Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine
I was able to download the Appendix on Dark Skies Impacts prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants. The file is 13 megabytes in size, and it would take sometime to download it if you do not have a high speed internet connection. If anyone is still unable to download the report, if you like, I can post a local copy on my Salt Lake website. That may be easier for you to grab. The report is prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants: Dark Sky Partners, LLC http://darkskypartners.com/DSP_about.htm ``Donald R. Davis, Ph.D. is a planetary astronomer, working primarily in the field of small body evolution and dynamics. He has been actively involved in light pollution educational and control efforts since 1986, serving as president of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Board of Directors (1997-2005), and sitting on the Pima County Outdoor Lighting Committee (1986-2005; chair 1994-1998). He has been involved with the quantitative measurement of skyglow since the pioneering study done at Organ Pipe National Monument (1995).'' DSP Website ``About'' page, accessed 11-23-2011. SWCA Environmental Consultants http://swca.com/ The key conclusion of the report is: ``This study presents results from computer calculations of the sky brightness due to mining operations in the Alton Coal Tract when viewed from Yovimpa Point in Bryce Canyon National Park and from Brianhead Peak near Cedar Breaks National Monument. Two scenarios were suggested by Alton Coal Development for analysis, one for typical lighting and one for brightest expected lighting. The calculations show that, under the typical lighting scenario, the lighting would not produce a sky glow visible above the horizon from Yovimpa Point; any sky glow would be seen only when looking just above the mine site and just below the distant horizon. The predicted sky glow would be less than that produced by several small towns in the general area that are usually not discernable according to the National Park Service, and significantly less than the visible glow arising from the distant large cities of St.George and Cedar City, Utah. Under the brightest lighting scenario described in this report, the sky glow seen from Yovimpa Point is found to be comparable to that produced by small, local towns but still less than that of the larger distant towns.'' Report at page 3 (April 2009). The report also incorporates at report Attachment 2, an April BLM memo concluding, based on the Dark Skys Report, that ``As presented, lightscape impacts to national parks will be negligible to minor.'' Another key emphasis of the Dark Skies report is direct visibility analysis through GIS terrain mapping. The report concludes that ridgelines will obscure direct visibility of the portable lights. The ridgeline obscuring conclusion only relates to two specific, but ``representative'' observing points at Yovimpa Point and Brianhead Peak, as discussed below. Proposed mine lighting will by portable floodlight units from Baldor shown on their website: http://www.cascade-machinery.com/38246/442279/Towable-Generators/Power-Lite-... The Baldor website catalogue only a model with four metal halide lights, and the report includes a Baldor product sheet that appears to be the same model. The report recommends mitigation by special shielding on the flood lights. The shields are manufactured by MUSCO Lighting. http://www.musco.com/ See a product example at: http://www.musco.com/outdoor/sportscluster.html The report expresses its conclusions regarding skyglow in nanoLamberts, and thus effects are not stated in units familar to amateur astronomers. A good starting point might be to ask the BLM to have a revised report issued stating skyglow effects in NELM magnitudes, Magnitudes Per Square Arcsecs (MPSAS) and in nanoLamberts. I have a nanoLambert to magnitude conversion table and will try to post that up on my local website next week. Having experience with similar unshielded industrial floodlighting at the Morton Salt Flat facility on I-80 at the north end of Skull Valley and at the NL Industries plant on the north side of the Salt Lake, I have a hard time accepting the Dark Sky Partners' conclusion. The Morton Salt flood lights essentially ruin Skull Valley as an observing site for 20 miles down the valley, and skyglow from the lights, from an amateur astronomy viewpoint, affects limiting magnitudes up to 60 or 70 degrees above the local horizon. There is easily seen skyglow from the NL Industries plant on the east side of the Grass Valley (at the Lakeside dark sky site) even though the plant is more than 20 miles away. Similarly, the heavily lighted Envirocare facility obscured by the west ridge of Grass Valley, visibly light pollutes the west horizon of Grass Valley. The Envirocare facility is over ten miles from the center of Grass Valley. I have not read the report in depth. With respect to skyglow, Dark Sky Partners is using Garstang's algorithm, which is the generally accepted method. Although I am not physics or mathematics trained, I have previously read the Garstang articles cited by the report. But I'll keep an open mind on this, and I will try to read the report in more depth next week. Giving the report a quick read, a few immediate and preliminary questions arose. First, the report's analysis does not appear to be based on any actual physical assessment of the current night sky visibility from points in the park or actual measurements of light pollution on the horizon. The report only estimates existing light pollution from nearby towns using computer models to extrapolate values from similarly sized communities. See Table 3 in the report. The report is based on computer model estimates of what existing dark sky values are at the zenith and horizon at the park. The analysis is not based on any real skyglow data. Some hint as to why computer estimates instead of the collection of real skyglow data was used is given in an NPS memo attached to the report by NPS Ranger Chad Moore. I interpret the following quote from the memo as indicating there was some administrative goal to complete the light pollution environmental analysis by the spring of 2009, thus preventing the collection of data by setting up photometric monitoring stations during the summer of 2009: ``The difficulty with using a site within Cedar Breaks is that no all-sky brightness data exists there. With winter approaching, it is unlikely that suitable data could be acquired there before June 2009. While models produced from an observation point within the park (as opposed to at Brianhead Peak) would be slightly more accurate, the portion of the impact to the current condition would be less accurate since no data exists.'' NPS Memo dated 9/26/2008 at memo page 1, Appendix B to the Dark Sky Partner Report . These events raise the question in my mind as to why actual skyglow data was not collected during the summers of 2009, 2010 or 2011, considering that the DEIS is being released in the fall of 2011, and considering that the Park is a nationally unique dark sky resource. Second, the report's was not based on actual measurements of the photometric characteristics of the proposed lightning. It is based on the consultants' best estimate of what light pollution the Baldor units will produce, as noted on page 9 of the report. ``The portable lights would utilize 1000 watt metal halide lamps producing 110,000 lumens each. These fixtures are mounted with adjustable gimbals, allowing the fixtures to be aimed in different directions and at different angles relative to the horizon (see Appendix A). Although DSP contacted Baldor Electric Company, manufacturer of a potential portable lighting system suggested by ACD representatives, the representatives of Baldor were unable to produce the photometric information needed to accurately evaluate the fraction of light directed upward as a function of aiming angle of the fixtures. Therefore, for this study DSP is forced to estimate this fractional uplight value.'' Report at 9. Similarly, the project's proponent did not provide specific information on