10,000 Tram Riders a Day: the Future of the Grand Canyon?

Renae Yellowhorse and Kevin Fedarko in KNAU's Flagstaff, Arizona studio.

Renae Yellowhorse and Kevin Fedarko on air with Tom Ashbrook on NPR’s “On Point.”

Renae Yellowhorse rose before dawn last week to make the long journey from her home near Tuba City, on the Navajo reservation, to the studios of KNAU radio in Flagstaff, Arizona, where she and nationally acclaimed author Kevin Fedarko confronted Grand Canyon tramway advocate Deswood Tome on Tom Ashbrook’s popular Boston-based National Public Radio show “On Point.”

Tome is an outgoing advisor to lame-duck Navajo Nation president Ben Shelly, who has been the sole official supporter of a contentious plan to build a mega-resort on the canyon’s rim and a gondola ride down to the bottom, where the turquoise waters of the Little Colorado River join the main-stem Colorado in the heart of the Grand Canyon. Shelly failed to qualify for reelection after coming in sixth in the August primary.

Save the Confluence, a coalition of local Navajo families, opposes the proposed tramway.

Save the Confluence, a coalition of local Navajo families, opposes the proposed tramway.

For more than two years, Ms. Yellowhorse and members of Save the Confluence, a coalition of local Navajo families, have vocally opposed the plan and the Scottsdale-based developer’s divide-and-conquer tactics to gain approval from local officials.

“What kind of job is he going to offer my three 70 and 80-year-old aunties?” Yellowhorse asked Tome, challenging the developer’s claim that the project will bring jobs to the Navajo Nation. Yellowhorse’s aunts, like many traditional Navajos on the reservation, have raised sheep in the area all their lives and consider themselves gainfully employed.

Tome sidestepped Yellowhorse’s challenge, arguing that the tram to an elevated walkway and a hot-dog stand along the river would have no impact on the Grand Canyon’s natural integrity or nearby areas held holy by Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni religions. Fedarko, whose recent New York Times editorial on the development plan sparked a national outcry, responded, capturing the public outrage: “The notion that delivering 10,000 people per day to the bottom of the Grand Canyon not having an effect on it is absurd.”

Radio listeners from across the country phoned in to echo this sentiment. “It would be a travesty to open that Pandora’s box for profit,” said one caller from Detroit.

“There are some things that are so grand, so special, that they should not be marred by commercial development,” host Tom Ashbrook added.

Renae Yellowhorse, whose opposition to the plan has made her the target of criticism, reiterated the importance of Navajo voices in the debate: “My hope is that it will be stopped—that the world outcry to desecration of such a holy place will be heard….and that… my people, the people that are going to be directly affected, my family, my aunties, that their voices can be heard…and that they won’t fall on deaf ears….”

To hear the entire “On Point” broadcast, click here.

You can help. To learn more about Save the Confluence, click here.

To read Kevin Fedarko’s editorial in the New York Times and learn more about Grand Canyon Trust’s work on this issue, click here.

Share
Posted in Grand Canyon Issues, Native America Issues | Tagged , | Comments Off

Legal Victory – Happy 50th Birthday Canyonlands!

The 'highway' as roaring creek, about 4 miles south of Peekaboo. © Ted Zukoski

The ‘highway’ as roaring creek, about 4 miles south of Peekaboo. © Ted Zukoski

On the eve of Canyonlands National Park’s birthday on September 12, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the park and the Americans who own her a beautiful gift: an ecologically intact perennial desert stream – Salt Creek.

On Monday the Court refused to re-hear San Juan County and the state of Utah’s case before the full court, affirming a positive April 2014 ruling by a three judge panel. That ruling found that “The state and county failed to carry their burden of establishing ten years of continuous public use of the Salt Creek Road as a public thoroughfare prior to reservation of Canyonlands National Park in 1964.”  This means that the beautiful desert stream is not, in fact, a vehicle highway owned by the state of Utah and San Juan County. It’s a riparian area, home to most of the desert’s birds and wildlife.  And thanks to the Tenth Circuit Court, it can stay that way.

With the ruling, Salt Creek will remain a place of quiet beauty, with healthy wildlife habitat and clean water. © Ted Zukoski

With the ruling, Salt Creek will remain a place of quiet beauty, with healthy wildlife habitat and clean water. © Ted Zukoski

Long a treacherous 4×4 route in and out of the stream bed of Salt Creek, the National Park Service closed the Salt Creek route to vehicles in 1995 after concluding that off-road vehicles were causing severe damage to the streambed, wildlife, vegetation and archaeological resources in the area. San Juan County sued to re-open the road in 2004, and ten years and more than $2 million in taxpayer money spent on litigation later, the Tenth Circuit has affirmed what we knew all along – that the state and county have no legitimate claim to the stream as a “road.” The state and county can appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, but the Tenth’s refusal to re-hear the case is a tremendous victory.  Earthjustice Attorneys Heidi McIntosh, Ted Zukowski, and Steve Bloch of SUWA represent Grand Canyon Trust, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and The Wilderness Society in the litigation.

