Stevens Pass Development Plan

On Sunday, Stevens Pass unveiled the development plan that they wish to execute over the next 8 years or so. I thought that some of you might be interested in what they would like to do to the ski area and the surrounding environment. I apologize if I get any of this wrong, but I will be working from memory. Anyone who wants to learn more about can go to the first floor of the Pacific Crest Lodge and see the maps and photos. (Where Kids Club used to be.) They will be posted again on the 16th and 17th. I did also speak with Chester Marler, Director of Planning Services at Stevens and told him that I would let TAYers know that they are making plans and info is available. He welcomes any and all input and he gave me his card so that I might relay his contact info. His phone is: 206.812-7357. email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

I should preface my comments in saying that I ski quite a lot at this area, especially since I have a kid who trains in a race program at Stevens. I also do backcountry, though mostly not in the area, I do like Heather ridge and the environs off of Smith Brook road. My first impression of the plan is that this will not generate the same negative response from the backcountry community as did the Crystal plan, since it will not impact terrain that is commonly used by many, except for some of the expansion on the backside, off of Big Chief, but this seemed to be relatively small in scope, no new lifts and mostly glading.

An overview:
Grace Lakes: Opening up of the Grace lakes area for skiing. My guess is that this will be the most controversial part of the plan. There will be one new lift. The lift seemed to be mostly lower down and its purpose appears to be a means to return skiers who bottom out above the highway back to elevation so that they can return to Brooks or Skyline lifts. There will be a cluster of trails around the lift though. The majority of the terrain higher up will be accessed via the existing Skyline lift. It also appeared to me that the creation of trails may be minimal with the emphasis on gladed skiing, with some trails to direct traffic. Winter photos show that with deep snow cover the area already has largely open areas and glading as is. I hike the area this summer and to me the terrain is varied, mostly low angle and interesting for those who are not seeking steep thrills. Some might see this as a sensitive area that should be off limits. That may be true, but such winter use may have minimal impact, especially if trail cutting is minimal.

Big Chief: A new lift is proposed that will start at the east end of the RV lot and open up the terrain east of the Big Chief Bowl and Showcase to below Big Chief Mountain itself. Again, I recall that trails will be cut, but there seemed an emphasis on glading much of the area to varying degrees. I talked to Chester about the glading that is to be done, giving my opinion that I hoped that they left a lot of fairly tight tree skiing for more advanced skiers. He said the goal was to make fairly open areas of about one cat track width on either side of the trail, then intermediate for another cat track width beyond as tighter, finally followed by even tighter trees. The idea is that there would be beginner, intermediate and expert level tree skiing along and between the trails. The expansion would go nowhere near as far as Yodelin, as some have speculated in the past. He said that there are many old growth trees left in the area and the goal would be to preserve as much of a multilayer canopy as possible.

Backside: As I stated above, the area northeast of the current boundary (gulch) would be opened. No lift for access, still a short hike if you want to start from the top. Some trails but the area is already gladed and fairly open. Trails towards the bottom to direct traffic to contour back to the lifts. My guess is that this may cause the most irritation to TAYers since it is one area that skiers like to hike to. But even at this time backcountry skiers have to share the area with lift skiers since they already get back there anyway.

Within existing boundaries: They want to expand the amount of skiable terrain by opening up thick areas, such as around Wild Katz and Schim's Meadow.

Parking: I didn't see any additional proposed.

Lodges: A lodge at the top of Skyline. (I did not get a chance to talk to Chester about this, but a friend did. My impression is that they want a mountain top lodge and road access allows them to do it at that location. Personally, I feel that, at least currently, this is a rather isolated locale for a lodge. I think that the top of Tye Mill or nearby would be more centrally located. My guess is the expense of doing that would make it prohibitive.)

Lifts: In addition to the new lifts, they would replace Big Chief with a new lift and relocate its footing so that skiers do not have to walk uphill.

The old "SPAC" rope tow has been removed this year, and there is a lift proposed to somewhere part way up the hill above Trapper? (I kind of forget where this one will go but not very high.)

They are inviting comments on the plan and have forms to fill out at the display.

My feeling was that they are expecting at least some opposition, but hope that others will see benefit.
Comments refer to the goal as being a means to spread a similar number of skiers over a larger area, rather than increasing the total number of skiers drastically. What appears to be a lack of new parking would suggest that this is part of the plan, though the expansion of busing could add lots of skiers.

They will NOT attempt to conduct cat skiing on Heather Ridge. They had explored that possibility, but decided that it was not worth it. Their permit boundary only allowed access to the south slopes and that is rather limited. (the best is in the back anyway!).

Finally, I am sure that I have forgotten a lot of information, so upon comment from posters and questions during this week, I can revisit the display this coming weekend. I would hope that someone independently gets to see it and post comments. Alternate views are always valuable. I have tried to be impartial in sharing this info, but I am only human.

My feelings from those that I talked to, including some on the ski patrol who have had input and are involved in the current glading efforts, is that Stevens recognizes that some of the best that it has to offer is skiing trees. I get the feeling that while they want to expand some on the trail system, they also want to offer a lot of additional skiing in a more "natural" setting. Personally, as I have gotten to know the area better over the last couple of years, I see more and more of that aspect of this rather small ski area. Even though it can be terribly crowded at times, it still offers the ability to ski relatively unrestricted terrain quietly away from the crowds without dealing with long lift lines. I won't comment on whether this plan, whether enacted completely or in part is a good thing until after more of you make your comments.

