Indian Creek ATV Trail EA Comment period closes soon

Passive Aggression wrote:wfscot, I understand what you're saying and I generally agree with your point. How does one get an ATV from their house (possibly in another state) to the Moab area? Hauling it on a trailer behind a truck is what I usually see so I don't think that ATVs have the same impact as driving high mpg cars but there's a bigger picture here. Not to mention I don't have to drive more than a couple miles to a climbing area. Life doesn't end without gasoline leaving us staring at the walls. There are plenty other ways to get energy and live a modern lifestyle that is in line with what the planet can handle. At some point we (americans)are going to have to make some serious lifestyle changes and sacrifices if we don't want to be one of the last generations of humans on planet earth.

I agree with your sentiments somewhat, but I think what you and most of the environmental movement don't get it that there is no free lunch. Everything has an environmental impact.
The law of unintended consequences runs rampant.

Hydro is great and wonderful, until you realize the fish can't swim upstream to spawn, you've flooded an entire valley ecosystem and the dam eventually fills with sediment and is no longer useable.

Wind is great until you realize that they produce so little power you have to build hundreds of them which looks hideous. Ok so maybe you can live with that, but then they chew up raptors and oh by the way they only produce power when the wind blows, so you have to use batteries to store the power which are
made of nasty chemicals.

Solar is great except that the panels don't last forever - they get eroded by windblown sand (like you find in the desert which would otherwise be a great place to put them). And they require nasty chemicals to manufacture and they have same problem with batteries as windmills.

Flourescent light bulbs save on electrical usage but are full of mercury. If you break one, technically you should call the hazmat team to clean it up.

I could go on. Nothing is perfect... Some people just always have to find some cause to be upset about.

Alexey Dynkin wrote:Thank you for the link. I will be writing to the BLM to express my opposition to the path. This isn't about environmentalism - it's about aesthetics! And it's entirely selfish. Yes, when I go to what is probably the single best desert crack climbing area in the country, I want to effing enjoy it without the constant roar and smell of 4-wheelers! Those who enjoy that type of activity can go to any other of the millions of acres across the country where it is permitted. If you happen to climb AND ride an ATV and want to be able to do it at the Creek, well...go ahead and voice your support for the trail. It's a free society and it's OK to have different preferences on how to use the land - but don't tell me not to voice mine!

You sir, appear to be the most honest and self-aware. I completely disagree with you, but kudos anyway...

Stagg54 wrote: I agree with your sentiments somewhat, but I think what you and most of the environmental movement don't get it that there is no free lunch. Everything has an environmental impact. The law of unintended consequences runs rampant. Hydro is great and wonderful, until you realize the fish can't swim upstream to spawn, you've flooded an entire valley ecosystem and the dam eventually fills with sediment and is no longer useable. Wind is great until you realize that they produce so little power you have to build hundreds of them which looks hideous. Ok so maybe you can live with that, but then they chew up raptors and oh by the way they only produce power when the wind blows, so you have to use batteries to store the power which are made of nasty chemicals. Solar is great except that the panels don't last forever - they get eroded by windblown sand (like you find in the desert which would otherwise be a great place to put them). And they require nasty chemicals to manufacture and they have same problem with batteries as windmills. Flourescent light bulbs save on electrical usage but are full of mercury. If you break one, technically you should call the hazmat team to clean it up. I could go on. Nothing is perfect... Some people just always have to find some cause to be upset about.

I agree with you somewhat, but I hate when these reasons are used as reasons not to pursue alternatives to fossil fuels. Like you said nothing is perfect, but I think it's becoming increasingly clear that fossil fuels are a more significant harm than some other methods.

Ultimately though, I think our future is in fusion.

Its always funny when people go after the ATV enthusiast community which happen to represent an extremely small % of pollution. Physical impact is slightly more measurable but compared to things like road building, harvesting of trees, strip/pit mining, foreign countries manufacturing of non catalyzed cars and burning of leaded fuels etc etc towing your bike or quad to the trails let alone riding them really is immeasurable and relative. Put your energy somewhere it would count. I've never met a selfish dirtbiker who refuses to share the land with someone who wants to be outside. It also seems to some on here that every broken bottle or piece of trash at camp sites comes from an OHV user and not climbers. How many pounds of human shit, power bar wrappers and water bottles are packed into the cracks and behind flakes of El Cap. And that's just one route. Pretty sure dirtbikers aren't up there fuckin shit up.

