mdp stevenspass textonly-june2007

5/26/2018 MDP StevensPass TextOnly-June2007

1/114

Master Development PlanPREPAREDFOR: STEVENSPASS

PO BOX98

SKYKOMISH, WA 98288

#4-1005 ALPHALAKERD.

WHISTLER, B.C. CANADA

V0N 1B1

2007


2/114

Credits

For Stevens Pass:

John GiffordChester Marler

John MeriwetherThe Owners Group

For Brent Harley and Associates Inc. - The Resort Planning Group

Shelagh BridgwaterAdam Brown

Sue ClarkBrent Harley

Bernard Messegeur


3/114

iMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

Contents

Executive Summary I

Introduction I

Master Development Plan I

Resort Vision, Goals and Objectives I

Existing Conditions I

Proposed Expansion II

Glossary of Terms VII

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Master Development Plan Overview 1

1.2 Background 1

1.3 Planning Process 1

2.0 Goals and Development Philosophy 3

2.1 Vision 3

2.2 Development Goals 32.3 Immediate Development Strategies 4

3.0 Existing Description 7

3.1 Background 7

3.2 Location 7

3.3 Historical Context 7

3.4 Recent Levels of Winter Sports Participation at Stevens Pass 8

3.5 Regional Context 9

U.S. Forest Service Land Management Direction 10

3.6 Current Master Development Plan 11

3.7 Existing Skiing Facilities 11

Existing Ski Lifts 11

Existing Ski Trails 12Existing Backcountry Users 23

Existing Comfortable Carrying Capacity 23


4/114

ii

BHA

Existing Utilization 24

Existing Terrain Distribution 25Existing Lift Balance Assessment 26

3.8 Existing Base Area Facilities 27

Existing Space Use Requirements (Industry Standard) 31

Existing Parking 34Existing Overnight Accommodations 35

3.9 Employee Housing 36

4.0 Master Development plan 37

4.1 Introduction 37

4.2 Existing Defciencies, Constraints and Opportunities 37

4.3 Mountain Development 40

Mountain Development Objectives 40

Overview of Mountain Expansion and Modication 47

Proposed Lift Network Changes 57Proposed Ski Trails 59Proposed Comfortable Carrying Capacity 63

Proposed Alpine Terrain Distribution Analysis 63Proposed Alpine Lift Balance Analysis 64Snowmaking 67

Lighting / Night Skiing 69Special Use Permit Boundary Changes 71

Mountain Operations Facilities 73On Mountain Facilities 73

Other Winter Recreation Opportunities 75Summer Activities and Operations 75

4.4 Base Area Development 77Base Area Development Objectives 77

Base Area Development Plan 77Proposed Space Use Analysis 83Proposed Parking Upgrades 84

Proposed Pedestrian Mobility and Safety Upgrades 86

4.5 Environmental Improvement Plan 87

5.0 Servicing and Infrastructure 89

5.1 Stevens Pass Sewer District 89

5.2 Water Treatment Plant 89

5.3 Snowmaking Infrastructure 89

5.4 On-Mountain Infrastructure 90

5.5 Stormwater Collection 90


5/114

iiiMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

6.0 Competitive Resorts Assessment 91

6.1 Market Trends 91

6.2 Market Position 92

7.0 Conclusion 95

8.0 Appendices 97

Appendix 1: Mountain and Base Area Analysis

Appendix 2: Summary of Resources

Appendix 3: Stormwater Study

Appendix 4: Brooks Bypass Feasibility Study

Appendix 5: Parking Feasibility Study

Appendix 6: Summer Plan


6/114

iv

BHA


7/114

vMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

List of Tables

TABLE 3-1: WASHINGTON STATE POPULATION 9

TABLE 3-2: KING COUNTY POPULATION 10

TABLE 3-3: SNOHOMISH COUNTY POPULATION 10TABLE 3-4: EXISTING LIFT NETWORK 12

TABLE 3-5: EXISTING DEVELOPED SKI TRAILS 13

TABLE 3-6: EXISTING GLADED TERRAIN BY POD 15

TABLE 3-7: DESIGN CRITERIA AT STEVENS PASS 23

TABLE 3-8: EXISTING COMFORTABLE CARRYING CAPACITY AT STEVENS PASS 24

TABLE 3-9: EXISTING BUILDING INVENTORY 28

TABLE 3-10: EXISTING SPACE USE REQUIREMENTS 31

TABLE 3-11: EXISTING SPACE USE REQUIREMENT PEAK DAY 33

TABLE 3-12: EXISTING BASE AREA PARKING CAPACITY 35

TABLE 3-13: SKI CLUB CABINS 36

TABLE 4-1: PROPOSED GLADING IN EACH POD BY AREA 50

TABLE 4-2: PROPOSED LIFT NETWORK AT BUILDOUT 58

TABLE 4-3: STEVENS PASS DEVELOPED SKI TRAILS AT BUILDOUT 59

TABLE 4-4: PROPOSED COMFORTABLE CARRYING CAPACITY AT STEVENS PASS 63

TABLE 4-5: PROPOSED SUP BOUNDARY CHANGES 71

TABLE 4-6: PROPOSED ON MOUNTAIN SPACE USE ANALYSIS 74

TABLE 4-7: RESTAURANT SEAT ANALYSIS 84

TABLE 4-8: SUMMARY OF PARKING CAPACITY AT BUILDOUT 85

TABLE 6-1: TOTAL SKIER VISITS, STATE OF WASHINGTON (PNSAA) 91

List of Charts

CHART 3-1: UTILIZATION BY CCC AT STEVENS PASS (1996-2006) 25

CHART 3-2: UTILIZATION RATES AT STEVENS PASS (1996-2006) 25

CHART 3-3 EXISTING CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION BY ABILITY LEVEL. 26

CHART 3-4: EXISTING LIFT BALANCE ASSESSMENT 27

CHART 3-5: PEAK DAY SPACE USE REQUIREMENTS 34

CHART 4-1: PROPOSED CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION BY ABILITY LEVEL 64

CHART 4-2: PROPOSED ALPINE LIFT BALANCE ANALYSIS 64

CHART 4-3: SPACE USE REQUIREMENTS AT BUILDOUT 83

CHART 6-1: TOTAL SKIER VISITS, WASHINGTON STATE (PNSAA) 92

CHART 6-2: ANNUAL VISITATION RATES IN WASHINGTON STATE 93


8/114

vi

BHA

List of Figures

FIGURE 1-1: LOCATION CONTEXT 2

FIGURE 1-2: REGIONAL CONTEXT 2

FIGURE 3-1: OLD T-BAR LODGE (REMOVED) 8FIGURE 3-2: EXISTING MOUNTAIN FACILITIES 19

FIGURE 3-3: EXISTING CONDITIONS 3D 20

FIGURE 3-4: EXISTING CONDITIONS 3D VIEW 2 21

FIGURE 3-5: EXISTING BASE AREA CONDITIONS 29

FIGURE 4-1: MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED 43

FIGURE 4-2: MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN 44

FIGURE 4-3: PROPOSED CONDITIONS 3D 45

FIGURE 4-4: PROPOSED CONDITIONS 3D VIEW 2 46

FIGURE 4-5: GLADING TECHNIQUES 51

FIGURE 4-6: GLADING SCHEMATIC 52

FIGURE 4-7: PROPOSED GLADING 54

FIGURE 4-8: PROPOSED SUMMER GROOMING (GRADING) 66

FIGURE 4-9: PROPOSED SNOWMAKING 68

FIGURE 4-10: PROPOSED NIGHT SKIING TERRAIN 70

FIGURE 4-11: PROPOSED SUP BOUNDARY CHANGES 72

FIGURE 4-12: PACIFIC CREST LODGE ADDITION 78

FIGURE 4-13: GRANITE PEAKS LODGE ADDITION 78

FIGURE 4-14: PROPOSED BASE AREA FACILITIES 81


9/114

IMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Stevens Pass is a day use ski area located in the Cascade Mountains of westernWashington State. The ski area is predominated in winter by alpine skiing andsnowboarding, complemented with Nordic skiing.

MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Master Development Plan for Stevens Pass was developed over the past twoyears by Brent Harley and Associates Inc., The Resort Planning Group (BHA), withdirection and assistance from John Gifford, General Manager of the Resort, ChesterMarler, Planning Director, and the owners group. Stevens Pass is owned by HarborProperties Inc.

RESORT VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Stevens Pass is striving to be:

Te best day use mountain resort in North America in guest, employee and ownersatisfaction.

The overarching goal of the MDP is to harmonize optimal levels of human use atStevens Pass with its natural environment and location on National Forest Land.

Development would provide high quality and appropriately sized recreation facilitiesthat strike a balance between lift, trail and base capacities. Stewardship will be promotedthrough environmentally sensitive best management standards, designed to protect,mitigate and enhance the character of the landscape. This would foster an enjoyablewinter recreation experience, supporting the long-term viability of public recreation.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Stevens Pass currently operates from the end of November until mid April. The existinglift serviced mountain facilities consist of 12 ski lifts accessing 37 primary ski trails(130 trail segments including gladed terrain), within a skiable area of 588 acres. TheComfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) of the existing lifts and trails is approximately

5,670 skiers and snowboarders per day.

Currently, the demand for skiing facilities at Stevens Pass exceeds the capacity both onthe trails (downhill capacity), on the lifts (uphill capacity) and in the base area (parking,skier services, restaurants, etc.). As a result, Stevens Pass frequently experiences dayswhen these facilities are overcrowded, resulting in the use of satellite parking, longlift lines, lack of seating and shortage of restrooms. The existing conditions result inreduced guest satisfaction and diminished recreational experiences.


10/114

II

BHA

PROPOSED EXPANSION

BHA undertook a site inventory and analysis, building on earlier studies done forStevens Pass. The results clearly identied areas for modest expansion that wouldmaintain a similar footprint but add enough capacity on the mountain to satisfy existingand potential demand. In addition, summer activities were investigated, with a primary

focus of identifying areas for mountain bike operations.

