LIVE Mountain Accord Online Debate

MTNmeister will be hosting a free live Google Hangout debate Wednesday March 11th, about the Mountain Accord plan. Come check it out!

http://mtnmeister.com/meister/mountain-accord/

PANELISTS
Laynee Jones, Mountain Accord
Carl Fisher, Save Our Canyons
Paul Marshall, SkiUtah
Peter Metcalf, Black Diamond Equipment and Outdoor Industry Association

In the first 30 minutes, the representatives will discuss the project’s impact on four main systems: environment, recreation, transportation, and economy. In the second half, we will run an audience Q&A. Questions can be submitted before or during the live discussion on the discussion forum below or by using #MountainAccord on social media.

Thanks for the post. I'd love to hear what Metcalf thinks of this.

If you are interested in climbing access in Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood Canyons the Mountain Accord could have a serious impact.

The SLCA has laid out a comment letter worth a read:
saltlakeclimbers.org/resour…
The SLCA points out a train up Little Cottonwood would almost certainly impact bouldering at the mouth of the canyon.

Public Comments are being taken until March 16. You can submit via the website:
mountainaccord.com/get-invo…
via email at comment@mountainaccord.com
or by mail: 375 West, 200 South, Ste. 275 SLC, UT 84101

The Wasatch Backcountry Alliance (WBA) has represented the outdoor community on all four of the system groups:

Transportation,
Economy,
Environment and
Recreation.

I have spent the last 8 months representing the WBA on transportation issues. Here is a link to our FAQ's:

WBA FAQ's

At a cost of over a billion dollars, the train will impact a lot more than just bouldering.....

Comment period has been extended.

Join the live discussion on Wednesday, March 11th at 5pm MST.

Yes, I agree the Mountain Accord Blueprint Plan could heavily impact roped climbing access and all outdoor recreation in the Cottonwood Canyons.

The FAQ website is very helpful; I've been looking at the blueprint documents and have remained confused for weeks as to exactly what is being proposed.

Do you have a source for the comment period extension? I see no mention of a date change on the mountainaccord.com website.

The MA sent an email out today but did not specify a date. A date will be set in the next few days. That being said, it is not a bad idea to get your comments in sooner than later. Please be specific in your comments, If you do not like something, give details and/ or data to support your statement.

For example if you tell them you do not like the train. Give reasons such as it will remove bouldering areas, cause environmental impacts, be impossible to get 4000+ skiers up the canyon at 8 am on a powder day and cost a billion dollars that can be better used to offest air quality impacts in the Salt Lake Valley where a much large percentage of the population will be able to utilize public transit (e.g only 4 to 6 percent of the population actually skis).

It is also very important to let the MA know that any public tranist must accommodate dispersed users.

31 of 33 members voted to move the bus option forward at the last transportation meeting, this option was not included in the blueprint for LCC. This indicates that the Executive Committe did not always consider the consensus of the system groups.

I am happy to talk tranist with anyone.

Todd

Just sitting back replaying the debate from earlier this afternoon. Thanks for putting this on, although it wasn't much of a debate. Maybe next time you can invite oldfattradguuy to provoke a more spirited discussion.

A few of us representing the SLCA joined a Mountain Accord transportation engineer for a field trip this afternoon to take a look at potential impacts to the bouldering in lower LCC. We walked round trip from the Park and Ride to the Gate Buttress and back, and the result was generally positive that impacts to boulders could be avoided. The next step is to provide detailed mapping documenting these resources and access routes, including additional bouldering areas further up canyon that we did not visit. This was a timely opportunity to address the concerns of the climbing community and raise awareness of lower canyon issues such as the lack of management at the Gate Buttress, road safety, and the proliferation of graffiti and litter.

Due to Ken H. misrepresenting our draft comments somewhat, I want to reference the pertinent section to help clarify our stance. As always, please contact us with questions or comments regarding Mountain Accord or other topics specific to the local climbing community.