Alan

Who owns Stevens? Is it still the same folks that own Schweitzer over here in N. Idaho? (The McCaw Group, I think) They have a pretty big Master Plan for this place, as well. Since you guys are so close to a major populaton center, it would seem that expansion could be justified by the possibility of a major market for the "improvements". Over here, we're having trouble seeiing where the customers will come from, and, frankly, we have plenty of terrain open already. Just need some lifts upgraded!

Is the Stevens expansion real estate driven? Is there property slopeside or very nearby that they intend to market? After all, ski areas are money pits without high-priced real estate to sell. When Schweitzer went bankrupt in the 1990's, Seattle-based Harbor Properties bought it from the bank and it came with thousands of acres of private land, and a base area that had lots of open space for new buildings. So, without federal land restrictions, it's VIVA LAS VEGAS, and a green light to expand without extensive hearings, appeals and permitting from the Feds. We're f**ked... The only hope is that the market here will not support such large expansion, and the weather is not very (recreational) skier friendly.

My sympathies to those that have to experience the pain of seeing something they love change...perhaps it will be for the better. I know the Schweitzer locals have struggled with having the marketing focused towards the upscale crowd: paid parking, wall-to-wall realtors, the change in tone from rural N. Idaho to the slick, latte-sipping American commercial "mainstream" vibe. However, without the change I fear that the resort would have gone down the tubes, which would have been good for no one, except maybe the woodland caribou. So, good luck to our sister area's local crowd...

-Bill Kent Sandpoint, ID

Harbor Resorts still holds Stevens.

No hotels or other plans. I heard others mention that this path has been explored many times in the past and rejected by the owners, these and past. Currently the answer to that question is that it would not pay. Lots of empty rooms in the summer time. They probably also have other issues to consider, since putting buildings on forest service land, lack of water, etc. would cause other problems.

It appears on the surface that they are mostly trying to expand the available terrain to enhance the site as a day use resort.

On the other hand there has been speculation for years that Harbor wants out of the ski business (sale of Schweitzer, Mission Ridge, etc.) and that they may want out of Stevens. Who knows. Certainly approval of a development plan by the Feds would raise the value of the resort that it could trigger a sale to an interested party at premium price. The plan would be good business sense, since it would add value without anything more than the investment into the plan itself. But that is pure speculation on my part. I can tell you the guys that I talked to who work there and on this project seem genuinely interested in the quality of the skiing.

Alan

All I will say is that all of the areas they describe are where I already spend most of my days skiing. They can be tight, but there are slots...

Don't know what to think exactly.

-Matt

They need more parking or busses. Will this expansion put the sqeeze on parking for backcountry use? There was some talk about this at Alpintal? a few years ago.

where would the lift around Trapper START at? this seems like an odd place to put an additional chair. any word on Jupiter converting to a high speed quad? In some ways, its too bad there is not another lift going to northeast of SOUTHERN CROSS it just makes it easier for those of us who enjoy the lift terrain and the further out backcountry/hiking opportunities that chairlifts open up. I know this might offend some people but i was hoping to see more a couple more additional lifts / terrain on the flanks. I guess just opening up terrain - lift service or no- is great for a person that does mostly lift riding but really does appreciate hiking as well, this ski area is way too crowded.

The January 2008 issue of the Mountaineers' monthly magazine says that Chester Marler will present the Stevens Pass development plan at the Mountaineers clubhouse (300 Third Ave. W, Seattle) on Wed., Jan. 16 at 7 p.m. There will be an opportunity for questions from the audience.

A collection of documents describing the plan can be found on the Stevens Pass website here . The "Proposed Mountain 3-D View" provides a visual summary of the proposal.

I don't ski Stevens very much so I haven't paid attention to the plan before now. But it looks pretty interesting and I think Chester's presentation may be worth attending.

I don't see how any expansion plans could be done w/o extensive parking enhancements. Boggles the mind that there would be any talk of expanding with nowhere for more cars/customers to park.

The plan has been up on the website for a while now, they are just beginning the presentation phase; perhaps they wanted to wait until after the holiday rush?

BillK- As was mentioned, Harbor owns Stevens. There is no potential for real estate development there and they don't seem to be pushing that- there just isn't any private land and their mission statement has always had "day use" in it somewhere.
Also, it was Mcaw that bought Schweitzer after they went bankrupt- for the first few years they had an agreement to let Harbor manage it but they "broke up" a couple of years ago. It was a bummer for many of us with Stevens passes since we were used to having free tickets at both (for a while it was good at Mission Ridge too!)

JackL-
As to parking, it was a few weeks ago that I noticed the MDP on the website and skimmed it, but I do recall there being some discussion of parking. (Just skimmed it again) They have paid for several studies and certainly want to add as much parking as they can get away with. I am not trying to apologize for them, but the document is there for you to read if you want. Judging a giant document by discussion on an internet chat board is a good way to stay uninformed.

The main thing to remember with these plans is that they know they don't get all of what they ask for, they plan to negotiate and start by asking for way more than they could even afford to do, then settle for something down the road. It is a game set up by the feds, and while we all lose in the end, it is the best process the parties involved have come up with. Complaining on the interweb is about the least effective thing you can do! You have to go to all those boring meetings and pay attention if you want to make a difference.

For myself, I just try to ski as much as possible with my time and I recognize that by not actively getting involved I am letting others make the decisions for me. It IS representative democracy- it is kind of imperfect, but unless you like arguing at meetings you have to admit you are refusing to help.