| OCR Text |
Show A Legacy of Conflict: Utah's Growth and the Legacy Highway Brigham Daniels lobby and inform many of the State's leaders. Future Moves also has sent letters to the Governor and UDOT stating its position (Borgenicht 1998). Farmington Bay Advocates has sent a position statement to many of the participating agencies (Battle 1998b). Friends of Great Salt Lake has held an issues forum and other meetings to educate the public and its members (de Fratis 1998). The Sierra Club has one full-time paid employee addressing the issue and has made lawn signs and organized literature drops (Dougherty 1998). As an alliance of groups the Coalition has held rallies, organized educational events, participated in street fairs, kept members informed, organized letter writing activities to involved officials, written letters to the editor, kept the press informed, and tried to work with business and political leaders. The Coalition has involved volunteer lawyers to write letters and is preparing for a possible court battle. The Coalition members have attended public meetings with the State's Transportation Committee and UDOT's open houses. They are examining the recently released Major Investment Study by the Wasatch Front Regional Council to expose its assumptions. Groups in the coalition also are trying to increase grassroots support by involving people such as ranchers, farmers, and hunters. Davis County and its Municipalities' Officials The cities and Davis County have initiated several actions to protect their interests. Their representatives have participated in meetings and met with many of the decision-makers on a personal basis. They have submitted comments and pointed out concerns on the Major Investment Study (Summur-corn 1998). Perhaps most importantly they have lobbied for the support of other political leaders. Centerville Mayor Frank Hirschi (1998) said, "We have worked with the Governor, President Lane Beattie, and Congressman Hansen to make sure that money is not wasted and that our community is not harmed." Congressman Hansen has written the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the project (Yellowtail 1998), and President Beattie has threatened to stop the funding of any alternative that hurts the cities (Linnell 1998). Utah Department of Transportation UDOT has initiated a broad range of actions, some of which are mandated by federal law. UDOT is working on creating an EIS and has several staff members working full-time on the project. This entails analyzing the project's impacts in detail. UDOT also has made an attempt to involve interest groups and citizen groups in the input process. It has held a number of open house meetings and opened an information center with a staff member to answer the public's questions (Parker 1998). "A committee of local governments has met with the team nearly a half dozen times. In addition, many meetings have been held with each of them" (Hansen 1998). UDOT (officials) also have met with people with private property interests; "developer and landowner discussions are part of the daily routine for the [Legacy] team" (Hansen 1998). In addition, UDOT has hired two consulting firms to help with the EIS and coordinating efforts. These firms, HDR Engineering and FMI Construction Consulting, have helped with the process and projects as assigned. One project of particular interest was a planning meeting to coordinate with participating agencies. In these meetings, FMI pointed out several obstacles to the project. On its list of "internal rocks" it included, "agreement on selected alternatives," "air quality modeling and monitoring," "lawsuit," "merging 404 procedures among all agencies," and, comically, among these other concerns "project name and logo" (FMI 1998, 16). On its list of "external rocks" it included "public opposition," "timely determination of preferred alternatives," "special interest group opposition," "cooperating agency issues," "public acceptance," and "land use concerns-Sierra Club" (17). It is a safe assumption that each of these issues have at least occupied UDOT's discussion, if not actions. Outcomes The impacts of the actors' behaviors, taken as a whole, have complicated the policy process. What was supposed to be on the fast track after Governor Leavitt "directed the Department of Transportation to expedite an environmental study on the Davis County portion of the project" (Gov. 1996) has resulted in stalled, entangled debate. Governor Leavitt's declaration certainly got the ball rolling, and it is likely that his influence is one of the major factors that is keeping it moving at this point. FHWA's actions are tied closely to NEPA and funding issues. These issues have complicated the debate. The NEPA process has kept the environmental issues at the forefront of this debate. The Army Corps of Engineers has had a significant impact and is likely to continue to have an impact due to the importance of the Section 404 guidelines. By issuing opinions on what is and what is not acceptable under these guidelines, the Corps has altered the options on the table. The question of what is acceptable under the Clean Water Act is possibly the most important factor in the entire conflict. The Division of Wildlife Services has brought new concerns about alignments. UDWR's concerns have changed the nature of the debate, particularly surrounding the controversial Farmington Bay area. The Environmental Coalition has had a significant impact on educating the public, and it is unknown how much influence it has had on the other major players. These efforts have increased the political costs of the debate and probably will continue to do so. The local governments have had a great impact on the debate, particularly with the backing of some of the state's most influential leaders. Summurcorn admitted, "The County and the cities wanted UDOT to look at the western alternative. UDOT first decided to exclude the cities' alternative. This took Lane Beattie to get UDOT's attention" (1998). With people like Senate President Beattie on their side, Davis County's and the cities' concerns are important. If President Beattie con- 58 |