The proposed mountain facilities expand the number of ski lifts from 12 to 15. Likewisethe mountain plan calls for the expansion of trails and glading, from the existing 37major trails (130 trail segments), within an area of 588 acres, to 237 trails over a skiablearea of 938 acres. Gladed skiing would also be expanded catering to all skill levels. Asignicant addition would be the development of adventure terrain designed to providea backcountry-oriented experience within the Permit Area Boundary of Stevens Pass.The proposed Comfortable Carrying Capacity of Stevens Pass is 7,480 at buildout, anincrease of 1,810 skiers and boarders per day. The following table summarizes existingand proposed conditions by various criteria:


11/114

IIIMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

Characteristic Existing Proposed

Ski Area Capacity

UPHILL CCC 6,527 7,609

DOWNHILL CCC 5,671 7,479

Permit AreaUSFS SUP AREA (AC) 2,460 2,600

Ski Lifts

DOUBLE 3 1

TRIPLE 4 7

QUAD 1 2

DETACHABLE QUAD 2 3

SURFACE 2 2

TOTAL 12 15

Developed Ski Trails

BEGINNER (AC) 0 0NOVICE (AC) 9 9

LOW INTERMEDIATE (AC) 47 51

INTERMEDIATE (AC) 141 161

ADVANCED (AC) 105 158

EXPERT / EXTREME (AC) 109 169

TOTAL 410 550

Gladed Terrain

INTERMEDIATE (AC) 9 24

ADVANCED (AC) 74 169

EXPERT / EXTREME (AC) 95 195

TOTAL GLADED (AC) 178 388

Total Terrain (ac) 588 938

Night Skiing

TOTAL TERRAIN AREA (AC) 136 142

Snowmaking

TOTAL COVERAGE (AC) 0 18

Facilities

TOTAL FLOOR SPACE (SQ FT) 90,364 115,000 (ESTIMATE)

RESTAURANT SEATING 1,591 2,250

ParkingCAPACITY (GUESTS) 7,437 8,710

PARKING LOTS (AC) 18 22

Infrastructure

WATER DIVERSION 0.35 CFS 0.35 CFS


12/114

IV

BHA


13/114

VMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

FIGURE: SKI AREA MASTER PLAN


14/114

VI

BHA

FIGURE: SKI AREA MASTER PLAN 3D


15/114

VIIMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

Glossary of Terms

Comfortable Carrying Capacity the maximum number of guests that can utilize afacility or amenity while meeting the recreational expectations of the users and without

compromising the physical, environmental and social characteristics of the site. (e.g.Downhill CCC, Uphill CCC).

Critical Day as dened for this MDP, a day at Stevens Pass in which all parking lotsare full including the Yodelin satellite lot, acting as the threshold point when potentialvisitors are turned away, creating congestion and sometimes chaotic conditions onHighway 2. Critical days are caused by surges in demand resulting when excellentweather and snow conditions occur on weekends and holidays.

Design Day the number of guests that equal the balanced capacity of the facilitiesat Stevens Pass. As per this Master Plan the proposed design day is 8,000 visitors perday.

Developed Ski Trail - Any portion of the SUP area that is uncovered by vegetation.This area represents the traditional ski trails themselves and does not include openbowls, gladed areas or natural terrain.

Existing Peak Day a day at Stevens Pass where 6,800 or more guests are skiing atthe ski area. Typically the parking lots would be full, except for satellite parking.

Gladed terrain - a tract of land in a wooded area that has been selectively cleared orlimbed, or has sparser vegetation than the surrounding forest. The trees are thinned,and limbed to provide a continuous obstruction free ski route through the forest.

Off-piste terrain- off-trail terrain that exists or takes place on snow that has not been

compacted into trails. In this case, terrain that is adventure based, not on groomedruns, generally utilizing natural terrain features and natural snow conditions.

Pod -a ski area planning tool, used to dene a group of trails that are serviced by oneor more lifts. Ski areas can be divided into distinct pods of terrain.

Skiers at One Time (SAOT) a static view of the number of skiers/riders that anareas trails can accommodate at any given time. It is determined by multiplying thearea of a given ski trail by the average slope density. The resulting SAOT or DownhillCCC takes into account those on trails, and those on lifts and waiting in lift lines.

Special Use Permit (SUP) -A permit issued to an individual or group by the USDAForest Service for use of National Forest land for a special purpose.

Summer Grooming (grading)- the mechanical disturbance of the terrain, resultingin a smoother overall surface, facilitating skiing and snowboarding with minimalsnowpack.

Vertical Demand the amount of vertical terrain that skiers/riders can be expectedto ski over the course of a day (typically a six to seven hour period). This gure iscalculated separately for each skill class.


16/114

VIII

BHA

WITH THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, STEVENSPASS WILL PROVIDE EXCITING AND APPROPRIATE

OUTDOOR RECREATION EXPERIENCES TO ITS GUESTS

WHILE MAINTAINING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH ITSNATURAL SURROUNDINGS


17/114

1MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007

1.0 Introduction

1.1 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERVIEW

On behalf of Stevens Pass, Brent Harley and Associates Inc., The Resort PlanningGroup (BHA), is pleased to present an updated Master Development Plan (MDP), aconceptual roadmap that would allow the ski area to improve the quality of the experienceit provides, and to strengthen both its environmental and economic sustainability. TheMDP forms the basis of Stevens Pass development goals and objectives over the next10 to 12 years.

Stevens Pass is located in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) and theOkanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (OWNF), operating under a Special Use Permit(SUP) issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), administered by the MBSNF. Byvirtue of conditions of the SUP, a Master Development Plan (MDP) must be created toprovide long-term vision for the ski area at intervals of approximately 10 to 12 years.

FIGURE 1-1: LOCATION CONTEXT

1.2 BACKGROUND

The ski industry has gone through rapid change since the 1970s, and through a periodof consolidation into the early 1990s. The rising popularity of snowboarding in the1990s changed the way ski areas operated, with the addition of terrain parks andhalfpipes. Improvements in equipment technology have also opened up more terrain


18/114

2

BHA

to less skillful skiers and shortened the learning curve of both skiing and snowboarding.In response, ski area operators have reacted to these changes by adding new terrain,upgrading lifts and facilities and diversifying their offering while striving to distinguishthemselves from competing recreation opportunities. Stevens Pass has establisheditself as a major day use ski area in Washington State, averaging 400,000 visits annuallyover the past 10 years.

Stevens Pass has adopted exible development goals in order to satisfy a changingmarketplace, while protecting its natural setting. With a new MDP, Stevens Pass wouldbe further empowered to respond to recent industry changes and anticipate changesover the next 10 to 12 years. A focus would be placed on achieving environmentalsustainability while catering to the shifting expectations of the winter sportsmarketplace.

1.3 PLANNING PROCESS

In the fall of 2005, Brent Harley and Associates Inc. were retained to create a MasterDevelopment Plan for Stevens Pass and help shape and mold a vision for the next10-12 years at the ski area. The Master Development Plan builds upon and integratesearlier feasibility studies completed for Stevens Pass; Stevens Pass Phase 1 TechnicalAssessment, Ecosign (2000); Watershed Conditions Assessment, Battelle/Tetra Tech, 2005;Parking Feasibility Study, RH2 2005.

The MDP work was initiated with a detailed terrain analysis of the planning area.Using 25 and 5-foot contour interval mapping as a foundation, the capacity andcharacteristics of the existing ski area were analyzed. From this, the base area amenitieswere also analyzed for capacity and design characteristics. Any shortfalls in the balanceof the facilities (both on mountain and base area) were identied. Correcting theseimbalances, while increasing the overall capacity of Stevens Pass to be consistent withdemand, formed the basis of the MDP. From this point, expansion plans and specic

development goals were identied and integrated into the plan.

FIGURE 1-2: REGIONAL CONTEXT


19/114


2.0 Plan Goals and Development

Philosophy

2.1 VISION

The vision for a ski area should offer a clear indication of what one would expect tond in the future. To that end, it is the intent of the ownership and management thatStevens Pass will provide exciting and appropriate outdoor recreation experiencesto guests while maintaining a close relationship to its natural surroundings.

Complementing this, Stevens Pass is striving to be:

Te best day use mountain resort in North America in guest, employee and ownersatisfaction.

To support this Vision, the owners and management of Stevens Pass have identiedthe following long-term development goals.

2.2 DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The overarching goal of the MDP is to:

Harmonize optimal levels of human use at Stevens Pass with its naturalenvironment on National Forest Land.

Development would provide high quality and appropriately sized recreation facilitiesthat strike a balance between lift, trail and base capacities. Stewardship will be promotedthrough environmentally sensitive best management standards designed to protect,mitigate and enhance the character of the landscape. This would foster an enjoyablewinter recreation experience, supporting the long-term viability of public recreationwhile ensuring environmental integrity. In addition, the following goals have beenestablished for Stevens Pass:

To provide high quality day use winter recreation to the regionalmarketplace, most notably Seattle, Everett and the greater Puget Soundarea.

To be recognized as a leader in both freestyle and freeriding terrain throughthe use of its diverse mountain.

To provide excellent beginner and novice terrain backed by a regionally-leading ski and snowboard school.

To provide additional low density off-piste and backcountry orientedskiing and snowboarding experiences.

To protect and enhance Stevens Pass natural environment throughsignicant environmental protection and enhancement initiatives.

d

d

d

d

d


20/114

4

BHA

To continue a positive working partnership with the US Forest Service toimplement joint visions, goals and objectives.

To be responsible stewards of the publics land, while providing a specialrecreational experience.

To provide base area facilities that complement the capacities and land usein a balanced and well integrated fashion.

To protect and/or enhance habitat for species of concern identied inNational Forest planning documents.

To continue its role as an important employer and economic force in theSkykomish and upper Wenatchee Valleys.

To anticipate and adapt to climate change predictions as much asfeasible.

To satisfy the growing demand for summer lift accessed mountain bikeand related outdoor recreation opportunities.