the models of mining trucks to be used, and so the consultant had to make an informed guess at the number of trucks and their headlight brightness to be used at the site. The report at Table 3 summarizes what light pollution outputs that the mining trucks will produce, but does not appear to state the total number of vehicles that they assumed would be used: ``For the vehicular lighting we have no specific information either on the manufacturers and types of the mining vehicles to be used, nor for the lighting that would be installed on this equipment.'' Report at 10; see Table 3 at 12. As with the existing light pollution situation, analysis of the vehicle light pollution is not based on actual engineering or environmental data, it is based on the consultants' best informed guesstimate. Third, the report is based on the NPS request that only representative observing points at Yovimpa Point (+37 28 20 –112 14 25) and Brianhead Peak (+37 40 52 –112 49 50) be considered. As the report notes: ``The observation sites listed in Table 4 were set in consultation with NPS and BLM representatives. These sites were chosen to provide a representative evaluation of the sky glow impacts of lighting in the ACT for visitors to BCNP and CBNM.'' Report at 10. The report includes an attached memo by the NPS's Chad Moore discussing that matter. The implication of this is that local amateur astronomers may have knowledge of other commonly used observing points with significant night sky esthetic values, and the impact on those observing points is not considered by the report directly. Rather, impacts on other areas are assumed based on the two ``representative observing points.'' Fourth, the report's skyglow model does not include as a parameter increased aerosol dust that would be kicked up by mining operations. That report states that this omission was based on NPS instructions, and the consultant qualifies their conclusions on the grounds that mining operations could be expect to inject aerosols into the atmosphere: ``These atmospheric parameters describe very clear conditions and will lead to modeling results that will show smaller impacts from potential lighting in the ACT as well as from nearby towns than will typically be the case. The NPS night sky team purpose in recommending these clear conditions for the analysis is to show what the impacts would be during the "best" observation nights, when the air is clearest and the stars most visible. It is important to recognize that 90% of the time the air will be less clear, and the impacts larger.'' Report at 9. The report also states with respect to dust mitigation that: ``Methods to mitigate dust reduction such as paving heavily used roads, wetting the ground or limiting operation during windy conditions can considerably decrease aerosol/dust concentrations in the lower atmosphere and therefore light scattered toward the observation points from the mine site. The sky glow reductions from this mitigation are unknown.'' Report at page 24. Those aerosols (dust) could be reasonably expected to increase skyglow by reflecting light from the portable mine lights. In other words, the dark sky analysis is not based on the actual environmental effects of the proposed coal mine, in terms of increased dust being injected into the air above the mine. The report's analysis is based on the assumption that there are no impacts or that all dust can be mitigated with technology, e.g. - paving roads in the mine and dust suppression by watering. Fifth, the consultant makes no legal analysis of whether the proposed mitigation - floodlight shielding - would be allowable under worker health and safety regulations of OSHA or by federal and/or state regulators of open pit mining. For worker safety, regulators may require many more floodlights during night operation than is assumed by the consultant. Sixth, and to end on a positive note, the consultant notes that the night light pollution can be easily and fully mitigated by a ``no action'' alternative: ``Performing mining operations during daylight hours only would allow the elimination of 86%-92% of the total lighting, and completely eliminate all unshielded lighting.'' Report at page 23. As with teen pregnancy, abstinence is 100% effective, but only if the prescription is rigorously followed. I hope the above notes help, is free from any misinterpretations of the documents, and that my notes do not generate more heat and light than understanding. (Pun intended.) If anyone sees any obvious misinterpretations, please let me know. Finally, given the widely varying political views of club members, which as a matter of consensus we try to collectively avoid picking at on this listserv, I would appreciate a read on whether the group as a whole, or any individual members, are uncomfortable with this discussion. My personal feeling is that dark sky advocacy is an appropriate topic for this listserv. The above quick review is not intended as legal advice. These notes are my impressions made in my capacity as an amateur astronomer and an occasional night-sky recreation user of Utah's southwest federal public lands, which nationally are a unique dark sky resource. People should read the Dark Sky Partners' report and reach their own conclusions. Clear Skies - Kurt
I truly appreciate your long but highly informative post. I was hoping DSP had recommended full cut-off shielding and low sodium lamps and the DEIS has ignored it, but reported their conclusions. That would be too easy. It sounds like the report itself has many flaws. This is quite a surprise considering Donald Davis was president of IDA for about 8 years, heavily involved in Flagstaff's light pollution ordinance and an outspoken proponent of shielded lighting since 1986. It is noted that NPS was involved in picking the locations upon which the models are based. It seems like the site selections were not the best. It seems extremely sloppy to have not taken actual measurements and just relied on computer models. I wonder if the need for these halide lamps are an OSHA requirement for nighttime work and safety issues. It is unclear why the mine has to operate at night in the first place. I look forward to seeing the entire report. Let me know when you get it up on your website. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that this proposal can't be stopped. It was first broached in 2007. We are now five years into the investigation. The BLM is behind it as well as Kane County and the City leaders of Alton. When you offer tax review and jobs - a ghost town versus a little inconvience, there really isn't a choice at all, especailly during the current economy. I have a number of question about this proposal outside of astronomical concerns that may be of use in "mitigating" the impact as much as possible. My own musings is first prove the DEIS is insufficient on it's face and more work needs to go into its preparation, beyond just tweaking for a final EIS. Pointing out the flaws in the DSP report and the conclusions on sky glow will be just one part of the needed salvo. Dang where is DeChristopher when you need him. Oh yea, he's in prison, on principle, bless his heart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy List Serv" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:46:18 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine I was able to download the Appendix on Dark Skies Impacts prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants. The file is 13 megabytes in size, and it would take sometime to download it if you do not have a high speed internet connection. If anyone is still unable to download the report, if you like, I can post a local copy on my Salt Lake website. That may be easier for you to grab. The report is prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants: Dark Sky Partners, LLC http://darkskypartners.com/DSP_about.htm ``Donald R. Davis, Ph.D. is a planetary astronomer, working primarily in the field of small body evolution and dynamics. He has been actively involved in light pollution educational and control efforts since 1986, serving as president of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Board