Glen Canyon Institute Newsletter
June 17, 2003
Volume 2, No. 5

 

Hello,
 

Welcome to the Glen Canyon Institute’s June newsletter!

The Glen Canyon Institute is moving its main office back to Salt Lake City – the details are in “Announcements.” This month we present a GCI action alert; the Coalition to Rename Lake Powell needs your help! The Glen Canyon Institute media coverage continues with a nice story in the Salt Lake Tribune in this month’s brief “News Links.”

In “What’s in a Name?” we tell the personal story behind the current effort to rename Lake Powell, how the idea came about, and the events that took it from a good idea to a viable campaign with a genuine chance of succeeding. Member Laurel Hanley reminds us that dams do get decommissioned, and even for a small dam (Quaker Neck Dam ) the ensuing restoration can be multifaceted, rapid, and economic, too, in “Yes we Can!” Finally, the factual yet satirical “Lies, Dam Lies, and Statistics,” inspired by a GCI member who just can’t take it anymore, discredits media portrayals of the Glen Canyon Dam as significant power source.

-billb

Bill Bernat, Membership Director, GCI, bill@glencanyon.org

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS
 

GCI moves back to Salt Lake City. In May, the GCI Board of Trustees made the decision to move the main office for the Institute back to Salt Lake City, where it had been located from the Institute’s founding until 1998. The decision was made to move back to the Wasatch Front as the political and legal battle heats up and the current drought continues to trigger positive prime-time media attention.

GCI is pleased to announce that Chris Peterson will be the director at the new Salt Lake office. Chris is a native Utahan who has been working on a Master of Public Administration degree at the University of Utah, with an emphasis on nonprofit management and environmental policy. In the Fall of 2002, Chris began working with GCI President, Rich Ingebretsen, creating GCI’s new educational brochures, giving slideshow presentations to various groups, and organizing press trips to reemerging Glen Canyon. At the new Salt Lake City office, Chris will be working to manage our existing programs, facilitate increased media exposure, and manage our legal campaign to keep the reservoir level down. Bill Bernat, GCI’s membership director, is remaining in Flagstaff for the summer, to assist in the transition and to take care of our member¹s needs.

Salt Lake City Open House. Come hang out, have some lunch, and mingle with others involved in Utah's conservation issues. The open house will be at 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 26th at 450 S. 900 E. Ste. 160. Please RSVP by June 24th to Chris Peterson at 801.363.4450 or via email at chris@glencanyon.org.

Canyon Country Zephyr publisher receives Brower Award. Jim Stiles was given the Glen Canyon Institute’s 2003 David R. Brower Award on May 9th in Salt Lake City. Rich Ingebretsen said that Stiles was chosen because, "He has never let up for one minute in defense of the Colorado River and its plateau. He is always there as a sort of conscience to us all to keep us on the straight and narrow as we work to preserve and restore this beautiful area.” The first award was given in 1999 to Dan Beard of the National Audubon Society for his conservation ethics and actions on behalf of the Colorado River ecosystem. The news, along with a picture of Jim peering out over his glasses, was printed in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Moab Times-Independent.

August 5-7 Cataract Canyon River Trip! Richard Ingebretsen is sponsoring a three-day, cost-sharing river trip down Cataract Canyon on August 5th-7th. GCI Science Director Dave Wegner will be along as well. The cost is $290. There are a limited number of spots. Please contact him via email at richi47@attbi.com for more information.

ACTION ALERT – RENAME LAKE POWELL

By the Coalition to Rename Lake Powell, 2609 Columbine Ave, Durango, CO 81301

Help us petition the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to rename Lake Powell to Glen Canyon Reservoir. The name is inaccurate and violates the board’s own rules.

At the apex of Larimer, Boulder, and Grand Counties, Colorado exists a lake called “Powell,” part of the Colorado River system. Downstream on this same river is another water body, named in the 1960’s as it subsumed Glen Canyon: Lake Powell.

Under Policy VII of the Principles, Policies, and Procedures of Domestic Geographic Name, two Lake Powells can be considered “name duplication,” not to mention one name being grossly inaccurate: The Glen Canyon “Lake Powell” is not a lake.

