Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
OCTOBER 19, 1999, TUESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
8304 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
MIKE
MATZ
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
THE SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
BEFORE
THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ON H.R. 3035, THE UTAH NATIONAL PARKS
AND PUBLIC
LANDS WILDERNESS ACT
BODY:
Mr. Chairman,
members of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, we are pleased
to have been invited today to present this testimony regarding H.R. 3035 on
behalf of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and our 18,000 members in Utah
and across the nation. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance was formed in 1983
as an advocacy and educational organization dedicated to the goal of protecting
the public's unique and irreplaceable landscapes in southern Utah for future
generations of Americans. The lands of most concern to our members are those
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, an agency which holds in public
trust more than 23 million acres located predominantly in southeastern and
western Utah. These lands, the spectacular mesas and sinuous canyons, the
sandstone spires and graceful arches, are gems of unparalleled magnificence
owned by all Americans. What remains of these treasures in their natural
condition, unaffected by development, should be placed into the National
Wilderness Preservation System, thereby maintaining a lasting legacy of
protected lands.
"In order to assure that an increasing population,
accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy
and modify all areas within the United States... leaving no lands designated for
preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to
be the policy of Congress to secure for the American people of present and
future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." Such was
the intent of Congress in enacting the Wilderness Act of 1964, a visionary law
that this year celebrated its 35th anniversary. It is therefore appropriate for
Congress now to be considering for Utah the designation of places in their
natural state as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
To the
majority of Utahns' chagrin, we are fast losing the extent and variety of our
wilderness. Very little of it remains anymore. What once seemed vast and
limitless when the Mormon settlers traveled across half a continent and built
this great state is now almost gone. Though the majority of Utahns do support
designation of wilderness, a minority of its people are resistant to change. The
people in southern Utah who toil to make a desert bloom have an abiding love of
land and a keen interest in their custom and culture. They would like to live as
they always have. What they find difficult to understand is how wilderness
designation will affect that lifestyle. In Utah, when President Clinton
established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the uproar was in
part because people didn't know what this action meant for them. We now know.
There really haven't been many changes. Fathers still take their sons from
school during the Fall deer hunt in the monument. Ranchers still graze their
livestock. What changes there are have been for the better. More people are
coming to visit the communities of Kanab and Escalante, staying to see the
attraction, providing businesses with steadily increasing revenues.
Administration facilities are being built in these communities; the construction
is providing jobs and increasing incomes for working families. More
opportunities for the young are available, so they stay in their communities
after graduation. Unless we have the will to protect what remains, too little of
this heritage and the opportunities it presents will be passed along to future
generations.
In Utah, of the 23 million acres administered on behalf of the
public by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), less than 40 percent still
qualifies for designation as wilderness. Because so little remains, Congress
would be wise to set aside more rather than less. Bold steps are necessary to
protect for the future what remains of these national treasures that are
international attractions. No where outside of Alaska is this natural heritage
more in evidence than in Utah. Unfortunately, H.R. 3035 would protect too few of
these places. Most people in Utah would like to see our political leaders be
bolder in their approach to settling the wilderness question. And since these
truly are lands of national interest, Americans deserve better. We in Utah and
others across the country support protection of our country's last remaining
wild places in overwhelming numbers. We firmly believe that enactment of
America's Redrock Wilderness Act, now sponsored by more than 150 Members of
Congress, is the wisest course to adopt.
Though numbers of acres invariably
become part of the debate because of the manner in which we quantify land, this
debate is really about places. Resolution of the issue comes down to whether we
have the fortitude to pass along to future generations places to which have been
ascribed names such as Bear Trap Canyon, Blue Grass Knoll, Crater Island, Doc's
Pass, King Top, Little Sahara, Pilot Peak, Silver Island Mountains, Tweedy Wash,
Wild Horse Pass, and other names which evoke their history and features, or are
named after the people who first set eye upon or settled near them.
H.R.
3035
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance does not support H.R. 3035, the
"Utah National Parks and Public Lands Wilderness Act", in its current form. For
the portion of the state to which the legislation limits its designation of
wilderness on BLM-administered lands, the western and southwestern parts of
Utah, far too little would be added to our nation's Wilderness Preservation
System. This inadequacy stands as the primary reason, though not the only one,
for our strong opposition to H.R. 3035. The legislation does not confer
wilderness designation to all the places equally deserving and most in need of
protection.
Some numbers again can readily underscore our deep underlying
concern. In the western and southwestern portion of Utah, the BLM holds in
public trust approximately 9.5 million of the 23 million acres the agency
manages statewide. On these 9.5 million acres, a comprehensive and thoroughly
documented assessment by citizens of the state found 2.6 million acres to merit
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. We have not yet been
afforded the opportunity to analyze the maps delineating wilderness proposed for
designation in H.R. 3035, maps we note with serious disappointment are being
prepared by the State of Utah rather than the professional experts in the
Department of Interior as would typically be the case. But the acreage figures
listed in H.R. 3035 (exclusive of state-owned sections within each unit of
approximately 100,000 acres total) amount to fewer than 1 million acres, less
than one-ninth of the total BLM acreage in that part of Utah, and less than a
third (27 percent) of what has been documented to qualify as wilderness.
