Colorado gem Ski Cooper is thriving among giants. Over the past ten seasons, visits have grown 63 percent, fueled in part by affordable lift tickets. Last winter, a midweek ticket cost $45, regardless of the time or method of purchase. Peak days cost $110 with Fridays and Sundays running a bit less. Surrounded by Copper Mountain, Vail, Breckenridge and Beaver Creek; Cooper’s customer base naturally skews local. But the hill also attracts a growing number of skiers from the Front Range and surrounding states, owing to its accessible tickets and laid back character.
Cooper is an outlier, especially in Colorado. Lake County owns the fixed assets like buildings and the hill straddles two National Forests. Operations are handled by Cooper Hill Ski Area Inc., a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. Last year the mountain brought in $6.8 million in revenue, more than triple its sales in 2011. Expenses have also creeped up but not as quickly as revenue. The ski area netted $1.1 million in 2024 and carries no debt. This model has allowed consistent re-investment including a new conveyor lift in 2006, the Little Horse T-Bar expansion in 2019 and overhaul of the Piney Basin triple in 2021. Future improvements will be funded by retained earnings, not debt or taxpayer funds.
Because Cooper sits on Forest Service land, it’s required to periodically file a Master Development Plan (MDP.) The current master plan dates back to 1999 and Cooper is in the final stages of perfecting its 2025 Master Development Plan. The ski area expects to submit the plan to the Forest Service in July for acceptance. Like with all MDPs, projects are conceptual in nature and subject to NEPA approval before implementation. Unlike most master plans, Cooper’s 2025 MDP includes projected costs and phasing. In true Cooper fashion, it was prepared in house rather than by a consulting firm.
Phase one includes relief for the base-to-summit 10th Mountain Double. Replacement of the workhorse 10th has long been envisioned and was first approved in 2000. Instead of replacement, Cooper now plans to run a new fixed grip quad alongside the double and utilize both on peak days. The new quad combined with water/sewer upgrades, a lodge addition and parking expansion in phase one would cost $13 million.
Phase two would see a new lift constructed on Chicago Ridge called Sawmill. This double chair would serve 250 acres within Cooper’s existing permit area but never previously lift-served. Sawmill would rise 1,093 vertical feet and increase Cooper’s overall vertical drop by 382 feet. “A future Master Plan may envision further lift served use of the Chicago Ridge area within the SUP,” the plan notes. New double chairs are exceedingly rare in the United States with the last one installed at Arapahoe Basin in 2020. The last instance before that was six years earlier at Crystal Mountain, Washington. Like with those examples, a double would allow Cooper to service intermediate and expert terrain with a relatively fast lift (550 ft/min) at relatively low cost. Expansion up Chicago Ridge would also require a new patrol facility, skier bridge and trail improvements. Together with a second beginner conveyor in the base area, phase two totals $12 million.
Phase three includes Cooper’s first-ever snowmaking system and a second new double chair called Hoyt’s. This lift would service 60 acres of intermediate-pitched meadows on the west-southwest face of Cooper Hill. Hoyt’s double would span approximately 4,000 feet with a vertical of 942 feet and five new trails.
A third project in phase three is a replacement for the Buckeye Platter, which dates back to 1983. This project is planned as a T-Bar, increasing capacity by 120 percent. The mountain’s second T-Bar could run at a speedy 600 feet per minute with an intermediate unload station. Combined with a new lodge and additional parking, phase three is estimated to cost $14.5 million.
Cooper’s current comfortable carrying capacity (CCC) totals 1,819 guests but gets exceeded several times most winters. If all MDP projects are completed, the ski area could comfortably accommodate 3,682 guests, effectively doubling capacity. “Ski Cooper’s goals are to continue operating at less than full capacity, but add lifts, lift capacity, and terrain in order to improve circulation, keep wait times at lifts at a comfortable level, improve overall terrain offerings, and therefore maintain the reliably high-level ski experience Ski Cooper’s guests have come to expect,” the plan notes.
Lake County is currently soliciting feedback on the plan before submittal to the feds.
Lift Blog 
My only concern is the continued use of surface lifts. For some snowboarders and as an older skier I find them a lot of work to ride.
