
*
NOT DESIGNATED
*KT Saddle is gated.

Page 159
SQUAW VALLEY
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
*
X
X
**
X
X
*S/M/L at entrance gates.
**Pipe being built in Mountain Meadow and is
roped off.

Page 160
SUGAR BOWL

Category
Score
5
6
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
AREAS
AREAS
Chairs)
TERRAIN
N/A
10

Page 161
SUGAR BOWL
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION


POLES ON TRAILS

Post and poles: All padded (3 pts.) Steel corral
posts with no mitigation (-1 pt.). Loading side
of support structures had open cell foam pads
(+3 pts.). Buildings: All had bamboo and rope
(1 pt.). Low chairs: All had rope and bamboo
(1 pt.). Total: 12 pts. 4 categories = 3 pts.
2.75
Hydrants and Guns: All had open cell foam

pads (3 pts.). Most were marked with bamboo
(+1 pt.) Other posts and poles: Half had open
cell foam pads and half had no mitigation (1.5
pts.) Total: 5.5 pts. 2 categories = 2.75 pts.

10
10

Terminals)
1
0
6
10

One observed behind building out of traffic
(10 pts.).
Most had rope and one without mitigation (1
pt.)
Trees on White Pine with no mitigation (0
pts.).
Two observed; Pioneer Trail had catch fence (8
pts.). Disney Return by trees had no
mitigation (-2 pts.).
All operating chairlifts had restraint bars; Pony
Express lift was not operating (10 pts.).

Page 162
SUGAR BOWL

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN

9
10
9
10
Some had signs and markers, most were

eliminated (9 pts.).
Top of Nob Hill lift roped and the rest of
Market Street is open terrain (needs no
marking). Disney nose runs into open terrain
(10 pts.).
All had maze fence (9 pts.).
Designated learning areas were
geographically isolated (10 pts.).
All points of entry had slow signs only (6 pts.).
Most signed and marked (7 pts.).
Silver Belt sign line warning signs (6 pts.);

cliffs off Summit lift not marked (0 pts.) and
Crows Nest Peak top signed (6 pts.). Total: 12
pts. 3 categories = 4 pts.
Two snowmobiles observed with flags, audio

and lights (3 pts.).
N/A

Page 163
SUGAR BOWL
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EW S
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
**
***
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
*
GATED
N EWS
*
*
*
NOT DESIGNATED
*Mt. Lincoln
**Mt. Judah
***Disney
West boundary not observed.

Page 164
SUGAR BOWL
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
HALF
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
SPOTTER REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
X
X

Page 165
TAHOE DONNER

Page 166
TAHOE DONNER
Impact Protection
IMPACT PROTECTION
POLES ON TRAILS
5.33
10

Terminals)


8
10

No lift mazes (N/A). One out building had a
pop fence. One yurt had bamboo and rope (5
pts.). All lift terminals had pop fence at
loading (8 pts.). Total: 16 pts. 3 categories
= 5.33 pts.
Hydrants and Guns: All snowmaking guns had
open cell foam pads and bamboo (4 pts.).
Other posts and poles: No posts observed (10
pts.) Total: 14 pts. 2 categories = 7 pts.
One snowmobile behind building (10 pts.).
One behind pop fence (8 pts.) Total: 18 pts.
2 categories = 9 pts.
Snowmaking building closed to access with
brush and fences (8 pts.)
Some trees near top of Snowbird unpadded
(not a severe problem due to slow speed).
Others had pop fence (2 pts.).
One observed with pop fence at Firebreak trail
(8 pts.).
Both chairlifts had restraint bars (10 pts.).

Page 167
TAHOE DONNER

IMPACT PROTECTION
BLIND INTERSECTIONS
Three observed with signs only (6 pts.).
DIVERGENT ABILITY
Beginner)
Three observed with signs only (6 pts.).

LEARNING AREAS
AREAS
Hanging Chairs)
EXEMPT TERRAIN
10
7
0

Partial (.5 pt.) fence on Caterpillar Conveyor
(4.5 pts.). Full pop fence on Learning Center
(9 pts.) Total: 13.5 pts. 2 categories = 7 pts.
Four slow zones observed on trail map. None
had slow signs or controls (0 pt.).
10
N/A
0.5
Moving snowmobile in base area with flag (1

pt.). People mover in base area with no flag
(0 pts.)
N/A
None observed (N/A)

Page 168
TAHOE DONNER
Resort Boundaries
N = North
E = East
W = West
OPEN
N EWS
BOUNDARY AND/OR
CLOSED SIGNS
BARRIERS
ROPE AND
BAMBOO/FENCES
SIGNS WARNING OF
SIDE COUNTRY
DANGERS
GATE
NOT DESIGNATED
S = South
CLOSED
N EWS
X
GATED
N EWS

Page 169
TAHOE DONNER
Terrain Parks
NONE SOME
DEFINED
BOUNDARIES
DIFFICULTY RATING
POSTED
SPOTTER
REQUIRED
SPEED CONTROLS
FOR JUMPS
HALFPIPE ROPED
OFF
FEATURES
ENGINEERED
TAKEOFF SPOTS
FLAGGED
HALF
MOST
ALL
UNKNOW
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
See
Note
One take-off in open park was marked. None were
marked in closed park.