Critically key places omitted
During a two-year period ending in the
Spring of 1998, hundreds of volunteers equipped with the requisite expertise and
knowledge conducted the most thorough catalogue of wilderness ever independently
undertaken. The purpose of the inventory was to ascertain how much wilderness on
BLM public lands qualified under the definition contained in the 1964 Wilderness
Act and the guidelines in BLM's wilderness handbook.
But for one exception,
field personnel were guided by the definition of wilderness contained in Section
2(c) of the Wilderness Act:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where
man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area
where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man
himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further
defined to mean in this chapter an area of underdeveloped Federal land retaining
its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by'
the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;
(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of
sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
We took exception to
(3), in that the threshold for inclusion we placed at a minimum 10,000 acres,
not the 5,000 acres the Wilderness Act allows. A technical committee reviewed
each field assessment, pored over more than 40,000 photographs, checked maps,
and considered all relevant agency data for each unit studied. The rigorous
inventory concluded that 9.1 million acres statewide qualified as wilderness and
merited official designation. In western and southwestern Utah, this inventor)'
identified 2.6 million acres of wilderness in the ranges and basins, Mojave
desert, and transitional habitat zones that all occur there. HR. 3035 proposes
to designate as wilderness too few of these places.
Probably the starkest
example of omission in HR. 3035 is for the Basin and Range region which
predominates in this legislation. Not one basin is included, and only two still
qualify as wilderness. Tule Valley (276,000 acres) and its environs best
exemplify a basin of the Basin and Range region of Utah. Its broad, dry, expanse
holds a remarkable quality of sagebrush desert surrounding several springs,
bordered by rushes, or tules, which lend the valley its name. Crossing the Tule
Valley complex is akin to crossing the Great Basin on a small scale. Coyote
Knoll is to the west and the Deep Creek Mountains beyond; the Chalk Knolls lie
to the south; Fish Springs and Middle Mountain ranges lie to the north; Swasey
Mountain and Howell Peak are on the east. Tule Valley itself is spectacularly
remote. It is an austere landscape, yet one with springs which provide important
habitat for antelope, small mammals, and a variety of raptors, including golden
eagles and fermginous hawks. Tule Valley and its environs are very similar to
places described in Nancy Kelsey's historical account of crossing Utah in the
Bidwell and Bartleson wagon train in the early 1840%. Tule Valley is more than a
basin since the majority of the surrounding ranges also qualify as wilderness
and in combination form an intact sample of a complete basin-and-range complex
and the best remaining representative sample of this type of geography in Utah.
The Snake Valley (101,000 acres) is one of the places that give Utah's Basin
and Range country its especially unique quality. Salt Marsh Lake and its
associated salt and freshwater wetlands comprise the heart of the place.
Crossing the stark landscape toward the Deep Creek Mountains, suddenly one comes
upon a desert that is oddly filled with waterfowl. The water in the lake and
springs is turquoise, as stunning in color as any of the waters found in the
Caribbean. To the north are the Deep Creek Mountains rising to 12,000 feet. As
part of the great Interior West flyway, of which the Great Salt Lake is
recognized for its global importance, the area attracts the same bird species in
large numbers. As a lake and a wetland fed by springs, it is one of the most
productive habitats for these birds in western Utah, a miniature Great Salt
Lake. Visually, it has an abstract quality whose beauty and impact are enhanced
by its lack of trees and expansive views.
The omission of these places in a
wilderness bill for the Basin and Range region is incomprehensible. Issues of
manageability are raised, which purportedly stem from a specious concern of
difficulties in regulating use of off-road vehicle, but these issues simply do
not stand up to scrutiny. If the authors of this legislation believe the agency
is unable to limit use of off-road vehicles in these last two basins, the agency
is being given license merely to shirk its responsibility to protect the land in
the same way other land managing agencies have proven capable. A simple
commitment to public education, coupled with a concerted enforcement program,
would enable the agency to accomplish what is necessary for protecting the only
remaining intact basins, and both the Tule and Snake Valleys must be included in
H.R. 3035.
We have many other examples of omissions that are equally
perplexing. The exclusion of units within the Beaver Dam and Joshua Tree complex
(75,000 acres) is a mystery, given the significance of this type of habitat.