of Directors (1997-2005), and sitting on the Pima County Outdoor Lighting Committee (1986-2005; chair 1994-1998). He has been involved with the quantitative measurement of skyglow since the pioneering study done at Organ Pipe National Monument (1995).'' DSP Website ``About'' page, accessed 11-23-2011. SWCA Environmental Consultants http://swca.com/ The key conclusion of the report is: ``This study presents results from computer calculations of the sky brightness due to mining operations in the Alton Coal Tract when viewed from Yovimpa Point in Bryce Canyon National Park and from Brianhead Peak near Cedar Breaks National Monument. Two scenarios were suggested by Alton Coal Development for analysis, one for typical lighting and one for brightest expected lighting. The calculations show that, under the typical lighting scenario, the lighting would not produce a sky glow visible above the horizon from Yovimpa Point; any sky glow would be seen only when looking just above the mine site and just below the distant horizon. The predicted sky glow would be less than that produced by several small towns in the general area that are usually not discernable according to the National Park Service, and significantly less than the visible glow arising from the distant large cities of St.George and Cedar City, Utah. Under the brightest lighting scenario described in this report, the sky glow seen from Yovimpa Point is found to be comparable to that produced by small, local towns but still less than that of the larger distant towns.'' Report at page 3 (April 2009). The report also incorporates at report Attachment 2, an April BLM memo concluding, based on the Dark Skys Report, that ``As presented, lightscape impacts to national parks will be negligible to minor.'' Another key emphasis of the Dark Skies report is direct visibility analysis through GIS terrain mapping. The report concludes that ridgelines will obscure direct visibility of the portable lights. The ridgeline obscuring conclusion only relates to two specific, but ``representative'' observing points at Yovimpa Point and Brianhead Peak, as discussed below. Proposed mine lighting will by portable floodlight units from Baldor shown on their website: http://www.cascade-machinery.com/38246/442279/Towable-Generators/Power-Lite-... The Baldor website catalogue only a model with four metal halide lights, and the report includes a Baldor product sheet that appears to be the same model. The report recommends mitigation by special shielding on the flood lights. The shields are manufactured by MUSCO Lighting. http://www.musco.com/ See a product example at: http://www.musco.com/outdoor/sportscluster.html The report expresses its conclusions regarding skyglow in nanoLamberts, and thus effects are not stated in units familar to amateur astronomers. A good starting point might be to ask the BLM to have a revised report issued stating skyglow effects in NELM magnitudes, Magnitudes Per Square Arcsecs (MPSAS) and in nanoLamberts. I have a nanoLambert to magnitude conversion table and will try to post that up on my local website next week. Having experience with similar unshielded industrial floodlighting at the Morton Salt Flat facility on I-80 at the north end of Skull Valley and at the NL Industries plant on the north side of the Salt Lake, I have a hard time accepting the Dark Sky Partners' conclusion. The Morton Salt flood lights essentially ruin Skull Valley as an observing site for 20 miles down the valley, and skyglow from the lights, from an amateur astronomy viewpoint, affects limiting magnitudes up to 60 or 70 degrees above the local horizon. There is easily seen skyglow from the NL Industries plant on the east side of the Grass Valley (at the Lakeside dark sky site) even though the plant is more than 20 miles away. Similarly, the heavily lighted Envirocare facility obscured by the west ridge of Grass Valley, visibly light pollutes the west horizon of Grass Valley. The Envirocare facility is over ten miles from the center of Grass Valley. I have not read the report in depth. With respect to skyglow, Dark Sky Partners is using Garstang's algorithm, which is the generally accepted method. Although I am not physics or mathematics trained, I have previously read the Garstang articles cited by the report. But I'll keep an open mind on this, and I will try to read the report in more depth next week. Giving the report a quick read, a few immediate and preliminary questions arose. First, the report's analysis does not appear to be based on any actual physical assessment of the current night sky visibility from points in the park or actual measurements of light pollution on the horizon. The report only estimates existing light pollution from nearby towns using computer models to extrapolate values from similarly sized communities. See Table 3 in the report. The report is based on computer model estimates of what existing dark sky values are at the zenith and horizon at the park. The analysis is not based on any real skyglow data. Some hint as to why computer estimates instead of the collection of real skyglow data was used is given in an NPS memo attached to the report by NPS Ranger Chad Moore. I interpret the following quote from the memo as indicating there was some administrative goal to complete the light pollution environmental analysis by the spring of 2009, thus preventing the collection of data by setting up photometric monitoring stations during the summer of 2009: ``The difficulty with using a site within Cedar Breaks is that no all-sky brightness data exists there. With winter approaching, it is unlikely that suitable data could be acquired there before June 2009. While models produced from an observation point within the park (as opposed to at Brianhead Peak) would be slightly more accurate, the portion of the impact to the current condition would be less accurate since no data exists.'' NPS Memo dated 9/26/2008 at memo page 1, Appendix B to the Dark Sky Partner Report . These events raise the question in my mind as to why actual skyglow data was not collected during the summers of 2009, 2010 or 2011, considering that the DEIS is being released in the fall of 2011, and considering that the Park is a nationally unique dark sky resource. Second, the report's was not based on actual measurements of the photometric characteristics of the proposed lightning. It is based on the consultants' best estimate of what light pollution the Baldor units will produce, as noted on page 9 of the report. ``The portable lights would utilize 1000 watt metal halide lamps producing 110,000 lumens each. These fixtures are mounted with adjustable gimbals, allowing the fixtures to be aimed in different directions and at different angles relative to the horizon (see Appendix A). Although DSP contacted Baldor Electric Company, manufacturer of a potential portable lighting system suggested by ACD representatives, the representatives of Baldor were unable to produce the photometric information needed to accurately evaluate the fraction of light directed upward as a function of aiming angle of the fixtures. Therefore, for this study DSP is forced to estimate this fractional uplight value.'' Report at 9. Similarly, the project's proponent did not provide specific information on the models of mining trucks to be used, and so the consultant had to make an informed guess at the number of trucks and their headlight brightness to be used at the site. The report at Table 3 summarizes what light pollution outputs that the mining trucks will produce, but does not appear to state the total number of vehicles that they assumed would be used: ``For the vehicular lighting we have no specific information either on the manufacturers and types of the mining vehicles to be used, nor for the lighting that would be installed on this equipment.'' Report at 10; see Table 3 at 12. As with the existing light pollution situation, analysis of the vehicle light pollution is not based on actual engineering or environmental data, it is based on the consultants' best informed guesstimate. Third, the report is based on the NPS request that only representative