Jason N. wrote: Ultimately though, I think our future is in fusion.

I agree. It also has its downsides (what to do with the waste) - but compared to all of the others, it is one of the more environmentally friendly forms of energy. And it can provide baseload power (ie. it can run 24/7), which with the exception of hydro (and I'm not even sure hydro can really do that), none of the other renewables can.

(disclaimer - I do work for a company that makes nuclear power plants so I may be somewhat biased).

I don't necessarily think we should use those excuses not to use alternative energy. I just think everything should be in moderation. I think a good energy portfolio has a mix. Every form of energy has some impact on the environment, by having a mix instead of impacting one area really heavily you impact every area a little. I think we just need to have our eyes wide open about what the impacts are and realize that there is no silver bullet. So often I hear environmentalists say "If we only switched everything over to solar, or wind, or name your favorite renewable". Those people are so naïve it is laughable. The find fault with every other form of energy but fail to recognize the faults of their own chosen energy religion.

Mother nature can be quite resilient. Ever see what happens after a forest fire? If injured slightly she can definitely recover. Therefore I say everything in moderation...

Stagg54 wrote: And it can provide baseload power (ie. it can run 24/7), which with the exception of hydro (and I'm not even sure hydro can really do that), none of the other renewables can.

Well, ground source heat pumps produce 24/7 and are from a renewable source.

Geo thermal produces 24/7, too.

Solar thermal doesn't produce 24/7 but is easily stored in a readily available and non toxic fluid also know as water, and the equipment is mostly copper, aluminum and steel, unlike the not as friendly components of solar electric. Not to mention solar thermal produces more than 4 times the amount of energy compared to solar electric.

Oh, and as mentioned above, conservation is a great source of energy. I just bought a car that gets 34 miles per conservation. And the truck that delivers food to my grocery store get 9 mile per conservation.

In a world with fewer and fewer roadless, human powered only areas, I think it is important to consider the impacts that ATVs have on an area. Climbers are hardly perfect and their impacts are many but someone, the land managers in this case, have been tasked with drawing a line. I fully support not allowing ATVs in this area. Partly from a selfish aesthetic point of view like others have said, and partly because sometimes user groups can and should be treated differently. Not better or worse, but each activity presents different opportunities for the users of the area and different stresses on the resource. This is why we dont have zip lines in Zion, or dirtbikes at Smith Rock, or ATVs buzzing around in Red Rocks, or mountain biking in Wilderness Areas. Not everywhere has to be some all encompassing multi-use area. I've been mountain biking on trails where I've had to stop and wait for horses and dirt bikes and hikers and frankly, it is a pain but they all had just as much of a right to be there as I do. But godamn it is amazing going to a biking area where the only people on the trail are biking and in the same direction!

Would I be pissed if some amazing futuristic ultra mega crag was being ATV-blocked and climbing wasnt allowed? Yup, and I would try and help get climbable.

Would I be pissed if I was an ATV user and wanted to rip up some sand around Indian creek but was being climber-blocked? Yup, and I would try and help get it ATV-able.

Call me selfish but I want to keep the Creek human powered!!

Stagg54 wrote: I agree. It also has its downsides (what to do with the waste)

Your company ought to check your credentials since he quoted fusion and not fission. If you're citing fission then yeah, our world is ass-backward for turning our noses to it.

BigFeet wrote:Alexey, My point was to illustrate the self-righteousness and better-than-thou attitude displayed. If you really want to know my opinion it would be to agree with not to put anymore vehicle paths in any preserve, national park, and so forth. Ponder this question: What is your reaction to a climbing area that is closed for climbers due to some ridiculous land management ruling, but the bird watchers, mountain bikers, or other get access? Who is to say those listed are not blazing trails, leaving trash, etc. which causes damage? Possibly irreparable? The climbing community would be up-in-arms with petitions in one hand, and dialing the phone with the other. I'm not trying to be an ass which this may be coming off as, but I'm tired of the jumping to conclusions on a whole spectrum of those you may not know much about. The constant do-gooder types that espouse nonsensical reasoning, and those that lump groups together. This issue is about the individual. As stated above, there are idiots in all groups. Who is going to be a conservationist? Can you tell by not knowing, personally, the group you judge? Who knows, maybe that group you do not want around could come to your aid at some point. Give you a ride to your favorite climb. Fight for your right to use public land. Become a new friend? The hypocrisy of humans is obscene, and dealing with those that make statements/decisions based off feelings instead of logic has made me more forthcoming with my opinions. I'm sure you can agree with having opinions. I don't have an answer as to how to correctly make everyone happy, protect the environment, and have a cohesive society. Whoever does will win a prize though, I'm sure. Until then I would assume we work together to police our own groups and expand from there.