To see a gallery of Salt Creek, click here.

Read the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance press release on the ruling.

Read the ruling here.

Share
Posted in Land Conservation, Utah Issues | Comments Off

Alpine Protection vs. Mountain Goats for Hunters? La Sal Mountains in the Cross-hairs

A Forest Service sensitive species, sweetflower rock jasmine, lies torn and trampled in a goat hoofprint in the La Sal Mountains.

A Forest Service sensitive species, sweetflower rock jasmine, lies torn and trampled in a goat hoofprint in the La Sal Mountains.

In September 2013, over the written and verbal objection of the Forest Service, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) airlifted 20 exotic mountain goats for hunters into the small, fragile alpine area of the desert-bound La Sal Mountains of southeastern Utah. The goats are now wallowing in the formerly-protected Mt. Peale Research Natural Area, trampling sensitive plant species and consuming lichens, mosses, flowers, grasses and shrubs year round.

Dylan Brown tells the story of this fiasco in E&E News. Grand Canyon Trust is working with numerous entities to encourage the Forest Service to exercise its national commitments to protection of sensitive species and research natural areas. The story isn’t over.

If you would like to learn more or support the Trust’s efforts on this issue, please:

  • Contact Mary O’Brien, Utah Forests Program Director, at maryobrien10@gmail.com.
  • Become a member of the Grand Canyon Trust by making a donation today. As a non-profit organization, we rely on your financial partnership to carry out this important work.
Fragile wildlowers, growing slowly on cushion plants above treeline in the La Sal Mountains, are highly vulnerable to being trampled by invasive mountain goats.

Fragile wildlowers, growing slowly on cushion plants above treeline in the La Sal Mountains, are highly vulnerable to being trampled by invasive mountain goats.

 

Share
Posted in Grazing Reform, Land Conservation, Uncategorized, Utah Issues | Comments Off

The Forest Service is Asking You Why and How Livestock Grazing Should Change On the Three National Forests of Southern Utah

Active cattle pasture, Dixie NF: Erosion and  exotic smooth brome grass seeded for cattle forage.

Active cattle pasture, Dixie NF: Erosion and exotic smooth brome grass seeded for cattle forage.

Finally, 29 years after the Dixie, Fishlake, and Manti-La Sal National Forests first developed their forest plans, the three forests are going to change those plans for how and where livestock are grazed. This is great news because 97% of the three forests is currently grazed, and too many areas reel under the impacts of livestock hooves and mouths to water, wildlife, soils, and plant diversity.

Between now and September 29, 2014, the Forest Service is seeking YOUR INPUT on how livestock grazing is impacting the Dixie, Fishlake, and Manti-La Sal National Forests in southern and central Utah. They want you to send photos of conditions caused by livestock on the three forests, and they want your “information about social, economic, and ecological values relevant to these ecosystems and use of these ecosystems for livestock grazing.”

The Forest Service is proposing to limit this livestock impacts assessment to riparian areas; wetlands; sagebrush communities; and stream channel habitat. But we need to show that significant livestock damage is occurring throughout the three forests, and especially wherever slopes are less than 15%.

Active cattle pasture, Dixie NF: Forest meadow

Active cattle pasture, Dixie NF: Forest meadow

Grand Canyon Trust has written a one-page guide on how you can tell the Forest Service that the upcoming amendment to the three forests’ plans for grazing needs to significantly change how and where livestock are grazed. Your photos and/or comments are needed by Sept. 29.

This is your first and best opportunity in more than a quarter of a century to limit the damage livestock causes on the Dixie, Fishlake, and Manti-La Sal National Forests.

-Mary O’Brien

Share
Posted in Grazing Reform, Uncategorized, Utah Issues | Comments Off

Grand Canyon Under Siege – But You Can Help

“Every 15 or 20 years, it seems, the canyon forces us to undergo a kind of national character exam. If we cannot muster the resources and the resolve to preserve this, perhaps our greatest natural treasure, what, if anything, are we willing to protect?”

Kevin Fedarko’s “A Cathedral Under Siege” is a clarion call. Published on the front page of the New York Times’ Sunday Review, it reminds us that Grand Canyon is “precariously vulnerable” to developments that “would desecrate one of the country’s most beloved wilderness shrines.”

SIGN THE PETITION! Click here to voice your opposition to developments that would irreparably damage the Grand Canyon.

