«Proposed Blueprint Open Ended Survey Comments Feb. 4 - May 1, 2015 Question Comment City Date Please provide any additional feedback on how the ...»
Proposed Blueprint Open Ended Survey Comments Feb. 4 - May 1, 2015
Question Comment City Date
Please provide any additional
feedback on how the proposed
Blueprint could better meet the
purpose of Mountain Accord.
Carving a rail track up Little Cottonwood Canyon in no way represents responsible stewardship of the natural resources. While it is clear that a solution is needed to Albuquerque 03/04/2015 provide better access to LCC, this is not the solution. A highly dedicated bus system would move the parking down into areas better able to handle it. I'm not talking about the existing Salt Lake transit bus, but something similar to what Breckenridge has done for their valley level parking. Secondly, connecting all of the Cottonwood Canyon resorts together should not be a priority. Instead of trying to copy a European concept of connectivity, maintain the uniquely American one that is already in place.
I think the train could be a good idea in the right areas. I don't like connections from little cottonwood to Brighton to Park City. This is environmentally too intrusive Alpine 02/08/2015 unless they were tunnels (even an aerial approach would be better.) Grizzly Gulch is a wonderful place to hike and a train would ruin what makes it beautiful. I also think that trail system enhancment may be too intrusive. These are mountains and we don't want them to feel like parks with bulldozer tracks and retaining walls. With that much human activity, much native wildlife, elk, bears, other predators, will leave and we will feel much like we do in the city. Lets build the trains in certain parts keeping disturbance to a minimum but leave everything else the way it is. If people want to hike, let them hike on the trails we have. Maybe even start a permit system for certain trails.
The canyons and mountains should be protected in their natural state. Development and growth should be stopped. Future generations should be able to enjoy the Alpine, Ut 04/30/2015 mountains in an undeveloped and unexploited way.
A rail system serving Alta/Snowbird from the mouth of the Little Cottonwood canyon worked well during the mining years ---Do it again but modeled after the ALTA 02/09/2015
The Light rail transit (LRT) proposal is preposterous as it would make Little Cottonwood Canyon a transportation corridor which would further degrade the natural American Fork 04/14/2015 resources and beauty of the canyon. Providing more access to the Cottonwood canyons is not the answer to protecting the land and watershed for future generations. I agree with more eco-friendly transportation alternatives but a rail system into the canyon is not the answer. Further, environmentally sustainable transportation doesn't protect the land itself if the transportation itself dramatically increase use to the area. Connecting Park City and Salt Lake valley via Little Cottonwood canyon in any form is a mistake. By installing a rail-line we are essentially making this wildland a glorified park. The Wasatch Front rail system (TRAX, Frontrunner and the Sugar House Trolley) has improved the transportation system in the Salt Lake Valley. However, I believe that rail based systems in the Cottonwood Canyons (or Mill Creek) would have unacceptable impacts to the environment and the wilderness character of these canyons. The construction of rail lines in the canyons would more than double the infrastructure footprint and likely impact sensitive riparian zones. Extensive cut and fill excavations would likely be required for rail construction resulting in widespread scaring of the landscape. An elevated rail system would have unacceptable visual impacts. Rail lines also restrict access: forming “hard” barriers for hikers, skiers and snow shoe travel. A rail system in the Cottonwood Canyons is “overkill,” and that current and future transportation demand in the canyons can be met with a properly designed shuttle system.
More honesty (currently called transparency) would help the public digest the pros and cons of Mountain Accord. The public is told a 2 mile tunnel disturbing and American Fork, UT 02/22/2015 excavating 156,44 cubic yards of Mt. Superior protects the watershed, but a 3,000 square foot cabin's footings in Alta disturbing 97 cubic yards of material damages the watershed. The public is told a boring tunnels is good and tunnels are used to store water and protect the watershed. How can one store water in a 2 mile tunnel and have a train going back and forth in it at the same time? It appears UDOT uses 600 tons of salt in Little Cottonwood Canyon to support commercial skiing, hotels, and tourism which is ok for the watershed, but a cabin with no salt loading is out. What will 10,000 people per day do in Alta when they get there?
