Mountain Project Logo

LIVE Mountain Accord Online Debate

Anja · · SANDY · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 15

Brian, thanks for offering to host. I am also hoping to climb sunday -- I was envisioning a post-climbing pow-wow. Hopefully, writing the letter will be therapeutic and put me in a better mood by Sunday night.

Rob, thanks for all your input. Will you be able to join as well?

Brian in SLC · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Oct 2003 · Points: 21,711

It's on...6:30 or 7pm. Sunday night.

Be fun to see you guys!

Jackii Brandt-Mudge · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 10

Think of the beauty of little cottonwood canyon in its current state -narrow winding road that is minimally intrusive to the surrounding nature -now picture what this pristine canyon would be turned into with the addition of a train and\or widening the road -and for what purpose? -so more resort skiers can get up the canyon faster for a few months of the year? - How would any of these transportation solutions improve "other than resort skiing" recreational access - there is less and less "outdoors" that hasn't been ruined by mankind -as Joni Mitchell sang "you don't know what you've got till its gone - pave paradise and put up a parking lot"

ddriver · · SLC · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 2,084

via e-mail:

The formal public comment period for Mountain Accord's proposed Blueprint has been extended through May 1, 2015 in order to provide an opportunity for more public dialogue. This extension allows the Executive Board and project team to conduct ongoing comment reviews and refine the proposed Blueprint based on public input. Feedback is always welcome and accepted for consideration, however, all comments received prior to the May 1 deadline will be included in a final report designed to help the Executive Board make decisions about how to move forward into phase two.

An interim report summarizing all proposed Blueprint comments made through March 16 will be available on the Mountain Accord website in early April. Along with the report, all comments received through that date will be posted and available for review.

Thank you for your participation in Mountain Accord. Please encourage your family, friends and colleagues to join the conversation and weigh in on the future of the Central Wasatch. Comments can be made online, by email to comment@mountainaccord.com, or by mail to 375 West 200 South, Ste. 275, SLC, UT 84101.

Visit mountainaccord.com to stay informed on project updates and upcoming events and to submit comments or questions. You can also call (844) 5-ACCORD for more information.

Follow Mountain Accord on Twitter!

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

Please note that it is important to delve into the details. For example, Solitude wants to expand into Silver Fork. This is unacceptable.

I am happy to talk Mtn. Accord issues with anyone (well almost anyone). There may be some major land management proposals announced in the near future.

jonathan knight · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2006 · Points: 265

...and some context to go with Todd's details.

Here's what Solitude was trying to do prior to the sale to Deer Valley and the Mountain Accord/ Cottonwood Canyons Task Force: Solitude MDP Amendment Proposal

and from the Cottonwood Taskforce Recommendation that you can find posted on the Wasatch Mountain Club site -

Solitude Offers:
1. 240 Acres in upper Big Cottonwood Canyon/Hidden Canyon/Guardsman Road area.
2. To provide specific backcountry recreationist parking facilities and access near the base of Silver Fork

Solitude Desires:
1. Up to 50 acres (TBD) at the base area from USFS.
2. Special interest and government support for Solitude train station and associated developments.
3. Improved ski‐run or ski‐lift connections between Brighton and Solitude.
4. Shift base of Honeycomb Return lift to confluence of Silver Fork and Honeycomb canyons.
5. Ski‐area permit expansion of up to 70 acres to include the lower portion of the west‐facing slope of Silver Fork.
6. Additional water from SLC for snow‐making (amount TBD).
7. Flexibility from SLC/SLCO in terms of where Solitude places its remaining 150 development units depending upon what transit result
occurs; sewer and water units can be moved within the resort’s base‐area to accommodate better development patterns.

Conditions (PARTY):
1. Federal designations protect current dispersed recreation uses and watershed values, and limit the potential for further ski area
expansion in Silver Fork. (SLC, SLCO, SOC, OIND)
2. Uphill access through the new resort boundary at the mouth of Silver Fork Canyon to backcountry areas up Silver Fork would not be
inhibited.
3. Formal permission to use SLC’s watershed parcels would be obtained if those properties are traversed or contained in Solitude’s
expansion.

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

Thanks Jonathan,

Please note that the Cottonwood Canyons Task Force is a deal that was not negotiated with the whole Mtn Accord, there are some good things for dispersed users but the list of "gets" for the resorts is generally far larger than the "gives". One example is the train to Solitude, to their credit, they did not ask for this, it was inserted by other parties. The ski resorts are downplaying just how big of a deal it is for their bottom line to get more base area development.

On that note do we really want to turn Silver Fork into a giant sidecountry circus with a
Lift return to Solitude, I have been enjoying Silver Fork for almost 35 years and would prefer to keep it backcountry.

The CCTF is lopsided in favor of the resorts and not dispersed users. It Is draft at this point and subject to comments and changes, likely many.

Charlie S · · NV · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 2,391

After reading the feature in the latest Utah Adventure Journal, and then going through the proposal, I am disappointed that climbing has taken an apparent back seat during the process.

