tional uses. Highways that open up the wilderness also tend to assure its rapid destruction.

The long-range plan is to extend the Bullfrog-Hole-in-the-Rock highway north around Canyonlands National Park into Colorado, and south to near Page, Arizona. This "Colorado-to-Arizona Parkway" would funnel tourists from Colorado right down through Utah and into Arizona, without even going near the Utah communities most in need of financial aid. Instead of bringing tourists and money into Utah, we would be providing them with a trap door to drop through, right into Arizona.

Chief Justice William O. Douglas once said, "Highway construction must be managed by the same values as every other project that affects wild country uses. Before a sacrifice of any of the last remaining natural lands is made to the Great God Highway, all other alternatives must be considered and weighed."

The Canyon Country Parkway System is an alternative to the Lake Powell Parkway. Modestly speaking, it's an extremely logical plan. Unlike the Bull. frog-Hole-in-the-Rock highway or its extension, the Colorado to Arizona Park way, our parkway system would provide recreation access, give local commu nities a needed boost, and avoid destruction of unique wilderness values, at much less cost.

Because of the many loop drive possibilities, variety of scenic interests, and access to motels, service stations, restaurants, and stores, tourists would likely spend more time and money traveling the Canyon Country Parkway System. A loop road of the Parkway System through the Circle Cliffs would provide the needed East-West route for the local people.

A tourist traveling the Canyon Country Parkway System would find incomparable scenic variety. Wild desert canyons, beautiful mountain views, Indian ruins, petrified forests, cool mountain streams, forests of ponderosa pine and aspen, stands of pinion pine and juniper, and imposing topographic forms present tremendous opportunities for enjoyment. In comparison, the Bullfrog-Hole-in-theRock route has little variety to offer.

Why all the controversy?-Because of a difference in values used to determine priorities, proper use of public lands, and the most efficient use of federal money. We feel that existing roads must be improved before any new roads are even considered. We feel that planning to put a road through de facto wilderness is ignoring present land use trends in our country. We feel that building the Lake Powell Parkway is a very poor use of tax money, and an inefficient way to provide economic aid to southern Utah communities.

What is the purpose of the highway from the Hole-in-the-Rock road to Glen Canyon City, its extension, the Lake Powell Parkway?-According to the Road Commission, it will open up scenic areas to the motoring public, provide access to Lake Powell marinas, provide connecting roads for the local people, and bring great quantities of tourist dollars into Utah. We question, however, whether all this would be accomplished:

(1) Opening Up of Scenic Areas: Nearly all segments of the proposed Lake Powell Parkway would go across the grain of the wild country. Little variety would be provided, and the scenery at 50 to 60 mph would be just a blur of sandstone and distant views. What is needed is a road with scenic variety, a road to tie together the scenic wonders of our state, not one that rips through them like a dull knife. We feel that alternate routes have not been presented by the Road Commission, when logical alternate routes do indeed exist. Mr. Lloyd's bill would close out all options presently open to determine alternates. In effect, Mr. Lloyd and the State Highway Commission are saying to the people of the U.S., "You can have this road and no other." (Blast now, plan later.)

(2) Provide Access to Lake Powell Marinas: Access now exists to all marinas on Lake Powell. If a marina is ever constructed near Hole-in-the-Rock, the Holein-the-Rock road can easily be paved to provide access. If marinas are ever fully constructed at Warm Creek or last Chance Creek, roads can easily be improved to those locations. The fact remains that construction of the Lake Powell Parkway or any of its segments, is not necessary to provide access to Lake Powelland would be unnecessary duplication of an existing highway, the lake itself.

Much has been made of the idea that boaters want to get very quickly from one marina to another. In our opinion, boaters-many of us included-come to Lake Powell to launch boats and enjoy the water-not to pull boats from marina to marina.

Lake Powell is now and was originally meant to be a water parkway. It connects the marinas and access roads, and provides much more interesting scenery than would the Lake Powell Parkway. To effectively use the Lake is a water parkway, why not connect the marinas with a ferry system? A ferry is now in use between Bullfrog Basin and Hall's Crossing. Ferry boats could be used to develop a unique and useful transportation system providing the boater with a way to get his car from marina to marina while he skims along in his boat, providing the tourist with a novel experience and providing the state with a profitable one. With a ferry system, real loop drive possibilities would be opened up, and Lake Powell would be used as intended.