This remarkable wilderness is unique in Utah, a place where three ecological
systems intersect -- the Colorado Plateau, the Great Basin, and the Mojave
Desert. When the rest of Utah is still in winter, the willows, grasses and
cottonwoods are beginning to green and attract migratory songbirds.More than 180
bird species have been identified at the Lytle Ranch just north of the area. The
desert tortoise, in danger of extinction in Utah, inhabits much of this proposed
wilderness. One way to ensure maximum success for the desert tortoise Habitat
Protection Plan is to protect all available tortoise habitat within candidate
wilderness areas. This wilderness complex is home to the endangered peregrine
falcon as well as a variety of birds that live nowhere else in Utah. Several
rare reptiles are also found here, including the Gila monster, the Mojave and
speckled rattlesnakes, the desert iguana and the desert night lizard. This
complex also offers excellent early-season hiking and camping, an important
consideration given the pace of growth in this corner of the state.
Doc's
Pass (32,000 acres) is a case where the need for protection is great because of
imminent development threats, and must for that reason be included. In the upper
drainage within the Doc's Pass wilderness that citizens propose, Beaver Dam Wash
is a cool stream slicing through granite and lava rock. This stream is the only
native trout fishery in the area. It may also support the Virgin spinedace, a
fish that is a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act. This
stretch of stream has been proposed for Wild and Scenic River designation. The
most diverse habitat is found along the stream where thick willows and
cottonwood trees flourish. As noted in the BLM Dixie Resource Area Management
Plan and EIS: "Riparian vegetation, in combination with other vegetation types,
results in a diversity of habitat known as the edge effect. Riparian zones also
link habitat types, provide travel lanes for wildlife, and serve as winter
resting areas for waterfowl along the north-south flyways." The Doc's Pass
complex marks a transition zone between the colder Great Basin ecological system
to the north, and the northernmost extent of the Mojave Desert to the south.
Because of this ecological juxtaposition, many different kinds species reach
their distribution limits in this zone.
The Slaughter Creek unit of the
Doc's Pass complex links productive habitat of Cougar Canyon shrub lands with
higher elevation roadless lands in a National Forest. The unit also includes
eight tributaries of the watershed and possesses some of the most productive
wildlife habitat in this part of the state. The BLM is concerned, due to the
human population growth and related development around St. George, about
increasing threats to wildlife habitat, which wilderness designation could
ameliorate. The East Fork of Beaver Dam Wash is a perennial stream segment
within the Butcher Knife Canyon unit. A series of historic pack trails lace
their way through the canyon. The combination of biological importance and
historical significance argue convincingly for inclusion of the Doc's Pass
complex, yet H.R. 3035 excludes it likely because of the possibility for
development, which would devastate these very qualities. A dam and reservoir
have been proposed by the Washington County Water Conservancy for bringing water
supplies to an growing urban area that already has the highest per capita water
use of any in the country. The need for protection greatly outweighs the need
for additional water supplies.
Dry Creek (10,000 acres) is immediately
adjacent to the Red Butte unit, which also abuts Zion National Park. H.R. 3035
includes a small portion of Red Butte, and none of Dry Creek. The purplish hue
of the colorful Moenkoepi formation contrasts with the buff and red of the
sandstone in the park. The canyon bottom is prime habitat for the Southwest
willow flycatcher. Dry Creek boasts prime deer habitat and excellent hunting
opportunities that are not permitted in the national park. In common with other
Zion-adjacent units, though, Dry Creek would serve to complement the natural
values protected by the national park while still allowing for activities not
permitted in the park. The particular qualities of Dry Creek include the
relatively rare riparian habitat along the banks of Dry Creek which flows
through the unit. This is a case again where the Washington County Water
Conservancy District is eyeing an unnecessary water development project.
The White Rock-Paradise-Steamboat complex (168,000 acres) includes
diverse mountain topography, from the 9000-foot high crest of the White Rock
Range, to the volcanic remnants of the North Peaks and Steamboat Mountain, to
lower sagebrush benches. Much of the Paradise- Steamboat area is volcanic in
origin, making this area relatively rare among candidate wilderness areas in the
region. This northeasterly trending range is approximately 25 miles long and is
composed of several units separated only by dirt roads. Some of the largest
unbroken stands of pition-juniper woodland in Utah are found here. The
archeological history of the volcanic portion of this complex adds to its
wilderness value. Anobsidian deposit south of this area was the hub of
prehistoric activity in the region. Tools and weapons made from this natural
glass were traded throughout the region. Wildlife found in the
Paradise/Steamboat complex was equally important to ancient peoples and led to a
high density of important cultural sites inside these wilderness areas. Elk,
deer, antelope and cougar are today very common in this roadless complex. The
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has identified the northern half of
the White Rock Range as critical summer deer habitat. Cougar, bobcat, badger,
and a number of raptor species are also found. Unlike most mountain ranges in
western Utah, the higher parts of the unit support Douglas fir and aspen stands.
Numerous springs are found in the area.
