Stansbury Mts, Utah 12/9/2006

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
I didn't ski today. :shock:

I had some stuff to take care of this morning, not the least of which is sleep. Marc_C also called this morning to say that he had to do stuff in the Valley today. Last but not least, it hasn't snowed in about a week. :lol:

So instead, I headed out early afternoon to the Stansbury Mountains of western Utah, southwest of the Great Salt Lake. This is a spine that runs due north to south, rising abruptly from the desert floor on either side - the Tooele Valley to the east, and the Skull Valley to the west. Friend Todd was going to try his hand at solo winter camping (well, not deep-snow winter camping, but something a bit chillier than in his old home state of Florida). I decided to grab the dogs and tag along as a short day hike, scoping out the area not just for hiking and camping, but also for backcountry skiing. I have a map showing backcountry ski routes, and I wanted to get a feel for the area. The highest point in the range is Deseret Peak at 11,075 feet, but we were to end up considerably north of there by about six miles.

We headed south and then west from Grantsville up Davenport Canyon. Although we passed a vehicle or two on the dirt road covered with mixed slush and mud, we never saw another human being from the time we got to the trailhead. Likewise, we were the only cars parked at the trailhead pull-off.

We headed north on the Stansbury Range Trail which follows the length of the range at about 6,000 to 7,000 feet, crossing each canyon that descends east from the range's spine toward the Tooele Valley. These mountains are beautiful! Unlike others that I've visited around here, these are studded with a mix of sagebrush and cedar trees. The south-facing slopes were covered with patches of snow, making every inch of the trail a muddy squish-fest. The dogs were instantly covered in mud. Ugh.

Reaching a pass along a height of land separating Davenport Canyon from Baker Canyon, Todd decided to set up camp amongst some sagebrush, rock outcroppings, patchy snow and cacti at 6,930 feet with stunning views down Baker Canyon and across the Tooele Valley (and the Tooele Army Depot, where chemical weapons are destroyed) to the northern Oquirrh Mountains. Beneath the inversion haze the Great Salt Lake lay beyond, and behind that the Wasatch Front was bright white as the last rays of sun hit their western slopes ahead of a weak approaching storm system. A half dozen deer were ascending the next ridgeline to our east.

The dogs and I bid Todd farewell and he began gathering firewood and setting up camp as we returned to our truck for the drive home.

This looks like a beautiful area to ski, and I'll head out there one day when the snow is plentiful. The cedars are spaced perfectly for some lazy medium-angle backcountry turns.
 

Attachments

  • 06 tooele valley utah 061209.jpg
    06 tooele valley utah 061209.jpg
    72.5 KB · Views: 4,666
  • 05 todd stansbury mts 061209.jpg
    05 todd stansbury mts 061209.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 4,662
  • 04 davenport canyon stansbury mts utah 061209.jpg
    04 davenport canyon stansbury mts utah 061209.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 4,685
  • 03 oquirrh mts west side utah 061209.jpg
    03 oquirrh mts west side utah 061209.jpg
    89.8 KB · Views: 4,671
  • 02 deseret peak utah 061209.jpg
    02 deseret peak utah 061209.jpg
    76.9 KB · Views: 4,685
  • 01 stansbury mts utah 061209.jpg
    01 stansbury mts utah 061209.jpg
    59.2 KB · Views: 4,659
  • 00 stansbury mts map.JPG
    00 stansbury mts map.JPG
    91.2 KB · Views: 4,679
  • 00 stansbury mts google earth 1 061209.jpg
    00 stansbury mts google earth 1 061209.jpg
    57.6 KB · Views: 4,680
Well I'm still up here (arn't cell phones great). Needless to say I froze my butt off last night! I'm just waiting now for my toes to thaw out to I can pack up and hike out. I had a great fire going last night and was actually too hot but then I left it and got into the tent. Around 10 or so it got COLD! Then it got COLDER! Well I'm off to boil some water and pack up.
 
Look at the Florida guy getting all hardcore with the winter camping!

I was asking about that range last week, and a local told me there were, at one time, plans to build a ski area somewhere in those mountains... anyone heard about that?
 
jamesdeluxe":10ac1j2f said:
I was asking about that range last week, and a local told me there were, at one time, plans to build a ski area somewhere in those mountains... anyone heard about that?