Snowbird barely has enough attractions to keep 10,000 tourists happy for 1 day a year at Oktoberfest. The public is told massive public development costing billions protects the watershed, but a small private cabins in Alta destroys the watershed. $20 million taxpayer dollars promoting massive public development and $2 Million for lawsuits to stop microscopic private cabins. The public statements are not credible and in fact laughable. While officials spout the watershed story, eyes roll in the audience, textings of haha messages are occurring as the official speaks. 20% of the canyons are private property. Massive public development on 80% protects the watershed but minimal private development damages the watershed. This is not an honest conversation. Why not say the truth? We can have massive public development and watershed protection simultaneously. We can have private development and watershed protection simultaneously, we just don't' want private parties to develop. It's not a watershed issue. There is no legal, science, or public policy to support private development, the folks at the table just don't want. Let's have the public PR story match the backroom actions. That would be helpful to Mountain Accord. Mountain Accord is a great process. More honesty would make it mega great.
I applaud the concept of the Mountain Accord. I would like to see priorities established and clearly stated that put conservation, protection, and stewardship as top Bluffdale, UT 03/31/2015 priorities. In the event of multiple parties not reaching agreement, the default choice must be the one that offers the highest level of environmental protection, watershed protection, preservation, and conservation of resources. I belive it is not feasible now, and will be less feasible in the future, to develop more and more with the intention of enhancing vistor's experiences in Utah and attracting ever-increasing numbers to the Wasatch. Stability is more important and sustainable than continued growth. The REAL stakeholders here are the citizens who rely on the Wasatch for water, solitude, wild terrain and the benefits they bring. The economy must be the lowest priority in the Blueprint. Much of what makes Utah a ski destination can not be improved by more roads, hotels, condos, restaraunts, etc. The natural terrain, unmatched snowfall, and unparalleled scenery are the reasons people come to Utah. Why this is not apparent to more people baffles me. The Wasatch is a small mountain range. Resorts in the Wasatch must not be allowed to compare themselves to, or aspire to be in the same league as resorts in other states or countries. The grand resorts in major ranges such as the Alps, Sierra Nevada, and Rocky Mountains have an advantage the Wasatch can never match their sheer breadth and expanse. HOWEVER, the Wasatch have unmatched assets mentioned in the previous paragraph, that can not be improved upon.
Please see the comments of Winter Wildlands Alliance and Wasatch Backcountry Alliance. As someone who helped compile that input, I am fully vested in the BOISE, ID 05/02/2015 position taken by that letter - just as the thousands of other individual backcountry skiers, snowboarders and snowshoers who enjoy the Wasatch are. We trust in these groups to listen to us, and provide a collective voice. As one of the few who actually gets to pursue my vocation and avocation simultaneously, I take this quite seriously. Hopefully all members of the Mountain Accord Executive Committee will read and consider those comments in full, and work with us to find solutions as this effort moves forward. Thank you for all of your efforts thus far.
The blueprint seems to lean toward development and transportation. I would like protection of the back country to be given more consideration. Thx, mm Boise, Id 03/06/2015 I don't think the ski resorts need to be expanded. There is tons of terrain that can be accessed by the current ski area boundaries. I feel like the blue print focuses on Bountiful 05/01/2015 four months of the year December January February and March. And if these changes happen it greatly affects the areas for the other eight months of the year.
Don't expand the the ski resorts and don't expand the transportation system. People come to Utah to ski what we currently have.
In terms of dollars, the proposed blueprint is heavily skewed toward the ski resorts. The transportation option amounts to a large taxpayer subsidy to the ski resorts. Bountiful 04/29/2015 Preservation of existing natural areas in the Wasatch could be had for practically nothing.
more details really needed to begin to have opinion. like concept, and we definitely need to address what is going to be a much larger problem in the future. Bountiful 02/05/2015 My primary concern with regards to those canyons are drinking water and preserving natural beauty. I would like as much wilderness as possible. The other Bountiful 02/13/2015 concerns are secondary.