observing points at Yovimpa Point (+37 28 20 –112 14 25) and Brianhead Peak (+37 40 52 –112 49 50) be considered. As the report notes: ``The observation sites listed in Table 4 were set in consultation with NPS and BLM representatives. These sites were chosen to provide a representative evaluation of the sky glow impacts of lighting in the ACT for visitors to BCNP and CBNM.'' Report at 10. The report includes an attached memo by the NPS's Chad Moore discussing that matter. The implication of this is that local amateur astronomers may have knowledge of other commonly used observing points with significant night sky esthetic values, and the impact on those observing points is not considered by the report directly. Rather, impacts on other areas are assumed based on the two ``representative observing points.'' Fourth, the report's skyglow model does not include as a parameter increased aerosol dust that would be kicked up by mining operations. That report states that this omission was based on NPS instructions, and the consultant qualifies their conclusions on the grounds that mining operations could be expect to inject aerosols into the atmosphere: ``These atmospheric parameters describe very clear conditions and will lead to modeling results that will show smaller impacts from potential lighting in the ACT as well as from nearby towns than will typically be the case. The NPS night sky team purpose in recommending these clear conditions for the analysis is to show what the impacts would be during the "best" observation nights, when the air is clearest and the stars most visible. It is important to recognize that 90% of the time the air will be less clear, and the impacts larger.'' Report at 9. The report also states with respect to dust mitigation that: ``Methods to mitigate dust reduction such as paving heavily used roads, wetting the ground or limiting operation during windy conditions can considerably decrease aerosol/dust concentrations in the lower atmosphere and therefore light scattered toward the observation points from the mine site. The sky glow reductions from this mitigation are unknown.'' Report at page 24. Those aerosols (dust) could be reasonably expected to increase skyglow by reflecting light from the portable mine lights. In other words, the dark sky analysis is not based on the actual environmental effects of the proposed coal mine, in terms of increased dust being injected into the air above the mine. The report's analysis is based on the assumption that there are no impacts or that all dust can be mitigated with technology, e.g. - paving roads in the mine and dust suppression by watering. Fifth, the consultant makes no legal analysis of whether the proposed mitigation - floodlight shielding - would be allowable under worker health and safety regulations of OSHA or by federal and/or state regulators of open pit mining. For worker safety, regulators may require many more floodlights during night operation than is assumed by the consultant. Sixth, and to end on a positive note, the consultant notes that the night light pollution can be easily and fully mitigated by a ``no action'' alternative: ``Performing mining operations during daylight hours only would allow the elimination of 86%-92% of the total lighting, and completely eliminate all unshielded lighting.'' Report at page 23. As with teen pregnancy, abstinence is 100% effective, but only if the prescription is rigorously followed. I hope the above notes help, is free from any misinterpretations of the documents, and that my notes do not generate more heat and light than understanding. (Pun intended.) If anyone sees any obvious misinterpretations, please let me know. Finally, given the widely varying political views of club members, which as a matter of consensus we try to collectively avoid picking at on this listserv, I would appreciate a read on whether the group as a whole, or any individual members, are uncomfortable with this discussion. My personal feeling is that dark sky advocacy is an appropriate topic for this listserv. The above quick review is not intended as legal advice. These notes are my impressions made in my capacity as an amateur astronomer and an occasional night-sky recreation user of Utah's southwest federal public lands, which nationally are a unique dark sky resource. People should read the Dark Sky Partners' report and reach their own conclusions. Clear Skies - Kurt _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
You want to fight the coal mining interest? You'll need more money than they have. -don Quixote
Kurt, I didn't note before that one of the baffling things about DSP's report is that the formal conclusions don't sync with what they say in the body of the narrative. I don't get that at all. Kurt, Joe, Jo, Joan and anyone else: Please convey your concerns to the BLM. I suggest sending those to SWCA, as well. I'm not impressed by the way SWCA has apparently hidden and/or manipulated both the process and the data to give Alton Coal what they want. Oh, and Chuck: We still need to speak out. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Canopus56 Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy List Serv Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine I was able to download the Appendix on Dark Skies Impacts prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants. The file is 13 megabytes in size, and it would take sometime to download it if you do not have a high speed internet connection. If anyone is still unable to download the report, if you like, I can post a local copy on my Salt Lake website. That may be easier for you to grab. The report is prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants: Dark Sky Partners, LLC http://darkskypartners.com/DSP_about.htm ``Donald R. Davis, Ph.D. is a planetary astronomer, working primarily in the field of small body evolution and dynamics. He has been actively involved in light pollution educational and control efforts since 1986, serving as president of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Board of Directors (1997-2005), and sitting on the Pima County Outdoor Lighting Committee (1986-2005; chair 1994-1998). He has been involved with the quantitative measurement of skyglow since the pioneering study done at Organ Pipe National Monument (1995).'' DSP Website ``About'' page, accessed 11-23-2011. SWCA Environmental Consultants http://swca.com/ The key conclusion of the report is: ``This study presents results from computer calculations of the sky brightness due to mining operations in the Alton Coal Tract when viewed from Yovimpa Point in Bryce Canyon National Park and from Brianhead Peak near Cedar Breaks National Monument. Two scenarios were suggested by Alton Coal Development for analysis, one for typical lighting and one for brightest expected lighting. The calculations show that, under the typical lighting scenario, the lighting would not produce a sky glow visible above the horizon from Yovimpa Point; any sky glow would be seen only when looking just above the mine site and just below the distant horizon. The predicted sky glow would be less than that produced by several small towns in the general area that are usually not discernable according to the National Park Service, and significantly less than the visible glow arising from the distant large cities of St.George and Cedar City, Utah. Under the brightest lighting scenario described in this report, the sky glow seen from Yovimpa Point is found to be comparable to that produced by small, local towns but still less than that of the larger distant towns.'' Report at page 3 (April 2009). The report also incorporates at report Attachment 2, an April BLM memo concluding, based on the Dark Skys Report, that ``As presented, lightscape impacts to national parks will be negligible to minor.'' Another key emphasis of the Dark Skies report is direct visibility analysis through GIS terrain mapping. The report concludes that ridgelines will obscure direct visibility of the portable lights. The ridgeline obscuring conclusion only relates to two specific, but ``representative'' observing points at Yovimpa Point and Brianhead