2.3 IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

The following are development strategies that have been dened as actions that wouldaddress identied issues, problems and opportunities in the short term, enablingStevens Pass to approach its longer-term goals:

Adequately satisfy current and projected demand for total ski area capacity,thereby reducing the number of peak days when parking, base villageand mountain capacities are exceeded.

Virtually eliminate Critical Days by designing strategies for accommodatingvehicle volumes on days of high surge demand. Critical Days result inguests being turned away from Stevens Pass because of full parking lots.

Better balance the capacities of skier services facilities (day lodges,instruction centers, etc.) with lift and trail capacities.

Architecturally tie the older base area buildings to the Granite Peaks Lodgethrough re-design and remodeling.

Better meet guest expectations through distinctive terrain additionsaccessed by existing and/or new lifts within the current SUP.

Better meet guest expectations by upgrading older chairlifts.

Develop entry-level terrain to its fullest potential to satisfy the beginnerand novice portion of the market.

Upgrade primary trails to a smoother surface, designing for a season-average 24-48 inch base of snow.

Modernize parking areas and improve the areas ingress and egress fromUS 2.

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d


21/114


Provide snowmaking for the super-pipe and other freestyle features nearthe base area.

Modify the SUP boundary to (1) allow better management of backcountryuse and (2) to allow more efcient and safer avalanche control of terrainwithin the current SUP boundary.

Increase terrain for adventure skiing and snowboarding through anexpanded system of glades, off-piste areas and trails accessible from lifts.

Implement additional watershed restoration and environmentalenhancement projects.

Better meet employee and guest needs through improved workspace andinfrastructure.

Develop a summer operation centered around lift accessed mountainbiking.

d

d

d

d

d

d


22/114

6

BHA


23/114


3.0 Existing Ski Area Description and

Characteristics

3.1 BACKGROUND

Stevens Pass sits at the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range, separating eastern andwestern Washington. The area where Stevens Pass is located has a long history ofhuman use, with a long-standing role as a strategic transportation corridor datingback to the late 19thcentury. The growth of the ski area from its beginning in 1937coincided with the population growth of Washington State, and more specically, thePuget Sound area.

3.2 LOCATION

Stevens Pass is situated in the north central Cascade Range of Washington State atthe Summit of US Highway 2 at the border of King and Chelan Counties. The area isapproximately 78 miles northeast of Seattle, Washington and approximately 58 mileswest of Wenatchee, Washington. Figure 1-1 illustrates the area location of StevensPass.

The ski area is located in both the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest to the west,and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the east, and operates under a SpecialUse Permit (SUP) through the USDA Forest Service. Its location within NationalForest Land provides a unique and natural setting for its operation.

Access to Stevens Pass is via US Highway 2, connecting the Puget Sound region to theinterior of Washington State. Metropolitan Seattle is approximately 1.5 hours driveaway by car. The closest accommodation is located 16 miles west at Skykomish, butis limited. More extensive accommodations can be found in Monroe, 60 miles tothe west on Highway 2 and to the east at Leavenworth and Wenatchee. Recreationalvehicles are welcome in selected parking lots at Stevens Pass.

3.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Stevens Pass is named after John F. Stevens, a railroad engineer who pioneered theroute over Stevens Pass in 1890, later becoming the chief engineer for the PanamaCanal in 1905.

Stevens Pass began operations during the 1937/38 season, with the installation of arope tow by Don Adams and Bruce Kehr. The original lodge, built by the CivilianConservation Corps, was destroyed by re in 1939. A new lodge was constructedin 1940 with the help of many volunteers. A new beginner rope tow was installed in1941. During the Second World War no new facilities were added. In 1945, two newrope tows were added on Big Chief Mountain and an intermediate tow was installedon Cowboy Mountain. 1947 saw the installation of a T-Bar surface lift on CowboyMountain. At the same time, Adams and Kehr added a new partner, John Caley.


24/114

8

BHA

FIGURE 3-1: OLD T-BAR LODGE (REMOVED)

In 1952, the T-bar was replacedwith a double chairlift, the rst with

rubber sheaves in the Northwest.The Blue Jay double chairlift wasinstalled in 1956 and the SeventhHeaven double chairlift in 1960to the top of Cowboy Mountain.This same year, Adams sold hisinterest to the two remainingpartners. In 1964, the Big Chief

double chairlift was installed to replace rope tows number 1 and 4. Rope Tow 1 wasreinstalled due to complaints from the skiing public about the increase lift ticket priceto $4.00. The rope tow only operated an additional two seasons, as skiers were willingto pay more for the convenience of a chairlift.

In 1968, the Brooks double chairlift was added followed by the Daisy triple chairliftin 1973. In 1976, the chairlift equipment from the now defunct Yodelin ski area wasrelocated to Stevens Pass and renamed the Tye Mill chairlift. That same year, a threemillion dollar sewer system came on line and Kehr and Caley sold the ski area toHarbor Properties of Seattle.

In 1978, Harbor Properties constructed a second day lodge and in the next year, theHogsback triple chairlift was installed to ease lift line congestion. Nine years later,in 1987, the Mill Valley ski terrain was opened up with the installation of the DoubleDiamond and Southern Cross, an up and over triple chairlift. In 1988, a third daylodge was constructed to enhance the skier service facilities and ofce space. Thefollowing year, a ski school center was constructed to replace the twenty small ski

school huts located in the base area.

Steven Pass installed lights on the Hogsback triple chairlift for night skiing in 1990. In1992, Stevens Pass expanded their operations to provide a larger variety of recreationalactivities by adding the Nordic Center, 5 miles to the east of the summit. Additionalterrain in Mill Valley was serviced with the installation of the Jupiter quad chairlift in1993. The Tye Mill chairlift was lighted in 1994 to expand the night skiing capacity.

The Skyline Express, a high-speed detachable quadruple chairlift, was installed in 1996,as well as an upgrade to the 7th Heaven chairlift. The Hogsback triple was replaced witha detachable quadruple chairlift in 1998. The 1999/2000 season saw the introductionof the new Granite Peaks day lodge, which enhanced the physical and social setting ofthe Stevens Pass base area. Granite Peaks has become the new focal point at Stevens.

The Tye Mill chairlift was upgraded to a triple in 1999.

3.4 RECENT LEVELS OF WINTER SPORTSPARTICIPATION AT STEVENS PASS

Given the ski areas modest scale in skiable acres (410 acres of developed ski trails),its visitation by skiers and snowboarders is surprisingly high. Over the last 10 years(excluding the anomalous 2004-2005 season), visitation has averaged 412,575 skiers


25/114


and snowboarders per season. This includes a high of 498,367 and a low of 307,484.Fluctuations have been primarily due to the weather. With the exception of ve nearbyprivate ski club lodges and the RV lot, Stevens Pass is exclusively a day-use area. At anaverage season length of 130 days, this yields an average daily usage of approximately3,175 skiers per day. With a trail area of 410 acres, this represents an average density

of approximately 7.75 persons / acre. If you were to compare this to a peak day (6,800skiers/boarders), which occurs approximately 10 times a year, or an average weekendday (6,000 skier/boarders), the density increases to 14 and 13 persons/acre respectively.A more detailed description of densities at Stevens Pass is contained within Section 3.7of this document.In comparison, Crystal Mountain, a popular Cascade resort south of Stevens Pass thatdraws heavily from the Puget Sound market, has approximately 450 acres of developedski trails, with an average visitation of approximately 306,000 per year. With an averageseason length of 130 days, this represents a daily usage of 2,350. This equates to anaverage density of 5.2 persons/acre. Stevens greater density and use reects the needto augment its terrain with new trails and lift access. The comparison is similar whenSummit at Snoqualmies (including Alpental) terrain versus visitation is examined. Withaverage visitation over the same period at 472,000, over a season lasting 130 days anddeveloped ski trails of 706 acres, the average density is 5 persons/acre. Both Crystaland Snoqualmie are utilized to a lesser extent than Stevens.

Utilization Rate The utilization rate is a ski area planning parameter used to indicate,numerically, the threshold where skier visits exceed the appropriate capacity of the skiarea, averaged over the entire season. As an accepted planning standard, that thresholdis reached once skier visits exceed between 36% and 40% of the yearly capacity. Atthis point expansion is needed to continue to provide a desirable experience to guests.On average, Stevens Pass utilization rate has approached 50 to 60 percent for the pastten years. Stevens Pass has been over utilized for all years dating back to 1995/96. Fordetailed information please see section 3.7.

The utilization analysis points to a strong market demand for skiing and snowboardingat Stevens, as well as indicating a clear need for terrain/facility expansion at the popularski area.

3.5 REGIONAL CONTEXT

Washington State has a population of 6,203,788 (2004) and is consistently one of thefastest growing states in the country (having seen a growth rate of approximately 21%between 1990 and 2000). Population growth has leveled off to about 5.3% per year,but is still above the U.S. average. Washington States personal and household incomeis also higher than the U.S. average.

TABLE 3-1: WASHINGTON STATE POPULATION

Year Population Percentage Change

2004 6,203,788 5%

2000 5,894,121 21%

1990 4,866,692 +/-

Stevens Pass encompasses two counties, King County to the west (which incorporatesSeattle), and Chelan County to the east. The largest portion of guests to Stevens Pass


26/114

10

BHA

come from King County and Snohomish County, located to the northwest. KingCounty was ranked 12th in the entire country for growth between 1990 and 2000 at15.2% (total population increase was 229,715), for a total population of 1,737,034 (USCensus Bureau).

TABLE 3-2: KING COUNTY POPULATION


2004 1,777,143* 2%

2000 1,737,034 15%

1990 1,507,319 +/-

TABLE 3-3: SNOHOMISH COUNTY POPULATION


2004 644,274* 6%

2000 606,024 30%

1990 465,642 +/-

*2000 census estimates

The Washington State Ofce of Financial Management projects a 38% increase inSnohomish Countys population for the period 2005 thru 2025 and 17% forKing County.