No reason has been given for
exclusion of the White Rock Range in H.R. 3035. The Steamboat Mountain unit of
the larger Paradise-Steamboat complex is included in H.R. 3035, but given the
relative rarity of this kind of volcanic feature among candidate wilderness
areas, the entire complex needs to be included in H.R. 3035.
One of the most
striking impressions which the Mountain Home Range complex (90,000) made on a
field surveyor for the citizens' proposal was its remarkable remoteness. Indeed,
the Mountain Home Range is quite remarkable for its isolation. Situated near the
Nevada state border just east and south of Great Basin National Park, these
mountains offer spectacular views into the distance. But the Mountain Home Range
itself boasts impressively scenic granite fins and buttresses. Nearby, a rock
formation known as the Toad is a particularly striking natural feature. An
abundance of wildlife also inspires awe in any visitor to the area because it
contains critical habitat for antelope, as well as year-long habitat for elk and
mule deer. This area has some of the most prime wildlife habitat of any place in
the Basin and Range region, as well as being a repository for important plant
species that are endangered elsewhere in their ranges. Among the Threatened and
Endangered plant species found in the area are the Great Basin fishhook cactus
and the beardtongue penstemmon. No conceivable reason exists for exclusion of
this complex. The major threat is excessive off-road vehicle use.
The
Burbank Hills and Tunnel Springs (94,000 acres) is a complex comprised of a set
of medium-size mountains situated between the Confusion Range and the Mountain
Home Range. The low ranges in this complex provide a connecting corridor
important for wildlife in these two other proposed wilderness areas. The BLM
considers this area to be critical seasonal habitat for antelope and year-round
habitat for wild horses and deer. Tunnel Spring abuts Desert Experimental Range,
a World Heritage Site. The historic Frisco-Ely stagecoach mail trail passes
through this complex. As in many other cases with wilderness proposed by
citizens' of Utah, no explicable rationale exists for the omission of this
complex with its valuable wildlife and historical attributes.
The scenic San
Francisco Mountains (40,000 acres) possess a 5,000-foot elevation gradient with
a full range of plant communities from salt desert shrub to Douglas fir, and
include species such as choke cherry and oak found in the intervening
elevations. Other plant communities are dominated by aspen, pition pine,
juniper, and sagebrush. The San Francisco Mountains provide year-long habitat
for elk, deer, and cougar, as well as critical habitat for antelope. Listed
Threatened and Endangered plants include Ostler's pepperplant, a member of the
mustard family which is known to occur only in this mountain range. Aside from
increasing use of off-road vehicles, the only other imaginable conflict with
designation of this complex are the presence of mining claims. However, these
claims are located primarily along the southeastern edge, hardly sufficient
justification for excluding the entire unit. There is very little commercial
promise in these claims.
The Cricket Mountains complex (63,000 acres) is an
unusually shaped range that lies at the eastern end of the Basin and Range
region. BLM considers this area critical habitat for antelope and for a variety
of raptors, including golden eagles, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks,
ferruginous hawks. Paleo-Indian sites are found on the west side of the range,
near the shore of Sevier Lake. This is another example of an area left out of
H.R. 3035 because it actually needs wilderness protection, in this case again
because of mining claims filed in association with a nearby limestone mine. The
boundary proposed by citizens of Utah provides adequate space for the mine and
the remaining mining claims cover less than 20% of the range, providing no sound
reason to exclude the entire area.
Sand Ridge (73,000 acres) and Rockwell
(12,000 acres) are units proposed for designation because of their unique
natural characteristics. Sand Ridge is the largest undisturbed grassland
remaining in western Utah, and contains wetland and riparian bird habitat, as
well as extensive prey habitat for raptors. The historic Dominguez-Escalante
trail traveled by these Fathers in 1776 passes through this area. Rockwell is a
series of sand dunes not found elsewhere in Utah's Basin and Range country. Much
of this area was deservedly given status as a Wilderness Study Area in BLM's
first wilderness inventory in the 1980s. It is host to plant species found
nowhere else, notably an endemic species of fourwing saltbush that grows up to
12 feet tall.
The Far East Great Basin complex (216,000 acres), Stansbury
Mountains (23,000 acres), and Newfoundland Mountains (23,000 acres) are three
additional places that for a variety of unique biological, geological,
archeological, and recreational characteristics should be included in H.R. 3035
but are not. The same is true with Little Grouse Creek Mountains (15,000 acres),
Grassy Mountains (24,000 acres), Little Grouse Creek (1,300 acres), and Mount
Escalante (17,000 acres), all of which have been supportively recommended by
citizens of Utah for inclusion.