You bring up some good points. I couldn't agree more with the statement that there are idiots in every group. However, with all due respect, I think you're over-analyzing a bit. The opposition to an ATV track in the Creek isn't based on some abstract concepts of what is "better" or "worse", but on some very concrete facts. ATVs are loud. They don't smell great. People who come to climb often appreciate a quiet and peaceful environment. This is not merely a matter of aesthetics, but safety as well: constant loud noise can seriously impair communication between climber/belayer, etc. Right now, the preponderance of users of the Indian Creek are climbers (come on - what other group, even if they haven't been there before, will know when you say "the Creek" that you're not talking about a little stream in the back of your yard?). No, this doesn't give them exclusive rights - but it DOES give them a voice, and a loud one. And, frankly, if the ATV community were as reasonable as you say, they might be a little more understanding of the things I just mentioned, and maybe would even voluntarily drop the project. After all, these are entirely legitimate concerns! What is so self-righteous, unreasonable, and holier-than-thou about expressing them? If the 4-wheel community can come up with a well thought-out argument for why having access specific to the Indian Creek area is important to them, I'd be happy to listen to it. Again, it's not about who is superior to whom...but, as you say - we're allowed to have opinions!

Greg D wrote: Solar thermal doesn't produce 24/7 but is easily stored in a readily available and non toxic fluid also know as water, and the equipment is mostly copper, aluminum and steel, unlike the not as friendly components of solar electric. Not to mention solar thermal produces more than 4 times the amount of energy compared to solar electric. Oh, and as mentioned above, conservation is a great source of energy. I just bought a car that gets 34 miles per conservation. And the truck that delivers food to my grocery store get 9 mile per conservation.

Storing solar or wind energy by converting to hydro is much better than battery but still any time you convert energy from one form to another, it is never 100% efficient. There are always losses.

And I'm sure you've calculated the payoff for fuel efficient car, but most of the ones I've look at, if you drive even 30K miles, the payback is still much longer than the expected life of the car, but hey if you wanna waste your money.. I'm sure feeling like you're saving the planet is an awesome thing...

And trucks may get poorer gas mileage, but if you take into account the amount of goods they move, they are much more efficient than any passenger car, but then again, whatever makes you feel good... because as long as you feel good about yourself, who cares what the truth is...

Merlin wrote: Your company ought to check your credentials since he quoted fusion and not fission. If you're citing fission then yeah, our world is ass-backward for turning our noses to it.

you are correct. I misread his email. Fusion is not the same fission. But still fission is way better than any of the other options out there at the moment.

Fusion would be awesome if someone could figure out how to make it work in an economical way...

Stagg54 wrote: you are correct. I misread his email. Fusion is not the same fission. But still fission is way better than any of the other options out there at the moment. Fusion would be awesome if someone could figure out how to make it work in an economical way...

I attended the DPS meeting a couple of years ago (Division of Plasma Physicists). The fusion guys were a bunch of depressed older fellows. I worked with guys at one of the two ignition facilities in the US a couple years ago and I can say fusion is still a pipe dream. Maybe ITER works eventually, probably not though. We'll get fusion power when the world has no alternatives. It's a dream these days and one far from culmination. It's sad as it would be a panacea for grid based energy but creating the heart of a star on earth is a huge pain in the ass. We don't even have the materials to withstand neutron sputtering.

Stagg54 wrote: Storing solar or wind energy by converting to hydro is much better than battery but

converting solar or wind to hydro? That's a new one! Care to elaborate.

Stagg54 wrote: still any time you convert energy from one form to another, it is never 100% efficient. There are always losses.

Hmm. Thanks for the lesson in thermodynamics and efficiencies. Care to tell us more about it or share about efficiency of solar thermal, solar electric, combustion engines. Why this is important?