(3) Provide Connecting Roads for the Local People: Hardly. The entire lake Powell Parkway goes through only one town, Moab, and passes miles from any other SE Utah town. If connecting roads are desired, why not improve the road over Boulder Mountain between Capitol Reef and Boulder, and the Burr Trail— Circle Cliffs road from near Bullfrog Basin to Boulder? Or Highway 72 from Fremont Junction to Loa, to provide a feeder line from I-70 into the Canyon country? Or the Cottonwood Canyon road, south from Cannonville to Highway 89? Or, on a larger scale, to fulfill the "Golden Circle" idea, why not develop a parkway that connects the majority of SE Utah towns and scenic areas with one another? Perhaps such an idea is too simple, too logical, or too inexpensive for consideration, however. Priorities seem to get scrambled once in a while in the rush to bulldoze, blast, and bridge something, someplace.

A meeting of the Five County Organization was held at Parowan, Utah, on October 1, 1965. A report was issued concerning the route favored by the Five County Organization. It indicates that at one time, this organization comprising the five counties of southwestern Utah did favor the Boulder-Burr Trail routing. The following is taken from the minutes of that meeting: "Roads-Melford Ahlstrom, reporting:

Commissioner Ahlstrom gave a report of the State Road Commission meeting held in Escalante, Utah, recently, and their efforts to determine the best road to the Bullfrog Recreation Area.

"The Roads Committee passed a Resolution, and suggested that it be approved by the full County Organization membership, and sent to our Utah Senators and representatives in Washington; D.C., State Engineers in the area; and to the Governor of Utah and State Road Commission.

"Commissioner Ahlstrom then presented the Resolution, which was seconded by Commissioner Hyrum L. Lee of Beaver County, put to a vote by Chairman Truman Bowler, and each one voted Aye.

"The approved Resolution was to request a connecting road from Bullfrog Recreational Area to the Scenic Wonders of the Color County, Bryce Canyon National Park, etc. The suggested route to be by way of Burr Trail, Circle Cliff and Boulder, Utah.

"This would open up travel from the Bullfrog Recreational Area to the Scenic Beauties of the Color Country, and to the traveling public of Southern Utah, Southern Nevada and Southern California, and be an aid in the economic development of Southwestern Utah."

(4) Bring Quantities of Tourist Dollars to Southern Utah: They might bring in their bulging billfolds, all right-but where are they going to spend that money?!? Literally no facilities exist along the state proposed parkway. Build new facilities? Why do that when people in the small southern Utah towns have invested heavily in existing motels, restaurants, gas stations? Makes more sense to put a parkway through the towns where facilities are now available. Tourists could easily drive from Grand Junction, Colo., to Page, Ariz. (or vice versa) in less than one day going through only Moab and BullFrog Basin, spending little or nothing in Utah. Our Canyon Country Parkway, on the other hand, would go through over 30 small communities. The Lake Powell Parkway, or as we prefer to call it, the "Colorado-to-Arizona" Parkway, would actually draw people away

from existing towns in need of economic aid, would funnel people away from the majority of the national parks, monuments, and other scenic areas. Good economics? For short-term road builders, yes. For Utah and the people of the U.S. who would be paying taxes to destroy public lands, their lands, it is not good economics.

The road-construction idea dies hard in our relatively unexploited state of Utah, where in general asphalt and cement are equated with that abstraction known as "progress". Possibly suffering from a vague feeling of neglect from the Highway Department, from the Governor, and from industry, and feeling the real or imagined isolation from the more hectic centers of activity like the Wasatch Front, many inhabitants from the southern part of Utah believe that through more roads and more industry they will come to share in the prosperity, enlightenment and happiness which they mistakenly believe prevails in the remainder of the country. An understandable paradox, and an unfortunate one. General Omar Bradley once said, "if we are not careful, we shall leave our children a legacy of billion-dollar roads leading nowhere except to other congested places like those they left behind. We are building ourselves an asphalt treadmill and allowing the last few wild areas of our nation to disappear."

Under Department of Transportation laws, the Road Commission is required to explore and present all alternatives to a proposed project, and to ensure that extensive damage to the environment will not occur. In our opinion, the Commission has not done this. HR15073 reinforces the Road Commission's ignoring of alternatives.

At the June 11, 1969 hearings in Salt Lake City, only two people testified for the trans-Escalante road and 29 Environmentalists testified against it. Some 23 letters received by the Commission supported the highway, but 150 requested that the highway not be built. Most of these letters reflected support for the Canyon Country Parkway System proposal and for an Escalante Wilderness.

