Solitude claims that they are leaving the Meadow Chutes and West Bowl alone but 100's of "slackcountry skiers" will just leave the resort boundries and track it all up.

Any ideas on what we can do here to stop this (other than public comment)?

Mr. Ferebee and Mrs. Kahlow,

I write today to vociferously protest the requested expansion of Solitude Mountain Resort into Silver Fork Canyon. Silver Fork is one of the few remaining pristine mountain canyons in the Salt Lake Ranger District, one of the most heavily-utilized Districts in the West. As a tributary to Big Cottonwood Creek, the water that drains from Silver Fork provides part of the clean drinking water to more than 600,000 people, and ski resort expansion into Silver Fork would surely threaten the overall watershed and increase the turbidity of Big Cottonwood Creek.

Added to the ecological damage that lift-served skiing would render upon Silver Fork, the loss of this area to the backcountry ski touring community and other human-powered winter travelers of the Wasatch would be truly devastating. Silver Fork is one of the few remaining north-facing drainages of the Wasatch Mountains that can provide relatively safe ski touring even in high avalanche danger. It has been an extremely popular area for backcountry skiers for decades.

And when the loss of Silver Fork is placed within the larger context of the encroaching development of the Wasatch Mountains, the trend is clear: human-powered recreation is being relegated into a smaller and smaller area. Just within the last two decades, ski resorts have expanded into several other drainages in the Wasatch. The fact that many resorts offer “gates” into the backcountry means that beyond the awful loss of these areas to backcountry skiing, the resort gates allow resort skiers to ride lifts to access the terrain adjacent to the resorts, prompting the new term “slackcountry,” further crowding this terrain. If Solitude is permitted to develop Silver Fork, and Alta expands its lifts onto Flagstaff Mountain, this portion of the Wasatch will almost be completely closed to backcountry travelers forever.

The trend appears to be to cater to those who can spend upwards of eighty dollars for a few hours of skiing with lifts, warming huts, lodges, and other unnecessary development to the detriment of those of us who choose to use our legs and lungs to access this terrain instead of our pocketbooks.

Salt Lake County’s Wasatch Canyons Master Plan from the 1980s concluded that this area should remain open because of its popularity with backcountry travelers. And, the 2003 Forest Plan concluded that no ski resort expansion should be permitted. The 2003 Record of Decision (ROD) “allows no expansion of current ski area permit boundaries into adjacent highly valued
undeveloped areas, but continues to manage within existing permit boundaries for world-class skiing opportunities in winter; and in summer for nature-based recreation opportunities complementary to resort facilities.”

Solitude’s stated reasons for the expansion also do not pass even a cursory common sense analysis, especially considering that they propose expanding their resort by 50 percent. They claim that they cannot meet future or current demand for access to this public land. First, providing access to public land is not Solitude’s job. Second, their stated reasons make no sense. The skier density in the Wasatch resorts is just 255 skiers per acre, which is significantly less than the 400 skiers per acre that is common in most other western resorts. Solitude’s marketing campaign this year quips that they cannot even spell the word “crowds,” and hearing a resort named “Solitude” complain that it is too crowded is absurd on its face. Third, this discussion is actually premature until the vehicular constraints of the Wasatch are resolved. The transportation infrastructure needed to allow the expansion of lift-served skier visits does not currently exist in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Fourth, even if Solitude’s arguments did have credence, taken to their logical conclusion, it would require endless expansion to meet the surely rising future populations of the area. Is this sustainable? Does this comport with the mandate that the National Forests be managed with “multiple use” as its watchword? Must natural areas enjoyed by human-powered recreationists always yield to the stated economic necessities of a few ski resorts?

I urge you to enforce the 2003 Record of Decision concerning Silver Fork and deny Solitude’s proposal. Once this pristine mountain area is gone, it will be gone forever to the corduroy-groomed slopes, downed trees, lodges, and parking areas involved in ski resort expansion. This expansion would be to the great detriment of backcountry travelers like myself and ruin this area for both summer and winter travelers for the benefit of a few lift-served skiers and the bottom line of Solitude resort. The Wasatch is simply too small to abide further and further economic development and encroachment of natural areas. Please deny this request and maintain this special place for future generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
me

TyeDyeTwins wrote:It is REPUBLICAN's like you Fortmental who will ultimately bring the death of the Wasatch Range and it's wildness. Can you NOT see the bigger picture here, or are you just lost in the headlines of a developers agenda? Just like Europe, one day the Wasatch Range will be lost to resort's garbage, bombs, pollution and destruction. I will only agree with you on one thing and that's yes, in Utah we are facing an uphill battle. As a backcountry skier once put it to me (ironically in Silver Fork), "In Utah if it hurts big bussiness, don't even count on it."