Finally, while H.R. 3035 includes small
portions of some areas identified by citizens of the state for wilderness
designation, substantial portions are omitted from Swasey Mountain, Crater
Island. the Silver Island Mountains, Deep Creek Mountains, and North Wah Wah
Mountains. Because wilderness designation is key for maintaining large blocks of
wildlife habitat, particularly vital in a desert environment, H.R. 3035 should
be expanded to include all, not simply minimal portions, of these key areas,
especially since conflicts are manageable or nonexistent. Finally, smaller
portions of three or four areas included in H.R. 3035 need to be expanded to
incorporate all the wilderness quality lands. This is the case for the South Wah
Wah Mountains, Ochre Mountain, Cedar Mountain, and Bald Eagle Mountain.
Summary of Omissions
The above discussion of key wilderness in western
and southwestern Utah that is omitted from H.R. 3035 amply demonstrates the
inadequacy of this legislation and the convincing need to improve upon this
deficiency. We hope the committee would give serious consideration to making
substantial additions because, as noted above, only 2.6 million acres of land
remains with wilderness characteristics. The remainder of the 9.5 million acres
in this region of the state is therefore available for development, or in many
cases has been used for such activities. What citizens of Utah, and others from
around the country, are endeavoring to reach is balance, and already the scales
are tipped on the side of development. Asking for 27 percent of our public land
in this region to be retained in its natural state is far from an unreasonable
request for the long-term disposition of lands in which every American has a
vested interest.
This is not to suggest that the concerns of residents who
live near these proposed wilderness areas, whose interests in keeping wilderness
designation to token amounts in fewer places have been ably represented by
members of the Utah Congressional delegation in past legislation and now in H.R.
3035, are to be taken lightly. On the contrary, those concerns are legitimate,
and have to be accorded serious consideration.
Undoubtedly the biggest
concern expressed by opponents is the impact wilderness has upon rural
economies. A recent study by Professor Paul Lorah of St. Thomas University
looked at growth patterns in 113 Western counties, and found that counties with
a higher percentage of wilderness located in them had higher total income and
employment, which debunks the claim that wilderness reduces the number of jobs
and the ones that are created are the service type that are lower paying.
In an article by Kevin DuffyDeno of the Gore School of Business in Salt
Lake City, which examined the effect of wilderness on growth patterns in 250
non-urban counties in the West, the author could find no empirical evidence that
counties heavily dependent on extractive industries such as mining or oil and
gas had been affected adversely by wilderness designation.
In 1992, the
General Accounting Office released a survey of various studies and found none
that credibly documented any adverse effects to the mining industry from
wilderness designation in Utah. The backbone of Utah's mineral economy
(employing about 1 percent of Utah's workforce, a surprising low percentage)
rests in northern Utah (copper production), central Utah (coal production), and
the Aneth Field and Uintah Basin (oil and gas production). None of these areas
would be affected by areas promoted above by citizens for wilderness
designation. Utah has had over the past decade a number of Wilderness Study
Areas, effectively managed as though these places were part of the nation's
Wilderness Preservation System, and despite the existence of this de facto
wilderness, taken as a whole, rural Utah is experiencing growth in per capita
and total income, according to statistics from the Utah Office of Planning and
Budget in the Governor's office.
By any quantifiable or anecdotal measure,
wilderness designation in actuality helps rural economies, though misperceptions
among the rural populace, spread by county commissioners and local developers,
tend to die slowly. The perception that wilderness designation has a negative
impact on local economies is not borne out; in fact, the opposite holds true.
Though the effect of wilderness designation on the economy is the primary
reason opposition arises, there are other misconceptions and dogma that fuel
antipathy toward wilderness, but the important fact to remember is that
opposition to wilderness, while vociferous, is a minority of opinion. Polling,
the benchmark that for better or worse we have as a society used to gauge public
sentiment, finds Utahns always decidedly in favor of protection more rather than
less wilderness. An independent public opinion survey conducted by the Coalition
for Utah's Future shows that 87 percent of Utahns say they value preservation of
natural roadless areas. In October 1999, Dan Jones and
Associates found that 54 percent of Utahns support the 9 million acre proposal
embodied in America's Redrock Wilderness Act. Other polls previously conducted
have seen percentages for support of significant wilderness as high as 70
percent, and a survey compiled by the Governor's office of written and oral
responses during a series of wilderness hearings around the state found 71
percent to support the citizens' proposal for wilderness designations.
Whether overwhelming or not is arguable, but the majority of Utahns do
support wilderness designation beyond that which members of the Utah delegation
routinely propose. Utah residents' support for wilderness is augmented by others
from around the country, and this is reflected in the fact that America's
Redrock Wilderness Act has 151 cosponsors, more than at any time previous, which
underscores the national interest in these lands. By taking an objective look at
wilderness designation, most in our state have come to understand that in every
instance in which arguments against wilderness have been raised, the fears can
be alleviated, the concerns are largely misplaced, and the criticisms against
wilderness are often based upon unfounded assertions rather than the facts.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance will continue to oppose H.R. 3035
strenuously unless due consideration is given to the views of a majority of
Utahns, who recommend that all the wilderness that remains - which is a fraction
of the total base of public land managed on our behalf by the BLM - be seriously
considered for inclusion. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
needs to make substantial additions of the places qualifying and deserving but
currently left out before we could begin to consider supporting this
legislation, and even then there are serious problems with proposed management
language in H.R. 3035 that must be addressed.