Hearings in Kanab resulted in three letters, supporting the trans-Escalante highway and its extension to Glen Canyon City, and 460 letters from all over the United States that were against the highway proposal. But the Utah Road Commission still approved the trans-Escalante road corridor. Obviously, the hearings were held only to convince people of their ideas, and not as a mechanism to receive ideas and constructive criticism about alternates from the public. There is an alternative, a most logical one. that fulfills nearly all the requirements for a good parkway that the Lake Powell Parkway seems to be missing, and that would not be detrimental to the environment. This alternative is the Canyon Country Parkway System. The new I-70 and I-15 freeways will provide rapid access for thrudriver. The CCPS provides a leisurely route for tourists, with unlimited loop tour possibilities, and ties together access roads to the marinas on Lake Powell. May I respectfully suggest that the Canyon Country Parkway System proposal be substituted for the current road provisions in HR15073. Everyone must sooner or later realize that building roads and more roads is not always the answer-that too often what they came to see in air-conditioned comfort was destroyed in the process of getting them there. Too often “development" becomes exploitation when land much more valuable as wilderness is effectively destroyed under the proliferation of highways, mass recreation, and industrial tourism.

We can approach this beautiful, ecologically fragile area along Lake Powell with the intelligent care and love of a people that respects and values its last few remaining pockets of wild country, or we can come with bulldozers and pavement, blasting our way across them, destroying all other options to use of the land. Total land use planning must be given more than lip service. Please revise HR15073 to reflect a sincere approach to, rather than a mockery of, total land use planning.

A balance must be maintained between mass recreation and wilderness. People enjoy both. One must not be sacrificed for the other. Only two percent of all remaining public land in the United States is of wilderness quality-far less than one percent is officialy protected. The balance is sadly one-sided already. We must be very careful and wise in deciding the fate of remaining wild areas. I appreciate the opportunity to present our viewpoint and ideas on the GCNRA proposals. Sometimes from a diversity of ideas come new and better plans. I hope that will be the case in this instance.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MCCOMB, SOUTHWEST FIELD
REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB

Mr. McCOMB. I am John McComb, southwest field representative for the Sierra Club. I will limit my remarks today to a need for a wilderness review, although I do endorse the statements and comments of the other witnesses.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires that all roadless areas over 5.000 acres in size in units of the national park system be reviewed as to their suitability or nonsuitability for wilderness. This review is to be completed and reports made to Congress by September 1974. However, new units of the national park system established after the effective data of the Wilderness Act are not covered by this requirement. It has become customary for Congress to specifically extend this wilderness review requirement to new units of the national park system when they are established. It is particularly important that the wilderness potential of new national parks, monuments, and recreation areas be studied immediately.

In most parks the review process has all too often been a matter of locating those few remnants of wilderness which remain after a legacy of road construction and other developments which were planned with little or no consideration for the need for preserving our wilderness. In the Glen Canyon region this is generally not the case. Here, the National Park Service has the opportunity to do the farsighted planning which should provide a balanced combination of development and wilderness preservation. Wilderness values should receive equal consideration and their preservation planned for in an orderly manner at the same time that other values and needed developments are being considered.

We request that this committee include in whatever bill is reported a provision which would require a wilderness study within 2 years of all roadless areas over 5,000 acres in size. To this end we suggest the following amendment, the text of which is in my prepared statement. It is essentially identical to that in the act establishing Capitol Reef National Park and also the acts establishing Arches National Park and enlarging Canyonlands National Park.

Paul Salisbury will conclude our presentation. (Mr. McComb's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MCCOMB, SOUTHWEST REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE SIERRA CLUB

I am John A. McComb. I am the Southwest Field Representative for the Sierra Club. I have an office located at 2014 East Broadway, Room 212, Tucson, Arizona 85719, but my territory includes all of the four corners states of Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. I am personally familiar with the area under consideration here today, having boated on Lake Powell and traveled by foot, car, and airplane over the surrounding region. I will limit my remarks today to the wilderness potential of lands in the proposed Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

There has been a great deal of discussion about wilderness proposals for the Escalante River-Waterpocket Fold area. The Sierra Club has long supported wilderness designation for this area and the goal continues to have a high priority among the Club's programs. We believe that as a result of the extended public debate on this issue, Congress could justifiably designate this area as wilderness immediately, just as it could adopt the proposal now before this committee which would grant an easement for a specific road corridor across this same area. In both cases the details of the proposals are generally well known. However, such a piecemeal approach to the planning for the preservation and development of this magnificent region leaves much to be desired. All of the alternatives should be carefully considered including their relationship to each other before making any final decisions which will be difficult to revoke.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires that all roadless areas over 5000 acres in size in units of the national park system be reviewed as to their suitability or nonsuitability for wilderness. This review is to be completed and reports made to Congress by September 1974. However, new units of the national park system established after the effective date of the Wilderness Act are not covered by