Page 170
APPENDICES

Page 171
SCORING
CRITERIA
AND
METHODOLOGY

Page 172
SCORING CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

I.
IMPACT PROTECTION DEVICES AND SYSTEMS
In the absence of industry standards or laws and regulations in California, the use of impact
protection devices and systems to reduce severe injury from collisions with potentially hazardous
objects or obstructions on/or near designated trails is left entirely to the discretion of the individual
resorts. Therefore, for the purposes of this Report, the categories of impact protection devices and
systems included in this section are those that are observed to be in common use in the mountain
resort industry. Formal, independent impact tests offer reliable data on how well some of these
devices reduce impact forces. Where relevant, the data from these formal tests were used in
scoring.
Where tested devices and systems were observed, assigned scores reflect a more certain confidence
because actual impact attenuation values are known. Scores for untested devices and systems reflect
an uncertain confidence because the limits of their effectiveness have not been accurately
established. Scores for warnings reflect no confidence because warnings only discourage
approaches to hazardous objects and do not prevent actual collisions or contact with them. (N/A was
used where a number score could not be assigned.)
Most injuries caused by impact with fixed objects occur from sliding after a fall rather than upright
collisions. Devices and systems addressing such collisions are the primary focus of this section. Not
all listed devices and systems are appropriate for every circumstance.
With respect to impact protection devices and systems, the STG assigned scores based on tested
impact protection devices and systems for up to 35 miles per hour (MPH) and 5-7 MPH; untested
impact protection devices and systems; and warnings.
When considering tested impact protection devices and systems for up to 35 MPH, no injuries
from collisions with these devices and systems are known by the STG as of this printing. Those
impact protection devices and systems that have shown in independent tests to effectively reduce
human impact forces during collisions at typical skiing and riding speeds (up to 35 MPH)
include closed cell foam (Surlyn) cylinder systems and waterproofed hay bales as seen in the
photo in the glossary.
Regarding tested impact protection devices and systems for 5-7 MPH, severe injuries resulting
from collisions with these devices and systems are well documented. The devices and systems
include fabric-covered open cell foam pads (see photo in the glossary) and flat closed cell foam
(Surlyn) sheets.
Untested impact protection devices and systems or those devices and systems not formally
tested, but for which there are no associated severe injuries from collisions known to the STG as
of this printing include bean bags or Willie Bags, snow diversion berms, triangular catch nets,
International Ski Federation FIS-approved "A" and "B" catch fences, improvised catch net

Page 173
fences, hydrant shields and bushy vegetation (see the glossary for photos of untested impact
protection devices and systems).
Warnings or those devices and systems not technically considered impact protection devices or
systems, but which may act to discourage entry into areas near manmade objects, include rope or
ribbon barriers, wanded bamboo fences and warning signs (see the glossary for photos of
warnings).
Keeping the above criteria in mind, the following is a detailed description of the scoring
methodology for each safety measure included in this Report.
A. Lift-Related Structures refer to any components or structures considered integral to
chairlifts, gondolas, tramways or other ropeway transport systems. They include lift towers,
support structures, posts and poles in terminal areas, lift terminal buildings and low carriers
leaving or entering loading and unloading stations.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are lift-related structures to which skiers and
riders may become exposed equipped with impact protection devices or systems?
For tested impact protection devices and systems of up to 35 MPH, if all structures had the types of
pads used as described above, a score of 10 was assigned. If most structures had the types of pads
used as described above, a 7-9 was assigned; for about half of the structures, a 4-6 was assigned; for
some or a few structures, a 1-3 was assigned; and if none of the structures had the types of pads
used as described above a 0 was assigned.
For tested impact protection devices and systems of up to 5-7 MPH, if all structures had the types of
pads used as described above, a score of 1-3 was assigned. If some to most structures had the types
of pads used as described above, a 0-2 was assigned; and if none of the structures had the types of
pads used as described above a 0 was assigned.
For untested impact protection devices and systems, if all structures had the types of pads used as
described above, a score of 8 was assigned. If most structures had the types of pads used as
described above, a 6-7 was assigned; for about half of the structures, a 3-5 was assigned; for
some or a few structures, a 1-2 was assigned; and if none of the structures had the types of pads
used as described above, a 0 was assigned. (Note: Depending on the extent of application, scores
of 1-5 were assigned for berms and improvised catch fences.)
For warnings, if rope or ribbon barriers for low carriers were observed, a score of 1 was assigned.
For wanded bamboo fences for low carriers, a score of 1 was assigned. Because warning signs do
not keep people away physically from an item, if warning signs were observed, a score of 0 was
assigned.
B. Snowmaking Hydrants, Guns and Other Posts and Poles on Trails "Snowmaking"
structures are components of the snowmaking system (except horizontal supply pipes) on or near