Problems with Management
Language
In the history of enacting wilderness legislation, which has added
a total of 104 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System,
great care has been taken to maintain the purity of the wilderness concept and
to observe standard prescriptions that have made consistent in large measure
management of wilderness. H.R. 3035 contains unacceptable new prescriptions that
diverge from this pattern of consistency in management prescriptions. This
legislation is sadly flawed and, if enacted as currently drafted, would result
in a weakening of wilderness standards. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
cannot support erosion of the wilderness concept as embodied in H.R. 3035. We
discuss in detail below each section of H.R. 3035 with which we have
consequential concerns that must be addressed to satisfaction.
Section 103
(c): In Utah, as well as other states, a federal law now more than 130 years
old, entitled Revised Statute 2477, is being interpreted by some development
interests as a means by which to obtain ownership of rights-of-way for roads and
highways across publicly owned lands. County governments in Utah have thousands
of such claims crisscrossing national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and
proposed wilderness, some of which are currently being contested in courts of
law. Section 103 (c) would have the unacceptable effect of codifying the R.S.
2477 claims. By definition, wilderness in national parks is land without roads,
yet Section 103 (c) opens the way for development interests to carve
rights-of-way with convoys of bulldozers and roadgraders onto national parks in
haphazard and damaging fashion. This section must be eliminated.
Section 103
(d): While grandfathered into a few park units, such as Capital Reef National
Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, grazing is generally considered
to be inconsistent with the purposes for which these natural places are set
aside for the use and enjoyment of the general public. By requiring that grazing
"shall be permitted to continue" this legislation emasculates the ability of
land managers to administer grazing programs with the interests of the rancher
and the land in mind. It is also superfluous, since the Wilderness Act in
Section 4(d) (2) specifically permits grazing to continue where established
historically prior to enactment of the act. Wilderness designation does not
limit grazing privileges, but does and should require that the land managing
agencies, in this case, the National Park Service, consider additional values
when granting the privilege to graze livestock. This section should be amended
to state that the grazing of livestock "may be permitted" where established
prior to enactment.
Section 104: This section on water rights is one of the
most troublesome because it completely diverges from past wilderness bills.
Water is such a critical necessity for the health of ecological systems in
desert wilderness. It is truly incomprehensible a wilderness bill for a desert
where rivers and springs, often only ephemeral, are the lifeblood for desert
wildlife and riparian vegetation. In the California Desert Act and the Arizona
Desert Wilderness Act, Congress expressly provided for a water right with
identical language: "Congress hereby reserves a quantity of water sufficient to
fulfill the purposes of this title." Water rights are adjudicated by state water
laws, and nothing in this legislation or other wilderness bills has ever
superseded state law, which means that the water right conferred upon wilderness
is junior to all existing rights and claims at the time of enactment. H.R. 3035
has to expressly reserve a water right for wilderness by using the same language
as the California Desert Act and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, or the
legislation will remain unacceptable.
Section 105: This section inadvisably
restricts the authority of the land managing agency or adjacent land managing
agencies from implementing sound decisions for resource use and allocation, and
needs to be struck. It is also precedent-setting language for a wilderness bill,
and therefore unacceptable. The practical effect of this provision is to require
that, despite their expertise and judgment, professionals in the land managing
agencies absolutely must permit any power plant or strip mall to abut a
wilderness area even when perfectly acceptable alternatives locations exist.
Section 106: The language on overflights is a recipe for disaster. In many
national parks, Grand Canyon being the best example, the nightmare of
uncontrolled sightseeing plane traffic not only diminishes the experience for
the majority of park users, it also has resulted in deaths from mid-air crashes.
By explicitly stating that any low-level flights cannot be restricted or
precluded, H.R. 3035 by statute would create and exacerbate the very problem for
which the National Park Service is currently groping to find some sort of
mitigating resolution.Section 201 (b): Without review of the maps, we have no
indication what ways, routes, twotracks, or trails are cherry- stemmed or what
distances setbacks from legitimate roads are, and with the State of Utah
preparing the maps we are very apprehensive about the portent for problems.
We were given to understand we would have an opportunity to review maps
prior to this hearing, but as of yet have not received copies of any maps.
Section 202 (el: We are concerned that the manner in which this provision is
written would permit construction of facilities such as water guzzlers (or
catchments) designed to increase the population of non-indigenous species.
Construction of any facilities (except for narrow exceptions) is inconsistent
with the definition of wilderness. This section must be revised to clarify that
management activities do not include construction of facilities for artificial
water sources to increase populations of either nonindigenous or native species
to levels that would otherwise exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat.