Hopefully riding a T-bar won’t be required to exit the Sawmill expansion area.
Ski Cooper is the best but keep that on the down low.
LikeLike
Looking at topo maps and their planned layout, the two options to leave the proposed Sawmill lift pod would be the T-bar, or a hike up the side of trail 2B, which as I tried to estimate it would mean a good 200 or more vertical feet (and much longer than that in distance over the ground).
As an older snowboarder struggle with Tbars or Poma surface lifts. I’m sure some would look at me askance over that shortcoming, but I don’t think I am that rare an exception (and there’s a spectacularly upsetting video out there of a snowboarder taking out several skiers as he slides down the ski track of a T bar, knocking them over like bowling pins).
Obviously Ski Cooper wants to finance their growth conservatively, but I’d want to see if there’s a possibility they’d consider relocating the Little Horse to be the replacement for Buckeye on the frontside, and perhaps source a gently used fixed triple for the Little Horse alignment.
LikeLike
My comment submitted to Lake County:
Based on the currently available master development plan draft, I feel Ski Cooper is not being ambitious enough. Based on the growth of visitation and revenues, it would seem that (particularly with potential added terrain) fixed-grip lifts and double chairs may not be able to meet future demand. The two planned terrain expansions also don’t seem to maximize the potential of the terrain. The sawmill lift doesn’t seem to go high enough on the mountain to add lift-served above-treeline bowl skiing (something Cooper does not currently have even though its closest neighbors are famous for it). The Hoyt lift also seems like it starts too high up the mountain where it is leaving a few hundred vertical feet on the table. Additionally, the new quad lift on the front side feels like it should go to the actual summit of the hill, and not stop short like the current 10th Mountain double lift does. While I think the added lifts and terrain are entirely worthwhile, I would hate for Cooper (or conversely, Lake County) to install (and pay for) any new lift that can’t meet demands 5 or 10 years down the line. While I am under no delusion that lifts aren’t incredibly expensive (particularly detachable technologies and larger seat capacities), it would seem to make more sense in the long run to install a lift that will meet future demands and extend that investment’s usable lifespan. Overall, I think Cooper needs to add more terrain and more lifts, but the current draft doesn’t maximize the amazing potential Cooper has to be a world-class ski area.
LikeLike
If I was Cooper and I had the money, I would build the new 10th mountain lift as a HSQ rather than a FGQ and I would put the Sawmill lift as a HSQ going close to the top of Chicago Ridge (near the top of Buckeye Peak) to access that coveted bowl skiing and providing access to way more terrain than the Sawmill double would.
LikeLike
There’s absolutely no room for 4 lifts to unload at the top of the hill. The quad is at least higher then the present day double. The Hoyt chair starts at the current area boundary and if it started lower the USFS would have to approve for an adjustment, which would probably add extra years to study wetlands, animal habitats, current usage. I do agree Sawmill should go higher or a second lift should be added higher up in that area.
LikeLike
Per Cooper’s own specs in the lift fleet chart, a new 10th Mountain quad running at design line speed would have a ride time of 13 minutes. Add in a couple slows/stops for the skier mix, and it’d easily be 15 minutes to get 1,130ft vert. Detachables have much higher costs, I get it, but that’s a rough ride time.
To me, they’d be better off putting an FGT one run south of the current frontside platter (Powerline/Slades area – there’s already a cleared liftline visible) so that skiers and riders have a second chairlift out of base that accesses the four blues easily – skipping lapping the Vendome ridge – or going direct to Piney Basin on the blue Easy Way access run. This would better distribute frontside skiers, and as a 3- or 4CLF would have a ride of about 8.2 mins (so 9 or a bit more with slows/stops).
LikeLike
A HSQ doesn’t add any more capacity than a fixed grip. It does draw different (and more) people though. I think the choice of keeping it fixed grip is in line with keeping Cooper a low-frills experience that continues to serve the community of Leadville and folks around Colorado looking for something that doesn’t involve parking reservations and $30 chicken tendies.