Peak, as discussed below. Proposed mine lighting will by portable floodlight units from Baldor shown on their website: http://www.cascade-machinery.com/38246/442279/Towable-Generators/Power-Lite- Mobile-Light-Tower-Towable-Generator.html The Baldor website catalogue only a model with four metal halide lights, and the report includes a Baldor product sheet that appears to be the same model. The report recommends mitigation by special shielding on the flood lights. The shields are manufactured by MUSCO Lighting. http://www.musco.com/ See a product example at: http://www.musco.com/outdoor/sportscluster.html The report expresses its conclusions regarding skyglow in nanoLamberts, and thus effects are not stated in units familar to amateur astronomers. A good starting point might be to ask the BLM to have a revised report issued stating skyglow effects in NELM magnitudes, Magnitudes Per Square Arcsecs (MPSAS) and in nanoLamberts. I have a nanoLambert to magnitude conversion table and will try to post that up on my local website next week. Having experience with similar unshielded industrial floodlighting at the Morton Salt Flat facility on I-80 at the north end of Skull Valley and at the NL Industries plant on the north side of the Salt Lake, I have a hard time accepting the Dark Sky Partners' conclusion. The Morton Salt flood lights essentially ruin Skull Valley as an observing site for 20 miles down the valley, and skyglow from the lights, from an amateur astronomy viewpoint, affects limiting magnitudes up to 60 or 70 degrees above the local horizon. There is easily seen skyglow from the NL Industries plant on the east side of the Grass Valley (at the Lakeside dark sky site) even though the plant is more than 20 miles away. Similarly, the heavily lighted Envirocare facility obscured by the west ridge of Grass Valley, visibly light pollutes the west horizon of Grass Valley. The Envirocare facility is over ten miles from the center of Grass Valley. I have not read the report in depth. With respect to skyglow, Dark Sky Partners is using Garstang's algorithm, which is the generally accepted method. Although I am not physics or mathematics trained, I have previously read the Garstang articles cited by the report. But I'll keep an open mind on this, and I will try to read the report in more depth next week. Giving the report a quick read, a few immediate and preliminary questions arose. First, the report's analysis does not appear to be based on any actual physical assessment of the current night sky visibility from points in the park or actual measurements of light pollution on the horizon. The report only estimates existing light pollution from nearby towns using computer models to extrapolate values from similarly sized communities. See Table 3 in the report. The report is based on computer model estimates of what existing dark sky values are at the zenith and horizon at the park. The analysis is not based on any real skyglow data. Some hint as to why computer estimates instead of the collection of real skyglow data was used is given in an NPS memo attached to the report by NPS Ranger Chad Moore. I interpret the following quote from the memo as indicating there was some administrative goal to complete the light pollution environmental analysis by the spring of 2009, thus preventing the collection of data by setting up photometric monitoring stations during the summer of 2009: ``The difficulty with using a site within Cedar Breaks is that no all-sky brightness data exists there. With winter approaching, it is unlikely that suitable data could be acquired there before June 2009. While models produced from an observation point within the park (as opposed to at Brianhead Peak) would be slightly more accurate, the portion of the impact to the current condition would be less accurate since no data exists.'' NPS Memo dated 9/26/2008 at memo page 1, Appendix B to the Dark Sky Partner Report . These events raise the question in my mind as to why actual skyglow data was not collected during the summers of 2009, 2010 or 2011, considering that the DEIS is being released in the fall of 2011, and considering that the Park is a nationally unique dark sky resource. Second, the report's was not based on actual measurements of the photometric characteristics of the proposed lightning. It is based on the consultants' best estimate of what light pollution the Baldor units will produce, as noted on page 9 of the report. ``The portable lights would utilize 1000 watt metal halide lamps producing 110,000 lumens each. These fixtures are mounted with adjustable gimbals, allowing the fixtures to be aimed in different directions and at different angles relative to the horizon (see Appendix A). Although DSP contacted Baldor Electric Company, manufacturer of a potential portable lighting system suggested by ACD representatives, the representatives of Baldor were unable to produce the photometric information needed to accurately evaluate the fraction of light directed upward as a function of aiming angle of the fixtures. Therefore, for this study DSP is forced to estimate this fractional uplight value.'' Report at 9. Similarly, the project's proponent did not provide specific information on the models of mining trucks to be used, and so the consultant had to make an informed guess at the number of trucks and their headlight brightness to be used at the site. The report at Table 3 summarizes what light pollution outputs that the mining trucks will produce, but does not appear to state the total number of vehicles that they assumed would be used: ``For the vehicular lighting we have no specific information either on the manufacturers and types of the mining vehicles to be used, nor for the lighting that would be installed on this equipment.'' Report at 10; see Table 3 at 12. As with the existing light pollution situation, analysis of the vehicle light pollution is not based on actual engineering or environmental data, it is based on the consultants' best informed guesstimate. Third, the report is based on the NPS request that only representative observing points at Yovimpa Point (+37 28 20 -112 14 25) and Brianhead Peak (+37 40 52 -112 49 50) be considered. As the report notes: ``The observation sites listed in Table 4 were set in consultation with NPS and BLM representatives. These sites were chosen to provide a representative evaluation of the sky glow impacts of lighting in the ACT for visitors to BCNP and CBNM.'' Report at 10. The report includes an attached memo by the NPS's Chad Moore discussing that matter. The implication of this is that local amateur astronomers may have knowledge of other commonly used observing points with significant night sky esthetic values, and the impact on those observing points is not considered by the report directly. Rather, impacts on other areas are assumed based on the two ``representative observing points.'' Fourth, the report's skyglow model does not include as a parameter increased aerosol dust that would be kicked up by mining operations. That report states that this omission was based on NPS instructions, and the consultant qualifies their conclusions on the grounds that mining operations could be expect to inject aerosols into the atmosphere: ``These atmospheric parameters describe very clear conditions and will lead to modeling results that will show smaller impacts from potential lighting in the ACT as well as from nearby towns than will typically be the case. The NPS night sky team purpose in recommending these clear conditions for the analysis is to show what the impacts would be during the "best" observation nights, when the air is clearest and the stars most visible. It is important to recognize that 90% of the time the air will be less clear, and the impacts larger.'' Report at 9. The report also states with respect to dust mitigation that: ``Methods to mitigate dust reduction such as paving heavily used roads, wetting the ground or limiting operation during windy conditions can considerably decrease aerosol/dust concentrations in the lower atmosphere and therefore light scattered toward the observation points from the mine site. The sky