Section 202 If): This section represents one of the most disturbing
provisions of the entire bill. The language far exceeds anything ever included
in any wilderness bill for public lands. The practical effect of Section 202 (f)
in its entirety is to cede authority to manage public lands covered by this bill
to the Department of Defense. Significant deletions and modifications in this
section must be adopted by the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
or the legislation will remain unacceptable.
No one denies that the nation's
military readiness is a very important matter. However, it should be noted that
significant acreage near the Utah Test and Training Range where such
preparedness is practiced has been included in Wilderness Study Areas for more
than ten years, through the Persian Gulf War and the peacekeeping mission in
Kosovo. The Air Force has flown hundreds of sorties, or practice runs, annually
during the last decade, and military personnel at Hill Air Force Base have
acknowledged that Wilderness Study Areas have in no way affected their ability
to ensure pilots are properly trained, equipment is thoroughly tested, and
emergencies handled quickly.
The level of patriotic fervor into which this
sect/on is disingenuously wrapped is particularly difficult to comprehend,
especially given that de facto wilderness and military training operations have
coexisted without problem for so long. The language depicts a level of paranoia
that simply has no basis in reality. Conveying highest principal authority on
these matters to the Department of Defense essentially adds the adjacent
wilderness areas to the Utah Test and Training Range. Much of what authority is
granted in this section, (i.e., access into wilderness areas for emergencies) is
already granted in the Wilderness Act (Section 4(c)), and is completely
unnecessary. This section goes far beyond what is sensible or even prudent to
ensure military preparedness, has been derived from nothing in previous
wilderness bills where military preparedness was an issue, and because of these
reasons nearly all of this section needs to be struck.
Section 202 (g): As
in Section 103 (d), this section elevates grazing to the predominant use by
directing that the BLM "shall" continue to permit livestock grazing, and must be
changed to facilitate greater flexibility on the part of the agency to manage
livestock grazing in a manner that is most beneficial to the health of the
range, consistent with other values.
Section 202 (h : The fact that Congress
would recognize that "there is little or no water or waterrelated resources in
the areas which could be affected by Wilderness designations" should lead to the
logical conclusion that the scarcity of water should require an express water
fight. As discussed for Section 104 above, any water fights conferred to
wilderness would be subject to Utah water laws and therefore junior to any
existing right or claim. There would be no usurpation of existing water
allocations. It makes sense to stick to standard language on water rights
contained within past wilderness bills. This is a very serious problem with H.R.
3035.
Section 203: Wilderness release is one of the most important matters
in legislation of this type because, once again, wilderness is a non- renewable
resource and once it is gone, it is likely gone forever. Therefore, the
conservation community has been extraordinarily vigilant in safeguarding the
opportunity to designate lands in the future that qualify but that are not
included in a specific piece of legislation at the time of its enactment. H.R.
3035 is craftily drafted, but unacceptable because the language precludes future
opportunities that need to be assured.
In Utah, the matter of release is
further complicated by a recent provision inserted into the Defense
Authorization Act by the Chairman of the National Parks and Public Lands
Subcommittee. Interpretations of that provision (which calls for the Department
of Defense to complete a stud), regarding the impact wilderness designations may
have on military training operations in the vicinity of the Utah Test and
Training Range) vary as to the extent to which the language impacts the so-c led
202 planning process. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance was strongly opposed
to the study as a needless delay (at taxpayers' expense) of the environmental
review process to establish new Wilderness Study Areas. It is our understanding
of the language that the study and consequent delay only affect lands adjacent
to the Utah Test and Training Range, but others have contended publicly that the
provision halts the entire 202 process for the whole state. The inclusion of the
provision in the Defense Authorization Act is in our view an act of bad faith in
the overall debate regarding wilderness, made unconscionable by a promise to
remove the provision at the appropriate time that was broken.
Completion of
the 202 review process and adoption of an amendment to resource management plans
to establish WSAs for lands found recently by the BLM to qualify as wilderness
is of preeminent importance to the conservation community. Should the provision
affect the entire state, and not solely lands adjacent to the Utah Test and
Training Range, or should a lawsuit arise based on the provision inserted in the
Defense Authorization Act that seeks to enjoin the process from being completed,
the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance would find it difficult if not impossible
to work with any confidence in the amendment process for H.R. 3035, and toward
resolution of the wilderness question for western and southwestern Utah at this
time.
As far as the release language in Section 203, as currently drafted,
we find additional problems with which to raise concerns and for which we hope
the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee would be amenable to revision.
Specifically, the language needs to be rewritten so as to allow the option of
managing the lands not designated wilderness by H.R. 3035 in a manner that
maintains the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness in the
future, not presently the ease with the existing wording. In requesting this
change, we are not saying the lands must be managed so as not to impair their
suitability, only that those lands not designated by this may be managed to
maintain their wilderness character.