The SLCA is very concerned about potential transportation solutions that may negatively impact existing climbing resources and in particular bouldering areas located in lower Little Cottonwood Canyon. Lower Little Cottonwood Canyon hosts some of the most heralded bouldering in all of America, and these boulders are accessed by SLCA members throughout the year—this high pressure winter has resulted in bouldering occurring steadily through the winter months. The SLCA requests the transportation subgroup and Utah Transit Authority reach out to the SLCA to discuss potential alignments so that the SLCA can best inform alignment decisions to eliminate or at the very least minimize impacts to rock climbing and in particular bouldering in Little Cottonwood Canyon. At this very preliminary phase, the SLCA does not believe a “rail trail” alignment would be appropriate, because, based on our understanding, this alignment would cause the greatest impact to climbing as well as the environment by not taking advantage of the existing disturbance of the road that would be better utilized by a “side running rail” alignment.

Johnathan, my apologies to the SLCA for my misrepresentation, thanks for the clarification that the SLCA thinks a train constructed in the canyon "may negatively impact existing climbing resources". From your comment I guess the SLCA's position is with proper alignment a train running up Little Cottonwood is ok and will not have impacts.

I guess I disagree with the SLCA and think a train in the canyon will certainly impact (visual, audible, or physical) my use of the canyon and existing climbing, hiking, and mountain biking resources. I am 100% against a billion dollar train being constructed on our public lands for the peak time use of private companies operating on public lands.

I will be sure to contact the SLCA and the Access Fund with my position as a long time supporter.

I'd love to hear if there are organizations in complete opposition to the construction of a train in Little Cottonwood Canyon? I'm interested in being involved and supporting the organizations which share my position.

Let's get this straight. I am not at liberty to define the SLCA's position, and it's not as simple as you make out.

Of course there would be impacts from a rail alignment, bus rapid transit, or even a designated extra lane for expanded bus service. All of these options pose threats to bouldering and the ease of access to climbing resources that we now enjoy.

Alternately, you take your life in your hands recreating in the highway corridor, and the year-round traffic continues to increase. If you haven't noticed, we have significant safety and management issues in the lower canyon that we are working hard to address with a number of partners, both public and private. Basically, we are trying to clean up your back yard that continues to get trashed with graffiti, litter, fires, transients, past and current industrial operations, and the encroachment of suburban sprawl. If this free for all is what you love, then maybe you haven't been around long enough to notice or learn about the accumulated impacts?

Do you really think it's in the best interest of the climbing community to thumb our noses at these partnerships and rail against Mountain Accord? That's not at all appropriate at this stage of a public process with so much at stake, including the potential to make positive changes and mitigate impacts. In my opinion, the SLCA needs to stay at the table to represent the interests of the climbing community just as we have during the studies and planning processes leading up to Mountain Accord. Avoiding getting bogged down in conflict and working with land managers and stakeholders in Little Cottonwood has allowed the SLCA to focus on meaningful outcomes to the benefit of the climbing community.

Even if the SLCA doesn't align with your position on Mountain Accord, I hope you can respect and support the organization's efforts. Better yet, come out to one of our upcoming service projects. Help us address the impacts of our growing user group and clean up the some of the mess in lower LCC.

Todd, Jonathan,

Thanks for your work on this! LCC certainly holds some of the best climbing Utah and is a go-to favorite of mine, prompting a commute all the way down from Ogden. While I like the idea of a mass transit to make transportation easier, the world-class climbing in LCC should not be sacrificed. I hope a solution can be reached which benefits all parties involved.

jonathan knight wrote: Due to Ken H. misrepresenting our draft comments somewhat, I want to reference the pertinent section to help clarify our stance.

That is an interesting response to someone who appeared to be advocating SLCA's position on the mountain accord proposal. I am wondering why an SLCA leader would have such a negative response to a potential SLCA supporter? It does not sound very professional to me.