TyeDyeTwins wrote:It is REPUBLICAN's like you Fortmental who will ultimately bring the death of the Wasatch Range and it's wildness. Can you NOT see the bigger picture here, or are you just lost in the headlines of a developers agenda? Just like Europe, one day the Wasatch Range will be lost to resort's garbage, bombs, pollution and destruction. I will only agree with you on one thing and that's yes, in Utah we are facing an uphill battle. As a backcountry skier once put it to me (ironically in Silver Fork), "In Utah if it hurts big bussiness, don't even count on it."

Here are some pictures the terrain that Solitude plans on destroying........oh I meant developing.

Ed F wrote:

TyeDyeTwins wrote:It is REPUBLICAN's like you Fortmental who will ultimately bring the death of the Wasatch Range and it's wildness. Can you NOT see the bigger picture here, or are you just lost in the headlines of a developers agenda? Just like Europe, one day the Wasatch Range will be lost to resort's garbage, bombs, pollution and destruction. I will only agree with you on one thing and that's yes, in Utah we are facing an uphill battle. As a backcountry skier once put it to me (ironically in Silver Fork), "In Utah if it hurts big bussiness, don't even count on it."

I think you need to fine-tune your sarcasm detector...

FortMental wrote:You have to wonder who's really going to profit from these new or expanded "ski areas".... The skiing population is getting old fast, and the next generation is unlikely to afford a lift pass, never mind the cost of getting to a resort, from, say, the east coast. Not to mention the fact that few of the next generation want to do anything as energetic as ride a chair to the top of a mountain (in winter, no less) and ski down....

What's the real motive? Where's the real money to be made?

The fact is Solitude consistently loses skiers/boarders to Alta/Snowbird/Brighton. An expansion into Silver Fork would give them the extra terrain/powder/vertical to draw back some of those patrons.

From comments made on here, it sounds like most of you are mad that they want to develop your private little ski stash that you have been hiking for years.

phatty wrote:

FortMental wrote:You have to wonder who's really going to profit from these new or expanded "ski areas".... The skiing population is getting old fast, and the next generation is unlikely to afford a lift pass, never mind the cost of getting to a resort, from, say, the east coast. Not to mention the fact that few of the next generation want to do anything as energetic as ride a chair to the top of a mountain (in winter, no less) and ski down....

What's the real motive? Where's the real money to be made?

did you even read the proposals cost/benefit analysis? I do agree with your assertions of our younger generation, however there are still millions of people out there that want to come pay money to ski.

The fact is Solitude consistently loses skiers/boarders to Alta/Snowbird/Brighton. An expansion into Silver Fork would give them the extra terrain/powder/vertical to draw back some of those patrons.

From comments made on here, it sounds like most of you are mad that they want to develop your private little ski stash that you have been hiking for years.

The fact is the cottonwood canyons are not a secret anymore. The world knows about them and they get more and more visitors every year.

PS I am still pissed about the Snowbird/Mineral Basin land acquisition... If every there was a shady deal done... I hope those people burn in hell forever...

Solitude’s stated reasons for the expansion also do not pass even a cursory common sense analysis, especially considering that they propose expanding their resort by 50 percent. They claim that they cannot meet future or current demand for access to this public land. First, providing access to public land is not Solitude’s job. Second, their stated reasons make no sense. The skier density in the Wasatch resorts is just 255 skiers per acre, which is significantly less than the 400 skiers per acre that is common in most other western resorts. Solitude’s marketing campaign this year quips that they cannot even spell the word “crowds,” and hearing a resort named “Solitude” complain that it is too crowded is absurd on its face. Third, this discussion is actually premature until the vehicular constraints of the Wasatch are resolved. The transportation infrastructure needed to allow the expansion of lift-served skier visits does not currently exist in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Fourth, even if Solitude’s arguments did have credence, taken to their logical conclusion, it would require endless expansion to meet the surely rising future populations of the area. Is this sustainable? Does this comport with the mandate that the National Forests be managed with “multiple use” as its watchword? Must natural areas enjoyed by human-powered recreationists always yield to the stated economic necessities of a few ski resorts?

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Solitude Resort's application to expand into Silver Fork.