Page 174
designated trails, including snowmaking hydrants, guns, etc. "Other" structures include power and
light poles, sign posts, fence posts, etc.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are snowmaking hydrants, guns and other posts
and poles on trails to which skiers and riders may be exposed equipped with impact protection
devices or systems?
With the same descriptions as above, for tested impact protection devices and systems of up to
35 MPH, the following scores were applied: all structures equipped with impact devices or
systems received a score of 10; most structures received a score of 6-9; approximately half of the
structures received a score of 4-6; some or a few structures received a score of 1-3; and no
structures received a score of 0.
For 5-7 MPH, all structures received a score of 3; some to most structures, a score of 1-2; and
none a score of 0.
For untested impact protection devices and systems, if all structures had the types of pads used as
described above, a score of 8 was assigned; most structures a score of 6-7; about half of the
structures, a score of 3-5 was assigned; some or a few structures, a score of 1-2 was assigned;
and if none a score of 0 was assigned. (Note: Scores of 1-3 are assigned for hard plastic hydrant
covers; 1-5 for improvised catch fence or snow berms; 1-8 for bushy vegetation; and 1-5 for
placement of hydrants or poles behind single trees.)
For warnings, if rope or ribbon barriers for low carriers were observed, a score of 1 was
assigned. For wanded bamboo fences, a score of 1 was assigned and for the same reasoning
above, if warning signs were observed, a score of 0 was assigned.
C. Exposed Snowmaking Air and Water Supply Pipes refer to large horizontal pipes that
supply snowmaking hydrants with water and/or compressed air.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are exposed snowmaking air and water supply
pipes to which skiers and riders may be exposed equipped with impact protection devices or
systems?
With the same descriptions as above, for tested impact protection devices and systems of up to 35
MPH, the following scores were applied: If no supply pipes were exposed to skiers and riders, a
score of 10 was applied; if all or most exposed supply pipes were equipped with tested impact
devices or systems, a score of 7-9 was applied; if approximately half of the exposed supply pipes
were equipped with tested impact devices or systems, a score of 4-6 was applied; if some or a few
were equipped, a score of 1-3 was applied; and if none were equipped, a score of 0 was applied.
For 5-7 MPH, resorts with all structures equipped with impact devices or systems received a score
of 3; some to most structures were equipped with impact devices or systems received a score of

Page 175
1-2; and no pipes were equipped with impact devices or systems, a score of 0 was applied.
If all exposed supply pipes had untested impact protection devices and systems, a score of 8 was
applied; if most exposed supply pipes had untested impact protection devices and systems, a
score of 6-7; if approximately half of the exposed supply pipes had untested impact protection
devices and systems, a 3-5; if some or a few exposed supply pipes had untested impact
protection devices, a 1-2; and if none had, a 0. (Note: Scores of 1-5 are assigned for improvised
catch fence or snow berms; and 1-8 for bushy vegetation.)
For warnings, if rope or ribbon barriers were observed, a score of 1 was assigned. For wanded
bamboo fences, a 1 was assigned and for the same reasoning above, if warning signs were
observed, a score of 0 was assigned.
D. Parked Vehicles on Trails refer to snowmobiles, grooming machines or other over-snow
vehicles parked and unattended on or near designated trails.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are parked vehicles on trails to which skiers and
riders may be exposed equipped with impact devices or systems?
35 MPH, the following scores were applied: no vehicles parked on or near trails received a score
of 10; all or most parked vehicles parked on or near trails had tested impact protection devices
and systems received a score of 7-9; approximately half of the parked vehicles had tested impact
protection devices and systems received a score of 4-6; some or a few parked vehicles had tested
impact protection devices and systems received a score of 1-3; and no parked vehicles on or near
trails had tested impact protection devices and systems received a score of 0.
For 5-7 MPH, all parked vehicles were equipped with impact devices or systems received a score of
3; some to most parked vehicles were equipped received a score of 1-2; and no park vehicles
were equipped with impact devices or systems, a score of 0 was applied.
If all parked vehicles were equipped with untested impact protection devices and systems, a
score of 8 was applied; if most parked vehicles were equipped, a score of 6-7 was applied;
approximately half of the parked vehicles, a score of 3-5 was applied; some or a few parked
vehicles, a 1-2 was applied; and if none were equipped, a score of 0 was applied. (Note: Scores
of 1-5 are assigned for improvised catch fence or snow berms; 1-8 for bushy vegetation; and 1-5
for vehicles parked behind single trees.)

Page 176
E. Out Buildings Other Than Lift Terminals refer to buildings or shacks on or near
designated trails that present a collision hazard, including race course buildings, timing shacks,
snowmaking pump houses and/or any utility, storage or vehicle buildings.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are out buildings to which skiers and riders may
be exposed equipped with impact protection devices or systems?
35 MPH, the following scores were applied: no out buildings are on or near trails received a
score of 10; all or most out buildings are protected by tested devices, received a score of 7-9;
approximately half of the out buildings are protected by tested devices, received a score of 4-6;
some or a few out buildings are protected by tested devices, received a score of 1-3; and if no out
buildings were equipped with impact devices or systems on or near trails, a score of 0 was
assigned.
For 5-7 MPH, all out buildings were equipped with impact devices or systems received a score
of 3; some to most out buildings were equipped received a score of 1-2; and no out buildings
were equipped with impact devices or systems, a score of 0 was applied.
For untested impact protection devices and systems, if all out buildings were equipped with
untested impact protection devices and systems, a score of 8 was applied; if most out buildings
were equipped, a score of 6-7 was applied; approximately half of the out buildings, a score of 3-5
was applied; some or a few of the out buildings, a 1-2 was applied; and if none were equipped, a
score of 0 was applied. (Note: Scores of 1-5 are assigned for improvised catch fence or snow
berms; 1-8 for bushy vegetation; and 1-5 for out buildings located behind stands of trees.)
F. Beginner Trail Trees refer to any isolated, single trees left standing on trails designated
specifically for beginners.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are isolated, single trees on trails or terrain
designated specifically for beginner skiers and riders being addressed?
For tested impact protection devices and systems of up to 35 MPH, the following scores were
applied: if no trees were present, a score of 10 was assigned; if all or most of the beginner trail
trees were padded with impact protection devices or systems, a score of 7-9 was applied;
approximately half of the beginner trail trees were padded, a score of 4-6; some of beginner trail
trees padded received a score of 1-3; and if no beginner trail trees were addressed with impact
protection devices and systems, a score of 0 was assigned.