Hopi Tribal Chairman Herman Honanie speaks to Save the Confluence coalition members about the Hopi Tribe’s cultural, religious and sacred site concerns about the proposed Escalade development.  Photo/Rosanda Suetopka

Hopi Tribal Chairman Herman Honanie speaks to Save the Confluence coalition members about the Hopi Tribe’s cultural, religious and sacred site concerns about the proposed Escalade development. Photo/Rosanda Suetopka

Grand Canyon Trust was conceived on river trip in 1981. The “menace of Interior Secretary James Watt’s anti-environmental fervor” meant that a handful of visionaries, floating through the Grand Canyon, felt an urgent need to do more to protect it.

While we’ve made remarkable progress in stemming the tide of threats, the canyon remains under siege. Fedarko writes that a massive development at the canyon’s southern gateway “requires water, and tapping new wells would deplete the aquifer that drives many of the springs deep inside the canyon—delicate oases with names like Elves Chasm and Mystic Spring.”

A second threat consists of a “1.4-mile tramway” that “would take more than 4,000 visitors a day in eight-person gondolas to a spot on the floor of the canyon known as the Confluence, where the turquoise waters of the Little Colorado River merge with the emerald green current of the Colorado. The area, which is sacred to many in the Hopi and Zuni Tribes, as well as the Navajo people, would feature an elevated walkway, a restaurant and an amphitheater.”

For more than two years, the Trust has been supporting opposition, which Fedarko calls “furious,” by a group of local Navajo families who live in the Confluence area. This summer,
Save the Confluence families and an escalating coalition of allies thwarted developers’ bid to win final approval by the Navajo Nation Council.

Recent reports to the contrary, the Grand Canyon is not doomed. But, as Fedarko’s call to action reminds us: “Whenever a developer is defeated, nothing prevents other developers from stepping forward, again and again.”

With your help, the Grand Canyon Trust will remain vigilant in opposing these developments, as well as uranium mining in Grand Canyon watersheds.

SIGN THE PETITION! Click here to voice your opposition to developments that would irreparably damage the Grand Canyon.

Please support the fight to save the Grand Canyon by becoming a member of the Grand Canyon Trust, and stay up to date by signing up for our e-news and Action Alerts and following our news blog. You can also follow and support Save the Confluence families.

-Roger Clark

Share
Posted in Arizona Issues, Grand Canyon Issues, Land Conservation, Native America Issues, Plateau-wide Issues, Uncategorized, Uranium | Comments Off

The “Clean Power Plan” and the Colorado Plateau: Part 1

Burning coal: The 500 megawatt Bonanza Power Plant in Utah's Uintah Basin.  Photo: Taylor McKinnon

Burning coal: The 500 megawatt Bonanza Power Plant in Utah’s Uintah Basin. Photo: Taylor McKinnon

On June 2nd, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a complex proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s power plants. It promises big changes for the Colorado Plateau’s energy landscape.

The “Clean Power Plan” proposes to regulate the carbon emissions from existing power plants in order to curb the dangerous and costly impacts of global warming. Nationwide, the Clean Power Plan aims to help cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels.

To do so, it sets state-specific goals for “carbon intensity”—the average amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each megawatt of electricity generated. However, it lets states choose how to best meet that goal. It affords flexibility to choose from a menu of policy “building blocks” to meet state-specific reduction goals by:

  • Reducing the carbon intensity of existing power plants through heat-rate improvements;
  • Substituting generation at the power plants with less carbon intensive power generators, like natural-gas combined-cycle plants, and filling unused capacity at existing gas plants;
  • Replacing carbon-intensive generation with renewable power generators; and
  • Lowering the amount carbon-intensive generation with demand-side measures, like increased energy efficiency options.

The Plan also gives states the option to create a trading program to cap carbon emissions (“cap and trade”). It lets them develop individual or multi-state plans to meet goals. If a state doesn’t come up with an effective plan of its own, the EPA will make one for them. Importantly for the Colorado Plateau, power plants in Indian Country–four in our region, including Navajo Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant–are exempted from the rule.  EPA will work with tribes and sources to develop or adopt Clean Air Act programs.

The Colorado Plateau’s Power Plants: Coal is King

Most of the electricity generated on the Colorado Plateau comes from burning fossil fuels. As of 2010, there were 51 fossil fuel powered plants on or within 50 miles of the Colorado Plateau. They generate about 132 million-megawatt hours and about 23,700 megawatts of electricity by burning coal, natural gas, or oil.

Table 1 provides a break down those plants’ electricity generation, carbon intensity and carbon emissions by plant fuel type.  Note that the table does not display total energy production on the Colorado Plateau—because renewable and hydro energy make up a very small percentage of generation regionally.