glow reductions from this mitigation are unknown.'' Report at page 24. Those aerosols (dust) could be reasonably expected to increase skyglow by reflecting light from the portable mine lights. In other words, the dark sky analysis is not based on the actual environmental effects of the proposed coal mine, in terms of increased dust being injected into the air above the mine. The report's analysis is based on the assumption that there are no impacts or that all dust can be mitigated with technology, e.g. - paving roads in the mine and dust suppression by watering. Fifth, the consultant makes no legal analysis of whether the proposed mitigation - floodlight shielding - would be allowable under worker health and safety regulations of OSHA or by federal and/or state regulators of open pit mining. For worker safety, regulators may require many more floodlights during night operation than is assumed by the consultant. Sixth, and to end on a positive note, the consultant notes that the night light pollution can be easily and fully mitigated by a ``no action'' alternative: ``Performing mining operations during daylight hours only would allow the elimination of 86%-92% of the total lighting, and completely eliminate all unshielded lighting.'' Report at page 23. As with teen pregnancy, abstinence is 100% effective, but only if the prescription is rigorously followed. I hope the above notes help, is free from any misinterpretations of the documents, and that my notes do not generate more heat and light than understanding. (Pun intended.) If anyone sees any obvious misinterpretations, please let me know. Finally, given the widely varying political views of club members, which as a matter of consensus we try to collectively avoid picking at on this listserv, I would appreciate a read on whether the group as a whole, or any individual members, are uncomfortable with this discussion. My personal feeling is that dark sky advocacy is an appropriate topic for this listserv. The above quick review is not intended as legal advice. These notes are my impressions made in my capacity as an amateur astronomer and an occasional night-sky recreation user of Utah's southwest federal public lands, which nationally are a unique dark sky resource. People should read the Dark Sky Partners' report and reach their own conclusions. Clear Skies - Kurt _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4035 - Release Date: 11/23/11
It will be surprising if they are actually held to any agreement. I had several professors that did environmental impact statements and they are frequently "edited" to down play impact.
Kurt, I didn't note before that one of the baffling things about DSP's
report is that the formal conclusions don't sync with what they say in the body of the narrative. I don't get that at all.
Kurt, Joe, Jo, Joan and anyone else: Please convey your concerns to the BLM. I suggest sending those to SWCA, as well. I'm not impressed by the way SWCA has apparently hidden and/or manipulated both the process and the data to give Alton Coal what they want.
Oh, and Chuck: We still need to speak out.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Canopus56 Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy List Serv Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine
I was able to download the Appendix on Dark Skies Impacts prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants. The file is 13 megabytes in size, and it would take sometime to download it if you do not have a high speed internet connection. If anyone is still unable to download the report, if you like, I can post a local copy on my Salt Lake website. That may be easier for you to grab. The report is prepared by Dark Sky Partners, LLC and SWCA Environmental Consultants:
Dark Sky Partners, LLC http://darkskypartners.com/DSP_about.htm
``Donald R. Davis, Ph.D. is a planetary astronomer, working primarily in the field of small body evolution and dynamics. He has been actively involved in light pollution educational and control efforts since 1986, serving as president of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Board of Directors (1997-2005), and sitting on the Pima County Outdoor Lighting Committee (1986-2005; chair 1994-1998). He has been involved with the quantitative measurement of skyglow since the pioneering study done at Organ Pipe National Monument (1995).'' DSP Website ``About'' page, accessed 11-23-2011.
SWCA Environmental Consultants http://swca.com/
The key conclusion of the report is:
``This study presents results from computer calculations of the sky brightness due to mining operations in the Alton Coal Tract when viewed from Yovimpa Point in Bryce Canyon National Park and from Brianhead Peak near Cedar Breaks National Monument. Two scenarios were suggested by Alton Coal Development for analysis, one for typical lighting and one for brightest expected lighting. The calculations show that, under the typical lighting scenario, the lighting would not produce a sky glow visible above the horizon from Yovimpa Point; any sky glow would be seen only when looking just above the mine site and just below the distant horizon. The predicted sky glow would be less than that produced by several small towns in the general area that are usually not discernable according to the National Park Service, and significantly less than the visible glow arising from the distant large cities of St.George and Cedar City, Utah. Under the brightest lighting scenario described in this report, the sky glow seen from Yovimpa Point is found to be comparable to that produced by small, local towns but still less than that of the larger distant towns.'' Report at page 3 (April 2009).
The report also incorporates at report Attachment 2, an April BLM memo concluding, based on the Dark Skys Report, that ``As presented, lightscape impacts to national parks will be negligible to minor.''
Another key emphasis of the Dark Skies report is direct visibility analysis through GIS terrain mapping. The report concludes that ridgelines will obscure direct visibility of the portable lights. The ridgeline obscuring conclusion only relates to two specific, but ``representative'' observing points at Yovimpa Point and Brianhead Peak, as discussed below.
Proposed mine lighting will by portable floodlight units from Baldor shown on their website:
http://www.cascade-machinery.com/38246/442279/Towable-Generators/Power-Lite- Mobile-Light-Tower-Towable-Generator.html
The Baldor website catalogue only a model with four metal halide lights, and the report includes a Baldor product sheet that appears to be the same model.
The report recommends mitigation by special shielding on the flood lights. The shields are manufactured by MUSCO Lighting.
See a product example at:
http://www.musco.com/outdoor/sportscluster.html
The report expresses its conclusions regarding skyglow in nanoLamberts, and thus effects are not stated in units familar to amateur astronomers. A good starting point might be to ask the BLM to have a revised report issued stating skyglow effects in NELM magnitudes, Magnitudes Per Square Arcsecs (MPSAS) and in nanoLamberts. I have a nanoLambert to magnitude conversion table and will try to post that up on my local website next week.
Having experience with similar unshielded industrial floodlighting at the Morton Salt Flat facility on I-80 at the north end of Skull Valley and at the NL Industries plant on the north side of the Salt Lake, I have a hard time accepting the Dark Sky Partners' conclusion. The Morton Salt flood lights essentially ruin Skull Valley as an observing site for 20 miles down the valley, and skyglow from the lights, from an amateur astronomy viewpoint, affects limiting magnitudes up to 60 or 70 degrees above the local horizon. There is easily seen skyglow from the NL Industries plant on the east side of the Grass Valley (at the Lakeside dark sky site) even though the plant is more than 20 miles away. Similarly, the heavily lighted Envirocare facility obscured by the west ridge of Grass Valley, visibly light pollutes the west horizon of Grass Valley. The Envirocare facility is over ten miles from the center of Grass Valley.