Should Sawmill go higher? There’s a question of wind and snow coverage. Something like a Cirque Platter could potentially serve them better if the lower lift would be on wind-hold constantly (and take longer in the season to open). Keystone feels instructive here … most of their lifts end at or below treeline, and Bergman Bowl requires a lot of snowfencing. As a smaller resort with fewer mountain ops folks, Cooper might not want to feel pressured into that situation.
Should Hoyt go lower? The deeper you push into the “riparian zone” the higher the environmental impact. This is why Beavers at A-Basin isn’t longer and deeper. Also, the current proposed alignment ends, probably not coincidentally, at the SUP boundary. It’s hard to move that, especially when they have so much undeveloped terrain already within the SUP. Also, this pod is west/Southwest … not the best exposure anyways. Why go hard here? Cooper doesn’t get generous servings in most storm cycles.
Finally, I don’t think Cooper wants to be a “world-class ski area” … it’s hard to try to become Vail when Vail is literally right down the road, is more convenient to airports, has 3X the vert, and gets more snow. Cooper’s instead trying to play to their market niche … skiers who want a relaxed, low-key experience at a resort where you can still park for free next to the lift, and let your kids roam freely on relatively gentle terrain.
I personally love this master plan. It’s putting expanded terrain ahead of expanded skier density. Increasingly rare these days.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Cool to see lot of the smaller ski resorts are getting master plans. It’s good to see that the little gems are growing
LikeLiked by 2 people
” Last winter, a midweek ticket cost $45, regardless of the time or method of purchase. “
Well, not exactly. I went there on a Tuesday, March 11 and lift tickets were $105 because it was spring break. I complained a bit as I was getting lunch and I got comped a bowl of soup.
Great place, good to see them with some sensible growth plans.
LikeLike
Not sure how Cooper would be responsible for your poor planning. They have the prices for their tickets on their website set months in advance….
LikeLike
I did not say they were, I was simply pointing out an incorrect statement in the article.
LikeLike
Spring break likely falls under the “peak days” category mentioned in the article.
LikeLike
Excited for this plan! I get a season pass every 3 years for Cooper (I change up areas every year..smaller more local hills). Think both chairs should at least be triples. Would like to see Little horse updated to a chair and maybe use it to replace the Buckeye poma…although I never see any amount of crowds using that lift. I agree with “Grog” above about riding T-Bars. I’ve avoided that new lift in fear I’d get to the bottom and never make it back up. Last T-bar I rode was Hidden Valley, CO in the 80’s! I was curious as to why they stopped the Chicago Ridge snowcat. I’m guessing planning lift service was why?
LikeLike
The Chicago Ridge cat was a money pit. The entire operation cost more to run than it brought in; I was told it operated at a loss every year.
LikeLike
It is great to see these plans even if they are years out. Instead of the expense and huge maintenance of detachable lifts, I’d like to see loading carpets on the new lifts and perhaps the existing lifts to increase the speed of the lifts (and the capacity). Bridger Bowl (also a non-profit) did this with two new fixed grip triples a few years ago and they are easy to load with fewer stops.
LikeLike
Always love to see little mountains grow!
I think Cooper should either put everything else on hold and beg/borrow/steal to get a detachable to replace or run next to 10th mtn…
Or try to get either or both of their potential expansions off the ground. Either route would pull in even more locals and front rangers. I think either path would fund the other fairly quickly with current CO skier traffic. For either expansion, fixed grip makes the most sense to me.
I think the worst path is a fixed grip main lift. It would put the expansions further back, and I don’t think it would drive enough traffic to be worthwhile.
LikeLike
The new terrain sounds exciting. Cooper was a partner resort on the Loveland pass until this past season so I had an opportunity to visit. I enjoyed the Little Horse expansion quite a bit. The part of the master plan I would suggest to modify is to move the current Little Horse T Bar to replace Buckeye platter since they are wanting to upgrade to a T bar anyway and install a triple chair in the current Little Horse line. That would make for better egress to the main mountain when finished lapping the proposed Sawmill chair. Triples instead of doubles might also be better for Sawmill and Hoyt’s. The area will likely become much more popular as it grows to become a larger mid-size area and the nearby mega-resorts on the EPIC and IKON passes become progressively more crowded. It is good to see the area expand though. It seems like a nice mountain that will only get better.