I think some changes do need to be made as is evidenced by the high traffic in the canyons, but an entire user group has been overlooked. I did submit my comments and voiced my disappointment on not pursuing an increased bus capacity option. Rail sounds great in theory, but I don't think it could be done without damaging some world-class climbing.

And no mention of Gate A...perhaps for the better given it's private property. Of particular revulsion is the exploring of fees. If one thing bothers me most, it's day use fees to access public land. Imagine this: a day use fee to access backcountry terrain to fund the ski resorts' operation and expansion into your former backcountry spots. (You already have this in places like the Mirror Lake Highway, American Fork, Maple Canyon, and it bothers me.)

And then other dispersed users? Odd trailheads? Sometimes us climbers take obscure or difficult ways to get to good rock. (No proposed transit stop for Tanners Gulch or Lisa Falls.)

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

Charlie,

While representing the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance during Transportation Subgroup meetings, I added into the record that there would need to be accommodation for dispersed users that includes approximately 12 stops in LCC and 16 stops in BCC for any mode of mass transit.

The Wasatch Backcountry Alliance, Save our Canyons and Big Cottonwood Homeowners Association were all advocating that dispersed users must be accommodated. I believe other groups were doing the same in the remaining 3 subgroups.

I agree that it would be absurd not to accommodate all user groups in future mass transit systems.

Charlie S · · NV · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 2,391

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't see it in the information on their website which raised a red flag.

I'm still not a fan by any stretch of any fee-based system. I think a good portion of users would prefer a mass transit system if, say, it was consistent like the Zion NP bus (approximately every 15 minutes).

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

It should raise a red flag, we have not gotten it into any official documentation yet. It will all have to get flushed out during the NEPA process.

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

Bump for comments....and to mention there are some good things in the MA blueprint, shuttles in Millcreek is one of them.

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

WBA/WWA comments are online.

We felt that the issues currently facing the Wasatch warrant a 50 page comment letter. We take this very seriously. It would have been difficult in good conscience for an advocacy group to do any less.

Todd

WBA/WWA Comments

Anja · · SANDY · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 15

Thanks Todd! 50 pages doesn't seem unreasonable to me....
I look forward to reading the letter.

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

A quick summary of what the WBA feels could happen in Silver Fork if Solitude gets their way.

Solitude

Blue areas become no effort-all glide return sidecountry.

Anja · · SANDY · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 15

I am mentioning silver fork and grizzly gulch in my letter. Is there any other backcountry terrain that could be lost to ski resort expansion?

Also, do you think it is important to mention positives of the MA? I am trying to keep my letter to 2 pages. But I guess positives wouldn't take up too much space. ;) If it is important to include positive aspects of the MA proposal, do you have any recommendations?

Thanks!

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

Yes it is important to also comment on parts you like, just make sure you are specific, which goes for all comments.

LESS THAN 1 WEEK LEFT, BE PROACTIVE, not reactive....

oldfattradguuy kk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 170

Bump for less than 5 days left to comment.

Do not let the ski resorts, politicians and UTA dictate the future of the Wasatch!

Charlie S · · NV · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 2,391

So, I left my comments way back when. Saw this on KSL today: ksl.com/?sid=35447797&nid=1…

"Supporters recommend considering alternatives that dissuade single-occupancy vehicle access to the canyons. Specific options could include recreation fees, congestion pricing, ski resort parking fees, U.S. Forest Service parking fees, tolling, single-occupancy vehicle restrictions, and elimination of roadside parking in the canyons, Jones said."

This still HEAVILY rubs me the wrong way and doesn't take into consideration the DISMAL public transportation system considering those who come from anywhere north of SLC.

Further, more fees to access public lands? Right now with the USAF, we've been forced to do "more with less" for more than 10 years. I don't see why this one pocket of land should be privy to additional fees to go into another federal system.

Charlie S · · NV · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 2,391

Yet again, from ksl.com/?sid=35789751&nid=1… :

"The accord is intended to influence future local and regional planning, and initiate efforts to enact meaningful protections and preservation for the central Wasatch including: A recommendation to consider alternatives that disincentivize single-occupancy vehicle use in the Cottonwood Canyons."

""We need to have mass transit. We need to have people who are going to use private cars pay (a toll) for them, and probably most importantly, we need to know the inventory of flora in the Wasatch so we can sustain the watershed."
–Pat Shea, Salt Lake City resident"

I'd like to think I'm not the only one who has an issue with this. But despite leaving comments, this appears to continue to stick.

Do we really want LCC to be another American Fork toll station? Way to discourage the slightly longer commute crowd.

LCC is a beautiful canyon (and I believe the intention of the Mountain Accord is to keep it that way), however, mass transit is not available to everyone, especially those who have to travel quite a bit farther.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northern Utah & Idaho
Post a Reply to "LIVE Mountain Accord Online Debate"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.