Page 177
For 5-7 MPH, if all beginner trail trees were addressed with impact devices or systems, a score
of 3 was assigned; some to most beginner trail trees were addressed received a score of 1-2; and
no beginner trail trees were addressed with impact devices or systems, a score of 0 was applied.
For untested impact protection devices and systems, if all beginner trail trees were addressed
with untested impact protection devices and systems, a score of 8 was applied; if most beginner
trail trees were equipped, a score of 6-7 was applied; if approximately half of the beginner trail
trees were equipped, a score of 3-5 was applied; for some or a few beginner trail trees, a 1-2 was
applied; and if none were addressed, a score of 0 was applied. (Note: Scores of 1-5 are assigned
for improvised catch fence or snow berms; and 1-8 for bushy vegetation.)
G. Slide-Sloped Trails refer to parts of trails that tilt to one side where a simple fall on hard or
icy snow may result in an uncontrolled slide into unavoidable obstacles below.
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are exposed obstacles below side-sloped trail
sections to which skiers and riders may be exposed being protected with mitigation devices or
systems?
For tested impact protection devices and systems of up to 35 MPH, the following scores were
applied: if no side-sloped trail sections were observed, a score of 10 was assigned; if all or most
side-sloped trail sections were being protected, a score of 7-9 was applied; for approximately half of
the slide-sloped trail sections protected, a score of 4-6; for some or a few side-sloped trails
protected, a score of 1-3; and if no side-sloped trail sections were being protected by impact
protection devices and systems, a score of 0 was assigned.
For 5-7 MPH, if all side-sloped trail sections were addressed with impact devices or systems, a
score of 3 was assigned; some to most protected side-sloped trail sections received a score of 12; and if no side-sloped trail sections were addressed with impact devices or systems, a score of 0
was applied.
For untested impact protection devices and systems, if all side-sloped trail sections were
addressed, a score of 8 was applied; if most side-sloped trail sections were addressed, a score of
6-7 was applied; for approximately half of the side-sloped trail sections protected, a score of 3-5
was applied; for some or a few side-sloped trail sections protected, a 1-2 was applied; and if none
were addressed, a score of 0 was applied. (Note: Scores of 1-5 are assigned for improvised catch
fence or snow berms; and 1-8 for bushy vegetation.)

Page 178
H. Chairlift Restraint Bars Although in California, industry standards or laws and regulations
have not been adopted to address the installation of restraint bars on chairlifts, in some states,
such as Vermont and New York, laws require restraint bars to be installed on every chairlift, and
passengers are required to use them. Without restraint bars, a sudden stop or mechanical
malfunction of the chairlift could result in passengers falling or sliding out of the chairs.
Scoring Criteria
Scoring for this category was calculated by counting the number of chairlifts with restraint bars
and dividing that number by the total number of chairlifts at the resort. For example:
12 = chairlifts observed with restraint bars
16 = number of chairlifts observed at the resort
Score = 75% or 7.5
II.
TRAIL DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE
In the absence of industry standards or laws and regulations in California, safety measures to warn
of potentially dangerous or flawed trail design or maintenance on/or near designated trails is left
entirely to the discretion of the individual resorts. Therefore, for the purposes of this Report,
observed measures to eliminate or mitigate the risks relative to trail design and maintenance were
assigned numbers in accordance with the following "safety hierarchy" that is widely accepted
within the safety engineering and standards communities to generally prioritize hazard and risk
reduction measures:
First Priority:
Second Priority:
Third Priority:
Fourth Priority:
Fifth Priority:
Eliminate the hazard and/or risk

Apply safeguarding technology
Use warning signs
Train and instruct (not considered)
Personal protection (not considered)
(N/A was used where a number score could not be assigned.)

At the time of observation, skiers and riders were not required by any resorts to have special
training or instruction prior to using lifts or other facilities. Nor did any resorts require the use of
personal protection equipment such as helmets, goggles, guards or pads before using the trails.
Therefore, no scores were based on the fourth or fifth priorities.
In accordance with the first three safety priorities, efforts to eliminate or mitigate hazards must
not, themselves, create a hazard equal to or greater than those being addressed. Therefore, only
those safeguards and warning measures known to "give" or "collapse" where necessary were
considered.

