A proposed expansion of the Mission Ridge Ski Area, located just outside Wenatchee in central Washington, has ignited significant debate among locals regarding its potential environmental impact and consequences for public land access.
The owners of Mission Ridge Ski Area aim to add more than 7,800 lodging beds and new infrastructure, effectively transforming the area into what critics have characterized as a “mini resort town.”
To proceed with the expansion, the developer is seeking various approvals from Chelan County, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This includes requests for an easement road across Forest Service land and a contentious land swap. The land in question was purchased in 1953 using funds from the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to protect the Colockum elk herd, a crucial wintering area for wildlife and a longstanding site for public hunting and recreation.
WDFW highlights the importance of preserving public lands, noting that approximately 50 percent of Washington’s land is publicly owned and accessible to hunters and recreationists.
Supporters of the expansion argue it would create jobs, boost tourism, and generate additional tax revenues for the region, framing the project as a major economic advantage for the local community.
However, opponents question the environmental consequences and the impact on public lands, stating that these costs might outweigh any economic benefits. Steven Gnam, a board member of the nonprofit organization Friends of Mission Ridge, expressed skepticism about the development’s portrayal. “They’ve been pitching it as a ski expansion,” Gnam remarked. “But when you dig into the details, it has very little to do with skiing and a lot to do with urban-style development.”
The project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), released on September 5, claims that the effects on wildlife will be minimal and that nearby “equivalent habitat” can accommodate any displaced species. This assertion, however, has been challenged by Gnam, who pointed to a year-long trail camera study conducted by Friends of Mission Ridge.
The study revealed the presence of various wildlife species, such as elk, mule deer, mountain lions, black bears, and golden eagles, within the proposed project area—many of which were recorded in locations identified in the DEIS as low-quality habitat. Notably, the cameras documented a cow elk with her newborn calf in the anticipated site of a large snowmaking reservoir.
“The DEIS reads more like a marketing manual than a scientific assessment,” Gnam stated, emphasizing discrepancies between the study’s findings and the realities on the ground.
In defense of the project, the developer asserts that environmental protection has been a primary consideration in planning. According to their website, “From early planning to present day, environmental stewardship has been a guiding priority.” They claim to have conducted extensive studies, preserved wildlife corridors, and prioritized water quality.
Nonetheless, Friends of Mission Ridge, along with local hunters and community members, fear that the development could dismantle a vital wildlife migration corridor and restrict public access to the area. A proposal under consideration involves constructing a new road across Forest Service land, which would then be “gifted” to Chelan County for maintenance, a move Gnam criticized as effectively converting public land into a private developer’s access route.
The fight over Mission Ridge reflects larger national issues surrounding the privatization of public lands. “This isn’t just about a ski hill,” Gnam concluded. “It’s about whether we’re willing to let private interests profit from lands and wildlife that belong to all of us.”
image source from：fieldandstream