The train and tunnel idea is good and will provide a good long term solution for transportation, while also achieving protection of iconic areas of the Wasatch Bountiful 02/18/2015 The Wasatch Mountains are essentially a metropolitan area, as compared to the Uinta Mountains which are primarily a wilderness area. Making this distinction clear Bountiful 04/30/2015 would help frame the discussion more clearly.
As a retire tunnel engineer, I am especially interested in the fixed-rail connections to Brighton, Alta and Park City. Is upgrading for rail service of the existing Park City Bountiful and Mt.Haven 02/06/2015 to Alta drainage tunnel part of the thinking ? Are 360 degree tunnels in the canyons to overcome the steepest parts of possible lines (like those in Switzerland built in the 1850's) part of the thinking ? If yes to either question : where do I find out more, where can I be of help with free advise ?
It seems to me that our beautiful mountains should be kept in a pristine and sustainable condition to be maintained as they are for many future generations. The Bountiful, UT 04/28/2015 Mountain Accord seems to be focused on a "for profit" agenda. This is not what I have envisioned for our beautiful mountains.
More advanced travel systems, super fast modern trains along existing corridors Logan to St George. Less development in our canyons and better protection of Bountiful, UT 05/02/2015 USFS, BLM and state trust lands in our state. No state take over of federal lands... Utah ownership of federal lands is Not viable.
So far, you have done a really good job of collaboration by all stakeholders. Bountiful, UT 84010 03/31/2015 I feel that any discussion about the future of the canyons is a benefit. Planning will help avoid haphazard developments and provide a guideline as pressure on the Bountiful, Utah 03/14/2015 canyon resources continues to increase. The mountain accord should not be set in stone, but should instead act as a guideline with flexibility as public pressure which will ultimately result on key decisions is gauged. Just like the Legacy parkway, which after fits and starts was finally built in a much improved form than originally conceived, the Mountain Accord should be sensitive to future input and allow for some modification.
Just avoid trains. Please, no trains. Breckenridge 05/01/2015 Balancing the four systems or interest segments is the key goal of this proposal. As a cabin owner at Brighton I would appreciate modest economic upgrade of Brighton 04/14/2015 services and renewed vigor to the offerings for locals as well as visitors. I am also fervently in support of careful preservation of our natural landscape and backcountry ski access on USFS and other public lands. Movement toward a more efficient means of transporting visitors to the areas via a mass transit European style mechanism would greatly enhance attractiveness of the resort areas while limiting emissions, traffic bottlenecks and parking constraints. Of special interest to me is the view of MountainAccord in proposing alternative people movers from one side of the Wasatch to the other one day, far reducing the I-80 problem.
Hall I have not had the time to review this information in detail, that being said I would like to thank you all for jumping into this population dilemma. I have lived at Brighton 04/30/2015 the top of Big Cottonwood since 1974 and have seen the changes. I have seen ski area operators thru cash and politics advance their own agenda for personal profit and I have seen the the state with similar tactics ie; building permits & inspections, taxes, police, trash, pets etc..The USFS has had a confused hand in all this over the years also. The combined effort of all has alienated residents and visitors. I am anxious to study your proposals and for now I would put my confidence with Laney. Thank you again for this opportunity The blueprint does not provide specific plans for preservation of the ridgeline between Guardsman's Pass and Mill Creek Canyon. This should be a priority area due Brighton 04/23/2015 to the high usage for recreational activities in both summer and winter, and the current pressure from development. Preservation of this area is key to meeting the environmental objectives of the plan.
This plan is short sided and is addressing Tourist mind use. Let's put Our monies and Fed Money into mass transit for people who Need and use it DAILY. brighton 05/01/2015 Ski Area Expansion does not "preserve" OUR National Forest Lands. Ski Area expansion just turns OUR Beautiful, Unique, Wasatch Mountains into a DisneyLand Brighton UT 04/13/2015 Experience. Leave more wilderness and untouched lands for the Future Generations. Once it is gone, it is gone forever.