Glen Canyon Sierran
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GLEN CANYON SIERRAN Volume 2 Newsletter of the Sierra Club Glen Canyon Group Issue 2 return to the condi- The Glen Canyon Campaign tions that prevailed Building Momentum during the first half of the twentieth century would sig- hile nature is giving the public a taste of nificantly accelerate Wlife without Lake Powell–currently down sedimentation in nearly 45% from its normal level–the Glen Lake Powell and Canyon Group (GCG) has been active on would significantly several fronts to realize the Club’s objective affect future use and that Glen Canyon and the Colorado River be operation of this fully restored. From fighting new infrastructure reservoir, “ says Dr. projects proposed for the reservoir, to demand- Dohrenwend. As sediment will ultimately ren- ing federal action to address the environmental der Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell reser- impacts of the dam’s operations, the Club’s voir inoperable, as early as 2063 according to campaign to revive Glen Canyon rolls on. one BuRec study, it seems prudent that the In January the GCG joined forces with eight government undertake a complete sediment other groups in demanding that the National management plan so that the public under- Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation stands the potential life span of any future (BuRec) prepare a sediment management plan investments before such financial commit- for Lake Powell Reservoir. This intervention ments are made. was prompted by a Glen Canyon National Also in March, the GCG worked with the Recreation Area (GCNRA) proposal to expand Chapter on releasing a statement opposing the Hite Marina. Located 30 miles from the head of proposed $250 million municipal water pipeline the reservoir, Hite Marina is the first facility that from Lake Powell reservoir to St. George. must be decommissioned due to sedimenta- Currently, “Washington County wastes more tion. Despite a 2001 GCNRA funded analysis, water per capita than practically any other which concluded that sediment will begin to community in the country,” says GCG Vice impact Hite by next year, the Park Service still Chair Patrick Diehl. Indeed, at 355 gallons per planned to move forward with a $2 million person per day, Washington County’s con- expansion. sumption is 25 percent above Utah’s average, In March, GCG Chair John Weisheit accom- and Utah ranks among the most water-wasteful panied Dr. John Dohrenwend, a geomorpholo- of states in the nation–and, by extension, one gist formerly with the US Geological Survey, on of the most water consumptive regions of the a survey of the upper Colorado River arm of planet. The GCG hopes to incorporate efforts the reservoir. They concluded that Hite Marina to oppose this pipeline into a larger statewide will likely require closure by the end of this year effort to implement much more stringent water due to sediment build-up impeding access. Dr. conservation measures to avoid the construc- Dohrenwend also observed that similar to how tion of any infrastructure that would facilitate the BuRec misjudged the amount of water in diverting more water from Utah’s rivers. the Colorado watershed, giving away 22% In April, the GCG joined seventeen other more water on paper than the river actually organizations in demanding suspension of the delivers, they may have misjudged the sedi- planning process for the proposed Antelope mentation rates too. Point Marina project on Lake Powell reservoir. “Sedimentation in Lake Powell, from its In an eleven-page letter sent to GCNRA offi- creation to the present, occurred during a time cials, the groups expressed concern regarding of relatively slow landscape change that is not violations of environmental laws, utilization of fully representative of historic times. Indeed, a outdated planning guidelines, a bias toward servicing motorized flatwater recreation and 80% since BuRec and others began tinkering failure to consult with Navajo interests. with Glen Canyon Dam operations in an effort The proposal involves building a 410-slip to “increase” its populations. In a letter sent to marina, 225-room hotel complex, 150-site the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management campground, fuel dock, convenience store, Working Group the GCG, the Plateau Group restaurant and related infrastructure over a from Flagstaff and others demanded that 950-acre site, 710 of which are owned by the BuRec start following the laws that require Navajo Nations. The Diné Medicinemen’s mitigation of the Glen Canyon Dam’s adverse Association is opposed to the project, as it impacts to the Colorado River ecosystem in would impact ceremonial and sacred sites, and Grand Canyon National Park. Since then, GCG promote inappropriate development on the members have been successfully working to Navajo Reservation. Since visitation is down 11 grow a national network of groups to support percent since 2000 and 35 percent since 1992, the Sierra Club