Further, Policy Section 1 indicates that naming Reservoir Powell “Lake Powell” at the time was inappropriate: “Names proposed for unnamed geographic features that duplicate another name in the state or nearby in an adjoining state will not normally be approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.”

We are not requesting that maps and signage be changed immediately! We are requesting that, when signage needs replacing― when maps need revision― the name Glen Canyon Reservoir be used.

Please: We need your support. Help us bring accuracy to mapping and names by writing a note in favor of naming “Lake Powell” Glen Canyon Reservoir

Mr. Roger L. Payne

Executive Secretary

U.S. Board on Geographic Names

523 National Center

Reston, VA 20192-0523

Email: BGNEXEC@usgs.gov

NEWS LINKS
 

GCI president Rich Ingebretsen led Chris Smart, who wrote this story for the Salt Lake Tribune, and other reporters and photographers into Glen Canyon in May.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05192003/utah/58148.asp

This article focuses the Grand Canyon and the effects of budget reductions, but also discusses how the Glen Canyon Dam is harming the Grand Canyon.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0519parks-canyon19.html

As expected, personal watercraft are allowed back in the Glen Canyon Reservoir, aka Lake Powell. Reactions are mixed.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05162003/utah/57356.asp

The fight for Grand Canyon river running spots, and for a non-motorized versus a motorized future in the face of the uncertain nature of the wilderness designation of the river, is explained in this article. (GCI only runs and sponsors non-motorized trips.)

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05242003/utah/59845.asp

Glen Canyon Reservior’s, aka Lake Powell’s, Largest Beach is Closed due to E. coli bacteria. (We can’t help pointing out that this is not a problem in running rivers, just standing reservoirs.)

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jun/06052003/utah/63171.asp

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

By Bill Bernat

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 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 it’s 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. Whilst 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, she 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 per the action alert in this newsletter.

YES WE CAN!

By Laurel Hanley

Dams are coming down around the country, not just in the West. The Neuse River originates in north central North Carolina, and runs through the capital city of Raleigh on its way to Pamlico Sound and then the Atlantic Ocean. Historically, the Neuse River had the most abundant fish runs of American shad in North Carolina, and more striped bass and American shad came from North Carolina than any other state. But after the Quaker Neck Dam was built in 1952 by the Carolina Power Company to provide cooling water for its steam generating plant, the catch of American shad declined from 700,000 pounds before the dam was built, to 25,000 pounds in 1996.

Change has been in the air since 1989, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the dam as an obstruction to migrating fish species. In 1991, the Coastal America Partnership proposed fish passage improvements for the Quaker Neck Dam. The Carolina Power Company agreed to the removal of the dam after the Army Corps of Engineers designed an alternative way of removing water from the river to supply its needs. They constructed a 75-foot weir dam at the utility’s intake canal that did not block the Neuse River. The dam was fully removed by September 1998, after nine months of deconstruction. This slow removal rate allowed the sediment that had been held back behind the dam to gradually disperse down the river.

The relatively small size of Quaker Neck Dam, seven feet tall by 260 feet wide, is in sharp contrast to the 1,000 miles of river that have been returned to migratory fish, including 75 miles of the Neuse River and 925 miles of its tributaries!  Migrating fish have regained 90% of their historic spawning grounds in the Neuse River. The Neuse River is now free-flowing from its mouth at Pamlico Sound up to Raleigh, some 218 miles upstream!  This was the first dam on a large river in the United States to be removed for strictly environmental reasons.

Migrating fish had already begun to return even before the dam was completely removed. Large numbers of migratory fish were reported to be spawning and completing their life cycle in the upper Neuse River. Both striped bass and American shad were being caught 75 miles upstream from the old dam inside the city limits of Raleigh.

Since the sharp decline of these fish severely affected the economy and source of income for many North Carolina residents, it is assumed that resumption of both recreational and commercial fishing will generate much-needed income for the state and its people. In addition, the return of migratory fish species will also help improve the ecology of the Neuse River, as migratory fish carry nutrients both upstream and downstream.