While forestry, shing and agriculture have long been the mainstay industries in thisarea, tourism, outdoor recreation and associated spin-off manufacturing industries havecontributed to this spectacular growth. The high-tech industry also plays a major rolein the economic picture, as does the biomedical/biotech industry. Microsoft, and morethan 3,000 other computer software companies, are located in the Seattle region.Twenty-ve percent of jobs in the Greater Seattle region are dependent on internationaltrade and the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett port complex is the second largest load center

in the United States. The Boeing Company and other associated aerospace industriessupport approximately 100,000 employees.

U.S. Forest Service Land Management Direction

Land management direction for the Stevens Pass Special Use Permit (SUP) is containedwithin several planning documents. The SUP was designated a developed site in theAlpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan, 1981, preceding current forest plans.Additional guidance is found in the land and resource management plans that werewritten in 1990 for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (USDA Forest Service1990a) and the Wenatchee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1990b). These plans,(Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the

Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management PlanMBSLMP andWLMP, respectively) contain standards and guidelines developed for each forest. Bothplans designate the SUP for developed winter recreation.

MBSLMP key recreation goals, assumptions and expectations: provide afull spectrum of recreation facilities from full service resorts to trailheads;anticipates a market demand for a higher quality skiing experience; statesthat expansion should be commensurate with expected improvement inservice, and permitted on the basis of actual public need.

d


27/114


WLMP key recreation goals, assumptions and expectation: Recreationuse may be expected to be more balanced between winter and summer asthe demands for more developed winter recreation continues to grow;Further expansion will be commensurate with growth of demand forskiing recreation;

In addition to individual Forest plans, the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA ForestService and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994) superimposed an additionallayer of planning elements. The overall intent of the plan was to provide an ecosystemframework for managing habitats of threatened and endangered species in Federalold growth and late-successional forests. A key aspect of the plan was the AquaticConservation Strategy (ACS), giving primary emphasis to riparian dependent resourcesthrough Riparian Reserves and related standards and guidelines.

The Northwest Forest Plan is a complex planning tool; its implications are describedin detail in the Stevens Pass Watershed Condition Assessment, and will be further rened inthe future NEPA documents relating to the proposed MDP. Specic provisions ofthe Northwest Forest Plan may affect the location and/or scale of proposed ski resortprojects.

3.6 CURRENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The current MDP was completed and approved in 1982, identifying many large-scaleexpansions. Nineteen (19) new lifts were proposed at that time, of which three (3)were eventually built (Jupiter, Double Diamond, and Southern Cross). The 1982 Planenvisioned a CCC of 14,127 skiers at buildout. It also called for the development ofseveral resort areas, including hotel and condo accommodations.

The MDP proposed at this point has shifted signicantly from the past. In contrast,the proposed MDP envisions a smaller scale program to meet current deciencies and

demand, as well as incremental expansion to address future needs.

3.7 EXISTING SKIING FACILITIES

The existing skiing facilities are discussed in the following sections and illustrated inFigure 3-2.

Existing Ski Lifts

Stevens Pass currently operates 12 lifts: 2 high speed detachable quadruple chairlifts,1 xed grip quad, 4 triples, 3 doubles, and two beginner carpet lifts. The two high-

speed quads are relatively new, having been installed in 1996 and 1998 respectively.However, some of the remaining lifts at Stevens Pass are outdated and uncharacteristicof so popular a ski area. Specically,

The Daisy Lift (triple chair built 1973)

The Brooks Lift (double chair built 1968)

The Big Chief Lift (double chair built 1964)

d

d

d

d


28/114

12

BHA

And to a lesser degree

The Jupiter Lift (xed grip quad chair built 1993)

These lifts are continually identied in customer response surveys as facilities in need of

improvement. Replacement and upgrading of the lift network is addressed in Section4.3.

The key information for the existing lift network at Stevens Pass is identied in thefollowing table:

TABLE 3-4: EXISTING LIFT NETWORK

Lift Name LiftType

BottomElev. (ft)

TopElev.(ft)

Vert.Rise(ft)

Horiz.Dist.(ft.)

SlopeLength.

(ft.)

AverageSlp.(%)

HourlyCap.

(Theor.)

SKYLINE D4C 4,048 5,245 1,197 5,102 5,314 23 2,200

HOGSBACK D4C 4,060 4,833 774 3,104 3,253 25 2,400

7TH HEAVEN 2C 5,227 5,651 424 697 839 61 863

BIG CHIEF 2C 4,089 4,909 820 2,113 2,295 39 1,300

BROOKS 2C 4,052 4,870 815 4,306 4,426 19 1,200

DAISY 3C 4,071 4,390 319 2,015 2,027 16 1,520

TYE MILL 3C 4,482 5,183 702 1,456 1,640 48 1,680

DOUBLEDIAMOND

3C 4,914 5,557 643 1,040 1,235 62 1,200

SOUTHERNCROSS

3C 3,818 5,576 1,758 3,799 4,232 46 1,200

JUPITER 4C 3,847 5,179 1,332 3,706 3,972 36 2,200

CARPET 1,200

CARPET 1,200

Total 29,233 18,163

Existing Ski Trails

The current lifts service 130 trail segments covering three mountain faces (Mill Valley,Cowboy Mountain and Big Chief Mountain) and two drainage areas, totaling 410 skitrail acres and 588 skiable acres. Stevens Pass can generally be divided into the FrontSide and the Back Side (Mill Valley). The following tables detail the specications foreach trail in use at Stevens Pass.

Note that the designated ability level classication is based on the steepest 300 ft.slope length section of any given trail. Run classications marked with a * have beenreclassied to reect actual conditions on the ground (grooming program, trail width

etc.).

Ski trails numbers may appear out of sequence, or some numbers may be missing fromthe sequence. This is a result of rening concepts, where runs were added and takenaway, mixing up the original sequence.

d


29/114


TABLE 3-5: EXISTING DEVELOPED SKI TRAILS

RunNum-ber

BottomElev(ft)

TopElev(ft)

Verti-cal (ft)

SlopeLength

(ft)

Avg.Width

(ft)

Area(ac)

AvgSlope(%)

MaxSlope(%)

Skill Class

Frontside

Pod 1 - Skyline

1B 4,868 5,245 377 1,474 126 4 27 35 LOW INTERMEDIATE

1C 4,897 5,095 198 729 166 3 29 32 LOW INTERMEDIATE

1D 4,522 5,250 728 2,685 144 9 28 47 ADVANCED

1E 4,410 4,805 395 1,827 162 7 22 37 INTERMEDIATE

1E-1 4,605 4,686 81 459 162 2 18 18 INTERMEDIATE

1F 4,052 4,472 420 2,331 126 7 18 35 LOW INTERMEDIATE

1G 4,203 4,452 248 660 127 2 41 47 ADVANCED

1G-2 4,340 4,480 139 399 127 1 38 42 ADVANCED

1H 4,182 4,508 326 1,172 147 4 29 53 ADVANCED

1I 4,543 4,900 357 1,420 122 4 26 53 ADVANCED

1J 4,057 4,506 449 2,711 129 8 17 37 INTERMEDIATE

1K 4,288 4,359 71 341 64 1 22 23 ADVANCED

1L 4,697 4,781 84 451 30 0 19 22 LOW INTERMEDIATE

Total 16,658 51

Pod 2 - Hogsback

2A 4,528 4,841 313 1,504 159 5 21 33 INTERMEDIATE

2B 4,414 4,592 178 741 72 1 25 26 ADVANCED

2C 4,400 4,727 327 1,296 104 3 27 51 ADVANCED

2D 4,610 4,830 220 518 121 1 47 52 ADVANCED

2E 4,467 4,784 316 748 89 2 47 61 ADVANCED

2F 4,311 4,673 362 1,380 112 4 28 58 ADVANCED

2G 4,062 4,825 763 3,337 154 12 24 42 INTERMEDIATE

2H 4,257 4,506 249 917 254 5 28 32 INTERMEDIATE

2I 4,336 4,834 498 1,893 215 9 27 33 LOW INTERMEDIATE

2J 4,379 4,570 191 837 192 4 24 46 ADVANCED

2L 4,377 4,738 361 1,553 91 3 24 37 INTERMEDIATE

2M 4,470 4,840 370 2,069 89 4 18 35 LOW INTERMEDIATE

2N 4,480 4,596 116 644 70 1 19 30 LOW INTERMEDIATE

2O 4,212 4,460 248 2,411 126 7 10 21 LOW INTERMEDIATE

Total 19,848 62

Pod 3 - 7th Heaven3C 5,106 5,581 475 827 171 3 72 86 EXTREME

3I-LOWER 4,841 5,234 392 1,137 125 3 38 50 ADVANCED

3I-UPPER 5,250 5,649 399 884 125 3 52 62 ADVANCED

3J 4,992 5,189 197 454 105 1 48 49 EXPERT

3K-1 4,814 5,294 480 1,074 120 3 51 69 EXPERT

3K-LOWER 4,785 4,990 204 599 150 2 37 51 EXPERT

3K-UPPER 5,000 5,620 621 1,441 266 9 48 64 EXPERT


30/114

14

BHA

RunNum-ber

BottomElev(ft)

TopElev(ft)

Verti-cal (ft)

SlopeLength

(ft)

Avg.Width

(ft)

Area(ac)

AvgSlope(%)

MaxSlope(%)