I suspect that you're referring to the Oquirrhs (pronounced "OKE'-ers") rather than the Stansburys. The Oquirrhs are a narrow spine (just like the other two ranges west of Salt Lake, the Stansburys and the Cedar Mts) that forms the western boundary of the Salt Lake Valley. The Stansburys lie some 15 or 20 miles beyond, and are blocked from view from the Salt Lake Valley by the Oquirrhs. You can see the Stansburys from the top of Snowbird's Hidden Peak on a clear day, but that's about it. This picture shows the western side of the Oquirrhs from the Stansburys -- the Salt Lake Valley is beyond the Oquirrhs in this photo:

06_tooele_valley_utah_061209.jpg


Kennecott Copper owns pretty much the whole Oquirrh range and the land on its eastern foothills. They have plans to develop that area, with a master plan for up to 500,000 new residences at build-out. Part of that master plan calls for a ski area. It would have to be fairly dependent upon manmade snow, however, for the elevation is low and the Oquirrhs neither receive much snow nor preserve it very well.

The Stansburys get even less snow. That's evidenced by the flora on their lower flanks: cedars (the shallow root system of which allows them to survive on what little surface water they can extract), sagebrush and cacti. The cottonwood trees, aspens and firs of the Wasatch can't survive out there on such little moisture. The highest elevations get skiable snow only because they're sufficiently high to squeeze the first moisture out of systems moving in from Nevada. Both the Tooele Valley to the east and the Skull Valley to the west are basically desert.
 
As most of you know, I'm generally pro-development when it comes to developing new ski areas. But it would be just plain dumb to build snowmaking dependent resorts within a stone's throw of The Greatest Snow on Earth. Who would patronize them?

After all ASC got in trouble when the The Canyons didn't draw the anticipated numbers due no doubt to competition from nearby areas with better snow. And The Canyons has major location and snow advantages over Oquirrhs and Stansburys.
 
Admin":3s007k2x said:
The Oquirrhs are a narrow spine (just like the other two ranges west of Salt Lake, the Stansburys and the Cedar Mts) that forms the western boundary of the Salt Lake Valley. The Stansburys lie some 15 or 20 miles beyond, and are blocked from view from the Salt Lake Valley by the Oquirrhs.

The Stansburys get even less snow. That's evidenced by the flora on their lower flanks: cedars (the shallow root system of which allows them to survive on what little surface water they can extract), sagebrush and cacti. The cottonwood trees, aspens and firs of the Wasatch can't survive out there on such little moisture. The highest elevations get skiable snow only because they're sufficiently high to squeeze the first moisture out of systems moving in from Nevada. Both the Tooele Valley to the east and the Skull Valley to the west are basically desert.

So these mountains are just not tall enough/massive enough ranges to get decent snow? Looks like the high point is only 3300m/10,000ft.

There are so many similar mountain ranges from Tahoe to Salt Lake on i-80.

Always wondered why this one in particular became a famed heli operation.
Ruby Mountains http://www.helicopterskiing.com/

Guess the peaks are higher to squeeze more snow.

The Ruby Mountains Range is a narrow range 60 miles long and 10 to 12 miles wide, located east of Elko, Nevada. Geologists estimate this ridge emerged about 20 million years ago when the earth's crust was folded and broken several times. Alpine glaciers during the Ice Age vigorously scoured the northern end of the Rubies. Lamoille Canyon, a U shaped canyon in the heart of the Rubies, is known as "Nevada's Yosemite" because of the hanging valleys, towering peaks and year-round snowfields above it. Lake basins and crags mellow into a narrow, grassy ridge south of Furlong Lake running 20 miles to the Overland Lake Basin. The Rubies feature 10 peaks above 11,000 feet including 11,387-foot Ruby Dome, and more than two dozen alpine lakes.

Even more curious how this heli operation survived after killing off Disney President Frank Wells years ago (1994). Seems like litigation/publicity would be bad business.

I guess Fortune 50 execs are more disposable when involved in a small business mishap.

Telluride's Helitrax did something similar - it rolled a bird with Christie Brinkley on board. She was stuck overnight in the San Juans. Telluride Helitrax ownership changed due to this. (Sterling safety record otherwise).

I guess Supermodels are not disposable in a mishap.

Fortune 500 exec worth < Supermodel worth :lol:
 
ChrisC":snvz73p3 said:
So these mountains are just not tall enough/massive enough ranges to get decent snow? Looks like the high point is only 3300m/10,000ft.

There are so many similar mountain ranges from Tahoe to Salt Lake on i-80.

So true.

It's not just the height of the Stansburys (and the Oquirrhs) that affects their snowfall, but also their location. They're southwest of (the Stansburys) or due south of (the Oquirrhs) the relatively warm Great Salt Lake. Much of the Wasatch snowfall is lake-enhanced when cold storm systems blow across the lake from the northwest or west. Storm systems blowing out of the northwest have a 75-mile fetch across the lake. Neither of these two mountain ranges benefit from that -- the only thing west of both of these ranges is arid desert all the way to Reno.
 