In addition, this language as now
drafted, related to application of Section 202 for seven Utah counties, would
appear to forever preclude the agency from henceforth exercising its authority
under Section 202, in effect repealing that particular section of the Federal
Lands Policy Management Act for seven counties. The language needs to be revised
to make clear the intent of Congress, which should not be to repeal Section 202
of FLPMA for seven counties. In the future, BLM should certainly have the
ability to carry out its authority under Section 202.
Section 204: This
section is an unnecessary and unacceptable precedent. As discussed previously
for Section 105 of H.R. 3035, the language here essentially mandates that the
agency permit any kind of development right up to the boundary of wilderness, no
matter that there might be different designs or locations that would work just
as well. This entire section must be dropped.
Summary of Problems with
Management Language
Designation of wilderness entails not only adding
special places into the National Wilderness Preservation System, it means
assuring that the concept of wilderness and the standards for managing it are
maintained. While H.R. 3035 is certainly an improvement over past wilderness
bills drafted and supported by members of the Utah delegation, it is far from
acceptable as currently written. Whereas past bills have included the hardest of
release language and authorization to build dams and transmission lines inside
wilderness, we see the problems with H.R. 3035 possible to remedy with changes
to, or elimination of, contentious language outlined above. The Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance urges the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands to
give serious consideration to maintaining the integrity of wilderness idea, not
undermining it as H.R. 3035 does currently. We will be unable to support the
bill unless the reasonable changes suggested specifically and generally above
are in large measure adopted, and would be pleased to work with staff on
modifications that the committee should adopt.
Conclusion
The
reasons are many to add what wilderness remains to the system established in
1964 by Congress for protecting in perpetuity just such a legacy of pristine
landscapes. As Utah's population continues to grow at rates that lead the
nation, the sprawl of civilization's trappings - the highways and houses,
shopping malls and office complexes - impresses upon a majority of people the
premium preservation of open spaces represents and an opportunity we have come
to realize should not be squandered. The United States has led the world in
recognizing the need to set aside places just as they are, and our society has
come to appreciate this need even more while we see stunning vistas marred,
fields turned into housing tracts, forests logged for the lumber to build them,
and paved roads congested with traffic leading everywhere. No one disputes that
effective use of the land's bounty has been and will continue to be invaluable
to the benefit of humankind, yet what people now would like to see is balance.
Increasingly, we recognize it is not essential to retain our standard of living
by developing every comer of the world or every parcel in each county.
As
open space succumbs, habitat for wildlife decreases in size, which thereby
lessens the diversity of species and reduces numbers of individual species. This
disconcerting reality limits our use and enjoyment of wildlife by reducing
opportunities for hunting or fishing or photographing or simply seeing; the loss
of habitat and attendant reduction in wildlife populations is a harbinger of the
health of our environment, much like a canary in a mine provides warning of
unfit conditions for miners. Impairment of the environment affects all living
things, including ourselves. We now understand better than ever that maintaining
clean sources of water and fresh supplies of air is vitally important to us, and
wilderness is the reservoir for these necessities of life.
Civilization
continues to eat away at our wilderness. Fewer places remain for the type of
relaxation and rejuvenation that are provided by natural areas, and those that
are left have become increasing crowded and overused, diminishing the very
attributes people seek them out for solace and solitude. While oftentimes this
argument is reduced to assertions that protecting wilderness is simply elitist,
only for the backpackers and kayakers, one need only look at the visitation
numbers for Utah's national parks and how they have increased markedly in recent
times to understand that enjoyment of natural areas is a preoccupation of the
many, not the few. Families, the young and the elderly, seek out the kinds of
opportunities that enable them to see and enjoy that which is natural,
beautiful, and so different from their everyday work lives. Wilderness provides
opportunities for horse riding, for walking, for picnicking, for birdwatching,
for fishing, for escape and wonderment - popular activities enjoyed by nearly
all Americans.
Wilderness also harbors unmet challenges for scientific
research to understand better the world in which we live and which sustains us.
Wild places are an open book for studying geology and archeology, and provide
for the protection of these key links to our past. Wilderness offers the
possibilities for discoveries in medicine that can cure the presently incurable.
We need wilderness to save us from ourselves, so that our environment is kept
livable and healthy.
Wallace Stegner wrote this about wilderness:
Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining
wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last virgin forests to be turned into
comic books and plastic cigarette cases; if we drive the few remaining members
of the wild species into zoos or to extinction; if we pollute the last clean air
and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved roads through the last of
the silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own country
from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.
Even
if one never visits these areas, never is able to gaze at the magnificent vistas
from the side of a highway into the Escalante, just knowing they are there and
protected for the future provides comfort and relief. There will always be some
left of that which made this nation great, that from which we have hewn
ourselves as a people.
END
LOAD-DATE: October
20, 1999 
