Snow of Tomorrow | Glacier development plans in the Pitztal and Kaunertal valleys

Two years after the article published here at PowderGuide about the development plans for the glacier ski areas in the Kaunertal and Pitztal, the question arises: What is the current status of the projects? Will the first excavators soon be rolling across the Gepatschferner to build a mountain station on the Weißseeköpfl - or will crevasses on the Karlesferner be filled in and leveled to create pistes?

The central question of the last two years has been: Do these construction measures require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) - or not? Since 17.12.2025, the answer can be given for both projects: Yes, both projects are subject to an EIA. However, this quickly formulated answer was preceded by a long journey through all instances, and it is worth taking a closer look at this. On the one hand, this makes it clear how vehemently the project applicants wanted to avoid an EIA. On the other hand, it also reveals the arguments on which the experts based their conclusions.

What is an EIA?

To begin with, here is a brief explanation of the not-so-well-known term "environmental impact assessment": this is an official assessment procedure that determines whether and under what conditions a major project may be implemented. The impact on certain protected assets, such as nature, people and the landscape, is assessed. As a rule, the respective state government is the responsible authority; for projects under federal jurisdiction (e.g. road construction projects), it is the responsible federal ministry.

For project applicants, an EIA requires more documentation, but all issues are dealt with in a single procedure. This is why it is also referred to as a "one-stop store" procedure. Another characteristic is that recognized environmental organizations (e.g. Austrian Alpine Association, Friends of Nature, WWF) and citizens' initiatives have party status. They can put forward their views and appeal against decisions. They do not have this option in procedures not subject to EIA.

With the planned piste and lift construction measures on the Karlesferner, Hangendenferner and Mittelbergferner in the Pitztal and on the Gepatschferner in the Kaunertal, the authority considered this to be fulfilled. The project applicant took a different view: it lodged an appeal against the state's decisions. These were measures within the ski area boundaries and therefore not new developments. Furthermore, no significant adverse environmental effects were to be expected.

Second instance: Federal Administrative Court

We now switch to Vienna. The venue is the Federal Administrative Court on November 5th, 2025. The project applicant appears with several legal representatives for the hearing on the complaint against the EIA assessment notice "concerning the project of Kaunertaler Gletscherbahnen GmbH, 'Funifor Weißseeferner cable car facility' [...]". The authority in question (Province of Tyrol) is not present, but the Deputy Provincial Environmental Lawyer of Tyrol and the court expert are.

Right at the beginning of the hearing, a well-known glaciologist is called in via video conference as a private expert for the glacier railroads. She tries to explain that the Gepatschferner and the Weißseeferner (on which the Pitztal Glacier ski resort is located) are not two separate glaciers from a glaciological point of view. The ice found on both glaciers fell as snow on the Weißseespitze at the same time and has been transported down to the valley over the centuries.

The question of whether the glaciers are connected makes a difference from a legal point of view: new development leads directly to an EIA obligation. In the case of an expansion on an already developed glacier, on the other hand, it must first be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there is actually significant interference. Only then is an EIA required.

The statements made by the glaciologist working on behalf of the Gletscherbahnen contradict the glaciological court report. It states that the Weißseeferner and Gepatschferner glaciers are not connected to each other, neither in the toe nor in the nourishment area. In addition, the two glaciers are each located in independent terrain chambers, each with completely independent glacier tongues and independent drainage.

High mountain wilderness in danger?

After the glaciological part, the hearing is dedicated to the protected landscape. The court expert has to answer questions from the judge and the representatives of the glacier railroads. In his expert opinion, he came to the conclusion that the project would lead to considerable impairment of the landscape and its recreational value. The glacier railroads, on the other hand, argue that the recreational value would actually increase as many more people would be able to experience the glacier.

The expert comments: "Due to its remoteness, tranquillity and large-scale expanse, the landscape area in question is extremely suitable for nature-based recreation. The Gepatschferner area conveys a feeling of originality, tranquillity and isolation. This suitability results from the intactness of the natural area, the visual unity of the glacier and the impression of a largely undisturbed high mountain wilderness. The planned facilities would significantly reduce this suitability. The previous impression of an untouched glacier area with a high quality of experience would be lost."

New development vs. expansion

In its decision, the Federal Administrative Court ultimately followed the findings of the court experts and confirmed that an environmental impact assessment must be carried out for the project. While the case in Kaunertal was thus decided at the level of the Federal Administrative Court, the proceedings in Pitztal took a further route - all the way to the Administrative Court. How did this further step come about, even though the two cases are so similar?

The reason is of a legal nature and has to do with the distinction between new development and expansion described above. In the Kaunertal case, the BVwG determined on the basis of a case-by-case examination that the significance threshold for the protected asset "landscape" was clearly exceeded. The development of the Gepatschferner would therefore be subject to an EIA in any case, even if it were "only" an extension. (It should be noted that in this case too, the court resolutely followed the arguments of the glaciological court expert, according to which the Gepatschferner is to be seen as an independent glacier).

Last instance: Administrative Court

The ball was therefore in the Administrative Court's court. It finally published its decision on 17.12.2025: The appeal was dismissed as unfounded. The legal interpretation of the Federal Administrative Court was confirmed: If a new, independent glacier area is developed by ski technology for the first time, this is a new development within the meaning of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. The court expressly emphasizes the legislator's objective of protecting glaciers and high alpine regions. As a result, glacier ski areas are to be assessed differently from conventional ski areas in legal terms.

For those readers who are already more familiar with the topic, here is another interesting VwGH finding: "The assessment that the project in question is the new development of a glacier ski area [...] is also not precluded by the fact that the ordinance of the provincial government of 2 May 2006, with which a spatial planning program for the protection of glaciers was issued (glacier protection program) [...] designates areas on which the project is to be implemented as an expansion area."

With this definition, the VwGH permanently invalidated the project applicant's line of argument and significantly restricted the possibility of declaring new glacier developments as mere "extensions".

Outlook

What happens now? In the Tiroler Tageszeitung, the managing director of the two glacier ski areas announced that they had taken note of this defeat and would now decide by the summer whether they actually wanted to pursue the projects further. One thing is certain: The legal leeway for interventions in glacier landscapes has become significantly smaller.