Admin":2d1po3yq said:
Much of the Wasatch snowfall is lake-enhanced when cold storm systems blow across the lake from the northwest or west. Storm systems blowing out of the northwest have a 75-mile fetch across the lake. Neither of these two mountain ranges benefit from that -- the only thing west of both of these ranges is arid desert all the way to Reno.

I was never too sure how much lake enhancement was going on with the Wasatch. 5%, 10%, 20%? Must be significant.

I remember sometimes hearing that Lake Champlain enhances snowfall for Sugarbush/Stowe with the cold-air Alberta Clipper systems. That is even smaller and freezes over (maybe not anymore?), so the Salt Lake phenomena must be more significant. No Great Lakes snow machine though.


What about the mountain ranges out near Vernal, UT? Those always looked significant. Backcountry skiing?
 
ChrisC":yan0yhg7 said:
What about the mountain ranges out near Vernal, UT? Those always looked significant. Backcountry skiing?

Those would be the Uinta Mountains, which contains the highest peaks in Utah (a handful over 13,000 feet). They're one of only a couple of mountain ranges in the world in an east/west orientation.

I was out there twice this summer, in June:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... php?t=2138

and in September:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... php?t=2225

Backcountry skiing possibilities are nearly limitless, the only problem is access -- there's only one road that goes through the range, UT Rte. 150, and that's closed in the winter. You need to either plan on a few days of touring to get in and out, or have a snow machine at your disposal.
 
They're one of only a couple of mountain ranges in the world in an east/west orientation.
Hmm... The Pyrenees, the Atlas, the Caucasus, the Alps, the Himalaya, just a few obscure ones I guess.

Within Southern California the mountains run east/west for nearly a hundred miles from just north of Santa Barbara until they end in the desert near Palm Springs. I guess they don't count since San Gorgonio is only 11,500 feet.

How about the orientation of the San Juans from west of Telluride to Wolf Creek (that's also about 100 miles)? Then they take a right angle turn south, forming the funnel effect that produces Wolf Creek's dumps.

Did I mention the Brooks, Alaska and Chugach ranges?

You served up a fat one this time, Marc :P .
 
Tony Crocker":1t67dtya said:
You served up a fat one this time, Marc :P .

Well, had I not been careless and used "few" instead of "couple," my statement would've been accurate.

http://utc.usu.edu/~rfogel/IMHome.html":1t67dtya said:
The Uinta Range, located mainly in northeastern Utah below the Wyoming border, is the largest east-west trending mountain range in the western hemisphere.

http://www.utahwild.com/mountains/uintas/index.shtml":1t67dtya said:
Other than the Brooks Range in Alaska, the Uintas are the most prominent east/west range in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uinta_Mountains":1t67dtya said:
A subrange of the Rocky Mountains, they are unusual for running east to west

http://www.utah.com/playgrounds/uinta_mountains.htm":1t67dtya said:
The Uinta Range is the highest in Utah, and is the only major range in the contiguous United States with an east-west orientation.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2395":1t67dtya said:
The Uinta Mountains contain the highest peaks in Utah and are notable as the most prominent east-west trending range in the contiguous United States.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=F9vWypGRgTJQpnfmvTplJJwn3whBj6m21MZWvkXxmq1vcbclSrTf!-1803588711!-1634281434?a=o&d=5002199651":1t67dtya said:
Uinta Mountains lie east-west, the only significant range in the Rockies to do so

http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5507":1t67dtya said:
The Uinta Mountains claim to fame is it's the highest and most important (not the only) range in the 48 states running east-west.
 
The most careless phrase in your statement was "in the world." In the Eastern Hemisphere there are probably more ranges east-west, and certainly the most prominent ones, than north-south. North America's north-south orientation at mid-latitudes, perpendicular to the winter jet stream, is probably the major reason we have more areas with higher snowfall.

You can cite as many quotes as you want, but that doesn't make them right.

Utahwild: The Brooks range is "prominent," but the higher Alaska and Chugach are not?

utah.com: I dispute the word "only." See SoCal and San Juan examples above.

The other quotes hinge on the definition of the San Juans, which are higher and at least as prominent as the Uintas. I'm not sure what the precise definition is. Perhaps they lump "Colorado Rockies" together, because the subranges in Colorado do connect to each other while in Utah they do not. Putting semantics aside, in terms of pure topography and orientation Colorado has an east-west line of mountains slightly higher and longer than the one in Utah.

I expect Patrick, who was trained as a geographer, to get his 2 cents in.
 
Back
Top