AN OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR LEAVIIT

ABOUT RESPONSIBLE ROAD-BUILDING IN SE UTAH

Dear Governor Leavitt,

I am writing with regard to the upcoming UDOT US 191 reconstruction project in San Juan County, scheduled to begin in a matter of weeks. First, if you intend to simply refer this letter to UDOT, please do not bother to waste their time or mine. While I am sure the Department of Transportation means well and is just "doing its job," their replies to my concerns have been painfully vague and ambivalent and sometimes downright disingenuous. I am writing to YOU.

In December at the public hearing in Monticello, I expressed in person and in writing my concerns about the project. I recently read the UDOT/URS responses on its web site---I would be embarrassed to print 'answers' like that. I will briefly sum up my concerns for you:

1) With a growing deficit, this project cannot be justified, or at least THE SCOPE OF IT. More cost-effective ways of mitigating problems are available.

2) UDOT attempted to justify the project by doing a "Traffic Capacity" study. Unfortunately (for UDOT) the study showed that the current road through Devils Canyon will be adequate through the year 2025! When I raised that point, UDOT simply replied that "traffic capacity is not a factor in this project." Of COURSE not, but only because the data didn't support their premise.

3) With traffic capacity no longer a usable reason, they turned to safety. They cited a number of accidents within the project area, noting that 98% of all accidents were single vehicle accidents, and that of them, 74% were "deer-related." The EA located several "clusters" of deer-related accidents. Governor, NONE of those accidents, not ONE, was in the Devils Canyon itself where 90% of the construction costs will be incurred. As even the UDOT rep at the hearing acknowledged, "They're all up on the rim aren't they?" So UDOT is spending millions of dollars to "remove obstacles and increase sight distance" in a place where there are NO deer-related accidents to mitigate!

4) I am particularly concerned about the SIZE of the construction zone, particularly in the canyon. It is currently one of the most beautiful sections of US 191 in southern Utah. The project will obliterate much of that scenery. As a URS rep at the hearing conceded, "It won't even resemble the canyon today." Right now, the road cut in the north end of the canyon is narrow---maybe 50 feet at the most. If UDOT adds a passing lane (12feet), TWO breakdown lanes (6 feet each as are the breakdown lanes north and south of the project site) and then add 20 feet to each side of the new road before allowing vertical stone walls, the width of this project would be 88 feet. That's twice as wide as the current alignment, but probably unavoidable. HOWEVER, according to the maps in the EA and according to the URS rep at the public hearing, the area of total devastation, where every living thing will be bulldozed and removed is between 300 and 400 feet! It is design and construction OVERKILL of the worst kind.

In my comments to UDOT/URS I asked if they could create computer-generated images of the proposed construction so we could all 'see' what the end result will be. Incredibly, UDOT replied that such images were "cost prohibitive." They can spend $10 million on this project, can pay for 'traffic capacity' studies, but they couldn't afford to let the citizens get a glimpse of the scope of this project??? Ridiculous.

The bottom line, as is so often the case, is that UDOT decided to spend the money on this project, and THEN set out to justify it. It never did. It couldn’t. It's purely a political decision. Governor, I'm not even asking you to re-consider this project. Clearly it's going to happen. But at least take the time to look at the scope of the project and the damage, as planned, it is going to cause. Just once, I'd like to see UDOT use a little restraint and display an environmental conscience. It can re-build the road, add its passing lane and not obliterate everything in sight around it.

Thanks for listening,

Jim Stiles

Governor Leavitt can be contacted at: governor@state.ut.us

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

I think it was Shakespeare who said, "A man-made Lake by any other name would still smell as foul." Then again, it sounds like something that might come from our friend Katie Lee, who, along with Glen Canyon Institute (GCI) member Nancy Jacques, planted the seeds for what has blossomed into an active and vital effort to take the "Lake" out of reservoir Powell.

A few years ago, Lee and Jacques were shooting the breeze and wound up talking about how the heck to rename every single "lake"-titled reservoir in the country to reflect its starkly unnatural origin. Idle chatter? Hardly. The idea might sound radical to some, but to this pair it sounded perfectly reasonable to correct such abominable inaccuracy. So Jacques went to work. A friend of hers in the USGS told her how anyone could petition for a name change. She worked on Powell, petitioned through the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to call it a reservoir, got some support for it (River Network and some others carried her message) and then kind of forgot about it, until she stumbled onto a fact that would change everything.

Nancy and Dave Wegner, (GCI's Science Director), had a contract to inventory the rivers and streams managed by BLM in Colorado that still contain native cutthroat. While perusing maps of the watershed, Jacques noticed a body of water named "Lake Powell." Not the one that Glen Canyon lies beneath, but another one. An actual natural lake that was named Lake Powell long before Glen Canyon Dam was ever conceived.

The real Lake Powell is in the same watershed as reservoir Powell. And the U.S. Board on Geographic Names rules do not allow two geographic features in a single watershed with the same name. The board has a policy that reads, "The Board encourages efforts by state and local governments and local citizens to change or modify one or more duplicate names where ambiguity is likely to occur."

As a board member of the Friends of the Animas River, Nancy got their support to create the "Coalition to Rename Lake Powell" and the Glen Canyon Institute signed on shortly afterward. Jacques reached out to the community and garnered support from Living Rivers, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Utah Environmental Congress, and many others. With all these organizations signing on, Jacques sent a formal letter to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names in January of this year, they responded telling Jacques that she should proceed with the name change effort. And now the renaming endeavor is being seriously considered by the U.S. Board of Geographical Names.

The name finally chosen to replace "Lake Powell" is "Glen Canyon Reservoir." The name change will have a huge impact on public perception of the reservoir as a man-made creation and of the dam as a temporary obstruction of nature, the river, and the canyon. And we strongly recommend that you start using that name in every day conversation. It's easy and fun, and will help people to understand. And it can make a difference---that's how Denali's name shifted from McKinley.

Broad public support is the literally the last barrier impeding the realization of Nancy and Katie's excellent idea. Quoting Policy VII again, "well-established geographic names should not be changed unless there is strong public support for the change." Please start by using the new name and also by writing the U.S. Board of Geographical Names.

Bill Bernat

Glen Canyon Institute

Flagstaff, Arizona