Well, I found the dialogue here between jonathan knight and Ken H. to be particularly helpful in clarifying that SLCA is potentially advocating a train in LCC. I think that I had been more hopeful that SLCA was working against rail development in LCC. Thank you Ken H. for clarifying.

As a long time supporter (15 years) of the access fund, I will be sure to let them know that the salt lake city chapter is not doing an adequate job of protecting our local resources.

jonathan knight wrote:Basically, we are trying to clean up your back yard that continues to get trashed with graffiti, litter, fires, transients, past and current industrial operations, and the encroachment of suburban sprawl. If this free for all is what you love, then maybe you haven't been around long enough to notice or learn about the accumulated impacts? Do you really think it's in the best interest of the climbing community to thumb our noses at these partnerships and rail against Mountain Accord?

Its "our" backyard, yeah? And, some folks on this thread's backyard is a heck of a lot closer to LCC than the rest of us (ha ha).

Its a tough issue. I'd guess most of us are a bit cautious when it comes to Mountain Accord. RP poked a bit towards that direction at the meeting at REI.

I know a few folks that are nervous about some recent things...the gritmill, parking in LCC, etc. Its super hard to make everyone happy (although how 'bout that Utah legislature yesterday...wow!).

"Game changing improvements".

Kinda hoped to see the SLCA listed here:

mountainaccord.com/about/pa…

Andrew has some fun info here:

straightchuter.com/mountain…

I missed this, but...

saltlakeclimbers.org/mounta…

SLCA public letter to Mountain Accord (with others for reference too, Maynard...ha ha).

mountainaccord.com/wp-conte…

Still time to get involved, methinks.

Healthy dialog on this is a good thing. Keep 'er positive. You guys would all benefit from a single malt session. I'll host.

Thanks Brian!

Note my most recent set of comments will be much more extensive and include a 4 page spreadsheet comparing trains vs, buses. Buses win!

Also, my estimates on the number of truckloads of waste rock to be moved down canyon are reduced to "only" 38,000 to 40,000 loads due to clarifications on the size of the tunnels.

I am happy to meet over malt beverages to discuss transportation, I have two notebooks full of notes taken at Transportation subgroup meetings including notes on how folks/agencies voted.

Todd

First, I do not always find my self in alignment with the SLCA. (As a year round canyon climber trading year round roadside parking for the grit mill parking which will be closed in the winter .....well not a good deal)

However, I respect their efforts in representing our little group against the corporate interest backed by Billions.
The folks here voicing opposition to the SLCA are important voices. I would suspect though that they do not work in corporations. The wording of the SLCA's position is what one would hope for at this stage. Reaching out, offering alternatives,etc. I do not see where they have committed to a specific course of action, just being part of the process and trying to steer the Accord away from the most destructive alternatives.

There will be and needs to be a transportation solution in LCC. It looks like a powder day at Alta and Snowbird many summer days in regards parking.
Again our little interest group is up against both government and corporate interest that have little concern for our needs and billions in backing.

We need to stay in this and united. So send the SLCA an email about your concerns, drop an f bomb as needed,keep this forum going, but let's keep talking. We have common interest.

oldfattradguuy wrote:Thanks Brian! Note my most recent set of comments will be much more extensive and include a 4 page spreadsheet comparing trains vs, buses. Buses win! Also, my estimates on the number of truckloads of waste rock to be moved down canyon are reduced to "only" 38,000 to 40,000 loads due to clarifications on the size of the tunnels. I am happy to meet over malt beverages to discuss transportation, I have two notebooks full of notes taken at Transportation subgroup meetings including notes on how folks/agencies voted. Todd

Todd, really appreciate your input on this process. And the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance.

"Dispersed users have been losing ground for 40-plus years. This trend should not continue.
Dispersed use has been growing steadily. Dispersed users are not asking for a reduction in ski
area size. We are seeking to maintain the current balance."

Yeah. That's me. I'm a dispersed user. Backcountry skier and climber.

