Comments about ‘Proposed mine expansion heats up feelings on both sides’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 26 2012 4:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
canyonlands
PANGUITCH, UT

MAJOR ERROR: historic highway 89, a Scenic Byway, is a 2 LANE road, not 4, as indicated in the article.

Also, even in better economic times of the 90s, there were not an additional 300 trucks on highway 89. The additional 300+ coal trucks propose to run 24 hours a day, 6 days a week. This will destroy scenic byway 89, and have a serious, huge, negative impact on tourism. It makes no sense.

Where's Stockton ???
Bowling Green, OH

As far as scenic byways in Utah... this is the only real one that there is in Utah of any real length. Having driven it myself or ridden with other recreational enthusiests hundreds of times heading to it's scenic wonders from it's Spanish Fork Canyon junction near Birdsye... south to Page Arizona... I really don't know where Mr. Tebbs gets his information about it ever in the 90's running an additional non coal related 300 commercial trucks...(and long before Walmart even became a factor..) a day on that southern half of the highway...especially the further South you go towards his own stretch of the road. I think he's either confusing or purposefully skewing his figures for his own agenda by using figures more in line further north from the Spanish Fork Canyon junction with Highway 6 coming out of Price. And as far as a 4 lane highway...that's definitely something only Alton Coal and Mr. Tebbs would dream of.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Found it...there's four lanes for about 3/4 of a mile thru the center of Panguitch.

I wonder who payed for highway 20 to be completely redone a couple years before this project started?

And please do tell how one restores the top of a mountain after the coal is gone, or the company files bankruptcy leaving Utah another "national super sight cleanup", not as visited as a National Park, but I guess it does keep locals employed.

SoUtahBoy2
CEDAR CITY, UT

Even though both Bryce is in close proximity (approximately 10 miles) to the proposed mining location, mining activities will have minor negative impacts on the tourism industry in Garfield County. In fact, due to the location and the small scale mining activities, dust pollution and light pollution will be only noticed by the few tourists traveling the Johnson Canyon road. If you haven't traveled the road you are among the 99.9% who have or never will. Another fact is that the mine is located in a secluded valley and cannot be seen from Bryce. The biggest impact to the tourism industry will be from increased truck traffic. However, total truck traffic on Highway 89 is only expected to increase 4% when trucks haul the maximum permitted coal extraction of 2 million tons each year. In my opinion, 150 trucks a day on Highway 89 is merely a minor deterrent for tourists traveling to Garfield or Kane County. Most will encounter much greater traffic obstacles in their homeland or one of the major cities they will travel through en route to scenic southern Utah.

justamacguy
Manti, UT

I remember when coal truck ran at the rate of 1 every 15 minutes on highway 89 from Salina to the Navajo power plant. Nobody had a problem then. Parks stay in park boundaries and private enterprise should be left alone. Otherwise, we don't need parks.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

I don't see a problem. There is plenty of distance between Bryce and the mine. The issues that the Sierra Club is complaining about have already been examined and are without merit. Go ahead and expand the mine.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments