frog Marina. The alternative put forward by the Sierra Club and allied conservation organizations, as given expression in the Moss bill, authorizes only a study. The alternative route favored would be a 150-mile detour up the Hole-in-the-Rock Trail across the Burr Trail and thehn south to the Utah Marina area. With the acknowledged opposition to the span across the Escalante River which I would recommend to be constructed several miles south of Stevens Arch, the authorization of a study only is obviously a license to kill the road. If we fail to achieve actual authorization in this legislation it might be our last chance to achieve proper access across the southern portion of our State in this century and we will be depriving all of our citizens except those with the time and ability to walk, of the opportunity of looking upon some of America's most spectacularly beautiful scenic views. The span across the river would still allow some 60 miles of backpacking for those engaged in this activity on the Escalante River area and the preservation of this area under my bill, in my judgment, would be given equal prominence. Again, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I thank you for coming to Utah and granting this opportunity for our people to speak for the record. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Representative Lloyd. Are there any questions of this witness? Our next witness, Congressman Gunn McKay, was unable to be here today. He has been out of action all week with a very painful back injury. He had hoped until the last minute that he would be able to make the trip but his doctor advised against it. He will be present at the Washington hearings which are scheduled for June 8 and will testify there. He has submitted a statement which will be placed in the record at this point followed by the statement of Senator Bennett which was submitted by Mr. Lloyd. (Representative McKay's statement follows: STATEMENT OF HON. GUNN MCKAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed at not being able to be with you today, for it is always a pleasure for me to welcome distinguished guests to Utah. I hope your visit will be enjoyable as well as informative. Certainly, you will be hearing from people who all have a deep affection for this land, regardless of their point of view on the issues which are the subject of this hearing. I shall present my own position on the Glen Canyon Recreation area in detail when these hearings reconvene in Washington. I believe it appropriate at this time for me to mention only briefly what I believe the issues to be. First, what should be the boundaries of the Recreation Area? Particularly, is it appropriate to include within it a substantial portion of the Escalante Drainage Area? Second, is it appropriate to create a second, special administrative zone outside the Recreation Area boundaries? Third, how should road development be treated within the recreation area? Specifically, does this committee have enough information, without requiring further study, to determine the need for and to designate the placement and administration of a road corridor from Bullfrog Basin to Glen Canyon City? And, finally, upon what principles should the new entities be administered? I know these are difficult problems, and cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all. I am confident, however, that this committee will consider carefully all of the points of view presented, and that its report will represent a conscientious effort to protect and develop the land for this generation. and those to follow. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your coming and wish you success in your labors here. (Senator Bennett's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. WALLACE F. BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to testify in full support of H.R. 15073, Congressman Lloyd's bill to establish the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona and the Canyon Country National Conservation Area in the State of Utah. I feel that this measure effectively resolves many of the objections raised by interested Utahns to the Senate-passed Glen Canyon Recreation Area Bill, S. 27. H.R. 15073 would establish permanent boundaries and give statutory authority and protection to the Glen Canyon Recreation Area which has been administered since 1958 by the National Park Service under an Executive Order. Under the relatively new concept of a National Conservation Area, the remainder of the area would be under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management. A long-range master plan could then be drawn up for the protection of outstanding scenic values and the development of recreation, grazing and mining under the multiple-use system. I understand this would not preclude the study of the Escalante Canyon as a potential wilderness area which the Senate Interior Committee added to S. 27 in executive session. In addition, Congressman Lloyd's bill would authorize construction of a road from Glen Canyon City to Bullfrog Basin. When Senator Moss' earlier version of this legislation was before the Senate in 1970, he felt that the road problem had been handled with language in the Senate Interior Committee report. At the request of the Utah Highway Commission, I introduced an amendment authorizing construction of such a road. When Senator Moss reintroduced S. 27 in the 92nd Congress, he included a two-year study of proposed road alinements within and adjacent to the recreation area. I agree with Congressman Lloyd that this twoyear study would needlessly delay construction. It has already been under study for nine years by local, state and Federal Governments. I submit that it is time to authorize construction so that Utah can begin to reap some of the benefits of the tourist visits to Lake Powell. Although 90 per cent of the Lake is in Utah, Arizona gets 90 per cent of the tourist trade because there is no proper access to the Utah side of the Lake. A tourist must travel nearly 400 miles now to reach Bullfrog Basin from Page, Arizona. The scenic road called for in H.R. 15073 will reduce this distance to 60 miles. The State Highway Commission has assured me that they will build this road with full and complete consideration of all environmental factors. Transportation Secretary John Volpe has advised me that "if Federal aid is provided for the construction of this road, Section 4 (F) of the Department of Transportation Act would apply. If authorized, at the appropriate point in the planning of these projects, the Secretary would be required to consider-upon the advice of the State and the Federal Highway Administrationswhether there are any feasible and prudent alternatives and whether all planning has been accomplished to minimize harm to the National Park from the road construction and use." I agree with a recent Deseret News editorial that if Utah is to secure Congressional passage of the Glen Canyon Recreation Area, the delegation must present a unified bill on which all factions can agree. Congressman Lloyd is seeking to harmonize his bill and the Senate version authored by Senator Moss. In turn, Senator Moss had indicated that he would go along with the road. The editorial goes on to suggest that both conservationists and area business interests would gain if the Escalante River arm of Lake Powell might be designated for motorless boating. The proposed road across the mouth of the Escalante would allow a boater to put his canoe in the water at that point, rather than drag it behind his power boat from the Bullfrog marina. This could add immeasurably to the quiet enjoyment of the Escalante. The road would also be a boon to hikers in the 60-mile river stretch above the Lake. The only way they can now leave the area without a very stiff hike up out of the Canyon is to be picked up by boat at the mouth of the River. A road would permit easy egress by automobile. Reports indicate that on Memorial Day, 1971, the recreation area was so inundated with visitors that parking space was nonexistent, and boatramps were crowded well beyond capacity. Radio broadcasts were used to discourage people from coming. This illustrates the pressing need for more roads and more access to the Lake and other parts of the recreation area. In 1970, 907,500 people visited Glen Canyon and enjoyed the numerous facilities offered by the recreation area. It is expected that over 11⁄2 million people will be visiting Glen Canyon Recreation Area annually by 1975. The major features of the area are Lake Powell, with a surface area of 256 square miles extending 186 miles along the Colorado River and 71 miles along the San Juan River; the striking Glen Canyon walls; and the remarkable arches, bridges, coves and numerous wild areas. With these features and the opportunity for a variety of recreational uses, such as fishing, swimming, boating, water skiing, picknicking, and sightseeing, it is expected that Glen Canyon will be comparable to Lake Mead as a tourist attraction within a few years. In conclusion, I feel the measure introduced by Congressman Lloyd will protect the area while at the same time will open it up so that everyone, not just a few hearty wilderness enthusiasts, will be able to see and enjoy this fabulous country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas. Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I think you that are here should know that we are familiar with Congressman Lloyd's viewpoints on this legislation. The first person that calls me each morning and the last that calls me each night is your Congressman and I am sure he does that with each and every member of this group. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness, Mr. Kem C. Gardner, administrative assistant to Senator Frank Moss. Mr. Gardner will read Senator Moss' statement. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. MOSS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, AS PRESENTED BY KEM C. GARDNER Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Moss is sorry that he is unable personally to be in Kanab today to welcome you to Utah. He is with a Utah delegation in Honolulu this morning raising the flag over a memorial of the U.S.S. Utah; a memorial for which he has worked 8 years and in which are still entombed 54 bodies from the Pearl Harbor attack. He is sorry he cannot personally welcome to Utah the members of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee coming to these hearings, and a great many of his Utah friends here. In the interest of time, I will read his statement in the record, beginning toward the end of the first page. S. 27 would establish a Glen Canyon National Recreation Area of approximately 1.285,310 acres. The area follows in most respects the boundaries already set by the Department of the Interior administrative action, except that it adds two principal areas: First, new lands are added to the recreation area to provide a buffer zone for the Maze area of Canyonlands National Park, which would allow the National Park Service to supervise and control the overlook area above the national park, and to develop appropriate campsites, hiking trails and other access to the west area of the park. Second, almost the full watershed of the Escalante River is added to the recreation area so that this superb but fragile region can be studied for possible inclusion in the wilderness system. Part of the Escalante drainage now is in the recreation area which was established admin istratively by the Department of the Interior. But it is sensible to study the area in its entirety and that is why the remainder of the drainage was included in S. 27 by the Senate Interior Committee. The bill provides that the wilderness study should be completed within 2 years after the bill is passed, and the recommendation must be sent to Congress. If an Escalante Wilderness Area is recommended for all of the drainage, or any part of it, a separate act of Congress would be required to establish it. Additional hearings would be held on the wilderness and everyone would have another opportunity to be heard. There are several other variations in the boundaries of S. 27 and those of the area already established by administrative action. The bill excludes the southernmost part of Waterpocket Fold, because this has been added to Capitol Reef National Park. It also excludes some tar sands lands immediately adjacent to Canyonlands National Park, but puts back areas at Sit Down Bench and Warm Creek, which were once excluded as possible industrial sites. Those are not now needed for industrial use. Other small boundary adjustments have been made but I will not take time to discuss them here. They are not controversial, I am sure. The language of S. 27 provides that nothing shall affect the mineral rights reserved to the Navajo Indian Tribe under the 1958 act, and declares that mineral exploration and production, hunting, and grazing permits shall be continued under existing laws, subject only to the protection of scenic and historic values. In a letter to me dated February 4, 1972, the Director of the National Park Service, George Hartzog, has assured me that the Bureau of Land Management would continue to administer mining and grazing laws, as they now do, and that hunting and fishing, and possession of fish and resident wildlife, would continue to be administered in accordance with applicable State laws and regulations. I quote the three paragraphs of assurance given me by Director Hartzog: 1. Grazing: use permits now administered by the Bureau of Land Management for grazing would continue to be administered as before if S. 27 is enacted. The National Park Service would seek a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Land Management which would assign this function to the Bureau. No present permit acreage would be changed unless a necessity arose to develop a visitor facility such as a campsite or marina at some point where livestock would have to be excluded. 2. Mining: prospecting and the extraction of minerals, sand, gravel, and rock. administered by the Bureau of Land Management, would continue after enactment of S. 27 if the specific activity is compatible with and does not significantly impair public recreation and the conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, or other values contributing to public enjoyment. 3. Hunting and fishing: hunting and fishing would continue after passage of S. 27, with hunting, fishing, and possession of fish and resident wildlife in accordance with applicable State laws and regulations. As always, the use of guns near areas of visitor concentration would be controlled. This would mean there would be no change from the present administration of these activities. They would continue in exactly the same way and under the same regulations as we presently have. I ask that the text of the full letter from Director Hartzog be included in the record of the hearings, as it will clear up misapprehensions in several areas. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objections, so ordered. (Director Hartzog's letter follows:) 82-455 - 72 - 4 Hon. FRANK E. Moss, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DEAR SENATOR Moss: The National Park Service is pleased to reply to your request for a comparison of management policies for the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area to show variances from present management that might result from the Senate-passed bill, S. 27. We believe that the following analysis will show only minor points of difference. 1. First, as to the area involved: the present withdrawal by the Bureau of Reclamation, administered for recreation by the National Park Service, totals 1,196,500 acres. The national recreation area to be authorized by S. 27 would total 1,285,310 acres. (Certain tracts not needed for recreation are dropped; the Escalante Drainage and the Orange Cliffs areas are added.) 2. Next, as to water impoundment and use: with passage of S. 27, the Bureau of Reclamation would continue to have the authorities which are now in effect. The Bureau would control water levels and releases, the dam, and the powerhouse as at present. The National Park Service would administer recreation use of the lake and the included shore area, except for the south side from the San Juan arm to Lees Ferry, which is administered by the Navajo Tribe. 3. Grazing: use permits now administered by the Bureau of Land Management for grazing would continue to be administered as before if S. 27 is enacted. The National Park Service would seek a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Land Management which would assign this function to the Bureau. No present permit acreage would be changed unless a necessity arose to develop a visitor facility such as a campsite or marina at some point where livestock would have to be excluded. 4. Mining: prospecting and the extraction of minerals, sand, gravel, and rock, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, would continue after enactment of S. 27 if the specific activity is compatible with and does not significantly impair public recreation and the conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, or other values contributing to public enjoyment. 5. Hunting and fishing: hunting and fishing would continue after passage of S. 27, with hunting, fishing, and possession of fish and resident wildlife in accordance with applicable State laws and regulations. As always, the use of guns near areas of visitor concentration would be controlled. 6. Roads and highways: the enactment of S. 27 would bring about a study and recommendations on road alignments within the proposed recreation area, within 2 years of the date of passage of the act. Except as affected by recommendations of the study report, there would be no different authorities for development of the road net under S. 27 than under present administration. In either instance, the road net within the national recreation area will connect with the public highway system so that users of the area have adequate access, with this agency funding construction to the boundary. 7. Wilderness: section 8 of S. 27 provides for a study of the Escalante Drainage for suitability as a wilderness area within 2 years after enactment. If this study recommends wilderness status for all or a part of the Escalante Drainage within the proposed boundary of the recreation area, the designation as wilderness would then be considered by the Congress in separate legislation. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management has given status as an outstanding natural area to a part of the drainage. Grazing, prospecting, and mining can be continued under this status or under wilderness status in the prospective recreation area if such use was practiced prior to passage of S. 27 and is permitted by the wording of S. 27, as passed. We appreciate the opportunity to do a comparison of analysis of this subject. and hope it will be of use to you. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely yours, GEORGE B. HARTZOG, Director. Mr. GARDNER. In addition, S. 27, as passed by the Senate, gives the Secretary of the Interior the obligation to work out acceptable rightsof-way on a nondiscriminatory basis across the recreation area which may be necessary for transmission lines, roads, pipelines and related facilities. |