I worry about ski area expansion (saw Otto up Grizzly Gulch last weekend...out for a hike...yikes!). And, I worry that this whole process caters to the ski area thing. They seemed maxed out on especially popular weekends. No parking. Lift lines.

Its kinda crazy that the deterrent to going into LCC when its at max ski area capacity is a traffic jam. That's a tough way to manage the herd.

I kinda hated when Millcreek went to a fee booth at the bottom of the canyon. And, was at least hopeful that there would be less crime. Looking at the po po's stat's for there versus none fee terrain, I'm not sure it made any difference. I mention that because I wonder if the trash, the graffiti, the crime, etc, would be reduced by a fee booth for LCC. Would it reduce traffic? Probably a bit.

I love to ski and climb after work. Part of what makes living and working here pretty unique.

I miss the bus from the bottom BCC lot that ran to LCC.

Yeah, I'm a dispersed user. I think most all climbers would be. Thanks!

I'm not trying to speak for Jonathan but I've discussed this with him off line so here goes my take.

SLCA is an advocate for climber interests and should be focusing their efforts on climbing-related impacts and nothing else. SLCA really has no standing to address unrelated issues and should not dilute their effort with them. That is what the Mtn Accord members expect from SLCA. If you have other concerns, which you surely do, you can make them known as a private citizen, which I will as well, or through another advocacy group.

What SLCA is trying to do at present is participate as a stakeholder to identify climber interests and potential impacts so as to position themselves for a possible scenario where a train or bus rapid transit lane goes into the canyon. I think it reasonably likely that one happens within the next 10-20 years. Now is the time to be heard because this thing is moving faster than you may want to think.

What the climbing community can to do help SLCA is to identify these issues now, so they get due consideration. For example, if there is a mass transit solution, would climbers want some accommodation with a stop at the park-n-ride and or the Gate Buttress? Should it be year round or seasonal? What about system design elements? Will there be controlled crossing points or will it be a wide open free-for-all? How is road-side parking affected? What about winter access to ice climbing? Jonathan is working the bouldering issue because the preferred alignment for a train would appear to be on the north side of the canyon, but there are many climbing-related concerns that should be brought to the table. They can be cast as a comparison between alternatives. If you think one solution has less impact, you should say so and why.

Robert

Brian, Todd,

I would love to meet you both over malt beverages (or tequilias)!! This weekend I will be working with Ken H. on a comprehensive letter, and it would be great to get your feedback! We will probably post it here on MP as well... :)

Actually, I think when it comes to building the train and tunnels, it won't be economically feasible. (Along these lines...why should Utahans have to pay for ski resorts to improve their business?) Even if trains and tunnels were free, I have issue on many levels. What about the detraction a train would have from all of our LCC outdoor recreational use -- climbing, ice-climbing, bc skiing, hiking, mountain biking? What is the impact on our environment, in particular the tunnel/structures needed to avalanche-proof a train? Traffic here is nothing compared with ski resort traffic in Colorado -- and what use would a train have in the summer time? Where is the expected usage reports for trains (will anyone actually use them??)? The nice thing about more buses is that they can mirror usage needs. We are stuck with a train -- its cost and environmental/recreational impact -- regardless of how much it is used.

My thought is that given that the current plan for a train will be too expensive, what will end up happening is either under ground or over ground ski link. Which is also a bad thing in terms of environmental impact, and potential for recreational impact, especially back country skiing.

Todd, thanks for your insight. I can't believe that 31/33 voted for buses and it still got pulled from the blueprint!!! That is very disheartening! In spite of the fact that mountain accord, SOC, SLCA, etc is pushing for public comment, it sounds a bit futile. Also appreciate the link to Wasatch Back Country Alliance. Seems like the best organization yet in terms of alignment with my viewpoint.

It would be great to meet with you both. We will need Saturday to get our letter/research together. Would Sunday evening work?

Thanks for the support, and for making this a real online debate, ha!