The removal of Quaker Neck Dam is a golden example of the success that can be achieved through collaboration and cooperation among agencies, utilities, and conservation groups. Numerous agencies and organizations contributed expertise to the project. Funding for the dam removal was provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the North Carolina Marine Fisheries, and cost approximately $205,500, or $205 per river mile, making it one of the most cost-effective river restoration projects in the country.

The Interior Secretary at the time, Bruce Babbitt, attended the ceremony to begin the deconstruction of the dam, and remarked “We’re removing a dam today in order to restore a river. By restoring a river and a fishery, we will restore and recapture part of North Carolina’s heritage, and restore and repair part of the human spirit.”

(Sources:  American Rivers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)

LIES, DAM LIES, AND STATISTICS

By Bill Bernat

GCI member Reed Burkholder is mad! When the Idaho piano teacher and Snake River activist read an article about the reappearing Glen Canyon (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05192003/utah/58148.asp) syndicated in his local paper, The Idaho Statesman, he took major umbrage at statements made by the BuRec’s spokesman. “They’re fooling people with twisted statistics,” an enthusiastic Burkholder exclaimed. Burkholder has been seriously studying power plant output for several months in an effort to rescue his beloved Snake River and he feels the BuRec uses manipulative PR tactics to sway public opinion in favor of hydropower producing dams.

BuRec spokeman Barry Wirth says that the Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) produces 4.5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity; proudly noting, “that’s a significant number.” But Mr. Burkholder cautions not to be easily impressed by the Carl Sagan-esqe use of the word “billions.”

First, you need to know that although the dam has a stated capacity of 1,296 megawatts, it actually generates less than 50% of that, 514 average megawatts. To their credit, the BuRec is in fact quoting output, and not capacity, but we need to clarify measurement here so we can compare GCD with conventional power plants, which, unlike most hydropower plants, state their capacity as what they can actually deliver.

Every urban center in this country from New York to San Diego is electrified by big power plants, many of which dwarf GCD in output. At least twenty power plants in the West each produce more energy than GCD. In Texas, fifty power plants can each produce more energy than Glen Canyon. (Source: Energy Information Administration, online at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/html1/ippv1t20p12.html.)

Lets get specific with some other power plants in the same area as GCD. The 11-year average output of Hunter in Castle Dale, Utah is 1,048 average megawatts. The 11-year average output of Huntington in Huntington, Utah is 738 average megawatts. And the 11-year average output of Jim Bridger in Rock Springs, Wyoming is 1,749 average megawatts. (Source: FERC Form #1 available from Pacificorps in the office of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission in Boise, Idaho.)

“Significant” hardly seems the correct term when comparing these other Western power plants to GCD. But wait! Didn’t that guy say “billions” of power output units? Surely a gigantic number like billions is significant. Well, not if you do the math.

A 514 megawatt power plant generating at full capacity will generate 514 megawatt hours per hour, which is 4,502,640 megawatt hours per year (514 megawatts per hour x 8,760 hours per year = 4,502,640 megawatts hours per year). So, it’s just a matter of units of measurement.

4.5 billion kilowatt hours = 4.5 million megawatt hours = 4,500 gigawatt hours (the figure GCI often quotes). In the real world, nobody quotes power plant output in annual kilowatt hours because it’s just silly. Heck, why not go down to watts, then it would be 4.5 trillion watt hours. Trillions? WOW.

It’s like bragging that a 2-meter river raft is 20 billion angstroms long (an angstrom is equal to 1 hundred-millionth of a centimeter). You’re bound to impress a lot of people. I recommend angstroms any time you want to make something sound longer than it actually is.

So, now perhaps you can understand Reed Burkholder’s frustration. Upbeat and exasperated all at once, he concluded, “The output of Glen Canyon Dam is low at about 514 average megawatts. This output should be waved in the face of all dam supporters as a waste of the river, a disgrace, an embarrassment. Every reporter and everyone who will listen should be informed about just how low the power production is.”

CORRECTIONS
 

Thanks to the reader who pointed out that in “Creating a Sustainable Future” in last month’s newsletter, we incorrectly printed the word “draught” instead of “drought.” Draught is British variant of the word draft, which means, amongst other things, a kind of beer.

UNSUBSCRIBE