in demanding action to restore there clearly is no need for additional marina the natural river corridor through Grand Can- facilities on the reservoir. yon. On June 17, the GCG, the Club’s Colorado For more details on GCG’s efforts to de- River Task Force and 75 other groups released commission Glen Canyon, contact Owen a statement atop Hoover Dam, site of BuRec’s Lammers, Colorado River Committee Chair, centennial celebration, calling for immediate Glen Canyon Group (435) 259-1063, action to reverse the impacts of Glen Canyon <[email protected]>. Dam on the Grand Canyon ecosystem. Glen Canyon Dam has: caused the complete trans- formation of the Canyon’s food web, such that The Glen Canyon Group Leadership all native insect species are gone; the loss of four of eight native fish and the near disappear- Chair: John Weisheit ance of two more; the departure of muskrats 435.259.8077 • <[email protected]> and beavers from the river corridor and the Vice-Chair & Chapter ExCom: Patrick Diehl elimination of riparian vegetation from the 435.826.4778 • <[email protected]> Canyon’s high water zones. ExCom & Chapter ExCom: Kevin Walker This initiative by the GCG and others began 435.259.7540 • <[email protected]> back in mid January when we learned that one ExCom & Conservation Chair: Tori Woodard of the four native fish that remain in Grand 435.826.4778 • Canyon, the humpback chub, has declined <[email protected]> ExCom Secretary: Dan Kent 435.259.1667 • <[email protected]> National Board Member: Ed Dobson 435.672.2387 • <[email protected]> Treasurer: Jean Binyon 435.259.1633 • <[email protected]> Colorado River Chair: Owen Lammers 435.259.1063 • <[email protected]> Forest/Grazing Co-Chairs: Bill Love 435.259.4626 • <[email protected]> & Patrick Diehl (see above) ORV Chair: Kalen Jones 435.259.8618 • <[email protected]> Membership Chair: John Weisheit Sierra Club activists, past and present, during a rally on (see above) June 16, 2002 at Grand Canyon’s South Rim Amphithe- Outings Chair: Dan Kent ater. Jeff Ingram (right) led the Sierra Club’s fight to keep (see above) dams out of the Grand Canyon in the 1960s. Ed Dobson Wildlife Chair: Dan Kent (inset) currently serves on the national board and is a (see above) member of the Glen Canyon Group. DOME PLATEAU SEISMIC UPDATE DEMISE OF GRAND COUNTY “ACCESS” COMMITTEE The Yellow Cat 2D Seismic Project is located just east of Arches National Park and overlaps For the past year, SC members Kalen Jones, the proposed Dome Plateau Wilderness Area. Dan Kent, Kevin Walker and John Weisheit Earlier this year (see previous issue), The have spent considerable time attending meet- Sierra Club (along with SUWA, The Wilderness ings of the Grand County “Access” Committee Society and NRDC) filed an administrative (GCAC). This committee was formed by the appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals Grand County Council at the request of the (IBLA). On February 22, 2002 the IBLA granted BLM, in order to provide input on road, trail and a stay, halting the project in its tracks. At that ORV issues for an upcoming BLM plan revision. time, the project was 1/2 complete, but had not The GCAC contained both sensible, right- yet entered the most sensitive, wilderness- thinking environmentalists and wacky, irrational quality lands. ORV fanatics, making for much lively (if not The Yellow Cat project, and our initial IBLA productive) debate. (To be fair, we should men- victory, garnered considerable media attention, tion that the GCAC also contained a few polite, including a New York Times Op-Ed piece by rational ORV advocates, as well as people who Terry Tempest Williams and stories in several fell into neither camp.) After several meetings, it national media outlets. It became something of became clear to neutral observers that while the a poster child for Bush administration energy enviros were making good-faith efforts to arrive policy in the intermountain west. at reasonable policy recommendations, the This August we lost the IBLA case. As this ORV fanatics were just repeating the same silly, goes to press, the seismic contractor is discredited arguments over and over and over restaking the area, presaging a return of the again. Eventually, the Grand County Council thumper trucks. A federal court case appealing Members in charge of the GCAC realized that the IBLA decision is in preparation. the effort was going nowhere, and they dis- solved the committee. There is a lesson to be learned here (other than the obvious one that a large percentage of VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES WITH pro-ORV, anti-Wilderness advocates are inca- The Glen Canyon Group pable of engaging in rational discussions of these issues). It’s that the BLM cannot evade its GCG needs help in the following areas decision making responsibilities by following the recommendations of “consensus” groups. The Membership: help build community spirit in BLM needs to listen to a wide variety of public GCG by organizing regular potlucks.