The understanding of the SLCA's role as a stakeholder is especially helpful. The SLCA welcomes more feedback to help refine positions, and it's encouraging to see that the community is getting up to speed. On the other hand, attempts to co-opt the SLCA and the climbing community by the Granite community at the mouth of the canyon, or others will not stand. The SLCA is interested in reasoned discourse, not necessarily the loudest voices or an angry mob.

Anja, I don't think the threats will get you anywhere with the Access Fund, but hell, give it a shot. Ty Tyler (AF Stewardship Director) was here last week providing direct support to the trails implementation aspect of the Grit Mill/Climbing Access project, and he has been briefed on the current status of Mountain Accord.

Brian, I think a get together is a great idea. This sort of thing tends to be more friendly and civilized face to face. I'm around this weekend, and next week. Also, there is a Mountain Accord Transportation/Economy meeting next Monday the 16th from 2-4 at the main SLC library.

I thought about this a bit more and thought I could offer some additional comment.

My first reaction to this was "hell no" I don't want a train. But, that's not really how we a climber group have to approach this, and here's why. First and foremost, SLCA does not get a vote, so there is no point really in them standing up and saying no we don't want it, though they may choose to do so as an opening statement.

One of my work hats is as a NEPA practitioner, which is what this process is, other than pure political and public will. There has to be a federal agency lead, or leads, so we're working with FTA and probably USFS. The lead agency has to by law determine who appropriate stakeholder groups are. They have made SLCA the stakeholder group for climbers. There is no other so far as I know and there won't be. SLCA's comments will have much greater weight as a stakeholder than anything a private citizen will say, especially if they're comprehensive and well reasoned.

So, here are the basic elements the NEPA process will go through.

First, they have to establish a purpose and need statement. In my opinion their initial attempt has already screwed that part up, as it seems to show bias towards pre-determined end goals. Review what they say they want to do and why, and keep in mind that it should be based on some demonstrable need. A need is different than a ski resort wanting to increase its user numbers, e.g. The heart of their need statement is transportation based and it is intended to address safety issues, weather issues, and presumably crowd management issues. All of their analysis has to support this.

Secondly they have to come up with a preferred proposed alternative. All the land swap and recreation stuff is secondary to transportation here. At present the preferred alternative appears to be a train. You can try to demonstrate that they did not adequately consider other viable alternatives, but that sort of analysis hinges on the purpose and need they initially establish. It is critical to everything that follows. So, if you comment that you don't want a train you need to tie it into not meeting the expressed need statement, or show that the need is not legitimate in the first place.

Next they describe and analyze the affected environment. What SLCA has done as a stakeholder is get climbing issues in the analysis as part of the affected environment. SLCA's job is to accurately capture that part of the environment so that it becomes part of the public record and becomes part of the analysis.

They then take the proposed alternative and any other alternatives considered and determine what impacts are associated with each proposed action against each part of the affected environment. They assess whether or not the impact is significant and whether or not there are mitigation measures that could or should be taken to address those impacts. So, for example, if we identify noise as a significant impact to climbing, they will have to consider what sort of noise management techniques to employ in the system design and alignment. The same for access issues. There could be any number of potentially adverse affects and mitigation measures. That is really what the focus of SLCA has to be.

The next step in the process is they make some minor modifications to the proposed action, conclude that the preferred alternative is acceptable, and publish a record of decision to that affect. The project is approved and awaits funding.

See, there was no voting anywhere in there and the preferred alternative was selected. That's how this works.

SLCA is limited in its participation in the political arena because of its role as a stakeholder. It becomes a conflict of interest and they lose credibility in the analysis stage.

anja wrote:Would Sunday evening work?

It might. Let me run trap on that. Weather this weekend looks fantastic for rock climbing...

I'd certainly host JK, Todd, RP, you guys, Ben and Maura live close...wouldn't hurt to round table discuss some of these concerns face-to-face rather than hash out online.

I'll let you know.

Robert, thanks for that excellent summary. If nothing good comes of this process, at least more citizens will have a better understanding of public policy. All too often, the public is a day late and a dollar short.