I ski at resorts, including Solitude, several times per season, and in addition, starting a couple of years ago, I have been skiing the Wasatch backcountry a couple dozen times per season. I have done three ski tours in Silver Fork, encompassing the upper east and west bowls, and the meadow chutes, with approaches from both Cottonwood Canyons. These three trips have all been highlights of my "career" as a backcountry skier. I also hike in the Wasatch mountains year-round, and I generally avoid the ski areas because I don't enjoy seeing the denuded slopes, parking lots, buildings, lift towers, and numerous ugly road cuts.

Solitude claims that it cannot meet future demand for recreation on public lands. Why is that Solitude's responsibility? And how does putting a $70 per person price tag on access to public land that is currently free constitute an expansion of opportunity, for anyone but the most affluent? Is catering to the affluent minority the purpose of public land? The interest of the majority of the public (i.e. the landowners) is not to ski expensive icy crowded crud and badly-formed moguls in between trips to the restaurant for mediocre $10 cheeseburgers and watered-down $5 beers and shopping for the latest overpriced designer apparel where once in a to-be-bygone era existed the pristineness of nature. It is to drink clean water and have beautiful surroundings on the occasion that one takes a scenic drive up BCC or goes for a peaceful hike in a place like Silver Fork, to get AWAY from "civilization." For skiers and snowboarders, there is already opportunity to recreate in Silver Fork. For essentially the same cost to obtain the gear required to ride a their lift (before even purchasing a lift ticket), one can alternatively obtain the similar gear required to make it a short (less than 2 hours) and easy and very scenic and free walk from either the LCC or BCC roads to anywhere in Silver Fork.

In fact, with the growth of backcountry skiing, it is easy to conceive of Silver Fork becoming overcrowded in the near future WITHOUT the added impact of a lift system. The time I skied the meadow chutes, even the small number of tracks laid down earlier in the morning than my arrival at the top of the hike, used up most of the pockets of north-facing terrain that, unlike the majority east-facing aspects, were not crusted by the February sun, and it was a challenge to find untracked snow that wasn't icy, even within a day of the most recent storm. Moderate avalanche danger that varies by aspect compounds the problem.

Nevertheless, Silver Fork offers the safest and most accessible snowmobile-free backcountry skiing in a significant north facing drainage in the entire Wasatch. If Solitude gets Silver Fork, and Alta gets a lift up Flagstaff Moutain as it has proposed, then there will be practically nowhere left in SL county to ski tour during elevated avalanche danger except the lower-elevation hills north of Big Cottonwood Canyon road and a couple of spots in the Brighton Lakes area, assuming Alta doesn't also completely take over Grizzly Gulch eventually. The existing Wilderness areas are steep and rugged and for the most part and for the skill levels of most people only safe when avalanche danger is relatively low. To not have access to what little of the upper Cottonwood Canyons is neither advanced and dangerous nor already monopolized by the ski resorts puts a suffocating squeeze on the options available to the backcountry user group. This squeeze is further compounded by the heli-skiing operations that crowd us, sometimes endanger our safety, and destroy our prized sense of being in the "backcountry." There is simply not space for further resort expansion in the Wasatch. All user groups, not just resorts, face increasing demand for fixed and limited acreage.

More to the point of Solitude's argument, I read their proposal and I can't make any logical sense out of how they can appeal to their business under-performance as justification for measures to make their resort more "attractive", at the same time that they argue that future demand for skiing will skyrocket such that they will not be able to meet it. Seems like they will make the maximum profit possible for their level of capital investment, UNLESS they expand. In the short term, at least. In the long term, they have to count on getting back into this exact same "dilemma" in order to maximize return on the expansion investment. Which they no doubt will, since the population will continue to increase. What then, do we give the resorts Days Fork too? And then Cardiff? Where does this insanity end? How about right here and now.

I am only one ordinary person and I know that doesn't count much compared to the $$$ factor. (I respectfully hope you disagree). But I also know I speak for not only the other backcountry skiers, hikers, and mountaineers I know but many other people I know who are not directly an interest group (though they may drink the water) but who are appalled by the limitless greed of developers who seem to have no respect for nature and seem to consider themselves entitled to privately profit from limitless and harmful exploitation of public treasures (Solitude's proposal attempts to justify vegetation removal), and this is true of people I know on both "sides" of the political spectrum, regardless of their views on economics and property rights.

Please do not give in to this proposal.

Thank you,

Sean Peckham