Page 179
Note: Rope and ribbon barriers should have "breakaway" construction (designed to collapse
upon impact) to keep an inadvertent collision from causing garroting. Due to time and resource
constraints, rope and ribbon barriers were not checked for "breakaway" construction during field
observations. Steel or wood posts used to support fences or rope lines were observed for the
presence of pads or shields.
A. Blind Trail Intersections refer to trail intersections where trees, terrain or other visual
obstructions block a clear view of skiers and riders entering from adjacent trails.
Observed Safety Priority Measures
First Priority eliminate visual obstructions by:
constructing trails to avoid visual obstructions
removing and/or thinning obstructing trees
eliminating terrain obstructions after trail construction
Second Priority safeguards to prevent collision by using:
net, fabric or crossed bamboo fences
doubled rope or ribbon barriers
Third Priority signs and markers to warn by using:
single rope or wanded bamboo barriers and maze fences
"trails merge" or similar signs
"caution" signs posted
posted staff enforcement
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Is the risk of severe injury resulting from
collisions at blind intersections being addressed? (Each observed blind intersection was scored.
The final score is the average of all individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no blind intersections were observed, a score of 10 was assigned
For second priority measures, if fences or double rope barriers existed, a score of 9 was assigned.
For third priority measures, if bamboo markers with warning signs existed, a score of 8 was
assigned; if bamboo markers only existed, a score of 7 was assigned; if only warning signs
existed, a score of 6 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the score
above; and if no safeguards or warnings existed, a 0 was assigned.
B. Intersections of Advanced and Intermediate/Beginner Trails refer to intersections where
two trails merge, and one is at least two ability levels above the other. There are three possible
combinations of these types of mergers, including (1) black diamond into green circle, (2) double
black diamond into green circle and (3) double black diamond into blue square.
First Priority eliminate such intersections by:
constructing trails to avoid such intersections
Second Priority safeguards to slow or separate ability levels by using:

Page 180
double ribbon or flagged breakaway rope line
Third Priority signs and markers to warn of intersection by using:
"trails merge" or similar signs posted
"caution" signs posted
Scoring Criteria
collisions at intersections of advanced and intermediate/beginner trails being addressed?
(Note: Each such intersection observed was scored. The final score is the average of all
individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no such trail intersections were observed, a score of 10 was
assigned. For second priority measures, if barrier fences were observed, a score of 9 was
assigned, and if double rope barriers existed, a score of 8.5 was assigned. For third priority
measures, if bamboo markers with warning signs existed, a score of 8 was assigned; if bamboo
markers only existed, a score of 7 was assigned; if only warning signs existed, a score of 6 was
assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the score above; and if no safeguards or
warnings existed, a 0 was assigned.
C. Trail Congestion Areas refer to sections or areas of trails that cause obvious crowding or
traffic-flow constriction and a higher collision potential.
First Priority eliminate congested areas by:
trails configured to eliminate crowding or traffic flow constriction
Second Priority safeguards to control traffic flow by using:
double ribbon or flagged rope line
Third Priority signs and markers to warn of congested areas by using:
"trails merge" or similar signs posted
"caution", slow signs posted
Scoring Criteria
collisions in congested areas of trails being addressed? (Note: Each observed trail congestion
area was scored. The final score is the average of all individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no such trail congestion areas were observed, a score of 10 was
assigned. For second priority measures, if barrier fences (mazes) were observed, a score of 9 was

Page 181
assigned, and if double rope barriers (mazes) existed, a score of 8.5 was assigned. For third
priority measures, if bamboo markers with warning signs existed, a score of 8 was assigned; if
only bamboo markers existed, a score of 7 was assigned; if only warning signs existed, a score of
6 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the score above; and if no
safeguards or warnings existed, a 0 was assigned.
D. Inappropriate Traffic through Designated Learning Areas refers to designated areas of
trails for teaching first-ever beginners. Skiing or riding through these areas from other trails is
discouraged using signs and/or barriers.
First Priority eliminate access to learning area:
area geographically isolated
Second Priority safeguards to control access by using:
bushy vegetation barrier at access
beginner learning area or similar signs posted
keep out or similar signs posted
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Is the risk of severe injury caused by collisions
from higher speed skiers and riders entering designated learning areas being addressed?
(Note: Each designated learning area observed was scored. The final score is the average of all
individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no beginner learning areas were observed, a not applicable was
assigned; if areas were geographically isolated, a score of 10 was assigned. For second priority
measures, if areas were isolated with barrier fences, a score of 9 was assigned; if areas were
isolated with double rope barriers, a score of 8.5 was assigned. For third priority measures, if
areas were defined by bamboo markers and warning signs, a score of 8 was assigned; if areas
were defined by bamboo markers only, a score of 7 was assigned; if areas were defined by only
warning signs, a score of 6 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the
score above, and if areas were not defined with safeguards or warnings, a 0 was assigned.
E. Controlling Speed Through Designated Slow and Family Areas refers to sections of trails
intended to provide a more controlled environment for slower skiers and riders such as children
and novices.
First Priority eliminate access to slow and family area:

Page 182
area geographically isolated
Second Priority safeguards to control speed by using:
bushy vegetation barrier at access
maze fences to slow access approach
single rope or wanded bamboo barriers
slow or family area or similar signs posted
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Is the risk of severe injury caused by collisions
with faster skiers and riders entering slow or family areas being addressed? (Note: Each
slow or family area observed was scored. The final score is the average of individual
scores.)
For first priority measures, if no slow or family areas were observed, a not applicable was
assigned; if areas were geographically isolated, a score of 10 was assigned. For second priority
measures, if areas were isolated with barrier fences, a score of 9 was assigned; if areas were
isolated with double rope barriers, a score of 8.5 was assigned. For third priority measures, if
areas were defined by bamboo markers and warning signs, a score of 8 was assigned; if areas
were defined by bamboo markers only, a score of 7 was assigned; if areas were defined by only
warning signs, a score of 6 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the
F. Surface Hazards refer to conditions resulting from grooming errors, excavation, sink holes,
drainages, road cuts, etc. With adequate warnings, surface hazards may be skied or ridden
through slowly.
First Priority eliminate unnecessary surface hazards by:
removing surface hazards
Second Priority safeguards to prevent encounter by using:
snow berms
closed or similar signs posted
Scoring Criteria

Page 183
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are surface hazards that could cause severe
injury if encountered unexpectedly being addressed? (Note: Each surface hazard observed was
scored. The final score is the average of individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no surface hazards were observed, a score of 10 was assigned. For
second priority measures, if access was blocked with barrier fences, a score of 9 was assigned; if
access was blocked with double rope barriers, a score of 8.5 was assigned. For third priority
measures, if areas were defined by bamboo markers and warning signs, a score of 8 was
assigned; if areas were defined by bamboo markers only, a score of 7 was assigned; if areas were
defined by only warning signs, a score of 6 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was
added to the score above, and if areas were not defined with safeguards or warnings, a 0 was
assigned.
G. Extreme Terrain Hazards refer to features that are generally considered not able to be skied
or ridden on. They include cliffs, avalanche areas, logging slash piles, creeks, etc.
First Priority eliminate extreme hazards by:
removing extreme terrain from inside resort boundaries
Second Priority safeguards to prevent access by using:
net, fabric or crossed bamboo barrier
closed or similar signs posted
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are extreme terrain hazards that could cause
severe injury if encountered unexpectedly being addressed? (Note: Each extreme terrain
hazard observed was scored. The final score is the average of individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no extreme terrain hazards were observed, a not applicable was
assigned. For second priority measures, if access to terrain hazards was blocked with barrier
fences, a score of 9 was assigned; if access was blocked with double rope barriers, a score of 8.5
was assigned. For third priority measures, if terrain hazards were defined by bamboo markers
and warning signs, a score of 8 was assigned; if terrain hazards were defined by bamboo markers
only, a score of 7 was assigned; if terrain hazards were defined by only warning signs, a score of
6 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the score above, and if terrain
hazards were not defined with safeguards or warnings, a 0 was assigned.
H. Moving Hazards (other than emergency vehicles) refer to grooming machines,
snowmobiles and other vehicles traveling on open trails. Chairlift lines where the carriers hang
low enough to strike skiers and riders are included.

Page 184
First Priority eliminate moving hazards:
no moving hazards
Second Priority safeguards to prevent encounter by using:
isolated vehicle lanes
flashing lights on vehicles
audio warning on vehicles
flag wands on vehicles
moving vehicles or similar signs posted
Scoring Criteria
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Are moving hazards that could cause severe
injury if encountered unexpectedly being addressed? (Note: Each moving hazard observed was
scored. The final score is the average of individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no moving hazards were observed, a score of 10 was assigned. For
second priority measures, if moving hazards were isolated with barriers, a score of 9 was
assigned; if moving hazards were isolated with double rope barriers, a score of 8.5 was assigned.
For third priority measures, if moving hazards were marked with a single rope or wanded
bamboo barrier, a score of 8 was assigned; if moving hazards were defined by flashing lights on
vehicles, a score of 1 was assigned; if defined by audio warning on vehicles, a score of 1 was
assigned; if defined by flag wands on vehicles, a score of 1 was assigned, and if not defined with
safeguards or warnings, a 0 was assigned.
I. Inadvertent Entry into Natural or Unmanaged Areas refers to areas within the resort
boundaries designated on the trail maps as natural, unmanaged, etc. and where there is no
grooming, hazard marking, signing or warnings and where one can expect minimal or no ski
patrol presence.
First Priority eliminate natural or unmanaged terrain:
no designated exempt terrain
Second Priority safeguards to prevent entry by using:
doubled ribbon or flagged rope line barrier
single rope or wanded bamboo rope barriers
signs posted
Scoring Criteria