I have not read the report in depth. With respect to skyglow, Dark Sky Partners is using Garstang's algorithm, which is the generally accepted method. Although I am not physics or mathematics trained, I have previously read the Garstang articles cited by the report.
But I'll keep an open mind on this, and I will try to read the report in more depth next week. Giving the report a quick read, a few immediate and preliminary questions arose.
First, the report's analysis does not appear to be based on any actual physical assessment of the current night sky visibility from points in the park or actual measurements of light pollution on the horizon. The report only estimates existing light pollution from nearby towns using computer models to extrapolate values from similarly sized communities. See Table 3 in the report. The report is based on computer model estimates of what existing dark sky values are at the zenith and horizon at the park. The analysis is not based on any real skyglow data.
Some hint as to why computer estimates instead of the collection of real skyglow data was used is given in an NPS memo attached to the report by NPS Ranger Chad Moore. I interpret the following quote from the memo as indicating there was some administrative goal to complete the light pollution environmental analysis by the spring of 2009, thus preventing the collection of data by setting up photometric monitoring stations during the summer of 2009:
``The difficulty with using a site within Cedar Breaks is that no all-sky brightness data exists there. With winter approaching, it is unlikely that suitable data could be acquired there before June 2009. While models produced from an observation point within the park (as opposed to at Brianhead Peak) would be slightly more accurate, the portion of the impact to the current condition would be less accurate since no data exists.'' NPS Memo dated 9/26/2008 at memo page 1, Appendix B to the Dark Sky Partner Report .
These events raise the question in my mind as to why actual skyglow data was not collected during the summers of 2009, 2010 or 2011, considering that the DEIS is being released in the fall of 2011, and considering that the Park is a nationally unique dark sky resource.
Second, the report's was not based on actual measurements of the photometric characteristics of the proposed lightning. It is based on the consultants' best estimate of what light pollution the Baldor units will produce, as noted on page 9 of the report.
``The portable lights would utilize 1000 watt metal halide lamps producing 110,000 lumens each. These fixtures are mounted with adjustable gimbals, allowing the fixtures to be aimed in different directions and at different angles relative to the horizon (see Appendix A). Although DSP contacted Baldor Electric Company, manufacturer of a potential portable lighting system suggested by ACD representatives, the representatives of Baldor were unable to produce the photometric information needed to accurately evaluate the fraction of light directed upward as a function of aiming angle of the fixtures. Therefore, for this study DSP is forced to estimate this fractional uplight value.'' Report at 9.
Similarly, the project's proponent did not provide specific information on the models of mining trucks to be used, and so the consultant had to make an informed guess at the number of trucks and their headlight brightness to be used at the site. The report at Table 3 summarizes what light pollution outputs that the mining trucks will produce, but does not appear to state the total number of vehicles that they assumed would be used:
``For the vehicular lighting we have no specific information either on the manufacturers and types of the mining vehicles to be used, nor for the lighting that would be installed on this equipment.'' Report at 10; see Table 3 at 12.
As with the existing light pollution situation, analysis of the vehicle light pollution is not based on actual engineering or environmental data, it is based on the consultants' best informed guesstimate.
Third, the report is based on the NPS request that only representative observing points at Yovimpa Point (+37 28 20 -112 14 25) and Brianhead Peak (+37 40 52 -112 49 50) be considered. As the report notes:
``The observation sites listed in Table 4 were set in consultation with NPS and BLM representatives. These sites were chosen to provide a representative evaluation of the sky glow impacts of lighting in the ACT for visitors to BCNP and CBNM.'' Report at 10. The report includes an attached memo by the NPS's Chad Moore discussing that matter.
The implication of this is that local amateur astronomers may have knowledge of other commonly used observing points with significant night sky esthetic values, and the impact on those observing points is not considered by the report directly. Rather, impacts on other areas are assumed based on the two ``representative observing points.''
Fourth, the report's skyglow model does not include as a parameter increased aerosol dust that would be kicked up by mining operations. That report states that this omission was based on NPS instructions, and the consultant qualifies their conclusions on the grounds that mining operations could be expect to inject aerosols into the atmosphere:
``These atmospheric parameters describe very clear conditions and will lead to modeling results that will show smaller impacts from potential lighting in the ACT as well as from nearby towns than will typically be the case. The NPS night sky team purpose in recommending these clear conditions for the analysis is to show what the impacts would be during the "best" observation nights, when the air is clearest and the stars most visible. It is important to recognize that 90% of the time the air will be less clear, and the impacts larger.'' Report at 9.
The report also states with respect to dust mitigation that:
``Methods to mitigate dust reduction such as paving heavily used roads, wetting the ground or limiting operation during windy conditions can considerably decrease aerosol/dust concentrations in the lower atmosphere and therefore light scattered toward the observation points from the mine site. The sky glow reductions from this mitigation are unknown.'' Report at page 24.
Those aerosols (dust) could be reasonably expected to increase skyglow by reflecting light from the portable mine lights. In other words, the dark sky analysis is not based on the actual environmental effects of the proposed coal mine, in terms of increased dust being injected into the air above the mine. The report's analysis is based on the assumption that there are no impacts or that all dust can be mitigated with technology, e.g. - paving roads in the mine and dust suppression by watering.
Fifth, the consultant makes no legal analysis of whether the proposed mitigation - floodlight shielding - would be allowable under worker health and safety regulations of OSHA or by federal and/or state regulators of open pit mining. For worker safety, regulators may require many more floodlights during night operation than is assumed by the consultant.
Sixth, and to end on a positive note, the consultant notes that the night light pollution can be easily and fully mitigated by a ``no action'' alternative: ``Performing mining operations during daylight hours only would allow the elimination of 86%-92% of the total lighting, and completely eliminate all unshielded lighting.'' Report at page 23.
As with teen pregnancy, abstinence is 100% effective, but only if the prescription is rigorously followed.
I hope the above notes help, is free from any misinterpretations of the documents, and that my notes do not generate more heat and light than understanding. (Pun intended.) If anyone sees any obvious misinterpretations, please let me know.
