An informed tentative explanation, based on new photos and other newly considered and revised informationBy Dan SchroederFor the last three weeks,
Weber County Forum readers have been puzzling over
Chris Peterson's recent clearcutting activities on the
Malan's Basin property. Yesterday I took another hike up to
Malan's Basin to finish mapping the cleared routes, and the picture became much more complete. A revised map and some new photos are posted on the
Sierra Club web site.
To get to the point, here's my tentative explanation:
Chris Peterson is trying to convince people that you can ski from Malan's Basin all the way down to the city.
As the map shows, there's another newly cleared route on the north side of
Malan's Basin that I was unaware of before. That route descends 500 feet over a little more than a mile, starting at the valley bottom near the eastern end of Peterson's property and ending on the ridge overlooking
Taylor Canyon, a little east of
Malan's Peak.
In fact, this route does precisely what Chris Peterson told me you
"could" do, back on July 20, 2006, when he met with the
Ogden Trails Network Committee. Specifically, when I asked him to elaborate on his claim that you could ski all the way down off the mountain, he used his finger to trace a line on a map following essentially this route. He described how the route would provide a gentle descent to link the upper basin to
Taylor Canyon. His crew had already done some minor clearing on the very steep slope that descends into
Taylor Canyon from there. That slope is suitable only for expert skiers (and snowboarders). Presumably this would be an
"end of the day" route, with skiers continuing down the
Taylor Canyon trail to the top of 27th Street.
Peterson also told me you
"could" ski down via
Strong's Canyon, although he was vague about the exact alignment. The newly cleared route through
Strong's Canyon is probably about as viable as any. Although its exact terminus isn't quite clear, it appears that a skier descending this route could end up near the formerly proposed location for the mountain gondola terminal, near the north end of the
WSU foothill property.
Of course, there are major problems with both of these routes.
The first problem is the side slope, which exceeds 50% almost everywhere and approaches 100% in several spots. Skiing for a mile or two along such a side slope would be pretty unpleasant, so we can assume that the plan is to eventually go in with heavy equipment to cut, fill, and flatten a "trail". How wide would the trail be? A few feet would be enough to ski on, but Peterson stated in 2006 that the width of his "trails" would be about 15 feet--wide enough for the routes to double as snowcat trails and maintenance roads. The expense of constructing over three miles of such roads, which would require retaining walls in many locations, would be enormous. The ecological damage would be enormous as well.
The second problem is aspect. The northern route lies almost entirely on a south-facing slope, as does a long segment of the southern route in Strong's Canyon. In a typical winter, these slopes never hold snow for long. Flattening the routes and packing the snow would undoubtedly help, but there would be no time of year when the routes are dependably snow covered. Investing in snowmaking equipment for lengthy routes on south-facing slopes would be virtually out of the question. And when there's fresh snow of any depth, the gently sloping routes would be rough going until after they've been groomed.
The third problem is land ownership. To complete the Strong's Canyon route would require constructing a road through a National Forest roadless area. Whether the Forest Service would ever approve such a project is anyone's guess--but there would be considerable opposition. The northern route would also continue onto National Forest land at the bottom of Taylor Canyon. Even if no alteration to the existing trail in the canyon is proposed, the Forest Service could very well take issue with use of that trail by significant numbers of downhill skiers.
The fourth problem is clientele. These kinds of routes are not your typical downhill skiing, so it isn't clear who would pay for the experience of descending them. The number of expert skiers who can handle the descent into Taylor Canyon is limited. The Strong's Canyon route would be usable by average skiers, and has a greater chance of being served by a lift, but would involve a gentle descent of over two miles on a narrow trail that many skiers would consider confining and monotonous: perhaps worth a try for the novelty, but not more than once.
So the practical feasibility of both of these routes is questionable at best. And that brings me back to my carefully worded hypothesis: I'm not claiming that Peterson will ever finish constructing either of these routes. What seems clear is only that he is trying to convince people that the routes are feasible. And who are these people? I can only speculate. They could include prospective investors, or a prospective buyer for the property, or government officials, or the general public. Perhaps we'll learn more in the coming months.
In any case, I think it would be incorrect to view these new clearings as a departure from the plans that Peterson announced in 2006. A major system of "trails" that are really roads was part of his plan all along. In his public presentations he was always careful to state that while he would not permit private automobiles in his planned resort, some of his ski "trails" would be usable as roads during the summer. Mayor Godfrey was less clear, saying that he and Peterson were "working on" making the resort roadless, "even for construction", but making no outright promises. (The Standard-Examiner never understood these subtleties. The boilerplate text that appeared in numerous articles during 2006-07 simply described the proposed resort as "roadless".)
Many Ogden residents supported the Peterson proposal in 2006 with the understanding that the resort would be roadless and otherwise environmentally benign. Now that Peterson's concepts have become more vivid, it's time to reassess the environmental footprint of the project and whether it deserves our community's support.