PlantsTableWhen it comes to megawatts generated on the Colorado Plateau, coal is king. Most electricity produced in our region comes from coal-fired power plants—over 75% of the megawatts and 86% of the megawatt hours, according to 2010 data. The map below depicts that fact—where dot size shows generating capacity, and color depicts fuel source.

Megawatt Capacity of Colorado Plateau Fossil Fuel Power Plants

Coal burning creates the vast majority of power plant carbon emissions on the Colorado Plateau too: the biggest carbon emitting fossil fuel plants burn coal, and 94% of all fossil fuel plants’ carbon dioxide emissions come from coal plants. The map below illustrates this, showing carbon emissions for power plants according to their fuel type.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Colorado Plateau Fossil Fuel Power Plants

But coal plants don’t just emit more carbon because they produce more electricity; they’re also less efficient—and thus more carbon intensive—than other power plants.  They emit more carbon per megawatt than other fossil plants. Recall that that carbon intensity is a primary metric for the Clean Power Plan’s state goals; the following map shows the carbon intensity of Colorado Plateau power plants.

Carbon Intensity of Colorado Plateau Power Plants

Though coal makes up the lion’s share of the Colorado Plateau’s carbon pollution problem, another important part of the picture—at least as it pertains to the Clean Power Plan—is the dearth of non-hydro renewable energy generation.  Despite abundant solar and wind resources in Arizona and Utah, both states lag behind much of the nation in clean, renewable energy generation.  In fact, they cannot even keep up with their neighboring states.

AZ UT Renewables

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

 

The Clean Power Plan’s Goals and the Colorado Plateau

The Clean Power Plan proposes substantial reductions in carbon emissions from Colorado Plateau power plants.   Table 2 shows 2005 emission rates (in carbon intensity—carbon emissions per megawatt) and the Clean Power Plan’s targets for 2030 for five states in the region.

EmissionGoalsVr2Those goals correspond to state-by-state emission reductions shown below in Chart 1.   Chart 1 also shows how EPA suggests those emissions rates can be achieved, by category (but remember, how those reductions are actually achieved is up to the states).

reductiongraphic

Chart 1: The Clean Power Plan proposes to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power plants by between 27 and 52% from 2005 levels in states on or near the Colorado Plateau.

Coal is the Colorado Plateau’s carbon problem.  While in theory states can choose among a variety of measures to meet emissions reduction goals, in reality, our region’s heavy reliance on coal makes reducing those plants’ emissions an inevitability of the Clean Power Plan.  In short, state goals won’t be met without reducing coal plant emissions.

For that,  EPA’s plan identifies two options: States can require greater heat rate efficiency of generating units (blue in Chart 1), or they can reduce emissions from the most carbon-intensive plants by substituting generation from those units “with generation from less carbon-intensive affected units (including natural gas combined cycle units that are under construction)” (red in Chart 1.).  But technology to increase power plant heat rate efficiency is limited and expensive; it’s a more limited option than turning to natural gas.

Thus, under the Clean Power Plan, coal’s future on the Colorado Plateau becomes even more tenuous.  It comes as efficiency, solar and other forms of electricity become increasingly cost-competitive with coal, and as coal plant owners already face increasing costs to upgrade old, polluting plants.

EPA’s suggested reliance on new renewable energy–or, its lack of reliance on renewable energy–is also of interest.  Despite its abundant solar resources, for example, the agency suggests that by 2030 Arizona increase its renewable energy generation to only 4% of all power generation.  In contrast, Colorado and New Mexico are pegged at 21%. Economic and environmental benefits would attend a more aggressive approach to renewable energy generation across the board–and especially in Arizona and Utah.

StateREgoalsWith major cutbacks in coal, but marginal gains in renewable, something has to fill the generation gap.  For that, EPA suggests natural gas.  For anyone who follows gas development on the Colorado Plateau, you know that prospect is complicated.

Part two of our Clean Power Plan blog installation will discuss that and other complications of the plan–including Indian Country’s exemption and some of the expected winners, losers, and legal battles.

In the meantime, you can learn more about the Clean Power Plan by visiting EPA’s website here.  For policy wonks, we recommend a series of articles by our friends at Legal Planet  here.

You can get engaged by either signing Grand Canyon Trust’s petition urging EPA to promulgate a strong, climate-responsible plan (click here to sign the petition), or you can contact EPA yourself, sending your own letter or email from this page.

 – Sam Kumasaka and Taylor McKinnon

Sam Kumasaka, a Grand Canyon Trust summer energy intern, studies environmental studies at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, OR.

 

Share
Posted in Arizona Issues, Climate Change, Energy, Grand Canyon Issues, Native America Issues, Plateau-wide Issues, Uncategorized, Utah Issues | Comments Off