PDA

View Full Version : Firmage: Scenic highway is on the road to ruin



tanya
03-04-2007, 11:05 AM
So, Congress, after years of foot-dragging, finally designates U.S. Highway 89 as a Heritage Highway, as a Mormon Heritage Highway, and Brigham Young's descendants decide to celebrate the honor by opening a strip mine just off the highway next to Bryce Canyon.
But, this highway, which even Congress now recognizes is a scenic and historic treasure worthy of millions of dollars in tourist development money, should, if the Bureau of Land Management and Alton Coal have their way, more properly be called The Slurry, The Coal Conveyer, or CoalSolutions Road. From Cedar City in the south to Panguitch in the north, coal trucks thick as ants will move along this road at 10 minute intervals 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
This is lucky coal. On its way to Cedar City, coal from the Alton strip mine will have great views of the meandering Sevier River, of the pioneer pastures of Long Valley, of the aspens groves and lava beds of the Dixie National Forest, of Navajo Lake and Duck Creek, of Cedar Breaks National Monument, and of the spectacular gorge that links Cedar Breaks to Utah's Festival City.
While in Cedar City, this coal may have a chance to take in a Shakespeare play or enjoy a lunch break on a lawn in one of Cedar City's many hitherto quiet, tree-lined avenues.
On its way north, the Alton strip mine coal will have a bird's eye view of the Paunsaugunt and Sevier Plateaus (home of Red Canyon, Casto Canyon, Losee Canyon, and a thousand unnamed places that elsewhere would be national parks), of plucky Panguitch, and of the seldom (at least seldom until now) traveled Highway 20.
Yes, if the price of coal were determined by the amount of beautiful scenery it saw en route to its fiery end in the belly of a mercury-belching power plant, this is what you'd call million-dollar coal. It would also be million-dollar coal if you priced it according to the amount of scenery - 1,600 acres - it will destroy, 1,600 acres that will become a million-dollar wasteland, stripped of every juniper, pinion pine, manzanita bush, deer, mountain lion and bobcat.
And it's certainly million-dollar coal if you price it according to the real cost of burning it, the real cost of introducing more tons of mercury and soot into our air and water, the real cost of hazy Salt Lake and San Bernadino skies, the real cost of global warming, of habitat destruction, of lives that will be sacrificed to asthma, pneumonia and heart disease, and of lives that will be laid down on the highways when tired and sleepy residents of Panguitch, New York City and Berlin run head-on into coal trucks.
Yep, this is the best coal that money and life can buy, and it's coming to a Mormon Legacy Highway near you.
The money behind the Alton strip mine is happy to have such million-dollar coal, although in truth they're more interested in the million dollars than the coal or what they'll destroy to get at it. The Bureau of Logging and Mining, too, is happy. What more effective use of public land can one imagine than subsidizing strip mines? Helping those wealthy investors also provides gainful employment for thousands of federal bureaucrats.
For myself, though, and I imagine that I speak for most of the millions of tourists who come to see Utah's unspoiled land and, yes, sometimes, highways, the million-dollar skies and views are more the ticket. As residents of Emery County can tell you, having thousands of coal trucks rattling along the road is a real draw only for deep-pocketed visitors from Appalachia.

---
* ED FIRMAGE JR. is a landscape photographer who has logged thousands of miles along Utah's U.S. Highway 89.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5350941

nefarious
03-15-2007, 02:41 AM
Lucky sight-seeing coal and deep-pocketed tourists from Appalachia! It's all so deliciously sarcastic. :haha:

Thank God the neo-Luddites kept us from going nuclear--which seems like a realistic stepping stone towards alternative energy to me--so that we can have strip mines and roads choked with coal trucks instead. Thanks Jane! :frustrated:

Forgive the non-sequitur, it's just my take on the situation even if my opinion proves I'm crazy.

DiscGo
03-15-2007, 07:01 AM
Bryce is a national park, it seems like the area around it should be preserved a little, but I guess that would be asking too much.

Udink
03-15-2007, 07:58 AM
Bryce is a national park, it seems like the area around it should be preserved a little, but I guess that would be asking too much.
That sounds like a pretty slippery slope. Why not just extend the park's boundaries to include the area around the park you want protected.

But wait--what if, after extending the boundaries, somebody wants to open a mine just outside the new boundary? Well, you've gotta preserve the area around the park so as to not see such ugliness from inside the park, so why not extend the boundary again?

DiscGo
03-15-2007, 08:05 AM
It would be pretty easy to say that you can not have "eye soars" (like mines, or other commercial endeavors that mar the scenery) with in 20 miles of a national park.


I'm not saying I have the exact answer for this, I just feel like the most beautiful areas of our country need to be protected.

Udink
03-15-2007, 08:27 AM
It would be pretty easy to say that you can not have "eye soars" (like mines, or other commercial endeavors that mar the scenery) with in 20 miles of a national park.
Sure, it would be easy, but would it be fair? You'd be regulating public (sometimes non-federal) and private lands as if they were federal lands, creating a de facto national park.


I'm not saying I have the exact answer for this, I just feel like the most beautiful areas of our country need to be protected.
I agree, but aren't those "most beautiful areas or our country" already protected--inside of the national park boundaries?

I think people should simply realize that the national park is inside the park boundaries, and everything outside is just like any other land.

Rev. Coyote
03-15-2007, 10:50 AM
I've been covering a lot of news on biomass recently, and development of that energy source is running wide-open. Mostly small-scale operations, but it's having a great impact. Hopefully, with the proliferation of a number of "alternative" sources (like biomass, solar, wind, and nuclear sited opportunistically) we can quit giving over our land base to coal, gas, and oil.

DiscGo
03-15-2007, 11:05 AM
Sure, it would be easy, but would it be fair?



I think I'm still bitter about Ball Mountain being sold off. When you drive to the "Point of the Mountain" now in between SLC and Provo, the Point is gone. Why take the resources from the scenic areas that lots of people enjoy and see everyday instead of taking the resources from areas that are less inhabited and frequented.


I guess when it comes down to it, I support personal property owner rights more than the property rights of big businesses. Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I would just like to see other options.

dillweed
03-22-2007, 12:28 AM
Maybe the answer is creating a "buffer-zone" around the park. This is what kept Snowbird from expanding further West closer to the boundary of the Lone Peak Wilderness Area. But if this was done, I think that it should not be an arbitrary number like 20 miles - I think a study should be commissioned and an EIS prepare and public comment period and all that. That way it would be fair (as fair as it gets in our system - which isn't too bad). In some places it might be several miles, in others, maybe no buffer zone is needed at all. But I agree - no one wants to go to a very scenic place like Bryce and have huge eyesores to look at.

On a related note - I think it's interesting that when you go to Island in the Sky in Canyonlands you cannot see the Potash evaporation ponds, but if you go to the Anticline Overlook (not in the park - it's south of Moab) - you can see the plain as day. Hmmmm . . . do you think that was planned?

http://www.cpfieldinstitute.org/images/galleries/economic_geology/Potash-Mine.jpg