LikeLike
Cooper is kinda far off the beating path vs the other areas along I-70 that makes me think it won’t become super popular. What’s the lodging situation like there?
LikeLike
Its just the ski area, so no available lodging near the mountain’s base. There is the town of Leadville, which is only around a 15 minute drive south. Leadville has ample lodging, but its not on par with Vail, Copper or Beaver Creek, and pretty sketchy in some parts of the town. There’s also Midturn up north, but there’s really not much (if any) lodging is available during the winter, as it sits in-between Vail and B.C.
LikeLike
Yeah, you kinda have to *want* to come up here.
Cooper has never been big on attracting destination skiers anyway. People find out about it eventually through word-of-mouth. Any given weekend during peak season I see a lot of Texas plates there. Mid-week I usually know everyone on the hill, they’re my friends and neighbours (although that definitely changed this past winter with the $45 Monday-Thursday tickets). This is in line with the original idea of it being a community hill when the Army gave it to the county.
There’s a bunch of lodging in town with three hotels, a couple of old-fashioned motels (the sketchy one became monthly rentals and is now out of the picture), and a bunch of short-term rentals (of which I have thoughts but this isn’t the place for them).
LikeLike
Cooper is still a partner with Loveland and has been for years. They are currently connected through the Powder Alliance so you get three free days as you have in the past.
LikeLike
I am a huge Ski Cooper fan. It is a great place for beginners and low intermediates. The Tennessee Creek expansion helped make it more appealing for advanced skiers. For fun I had been creating a master plan if they had an unlimited budget and primarily based on their old cat skiing map which is linked below.
https://caltopo.com/m/JDUF
My thoughts on the phases:
Phase 1: New main lift is absolutely needed but I don’t know if I agree with a fixed grip quad. Ideally a HSQ but they may be too expensive for them. Maybe a faster triple with a loading carpet to reduce misloads and could run faster. Space at the peak is tight already. An expanded lodge would be a good idea but could probably wait until there is increased demand.
Phase 2: I really like Sawmill lift as it will fill in the intermediate and advanced gap well. A double is probably fine but triple to future proof could be better. My one concern is intermediates may be turned away as the Little Horse T-Bar is the only way out. On the Sawmill line, a midstation where they currently have the end point and then end near the peak could be an interesting option if wind above the treeline isn’t an issue. A t-bar could be a good addition north of the Sawmill lift at about 500ish vertical feet.I really think they need to go to the peak of they really want to expand their skier market. Adding more skiers would help finance this plan.
Phase 3: Hoyt is a good idea but my concern is how crowded the peak will be and the less than ideal aspect. I avoided this aspect in my plan but I see the intermediate terrain appeal. If they execute this part of the plan a double is probably needed. I am not sure if the Poma needs to be replaced, it is always empty when I go.
Final Thoughts: I would shift the plan slightly, do a triple with loading carpet on front side, then Sawmill as planned, expanded lodge, t-bar up to the peak, and then Hoyt. Like another comment, I think Ski Cooper needs to get more skiers faster to finance this plan or they may never achieve even half of it.
LikeLike
I hope they will be patient and wait for a refurbished HSQ (like Powderhorn did) for the Tenth Mtn. replacement.
I remember hearing on the Storm podcast a while back that was the plan.
Love the new terrain being added, Ski Cooper gets good natural snow and they rotate the grooming, I’ve never skied boilerplate, even in low tide conditions.
LikeLike
A refurbished high-speed quad *was* in the plan.
We pitched the idea of buying our old Timberline Express to them. By the time they ran the numbers of getting it refurbished so that Doppelmayr would continue to support it, they saw little value in reinstalling a 30-year-old lift no matter how well we had taken care of it (which is the same reason we did not reinstall it ourselves). They pivoted to a brand-new fixed-grip instead as it would cost the same or even be slightly cheaper.
LikeLike
To address the comments about ‘why didn’t they put the top of Sawmill higher?’- there’s a natural bench right at timberline there that lends itself to a good unload area. Anything higher up would require a lot of dirtwork. Also, snow coverage is finicky once you get much higher up the face.Some years it’s great, others it’s bare.
LikeLike