Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ivins council declines to send letter supporting Northern Corridor after tortoise and traffic debate
Summary
Council heard environmental testimony about desert‑tortoise impacts and technical traffic arguments for a regional bypass before voting against authorizing a city letter of support for the Northern Corridor; speakers included Habitat Conservation Plan staff, a county attorney and local conservation advocates.
Ivins City Council debated whether to authorize a letter of support for the federal review that could reestablish a right‑of‑way for the proposed Northern Corridor, and ultimately voted not to send such a letter.
Biologist Cameron Rogan, introduced to the council as a Habitat Conservation Plan administrator, told the council that a corridor road would directly disturb roughly 150 acres of tortoise habitat and require relocation of about 40–50 desert tortoises, whereas developing the reserve’s Zone 6 would risk relocating 400–500 tortoises and require long‑distance translocations. Rogan said the two proposals are linked: "If the road occurs, the mitigation is to set aside Zone 6 and protect that area." He described tradeoffs between a limited roadway footprint and larger habitat protections tied to mitigation commitments.
Devin Snow of the county attorney’s office said there is no active lawsuit contesting the prior rescission of the right‑of‑way and explained that the Bureau of Land Management is currently reassessing the corridor via an environmental review process. Snow said any letter from Ivins would be submitted as part of the public comment record for that review.
Conserv Southwest Utah president Ed Andrzejczyk urged the council to withhold support, saying the corridor would "destroy critical desert tortoise habitat" and that environmental assessments are insufficient for a project of that complexity. Andrzejczyk framed Conserv Southwest Utah’s long opposition to the corridor and urged study of alternatives.
Council discussion touched on local transportation needs, prior agreements reflected in a 2009 lands bill, and legal history; some council members said they lacked sufficient time to research the issue or preferred residents to guide the decision. After a motion to authorize a letter of support was moved and seconded, the motion failed when a majority opposed it.
The council chair said the item was limited to whether the city should send a letter of support, not a broader debate about the corridor itself. The public comment period for the federal review was noted as ongoing.
What’s next: No letter from Ivins will be added to the BLM comment record by the city. The BLM process and any county or regional actions will continue to determine the next procedural steps.