Page 185
In scoring, the STG considered the question: Is the risk of severe injury caused by skiers and
riders inadvertently entering natural or unmanaged areas being addressed? (Note: Each
potential access area observed was scored. The final score is the average of individual scores.)
For first priority measures, if no natural or unmanaged terrain was observed, a not applicable
was assigned. For second priority measures, if access to the areas was blocked with barrier
fences, a score of 9 was assigned; if access was blocked with double rope barriers, a score of 8.5
was assigned. For third priority measures, if natural or unmanaged areas were defined with
bamboo markers and warning signs, a score of 8 was assigned; if the areas were defined by
bamboo markers, a score of 7 was assigned; for posted staff enforcement, a 1 was added to the
III.
RESORT BOUNDARIES
Resort boundary policies and practices vary according to whether the boundaries are open,
closed and/or gated. Resorts operating on U.S. Forest Service or B.L.M. land are required to
abide by federal policies. Resorts on private land establish their own policies. Therefore,
mountain resort boundary observations are listed by type and according to geographic location.
1. "Open" boundaries boundaries that allow unrestricted access to side country area
adjacent to the resort.
2. "Closed" boundaries boundaries that strictly prohibit side country access.
3. "Gated" boundaries boundaries that allow side country access only at specific locations.
For each resort boundary observed, the location (north, south, east and west), the type (open,
closed, gated) and the measures used (boundary signs, barriers, hazard warnings and staffing)
are listed. Comments, warnings and/or advisories are included where appropriate. (Note: Due to
weather, terrain closures and other factors, not all boundaries at all resorts could be observed.)
IV.
TERRAIN PARKS
In the absence of industry standards or laws and regulations in California governing the engineering
or design of terrain park jump features or their construction, maintenance or supervision, safety
considerations for terrain parks are left entirely up to the discretion of individual resorts. For the
purposes of this Report, seven measurable elements that can contribute to terrain park safety
were observed. They include the following:
1. Whether the defined boundaries (if any) of the terrain parks were roped off or posted with
signs to prevent inadvertent entry from adjacent trails or terrain;
2. Whether difficulty ratings (if any) for the different levels of terrain parks and/or its features
were posted;
3. Whether or not individuals acting as spotters were required for the jump features;
4. Whether or not speed controls were provided to prevent overshooting the jump landings
(using, for example, predetermined in-run start positions, speed gun readouts, etc.);

Page 186
5. Whether or not the half pipe decks were roped off to prevent individuals from inadvertently
falling into the half pipe from the sides;
6. Whether or not features were designed by licensed engineers; and
7. Whether or not the takeoff points for the individual jump features were flagged or marked
with surface dye to prevent individuals from inadvertently going off the jump in a whiteout
(flat light).

Page 187
Statistical Analyses

Page 188
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Overall Resort and Practice / Safeguard Scores
OVERALL RESORT SCORES
Overall Large Resort Scores
Mean: 5.59 Median: 6.03
Standard Deviation: 1.07
Range: 3.37
Overall Small Resort Scores

Standard Deviation: .96
Range: 2.05
Overall All Resort Impact Protection Scores

Range: 6.05
Overall All Resort Trail Design and Maintenance Scores

Mean: 6.5
Median: 6.6
Range: 6.1
ALL RESORT IMPACT PROTECTION PRACTICE SCORES

Lift Related Structures
Range: 6.1
Snowmaking Hydrants, Guns and Posts

Mean: 3.76 Median: 4
Range: 7
Snowmaking Air and Water Pipes

Mean: 9.4
Median: 10
Range: 10
Parked Vehicles on Trails

Mean: 8
Median: 9
Range: 10
Outbuildings
Mean: 2.46
Range: 10
Beginner Trail Trees

Mean: 7.6
Median: 10
Range: 10
Side Sloping Trails

Range: 10
Median: 1
Chairlift Bars
7 of 15 Large Resorts with Safety Bars on All Lifts

Page 189
ALL RESORT TRAIL DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE SAFEGUARD SCORES

Blind Intersections
Mean: 6.9
Median: 8
Range: 10
Advanced / Intermediate and Beginner Trail Intersections

Range: 10
Trail Constriction/Congestion
Mean: 9
Median: 10
Range: 6
Learning Area Traffic

Mean: 8.2
Median: 9
Range: 7.5
Speed Control for Slow and Learning Areas

Range: 10
Surface Hazards
Mean: 6.1
Median: 6
Range: 10
Extreme Terrain Entry

Mean: 3.9
Median: 5
Standard Deviation: 3
Range: 8
Moving Hazards
Mean: 3.8
Median: 4.5
Range: 10
Inadvertent Entry to Unmanaged Areas

Mean: 6
Median: 7
Range: 8

Page 190
GLOSSARY
OF
TERMS

Page 191
Bean Bag or Willie Bag: Untested impact protection device.
Beginner Trail Trees: Isolated, single trees left standing on trails designated specifically for
beginners.
Bushy Vegetation: Untested impact protection device.
Crossed Bamboo Fence:
Intersections of Advanced and Intermediate/Beginner Trails (Divergent Ability

Intersections): Where two trails merge and one is at least two ability levels above the other. The
three possible combinations are (1) black diamond into green circle, (2) double black diamond
into green circle and (3) double black diamond into blue square.
Green circle, blue square, black diamond and double black diamond

Page 192
Trail rating system devised in 1979 by the National Ski Areas Association as a means of
ranking relative difficulty with a single mountain resort (not intended for comparisons
between mountain resorts).
Green circle: easiest
Blue square: more difficult
Black diamond: most difficult
Double black diamond: experts only
Inappropriate Traffic through Designated Learning Areas (Egress through Beginner
Learning Areas): Most mountain resorts designate certain areas for teaching first-ever
beginners. More advanced skiing or riding through these areas from other trails is discouraged
using signs and/or barriers.
Controlling Speed through Slow and Family Areas (Egress through Slow and/or Family
Areas): Slow and/or family areas are sections of trails intended to provide a more controlled
environment for slower skiers and riders such as children and novices. These areas usually are
designated on trail maps, marked with signs on the trail and/or enforced with resort staff.
Natural or Unmanaged Areas (Exempt Terrain): These are specific areas inside the resort
boundaries designated on the trail map as natural, unmanaged, etc. and for various reasons,
are not maintained. These are areas in which there is no grooming, hazard marking, signing or
warnings and where one can expect minimal or no ski patrol presence.
FIS-Approved "A" Catch Fence: Untested impact protection device.
FIS-Approved "B" Catch Fence: Untested impact protection device.
Gilman Shield: Tested impact protection device.