Skill Class

3L 4,524 4,939 415 1,655 347 13 26 45 EXPERT

Total 8,071 37

Pod 4 - Big Chief

4A 4,123 4,907 784 2,182 196 10 39 68 EXPERT

4B 4,095 4,892 796 2,583 263 16 33 40 INTERMEDIATE

Total 4,765 25

Pod 5 - Brooks

5A 4,243 4,757 514 2,594 97 6 20 35 INTERMEDIATE

5B 4,575 4,692 117 756 58 1 16 19 INTERMEDIATE

5C 4,489 4,726 237 1,216 165 5 20 31 INTERMEDIATE

5D 4,061 4,868 807 4,450 160 16 19 37 INTERMEDIATE

5E 4,592 4,716 124 654 34 1 19 20 LOW INTERMEDIATE

5F 4,550 4,730 180 1,199 61 2 15 20 LOW INTERMEDIATE

5G 4,130 4,394 265 1,057 195 5 26 35 INTERMEDIATE

Total 11,926 35

Pod 6 - Daisy

6A 4,068 4,316 248 1,757 218 9 14 30 LOW INTERMEDIATE

6B-LOWER 4,070 4,205 135 1,100 218 6 12 20 NOVICE

6B-UPPER 4,206 4,372 166 935 146 3 18 24 NOVICE

Total 3,792 17

Pod 7 - Tye Mill7A 4,703 5,069 366 1,867 203 9 20 38 INTERMEDIATE

7A-1 4,846 4,929 82 248 100 1 35 0 INTERMEDIATE

7A-2 4,931 4,995 63 154 100 0 46 0 ADVANCED

7A-3 4,965 5,013 48 143 100 0 35 0 INTERMEDIATE

7B 4,483 5,098 615 2,599 111 7 25 41 INTERMEDIATE

7C 4,482 5,147 665 2,286 99 5 31 45 INTERMEDIATE

7D 4,574 5,171 597 1,644 116 4 40 60 ADVANCED

Total 8,941 26

Pod 9 - Double Diamond

9D-LOWER 4,912 5,143 230 622 128 2 40 45 EXPERT

9D-UPPER 5,150 5,547 397 756 128 2 62 67 EXPERT

9F 4,709 5,419 710 2,388 242 13 32 54 EXPERT

9G-1 4,428 4,818 390 918 150 3 47 55 EXPERT

9G-2 4,520 4,741 221 593 150 2 40 48 EXPERT

9G-LOWER 4,466 4,840 374 810 200 4 52 60 EXPERT

9G-UPPER 4,854 5,109 255 426 200 2 75 76 EXPERT

Total 6,513 28


31/114


RunNum-ber

BottomElev(ft)

TopElev(ft)

Verti-cal (ft)

SlopeLength

(ft)

Avg.Width

(ft)

Area(ac)

AvgSlope(%)

MaxSlope(%)

Skill Class

Backside Trails

Pod 10 - Southern Cross10A 5,145 5,579 434 2,420 63 3 18 38 INTERMEDIATE

10B 4,936 5,355 419 804 438 8 61 68 EXPERT

10C 4,302 5,559 1,257 3,488 166 13 39 52 ADVANCED

10G 4,176 5,041 864 2,036 266 12 47 58 ADVANCED

10I 3,847 5,591 1,743 4,058 119 11 48 72 EXPERT

10M 3,817 5,599 1,782 4,866 180 20 40 68 EXPERT

Total 17,672 69

Pod 11 - Jupiter

11A 4,338 5,185 847 4,201 160 15 21 46 INTERMEDIATE*

11B 4,712 4,918 206 876 178 4 24 42 ADVANCED

11D 4,286 4,597 312 980 305 7 34 55 ADVANCED

11E 3,820 4,326 506 3,711 20 2 14 28 INTERMEDIATE

11F 3,961 4,246 286 627 256 4 52 58 ADVANCED

11G 3,868 4,251 382 1,331 101 3 30 48 ADVANCED

11H 4,200 4,286 85 245 248 1 38 0 INTERMEDIATE

11I 4,132 4,327 195 459 155 2 47 52 ADVANCED

11J 3,944 4,264 321 860 142 3 40 47 ADVANCED

11K 3,840 4,477 637 2,160 157 8 31 44 INTERMEDIATE

11P 4,365 5,151 785 2,510 180 10 33 43 INTERMEDIATE

11Q 5,158 5,183 25 506 79 1 5 4 INTERMEDIATE

Total 18,466 59

Total (all pods) 116,654 410

TABLE 3-6: EXISTING GLADED TERRAIN BY POD

GladeNum-ber

BottomElev(ft)

TopElev(ft)

Vertical(ft)

SlopeLength

(ft)

Avg.Width

(ft)

Area(ac)

AvgSlope(%)

MaxSlope(%)

Skill Class

Frontside

Pod 1 - Skyline

1A 4,703 5,222 519 2,207 184 9 25 58 ADVANCED

1A-1 4,702 4,908 206 681 184 3 33 61 ADVANCED

1A-2 4,758 4,972 214 488 184 2 51 68 EXPERT

1A-3 4,813 4,996 184 494 184 2 41 49 ADVANCED

1A-4 4,849 5,132 283 488 184 2 73 82 EXTREME

Total 4,359 18

Pod 2 - Hogsback

2K 4,443 4,689 246 863 130 3 30 47 ADVANCED


32/114

16

BHA

GladeNum-ber

BottomElev(ft)

TopElev(ft)

Vertical(ft)

SlopeLength

(ft)

Avg.Width

(ft)

Area(ac)

AvgSlope(%)

MaxSlope(%)

Skill Class

2K-1 4,462 4,694 232 781 130 2 32 44 INTERMEDIATE

Total 1,644 5

Pod 3 - 7th Heaven

3A 5,252 5,631 379 1,043 65 2 40 61 ADVANCED

3B 5,174 5,542 368 675 123 2 67 74 EXPERT

3D 4,980 5,445 464 866 123 2 64 80 EXTREME

3E 4,915 5,380 465 950 113 2 57 77 EXTREME

3F 4,898 5,234 336 574 185 2 74 86 EXTREME

3F-1 4,873 5,092 219 439 185 2 59 64 EXTREME

3G 4,734 5,637 903 2,006 158 7 52 85 EXTREME

3H 5,039 5,227 188 589 200 3 34 47 EXTREME

Total 7,141 23

Pod 4 - Big Chief

4C 4,169 4,511 342 1,245 82 2 29 43 INTERMEDIATE

4D-1 4,460 4,643 183 515 126 1 38 44 INTERMEDIATE

4D-LOWER

4,279 4,450 172 530 126 2 35 44 INTERMEDIATE

Total 2,290 5

Pod 7 - Tye Mill

7E-1 4,940 5,183 243 472 113 1 61 62 ADVANCED

7E-LOWER 4,649 4,847 198 500 113 1 43 48 ADVANCED

7E-UPPER 4,872 5,119 247 596 113 2 46 44 ADVANCED

7F-1 4,358 4,709 351 1,389 208 7 26 45 ADVANCED

7F-LOWER 4,421 4,610 189 806 208 4 24 38 ADVANCED

7F-UPPER 4,622 5,135 513 1,065 208 5 59 101 EXTREME

Total 4,829 20

Pod 9 - Double Diamond

9A 4,344 5,412 1,068 2,545 150 9 48 86 EXTREME

9A-1 4,390 4,720 330 1,155 150 4 30 47 EXTREME

9A-2 4,379 4,410 31 335 150 1 9 10 EXTREME

9A-3 4,422 4,607 186 711 150 2 28 42 EXTREME

9A-4 4,582 4,743 161 485 150 2 35 37 EXTREME

9C 4,303 5,560 1,257 2,593 121 7 57 89 EXTREME

9E 4,782 5,266 484 1,117 216 6 49 63 EXPERT

Total 8,942 31

Backside

Pod 10 - Southern Cross

10D 5,025 5,449 424 880 273 6 55 70 EXPERT

10D-1 5,180 5,423 244 416 0 0 73 74 EXPERT


33/114


GladeNum-ber

BottomElev(ft)

TopElev(ft)

Vertical(ft)

SlopeLength

(ft)

Avg.Width

(ft)

Area(ac)

AvgSlope(%)

MaxSlope(%)

Skill Class

10D-2 5,148 5,420 272 476 0 0 70 76 EXPERT

10E 5,150 5,504 354 724 58 1 57 70 EXPERT

10F 5,261 5,546 284 579 59 1 57 63 ADVANCED

10H 3,908 5,429 1,520 3,650 232 19 46 56 ADVANCED

10H-1 4,905 5,188 283 734 50 1 42 44 ADVANCED

10H-2 4,338 4,775 437 1,048 50 1 46 54 ADVANCED

10H-3 4,448 5,332 884 2,190 75 4 45 60 ADVANCED

10J 4,121 5,563 1,443 3,132 265 19 53 84 EXTREME

10J-1 5,029 5,416 388 1,117 0 0 37 50 EXTREME

10K 5,145 5,513 368 1,187 68 2 33 54 ADVANCED

Total 16,132 53

Pod 11 - Jupiter

11C 4,145 4,595 450 1,391 76 2 35 61 ADVANCED

11L 4,528 5,017 488 2,224 67 3 23 47 ADVANCED

11M 4,655 5,120 465 858 144 3 65 78 EXPERT

11N 4,616 5,164 548 1,305 100 3 47 69 EXPERT

11N-1 4,681 4,994 313 768 100 2 45 62 ADVANCED

11N-2 4,784 5,150 367 785 100 2 53 63 EXPERT

11N-3 4,867 5,136 269 528 100 1 60 65 EXPERT

11O 4,642 5,033 391 1,143 110 3 37 58 ADVANCED

11O-1 4,794 5,153 359 959 110 2 41 56 ADVANCED

Total 9,961 22

Total (all pods) 55,298 178


34/114

18

BHA


35/114


FIGURE 3-2 EXISTING MOUNTAIN FACILITIES


36/114

20

BHA

FIGURE 3-3: EXISTING CONDITIONS 3D


37/114


FIGURE 3-4: EXISTING CONDITIONS 3D VIEW 2


38/114

22

BHA


39/114


Existing Backcountry Users

Guests use Stevens Pass as a gateway into the backcountry. On a busy weekend withgood snow conditions, as many as 150 people stage from Stevens Pass for lift assistedbackcountry skiing. Guests will park at Stevens Pass, use the facilities, purchase lift

tickets, and exit from the summit of Cowboy Mountain and/or Big Chief. These guestsmust be taken into account since they place demand on parking, food and beverageoperations and the lifts to a small extent.

Existing Comfortable Carrying Capacity

The Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) is dened as the optimum number ofskiers that can utilize a ski area per day, while being guaranteed a pleasant recreationexperience without causing the decline in the quality of the physical and sociologicalenvironment.