Stagg54 wrote: And I'm sure you've calculated the payoff for fuel efficient car, but most of the ones I've look at, if you drive even 30K miles, the payback is still much longer than the expected life of the car, but hey if you wanna waste your money.. I'm sure feeling like you're saving the planet is an awesome thing... And trucks may get poorer gas mileage, but if you take into account the amount of goods they move, they are much more efficient than any passenger car, but then again, whatever makes you feel good... because as long as you feel good about yourself, who cares what the truth is...

Are you drunk? You obviously missed the subtleties of my comments. Or you wouldn't have said this to me.

Carry on!

so you're telling me that dropping a human dookie on the pavement, deadcenter, at IC is chill? If so, count me back in!

Greg D wrote: Are you drunk?

Yes!

Greg D wrote: converting solar or wind to hydro? That's a new one! Care to elaborate.

I actually did some research on this area in college. I'm not sure if it has been done with solar but with wind there have definitely been some sites where they are doing this.

Converting wind to hydro - totally possible and has been done. Wind turbine instead of turning a generator to directly generate electricity, turns a water pump which pumps water up hill from a lower reservoir into a higher reservoir which feeds a hydroelectric damn. The water that runs through the turbine to generate electricity then goes back into the lower pond to be recycled. Very slick way of storing energy for when the wind stops blowing or for smoothing out power in areas where the wind is very strong but intermittent.

When people think of solar they usually think of just solar panels (ie. photovoltaic cells). There are lots of other solar technologies out there. Parabolic mirrors which focus the solar energy on water in pipes and the technology where they focus the energy with mirrors on a water storage tank and boil it (I forget the name of the technology - think of a kid with a big magnifying glass). Both are very interesting and involve solar and water. In both cases they get the water to boil and run it through a steam turbine just like a tradition coal or oil boiler type plant. They actually had one of these sites up and running somewhere in California. Don't remember if it was commercial or if it was just a test site.

The most interesting design I saw was somewhere in Australia or New Zealand. They took a whole large area of desert (I think it was acres - I think somewhere in the 100s but don't quote me on that) and covered it with glass. All the glass was slightly angled up towards the center. The idea was as the sun heats the air under the glass it rises. The air is directed by the glass towards a "smokestack (for lack of a better term)" in the center. At the bottom of this is a turbine which drives a generator. Almost like converting solar energy to wind energy. You are using the sun to drive air currents, which you are then harvesting to create electricity. They didn't do this, but I imagine you could link that to a pump to pump water uphill into a storage reservoir hence turning solar into hydro.

There is a lot of interesting technology out there. A little effort on google and you can find all kinds of information. Solar ponds where also another interesting technology. There is also a lot of research that went into putting solar panels in space and harvesting solar energy there (suns rays are much strong when not filtered by the atmosphere and you are also closer to the sun as well although probably not a significant amount - I don't know I'm not a astrophysicist.) Problem was they couldn't figure out how to get it back to earth safely in a usable form.

There are a lot of ways to skin a cat so to speak. It just so happens that fossil fuel technology is the most practical at the moment. One could argue that is because that's what we've invested the most money and infrastructure in so far and that is probably true...

Greg D wrote: Well, ground source heat pumps produce 24/7 and are from a renewable source. Geo thermal produces 24/7, too.

Good point on those 2. Haven't done a ton of research on those. Last time I checked - 10 years ago in college - I remember them not producing a whole lot of power and not scaling well as in it may be practical to power your house from it, but impractical to power a whole city from it, but I could be wrong.

Ground source heat pumps from a renewable source? Only if their electricity source is a renewable energy power plant. That could be said for anything though.

tim wrote:Ground source heat pumps from a renewable source? Only if their electricity source is a renewable energy power plant. That could be said for anything though.

exactly my point. There is no free lunch. Not in terms of energy or in terms of environmental impact.

Stagg54 wrote: I don't know I'm not a astrophysicist.)

:)
It's probably because the atmosphere prevents a huge range in wavelength from reaching the ground. phy.olemiss.edu/~cavaglia/c…

If you are interested in solar power and bored google "quantum dots solar power"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quant…

It's my understanding that people are working towards configurations which replace a lot of the really nasty stuff that goes into conventional solar cells with less toxic stuff via this approach.
nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/5901…