Finally, given the widely varying political views of club members, which as a matter of consensus we try to collectively avoid picking at on this listserv, I would appreciate a read on whether the group as a whole, or any individual members, are uncomfortable with this discussion. My personal feeling is that dark sky advocacy is an appropriate topic for this listserv. The above quick review is not intended as legal advice. These notes are my impressions made in my capacity as an amateur astronomer and an occasional night-sky recreation user of Utah's southwest federal public lands, which nationally are a unique dark sky resource. People should read the Dark Sky Partners' report and reach their own conclusions.
Clear Skies - Kurt
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4035 - Release Date: 11/23/11
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
On 11/23/11, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Oh, and Chuck: We still need to speak out.
I understand, but you need more ammo than just petition signing. Get the media involved. Find a sympathetic TV reporter and see if they are willing to tackle the story. Joe could do a serial blog about it, and I'm sure he still has connections in other areas of the local media. Make it an issue of local merchants and the area ecconomy suffering because of reduced tourism if this mine goes ahead with their destructive lighting. Interview the owner of Ruby's, talk to tourists who go to Bryce primarily for the pristine skies, and would not bring their money to the area if the sky suffered. Talk to other local business owners and get sound bites of them lamenting the ecconomic ramifications of reduced tourism. If you can co-opt the media, there is a much better chance of being heard and making a difference.
I guess what I'm saying is fight fire with fire. If they shine a bright light on the sky, then shine a "bright light" on the negative aspects of what they are doing. Get the biggest audience you can and make it an issue of the mine owners hurting the people of the area financially. Dark skies and wildlife alone probably won't be enough.
Another aspect that should bother the locals a lot is the constant coal-truck traffic. -- Joe ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine On 11/23/11, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Oh, and Chuck: We still need to speak out.
I understand, but you need more ammo than just petition signing. Get the media involved. Find a sympathetic TV reporter and see if they are willing to tackle the story. Joe could do a serial blog about it, and I'm sure he still has connections in other areas of the local media. Make it an issue of local merchants and the area ecconomy suffering because of reduced tourism if this mine goes ahead with their destructive lighting. Interview the owner of Ruby's, talk to tourists who go to Bryce primarily for the pristine skies, and would not bring their money to the area if the sky suffered. Talk to other local business owners and get sound bites of them lamenting the ecconomic ramifications of reduced tourism. If you can co-opt the media, there is a much better chance of being heard and making a difference. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
and how about air pollution? There could be a health impact to the local residents with all that coal dust flying around. Debbie On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>wrote:
Another aspect that should bother the locals a lot is the constant coal-truck traffic. -- Joe
________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine
On 11/23/11, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Oh, and Chuck: We still need to speak out.
I understand, but you need more ammo than just petition signing.
Get the media involved. Find a sympathetic TV reporter and see if they are willing to tackle the story. Joe could do a serial blog about it, and I'm sure he still has connections in other areas of the local media.
Make it an issue of local merchants and the area ecconomy suffering because of reduced tourism if this mine goes ahead with their destructive lighting. Interview the owner of Ruby's, talk to tourists who go to Bryce primarily for the pristine skies, and would not bring their money to the area if the sky suffered. Talk to other local business owners and get sound bites of them lamenting the ecconomic ramifications of reduced tourism.
If you can co-opt the media, there is a much better chance of being heard and making a difference.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
It seems to me that the locals - at least in Alton - want this mine to go ahead. It will mean jobs for them working in the mine, driving trucks plus all the service jobs for those whose work is associated with this project. It will be a hard sell to tell them that this is bad on an economic basis. It also means their children can stay close to home and not move away. The folks I talk to in southern Utah are not particularly fond of outsiders, environmentalists, folks from the Wasatch Front, or whomever, telling them what is best for them. Go to Alton and talk to the locals. That may give you the best ideas you'll have. The towns of Hatch, Glendale, Orderville, and Mt. Carmel are the nearest to Alton. I'll bet the folks there will be of the same mind as those in Alton. Just guessing, but Henrieville, Cannonville, and Tropic are at least leaning in favor of the project too. The nearest opposition will probably come from Kanab. Most of the opposition I have heard has come from the Wasatch Front and Bryce Canyon. These areas are pretty distant physically (Salt Lake) and philosophically (Bryce Canyon). Kim may have a different perspective, but that is my read of the folks who live there. ________________________________ From: Debbie <astrodeb@beyondbb.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine and how about air pollution? There could be a health impact to the local residents with all that coal dust flying around. Debbie On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>wrote:
Another aspect that should bother the locals a lot is the constant coal-truck traffic. -- Joe
________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] IMPORTANT: Alton Coal Mine
On 11/23/11, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Oh, and Chuck: We still need to speak out.
I understand, but you need more ammo than just petition signing.
Get the media involved. Find a sympathetic TV reporter and see if they are willing to tackle the story. Joe could do a serial blog about it, and I'm sure he still has connections in other areas of the local media.
Make it an issue of local merchants and the area ecconomy suffering because of reduced tourism if this mine goes ahead with their destructive lighting. Interview the owner of Ruby's, talk to tourists who go to Bryce primarily for the pristine skies, and would not bring their money to the area if the sky suffered. Talk to other local business owners and get sound bites of them lamenting the ecconomic ramifications of reduced tourism.
If you can co-opt the media, there is a much better chance of being heard and making a difference.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
On 11/25/11, Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the locals - at least in Alton - want this mine to go ahead. Kim may have a different perspective, but that is my read of the folks who live there.
Brent makes excellent points. If you go for the ecconomic factor, you will have to include ONLY those who make their living from the park itself. -Don Quixote
We have a family cabin in the area and in reality the population I've talked to are quite mixed. Those involved in recreation and tourism fear the impact to visitors. Others do want the jobs but they are well aware these are not long term jobs and there is a feeling of what next after the mine ends. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/25/11, Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the locals - at least in Alton - want this mine to go ahead. Kim may have a different perspective, but that is my read of the folks who live there.
Brent makes excellent points. If you go for the ecconomic factor, you will have to include ONLY those who make their living from the park itself.
-Don Quixote
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
-- Jay Eads
participants (9)
-
Brent Watson -
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
Debbie -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Jay Eads -
jcarman6＠q.com -
Joe Bauman -
Kim