Day use ski areas like Stevens Pass generally experience higher trail densities thandestination ski resorts. However, it is recognized that as trail densities increase, aprogressively less acceptable skiing experience is being offered.

Preferred and acceptable trail densities have decreased considerably in recent years(for all skill classes). The advent of shaped skis combined with snowboardingsrelatively easy learning curve has enabled a larger number of skiers and riders tonegotiate steeper and more adventuresome slopes sooner and with greater controlthan ever before. In addition, what was typically considered extreme skiing andboarding has now become popularized and more accessible to a greater percentage ofthe marketplace - commonly referred to as freeriding or big mountain riding. What wasconsidered experts only terrain ten years ago is now accessible to a much broadersegment of guests. Further, terrain that was considered unskiable is now negotiated by

more advanced / expert skiers and boarders.

With that in mind, Stevens Pass can continue to expect to see trail densities near thehigh end of the currently acceptable density range, due to its day use nature. On mostbusy or peak days, these densities will be reached and/or exceeded. The CCC ofStevens Pass is calculated using the following densities:

TABLE 3-7: DESIGN CRITERIA AT STEVENS PASSACCEPTABLE/PREFERRED DENSITIES

Alpine De-sign Criteria

Beg. Nov. Low Int. Int. Adv. Exp / Ext

SKIER DENSITIES /ACRE*

30 24 20 16 10 6

AVERAGE DAILYVERTICAL /FT.

2,460 4,920 7,380 11,480 16,400 24,600

MAXIMUM GRADE/ %

16% 25% 35% 45% 63% 80% / 125%

*gladed and adventure based terrain has trail densities at 15-30% of a cut ski trail for the same difculty

Analysis within the MDP is based on these criteria, both in terms of the assessment ofthe existing facilities as well as the planning and design of all proposed expansion andmodications. The existing ski area capacity of the skiing and snowboarding at StevensPass was found to be:


40/114

24

BHA

TABLE 3-8: EXISTING COMFORTABLE CARRYING CAPACITY AT STEVENS PASS

Pod Lift Lift Capacity Trail Capacity DevelopedTrail Area

(ac)

Avg. Density(Developed Trails

Only)

1 SKYLINE (1) 1,397 831 51 17

2 HOGSBACK (2) 951 1,038 62 17

3 7TH (3) 101 282 37 8

4 BIG CHIEF (4) 305 367 25 15

5 BROOKS (5) 521 570 35 16

6 DAISY (6) 449 388 17 22

7 TYE MILL (7) 426 449 26 18

9 DBL. DIAMOND (9) 122 207 28 4

10 S. CROSS (10) 618 696 69 8

11 JUPITER (11) 938 844 59 13

Total 6,527 5,671 410 Avg. 14/ac

Gladed terrain is not included in the calculation of average trail densities since skiers andsnowboarders typically utilize a portion of a cut ski trail to enter and exit gladed terrain.Gladed terrain is included in the calculation of trail capacity in order to represent anaccurate static view of the terrain.

It is immediately apparent that Stevens pass is over serviced by lifts for the terrain itoffers.

The existing CCC of Stevens Pass is 5,671. With backcountry users (150/day) thisbrings the overall area facilities capacity to 5,821.

Based on actual use records, it is recognized that Stevens Pass experiences frequent

days where the capacities of both the trails and lifts are exceeded. During the pastve seasons (excluding the 2004-2005 partial season), the CCC of the terrain has beenexceeded an average of 17 times a year. These averages include peak days and turnaway days.

Existing Utilization

The annual utilization rate of a ski area is a planning tool used to indicate when thefacilities have reached the threshold of needing to increase their capacity in order tomeet guest expectations. The utilization rate is a ratio of actual annual skier visits (asrecorded) to the annual CCC (daily CCC multiplied by the number of operating days).It is a season-long average of high and low daily visitation. According to accepted

planning standards, once the utilization rate reaches 36-40% of the annual CCC, it istime to expand in order to continue to offer an acceptable guest experience on thebusier days. Charts 3-1 and 3-2 illustrate the utilization rates for Stevens Pass between1996 and 2006. It is apparent that Stevens Pass has been over utilized for all of the past10 seasons, even in low snow years like 2004/2005.


41/114


CHART 3-1: UTILIZATION BY CCC AT STEVENS PASS (1996-2006)

CHART 3-2: UTILIZATION RATES AT STEVENS PASS (1996-2006)

Existing Terrain Distribution

The existing mountain facilities were also assessed as to their degree of consistency

with the accepted distribution of the skier marketplace. The skier marketplace generallyrepresents a bell curve, with approximately 2-6% beginner, 11-15% novice, 18-22% lowintermediate, 33-37% intermediate, 18-22% advanced, and 8-12% expert / extremeterrain.


42/114

26

BHA

CHART 3-3: COMPARISON OF THE DEVELOPED TERRAIN AT STEVENS PASS WITH THE SKIER MARKETPLACE

This analysis indicates that the current distribution at Stevens Pass, while close, doesnot match the typical breakdown of the marketplace. Terrain at Stevens Pass is slightlyskewed toward the more advanced and expert terrain. The planning process recognizedthis deciency when exploring terrain modications and expansions. However, thisdistribution is representative of the terrain that is available, given the topography atStevens Pass, and is not a deciency in the layout or design of ski trails.

Existing Lift Balance Assessment

The existing lift network was assessed in relation to the mountain trails that each liftserves. Chart 3-4 demonstrates the balance in each terrain pod (a dened planningunit). It is clear that certain areas of Stevens Pass are over serviced, and other areasunder serviced, based on the capacity of terrain. This is particularly evident in Pod 1,the terrain serviced by the Skyline Express chair.


43/114


CHART 3-4: EXISTING LIFT BALANCE ASSESSMENT

Trail Balance by Lift

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Skyli

ne(1)

Hogs

back

(2)

7th

(3)

Big

Chief

(4)

Broo

ks(5)

Daisy

(6)

Tye

Mill

(7)

Dbl.D

iamon

d(9

)

S.Cro

ss(1

0)

Jupit

er(1

1)

Pod and Lift Areas

Capacity

Lift Capacity (skiers)

Trail Capacity

The planning process is designed to identify ways and means of improving the balancebetween individual lifts and the terrain serviced by that lift, with the overall goal ofbalancing the CCC of the skiable terrain with the uphill capacity of the lifts.

3.8 EXISTING BASE AREA FACILITIES

Located at the base of the ski area are four buildings that largely comprise the guestservices, food and beverage, ski school, rental, and operational facilities for StevensPass. These four buildings are known as the Granite Peaks Lodge, the Pacic Crest

Lodge, the Tye Creek Lodge, and Ski School Building. At present, there is a total ofapproximately 90,000 square feet of built space at Stevens Pass. (See Figure 3-5 andTable 3-9)


44/114

28

BHA

TABLE 3-9: EXISTING BUILDING INVENTORY

Service/Function GranitePeaks Day

Lodge

PacificCrest Day

Lodge

Tye CreekDay Lodge

Ski SchoolBuilding

Totals (Sq.Ft)

Commercial SpaceRESTAURANT (SEATING) 5,699 8,139 4,913 0 18,751

KITCHEN/SCRAMBLE 3,533 2,767 2,596 0 8,896

BAR/LOUNGE 1,932 0 2,629 0 4,561

REST ROOMS 555 1,794 1,448 0 3,797

GROUP / CONFERENCE 0 1,697 0 0 1,697

RETAIL SALES 105 2,107 768 0 2,980

Subtotal 11,824 16,504 12,354 0 40,682

Ski School / Guest Relations

SKI SCHOOL/GUEST RELATION 602 0 0 2,114 2,716

EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR 0 0 6,173 0 6,173

PUBLIC LOCKERS 531 986 585 0 2,102

CHILDRENS PROGRAM 0 0 0 2,400 2,400

TICKET SALES 258 40 0 0 298

Subtotal 1,391 1,026 6,758 4,514 13,689

Administration

SKI PATROL/FIRST AID 2,675 0 0 0 2,675

ADMINISTRATION 225 67 4,765 0 5,057

EMPLOYEE LOCKERS 0 258 2,208 0 2,466

Subtotal 2,900 325 6,973 0 10,198

Usable Space

Subtotal 16,115 17,855 26,085 4,514 64,569

STORAGE/MECHANICAL 1,618 1,099 2,810 0 5,527

CIRC./WALL/WASTE 5,629 4,232 9,610 797 20,268

Total Ski Related

Space 23,362 23,186 38,505 5,311 90,364


45/114


FIGURE 3-5: EXISTING BASE AREA CONDITIONS


46/114

30

BHA


47/114


Existing Space Use Requirements (Industry Standard)

In order to determine if there is an appropriate mix and amount of built space, thecompleted space use inventory is compared to industry standards for ski areas ofa size and type similar to Stevens Pass. The objective is to identify any gross area

deciencies in the existing development that may, once corrected, make Stevens a morebalanced, enjoyable and successful operation.

The space use requirements are directly related to the CCC of the ski area. In the caseof Stevens Pass, the skiing facilities with a CCC of 5,671 skiers per day, plus additionalbackcountry users (150) and an allowance for additional non-skiing guests (0.08 ofCCC), brings the total to 6,286 visitors per day. Table 3-10 illustrates the comparisonof the existing built space with the industry standards.

