Washington — For many years, Mission Ridge has been trying to become the first destination ski resort in Washington. A roughly 630-acre terrain expansion and development of a base village aims to officially achieve that goal, but environmentalists and some local skiers oppose the plans.
October 21st marked the final day of the public comment period for a proposal by Mission Ridge to expand its skiable terrain and increase its base area. However, the battle over public narrative is still ongoing.
Here’s a recap of the proposed expansion and the reasons behind the significant opposition to it.
The Proposal
To become a destination resort, Mission Ridge has been planning for around a decade to expand its terrain, primarily creating areas suitable for beginners and families.
Their current constraints include a lack of parking, the need for improved beginner terrain, and limited indoor space. These improvements would help with that. They also believe that the expansion would enhance the ski resort’s long-term viability.
This new terrain pod would feature seven new lifts (four chairlifts and three surface lifts). The trails and glades would mostly appeal to beginners, intermediates, and families. One of the lifts would connect skiers from the existing base area to the top of the new terrain pod. Outside of skiing, this area could also be home to a new snow tubing hill and Nordic ski trails.
New parking in this area would also help address the current lack of available spaces. For those who can’t secure a spot at the existing ski resort, they could access a new proposed road which would connect the two base areas.
Here’s the part where it gets divisive. Mission Ridge also plans to create a village area at the base of the terrain expansion. This would include a 57-room ski hotel, 621 condominiums/townhomes/duplexes, as well as 265 single-family homes (intended primarily for short-term use). This village area could also include shopping and dining outlets, as well as employee housing. There are also plans for various spaces for events, such as weddings and concerts. The buildout is expected to take around 20 years. The owner, Larry Scrivanich, noted that if demand isn’t there, he’s fine with a smaller buildout.
This area is a mix of public and private land, which is why it’s being reviewed by the U.S. Forest Service, Chelan County, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Larry bought a large portion of the land (800 acres) in 2014, which would be developed into the village.
If built, there would be economic benefits, as it would more than double the ski resort’s economic impact on the local region. If fully completed, it’s projected to generate millions of dollars in economic benefits, sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, and overall tax revenue.
The Opposition
With such a big development, it’s no surprise that there are people opposed to these plans. The opposition, led by Friends of Mission Ridge, has spent years trying to push back against the plans. This is a group that features longtime skiers at Mission Ridge.
According to Friends of Mission Ridge (FMR), the development would increase traffic, the risk of wildfires, pollution of nearby water sources, and reduce wildlife habitat.
The group claims it is a Trojan horse-type situation, a residential development that’s disguising itself as a terrain expansion. According to Friends of Mission Ridge, development would add 7,812 beds to the ski resort. This means more development and traffic to their local community and Mission Ridge.
“This isn’t a ski area expansion. This is a high-density, urban-style development,” says their website.
A core concern is the increased risk of wildfires associated with new developments. Wildfires have gotten close to the ski resort, including earlier this year. Due to there currently being one way in and out, there’s fear that an emergency situation could lead to a standstill of traffic, endangering those around the mountain. This concern bears resemblance to what opponents of the Palisades Tahoe village expansion were saying.
Snow quality is another issue frequently referenced by locals. Mission Ridge averages around 200 inches of snow each year. This expansion is situated at a lower elevation, which is likely to result in warmer temperatures and lower snowfall totals. However, it seems likely that if built, snowmaking would be a part of this new terrain zone.
Wildlife is another concern. In an article by Field & Stream, Friends of Mission Ridge highlighted potential impacts on a wildlife corridor. While the EIS stated that the impact on wildlife in the area would be minimal, trail cameras set up by Friends of Mission Ridge suggest otherwise. They spotted wildlife areas like elk, mountain lions, and black bears, among others. This expansion would impact hunters’ access to these parts.
Friends of Mission Ridge also has issues with the Draft EIS, which found that the ski resort will need to mitigate environmental impacts through planning. Mike Rolfs, the Director of FMR, claimed to The Wentachee World that the EIS had “104 unclear, misleading, untrue, incomplete, arbitrary and persuasive statements.” Friends of Mission Ridge disputes the claims made in the document, as they believe it omits important details, such as the impacts on wildlife and water quality.
My Take
The situation is a classic case of a ski resort versus environmentalists, but it appears that the anti-development group has valid concerns.
Mission Ridge is a medium-sized resort, and its desire to grow is valid, given its proximity to the Seattle metropolitan area (around a three-hour drive). The lack of major ski resorts in Washington is a common complaint among skiers and river. A new development could potentially attract out-of-state tourism.
One thing I don’t understand is why Mission Ridge isn’t investing in its current infrastructure, as the only high-speed chairlift they have is from mid-mountain to the Summit. Getting new chairlifts at the existing ski resort should be priority number one.
Before researching this topic thoroughly, I was more pro-development. However, Friends of Mission Ridge has several compelling points, which have altered my stance. One example is the impact on wildlife corridors. I still have some disagreements with the points presented by Friends of Mission Ridge. One example is that some of the photos used by the group are inaccurate, as seen in the one below, which uses red Sharpie to define the location of the ski trails and buildings.
I believe that a compromise is the proper resolution here. Such a resolution would be similar to what was agreed upon for Palisades Tahoe earlier this year. A modestly sized new base area with accommodations and homes does make sense for the ski resort. Does it need a new base with nearly 8,000 beds? Probably not.
Image/Video Credits: Mission Ridge Ski and Board Resort, Friends of Mission Ridge