Page 193
Half Pipe: A U-shaped terrain feature generally measuring between 300 and 500 feet long with
near-vertical walls used in freestyle snowboarding to perform a variety of tricks and aerial
maneuvers.
Hydrant Shields: Untested impact protection device.
Impact Protection Devices and Systems: Devices and systems using pads, shields, catch
fences, snow berms, etc. to reduce the potential for impact injury to skiers and riders.
Impact Protection: A personal device intended to reduce injuries from impact such as a helmet
or wrist guard.
Improvised Catch Net Fences: Untested impact protection device.

Page 194
Lift Tower: The steel poles or structures that support the chairlift, gondola or tram line.
Low Chairs in Terminal Areas or Low Chairs at Lift Loading and Unloading Stations: In
and around the chairlift loading and unloading stations, the chairs and carriers are closer to the
ground creating a hazard to skiers and riders crossing underneath.
Low Carrier: Low chairs mid-span (all locations along the lift line other than at terminal areas).

Page 195
Out Building: These are buildings located on or near designated trails that present a collision
hazard.
Ribbon Warning Barrier:
Road Cuts: Steep drops created above roads that are cut across a slope.
Rope Warning Barrier:
Side Country: The skiing and riding terrain beyond and adjacent to the resort boundaries.

Page 196
Side Slope Trails: These are parts of trails that tilt to one side where a simple fall on hard or icy
snow may result in an uncontrolled slide into unavoidable obstacles below.
Snow Diversion Berms: Untested impact protection device - a built-up row of snow to prevent a
sliding impact into an object.
Snowmaking Gun: The device that shoots a fine mist of compressed air and water to make
artificial snow.
Snowmaking Hydrant: Vertical pipes on or at the sides of trails that supply water or air to the
snowmaking guns. These pipes stand as tall as four feet and have diameters of about three inches
with a nozzle at the top.

Page 197
Snowmaking Supply Pipes: Large horizontal pipes that supply air and water to the snowmaking
hydrants. Exposed above ground, they create a potential collision hazard.
Take Off Spots: The point on a jump where the skier or rider becomes airborne.
Terrain Park: Designated areas where jumps and other features are constructed that encourage
jumping and other tricks.
Tower Pad:
Traverse: To ski or ride across rather than down a slope.

Triangular Catch Nets: Untested impact protection device.
Wanded Bamboo: Bamboo in a line/tilted altogether.

Page 198
Warning Sign:
Waterproofed Hay Bales (Yellow Objects at the Base): Tested impact protection device.
Willie Bags: (See Bean Bag.)

Page 199
REFERENCES

Page 200
Barnett, Ralph L., & Brickman, Dennis B. (1986). Safety Hierarchy. Journal of Safety
Research, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 49-55.
Christianson, Don (1980). A.S.T.M. F8-14: Ad Hoc Committee Report on Tower Protective
Devices.
Hubbard, Mont (2009). Safer Ski Jump Landing Surface Design Limits Normal Impact Velocity.
Journal of ASTM International, Volume 6, Issue 1.
McNeil, James B. (2009). Dynamical Analysis of Winter Terrain Park Jumps. Published online
at the International Sports Engineering Associations Website.
Penniman, Richard (1993). The Custom and Practice for Identification and Mitigation of
Common Hazards at U.S. Ski AreasAn Opportunity for Standards. Skiing Trauma and Safety:
Ninth International Symposium, ASTM STP 1182, pp. 215-228.
Penniman, Richard (1996). Standard Methods and Materials for Mitigating Injuries from Impact
with Fixed Obstacles at U.S. Ski Areas. Skiing Trauma and Safety: Tenth Volume, ASTM STP
1266, pp. 380-387.
Penniman, Richard (1999). Customs and Practices at U.S. Ski Areas for Mitigating Common
Hazards through Trail Configuration and Maintenance. Skiing Trauma and Safety: Twelfth
Volume, ASTM STP 1345, pp. 35-44.
The Gilman Corporation (1984). Laboratory Impact Test Comparisons by E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (1999). Skiing Helmets An Evaluation of the
Potential to Reduce Head Injury.
Van Kirk, P.E., Donald J. (1984). Testing of Foam Samples for Energy Absorbing Capabilities.
Ward, Dr. Carly (1999). Ski Slope Sign Post Impact Tests AUST-VAN-0495.

Page 201
www.snowsportsafetyfoundation.org

California Mountain Resort Safety Report DAG 10-25-2016 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

California Mountain Resort Safety Report DAG 10-25-2016 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

California Mountain Resort Safety Report