TABLE 3-10: EXISTING SPACE USE REQUIREMENTS (CCC OF 5,821 PLUS GUESTS = 6,286)

Service/Function ExistingSpace (sq ft)

Space Re-quired (sq ft)

Plus / Minus Percentage ofRequired

Commercial

RESTAURANT (SEATING) 18,751 20,559 -1,808 91%

KITCHEN/SCRAMBLE 8,896 8,224 672 108%

BAR/LOUNGE 4,561 2,056 2,505 222%

REST ROOMS 3,797 5,482 -1,685 69%

GROUP / CONFERENCE 1,697 1,697 +/- 100%

RETAIL SALES 2,980 4,797 -1,817 62%

Subtotal 40,682 42,815 -2,123 95%


SKI SCHOOL/GUEST RELATION 2,716 3,173 -457 86%

EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR 6,173 5,457 716 113%

PUBLIC LOCKERS 2,102 3,427 -1,325 61%

CHILDRENS PROGRAM 2,400 6,790 -4,390 35%

TICKET SALES 298 635 -337 53%

Subtotal 13,689 19,482 -5,793 70%

Administration

SKI PATROL/FIRST AID 2,675 2,094 581 128%

ADMINISTRATION 5,057 3,553 1,504 142%

EMPLOYEE LOCKERS 2,466 1,904 562 130%

Subtotal 10,198 7,551 2,647 135%

Usable Space Subtotal 64,569 69,848 -5,279 92%

STORAGE/MECHANICAL 5,527 4,770 757 116%

CIRC./WALL/WASTE 20,268 6,814 13,453 348%

Total Ski Related

Space 90,364 81,432 8,932 111%

Space/Skier14 13 +1 107%


48/114

32

BHA

A cursory review of the totals and ratios would suggest that the built space at StevensPass approximates the industry standard. However, on closer inspection, there areseveral signicant differences that suggest changes should be considered in futurerenovations and upgrades. Key commentary is as follows:

Rest Rooms: The amount of existing rest room space equates to about69% of what the industry standard might suggest. Further, an evaluationof these standards suggests that the percentage of restroom space to foodservice / bar seating space should be about 24%. On average, Stevenshas about 16% of rest room to seating space. While this is an apparentshortfall, the more telling point is the placement of these facilities. ThePacic Crest Lodge has a 22% restroom to seating ratio; Tye Creek hasa 19% ratio, and; Granite Peaks has only a 7% ratio. Considering thatGranite Peaks is the most popular base lodge at Stevens Pass, it is clearthat the rest rooms for that building are seriously undersized. This affectsthe quality of experience being offered and in turn, would likely impactreturn visitation for some components of the marketplace.

Retail Sales: With the retail sales space reecting about 62% of the suggestedrequirements, there appears to be a signicant revenue opportunity beingmissed.

Public Lockers: This type of facility falls under the quality of experiencecategory. At 61%, there appears to be an opportunity to add more publiclocker space to improve the quality of the offering to the guests, and topotentially add revenue.

Childrens Programs At 35% of what might be found at other ski areas,this lack of space represents a lost opportunity for potential direct revenue.More importantly, it limits the range of the marketplace that would be ableto visit Stevens on a more regular basis.

Ticket Sales: Industry standards suggest that Stevens Pass should haveabout double the amount of space for ticket sales than is currently inplace.

Less empirically apparent, a review of visitor impressions indicates that there is a lackof food service seating. This is partly the result of all guests having no alternative but toreturn to the base area for food service throughout the day. This problem is especiallyapparent during the lunch period (11am to 2pm). On-mountain food service wouldhelp alleviate this problem.

Finally, based on Stevens Pass recent experience, there is a serious level of use imbalancebetween the various base lodges. The success of the Granite Peaks Lodge can beattributed to it being a newer, better designed, and more aesthetically pleasing building.

This has led to the over-popularity of that facility, while the Tye Creek and Pacic Crestare underutilized. Extensive interior and exterior renovations to the latter two facilitieswould help to adjust visitor use patterns and distribution, creating a more balanced,dynamic and aesthetically pleasing base area.

The previous table describes Stevens Pass space use requirements on a day wherethe CCC is not being exceeded. Since the area experiences numerous peak days,throughout the year where the CCC is surpassed, it is also important to look at thespace use requirements using peak days as an indicator. Stevens Pass considers a peak

d

d

d

d

d


49/114


day to be one where the number of skiers reaches or exceeds 6,800. On such days, anadditional 545 non-ski guests must be taken into account bringing the total number ofvisitors to be provided for to 7,345. The following compares Stevens Pass existingspace to the industry standards on a peak day (Table 3-11 and Chart 3-5).

TABLE 3-11: EXISTING SPACE USE REQUIREMENT PEAK DAY (6,800 PLUS GUESTS = 7,344)

Service/Function ExistingSpace (sq ft)

SpaceRequired

(sq ft)

Plus / Minus Percentageof Required

Commercial

RESTAURANT (SEATING) 18,751 23,715 -4,964 79%

KITCHEN/SCRAMBLE 8,896 9,486 -590 94%

BAR/LOUNGE 4,561 2,372 2,189 192%

REST ROOMS 3,797 6,324 -2,527 60%

GROUP / CONFERENCE 1,697 1,697 +/- 100%

RETAIL SALES 2,980 5,534 -2,554 54%

Subtotal 40,682 49,128 -8,446 83%


SKI SCHOOL/GUEST RELATION 2,716 3,660 -944 74%

EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR 6,173 6,295 -122 98%

PUBLIC LOCKERS 2,102 3,953 -1,851 53%

CHILDRENS PROGRAM 2,400 7,832 -5,432 31%

TICKET SALES 298 732 -434 41%

Subtotal 13,689 22,472 -8,783 61%

Administration

SKI PATROL/FIRST AID 2,675 2,415 260 111%

ADMINISTRATION 5,057 4,099 958 123%

EMPLOYEE LOCKERS 2,466 2,196 270 112%

Subtotal 10,198 8,710 1,488 117%

Usable Space

Subtotal 64,569 80,310 -15,741 80%

STORAGE/MECHANICAL 5,527 5,503 24 100%

CIRC./WALL/WASTE 20,268 7,861 12,407 257%

Total Ski Related

Space 90,364 93,674 -3,310 96%

Space/Skier12 13 -1

92%


50/114

34

BHA

CHART 3-5: PEAK DAY SPACE USE REQUIREMENTS

As would be expected, peak days further accentuate the shortfalls of the builtspace. It is clear that Stevens Pass base facilities are undersized to handle peak dayrequirements, specically the childrens programs, retail sales, restrooms and restaurantareas. While it is recognized that the operator should not construct facilities (especiallyday lodges) for the one or two busiest days of the year, Stevens Pass experiences a largenumber of days when the capacities, both on the mountain, and in the base area, areexceeded. An increase in CCC would ameliorate much of the guest frustration createdon these days, dened as both peak days and critical days. Weather uctuationsin the Northwest tend to exacerbate the variability in visitations levels, creating spikes

when cool temperatures and fresh snow coincide with weekends and holidays.

Existing Parking

Stevens Pass has a total of 18.5 acres of parking distributed between 10 parking lotsadjacent to the base area, and one overow lot at Yodelin, 1.5 miles east of the summit,with an additional 1.75 acres. The Yodelin satellite lot is used on peak days when basearea parking capacities are exceeded.


51/114


Based on 2.5 guests / car, and 40 guests / bus, the 18.5 acres contained within the 10base area lots have a theoretical capacity to park approximately 7,450 guests (See Table3-12). The Yodelin satellite parking lot can support 254 more cars or approximately635 guests. This brings the existing parking capacity to 8,072.

The topography at the summit of Stevens Pass has forced the development of themultiple lot system with 10 lots of varying shape, rather than fewer, but larger,more space efcient rectangular lots. Because of this, its 18.5 acres do not hold thetheoretical amount, but signicantly less.

Theoretically, there appears to be enough parking capacity to accommodate even peakdays. However, experience has shown this is not the case; peak days create parkingproblems at Stevens Pass. To help resolve this discrepancy, Stevens Pass is undertakingan efciency study to improve circulation, trafc patterns and parking at the ski area.

TABLE 3-12: EXISTING BASE AREA PARKING CAPACITY

Location Lot Number Acres CarCapacity

BusCapacity

RVCapacity

TotalGuest

Capacity

NORTH OFHIGHWAY

LOT C - CARS 4 180 450

LOT D - CARS 350 875

EAST OF BASE LOT A - CARS 1 175 438

LOT B - BUSSES 1 75 35 1,588

LOT E - CARS / RV 2 320 34 885

LOT F - RVS 2 90 225

WEST OF BASE LOT 1 CARS 1 255 638

LOT 2 - CARS 2 350 875

LOT 3 CARS 2 325 813

LOT 4 CARS 2 260 650

Total 18.5 2,290 35 124 7,437

* based on 2.5 passengers per car / RV and 40 passengers per bus

As mentioned earlier, Stevens experiences numerous days a year when the lifts and trailcapacities are exceeded. However, parking and visitation data from the last decade hasshown that the parking capacity is exceeded before the 7,450 guest total is reached.While lot size and shape are contributing to this, it may also be that Stevens experiencesfewer guests/vehicle than is customary industry-wide. Stevens will be maximizing itsexisting space based on a 2006-2007 efciency study.

As an indication of heavy demand on the parking system, the Yodelin overow lot is

typically used 7-8 times a year (51 times over the past 7 years). Approximately twicea year (16 times over the past 7 years) parking lots are at full capacity and guests areturned away. Overcrowding results in reduced guest satisfaction, the use of a shuttlebus for satellite parking, and often upset and frustrated guests.

Existing Overnight Accommodations

There are six Ski Clubs that operate overnight accommodation at Stevens Pass. These


52/114

36

BHA

accommodations are managed separately from Stevens Pass by each individual club,and are authorized by their own Special Use Permit from the Forest Service. The six-ski club cabins total 300 beds. At this time there are no plans to expand or initiate newovernight accommodations at Stevens Pass.

TABLE 3-13: SKI CLUB CABINS

# Description Beds

1 STEVENS PASS SKI CLUB 41

2 BREMERTON SKI CRUISERS 45

3 MOUNTAINEERS 50

4 SWISS 23

5 EVERETT SKI CLUB 59

6 PENGUINS 54

Total 271

3.9 EMPLOYEE HOUSING

The area to the north of the base area, on the opposite side of the highway, hasapproximately fteen cabins used for employee housing. Stevens Pass plans to utilize,maintain and, if necessary, replace these throughout the life of this MDP. Additionalunits may be constructed in this location, depending upon available alternatives.However, major expansion to employee housing would most likely take place onprivate land outside the permit boundary.


53/114


4.0 Master Development plan

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In examining the existing conditions at Stevens Pass, it is apparent that there are somesignicant changes that need to take place in order to provide the best possible winterrecreation experience. Section 4 outlines Stevens Pass Master Development Plan. Ithas been designed to achieve the vision, goals and strategies outlined in Section 2 overthe next 10 to 12 years.In order to match current demand and anticipated growth, Stevens Pass proposesseveral improvements to both its base and mountain facilities. These changes respondto the specic deciencies, constraints and opportunities listed below.

4.2 EXISTING DEFICIENCIES, CONSTRAINTS ANDOPPORTUNITIES

The following existing mountain area and base area deciencies, constraints andopportunities have been noted:

Mountain Area:

Defciencies

Trail and lift capacities do not adequately match the demand on manyweekends and holiday periods and are extremely inadequate on peakdays.

Trail pods are not effectively balanced with the lifts that service them(some are over-lifted, some are under-lifted).

Existing skill level distribution does not effectively match the skiermarketplace there is a signicant lack of beginner, novice and intermediateterrain.

There is a lack of intermediate gladed terrain.

The single base area staging location creates bottlenecks at the beginningof the day, at lunch and break times, and at the end of the day.

Trail access returning to the base area as well as circulation throughout the

base area, is congested and cumbersome.

Lack of on-mountain lodges / restaurants adds to base area congestionthroughout the day (especially during the lunch time hours of 11:00 amto 2:00 pm).

Ski lift system is out of date and inefcient at servicing the terrain.

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d


54/114

38

BHA

There is no snowmaking to provide a reliable snowpack for the halfpipeand bottom terminals during low snow years or to provide suitablewarehousing of snow for terrain park features near the base area.

A signicant opportunity is being missed in the summer months sincethere are currently no activities to attract visitors.

Constraints

Steep slopes along ridgelines make much of the mountain unusable,especially for beginner, novice, low intermediate or intermediate skiers.

Water diversion rights are limited to 0.35 CFS (one for 0.25 CFS andanother for 0.10 CFS) restricting the potential for snowmaking.

Expert terrain is more readily available than intermediate or beginner.

The majority of the easily accessed terrain within the SUP area with skiingpotential is currently being utilized. In other cases stands of dense treesblock useable terrain and natural fall lines. Cliffs also reduce terrain

expansion, limiting options even more.

Opportunities

A signicant amount of terrain immediately adjacent to the SUP areais already used for lift-assisted backcountry skiing and snowboarding.This unmanaged use can conict with other users (Nordic skiers andhighway trafc). This hike-to backcountry use can be managed andthe experience enhanced through boundary changes and modest trail andglade additions.

A higher standard of Summer grooming (grading), improved waterdrainage, and enhanced trail design could provide earlier openings on

a reduced base, and ensure adequate snow cover during years of belowaverage snowfall.

Enhance terrain park features and the halfpipe to a state of the art standardthrough snowmaking.

Explore adventure skiing as a bridge between a backcountry experienceand ski area experience.

Environmental sustainability can be enhanced through project designi.e.. glading (thinning) would improve forest health and add diversity tothe landscape; watershed restoration projects would enhance aquaticsystem functioning. Other mitigation would lessen the ski areas impactacross the landscape.

Develop an appropriately scaled summer operation to include hiking andlift accessed downhill mountain biking.

There is unused terrain within the existing SUP available for expansion.This includes intermediate, advanced and expert terrain that could provideStevens an increased Comfortable Carrying Capacity, better matchingcurrent demand.

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d


55/114


Base Area:Defciencies

The capacity of base area lodges is not in balance with the capacity onthe mountain or with the actual levels of use (with identiable shortfalls

in the amount and placement of rest rooms, retail space, public lockers,childrens programs and ticket sales,) In addition, the Granite Peaks Lodgeis in need of signicant storage/infrastructure additions to meet currentdemand.

Grade variation within the greater base area results in cumbersome andinefcient staging at all times of the day.

Guest services facilities lag behind the industry standard, mainly indedicated space.

Pedestrian travel from parking areas can involve uphill climbing andconsiderable distance. Limited opportunities exist for guest shuttles toski area entrance.

Congestion is created from using a singular staging location for the entiremountain.

Conict and contrast of building characters exists (architecturally andaesthetically).

Satellite parking lots are being used to satisfy demand on many days.

Parking area topography creates inefcient utilization.

Constraints

Limited development area is available.

Parking lots on either side of US Highway 2 causing pedestrian and vehicleconicts.

Current water diversion rights (0.35 cfs) limit potential expansion ofsnowmaking and base area facilities.

Opportunities

Granite Peaks Lodge is over utilized while the other, older lodges areunderutilized update architectural style and services of these older lodgesto maximize efciencies and attractiveness, and improve the physicalconnectivity of the separate lodges through plaza and walkway additions.This would spread use more evenly between the three buildings.

Animate and expand retail / food and beverage possibilities of plazabetween Granite Peaks Lodge and Pacic Crest Lodge, and integrate theplaza with Tye Creek Lodge.

Improve balance between on mountain capacity and base area facilitycapacities including retail, childrens programs, restrooms, restaurantsand seating.

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d


56/114

40

BHA

Enable growth of ski and snowboard school through expansion and betteruse of facilities.

Provide a secondary staging area to remove pressure from of the currentbase staging location.

Optimize the base area to provide better ow between the parking lots,base area facilities and lift staging locations.

Incorporate attractive and place-dening entry point features along USHighway 2 to improve the sense of arrival to the ski area, both at thesummit and at the west entry.

Develop on-mountain food services to relieve pressure on base facilities.

Improve Stevens environmental performance through stronger recycling,lodge energy efciency, product use efciency and water conservation.

4.3 MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Mountain Development Objectives

Building on the identied goals and development strategies of Stevens Pass, and thedeciencies, constraints and opportunities (Sections 2 and 4.2), we believe there issignicant opportunity to improve the on mountain facilities, both in the lift and trailnetwork conguration. These improvements would align capacities with existing andanticipated demand in a manner that would enhance Stevens Pass reputation for ahigh quality and unique skiing experience. Further, by building on existing strengths,modernizing infrastructures and incorporating additional learning and freeriding

terrain and adventure skiing opportunities, Stevens Pass would be able to providea regionally competitive skiing and snowboarding experience geared to the day usemarket. Specic Mountain Development Objectives are listed below:

Improve the mountain experience at Stevens Pass by diversifying itsterrain offering, including a variety of trail width and aspect, as well asgladed terrain of varying difculty.

Increase the Comfortable Carrying Capacity of both the ski trails and theski lifts to better match actual demand, making use of the majority ofskiable terrain that is now undeveloped.

Balance the ski terrain skill mix to match the market, within the limitationsimposed by the Stevens Pass terrain.

Provide additional in bounds and hike to adventure skiingopportunities.

Provide a diverse range of gladed and other off-piste skiing possibilities.

Better manage lift accessed backcountry use.

Improve guest satisfaction through lift and trail system upgrades.

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d


57/114


Relieve pressure and congestion in the base area with the establishment ofon-mountain facilities.

Develop new terrain, as well as re-groom (grade) and re-vegetate existingterrain, with climate change predictions and Visual Quality Objectives inmind.

Provide a small-scale snowmaking system focused on the super-pipe andfacilities near the base area.

Design new terrain development to bring a net gain in forest health anddiversity within the SUP area.

Develop a summer lift accessed Mountain Bike product to satisfy a growingdemand, as well as other related, appropriate outdoor activities.

Plan for and develop other mountain products and facilities as useincreases.

d

d

d

d

d

d


58/114

42

BHA


59/114


FIGURE 4-1 MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED


60/114

44

BHA

FIGURE 4-2: MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN


61/114


FIGURE 4-3: PROPOSED CONDITIONS 3D


62/114

46

BHA

FIGURE 4-4: PROPOSED CONDITIONS 3D VIEW 2


63/114


Overview of Mountain Expansion and Modication

To meet development goals and objectives, Stevens Pass proposes to expand its ski trailcapacity and terrain scale through (1) new terrain expansion and (2) modication withinthe already developed portion of the SUP. Utilizing the mountain analysis (Appendix

1) as a foundation, multiple concepts were prepared. After considerable study, thedesign team settled on a single conguration. The following sections describe in moredetail the specic expansion and modications proposed at Stevens Pass. Ski trailexpansion is largely proposed within two additional ski pods - Northern Exposure andGrace Lakes. Other expansions and modications are proposed throughout the SUParea. Please see Figure 4-1 and 4-2.

Northern Exposure Pod

Northern Exposure would be more than an extension of the existing trail network. Itwould be a new direction, a contrast, providing an attractive alternative to the traditionaloffering at Stevens Pass. As a result, the Northern Exposure terrain mix-all within theexisting SUP- would encourage return visits within the pod for a variety of guests. Asplanned, the Northern Exposure lift would stage at the east end of Parking Lot E, awayfrom the base area. The terminal building would include mini-base facilities: restrooms,ticketing and espresso/snacks. This would help to reduce congestion in the base areaduring the initial staging period of the day as well as throughout the day.

The terrain in the Northern Exposure area consists of some of the most desirableslopes at Stevens Pass. Located on the east side of the existing Big Chief Pod, (SeeFigure 4-1) the Northern Exposure expansion would result in the diversication andstrengthening of the Stevens Pass skiing experience for the following reasons:

The northerly aspect will promote snow retention and snow quality.

The slope mix would result in excellent intermediate / advancedintermediate terrain.

The terrain would be developed to include a range of gladed skiingopportunities for intermediate/advanced/expert skill levels.

The separate staging location would relieve base area congestion, bothduring and at the start of the day.

The increase in overall trail CCC would better balance terrain capacitywith demand.

The age and spacing of trees would result in a naturally gladed skiingexperience.

This pod would be developed to promote a natural skiing experience. Trails would bec

mdp stevenspass textonly-june2007

Documents

development goals

base area development

iiimaster development

vmaster development

development philosophy

existing parking

existing description

existing defciencies