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

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 two years of all roadless areas over 5000 acres in size. To this end we suggest the following amendment: "Within two years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall report to the President, in accordance with subsections 3(c) and 3(d) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c) and (d)), his recommendations as to the suitability or nonsuitability of any area within the recreation area for preservation as wilderness, and any designation of any such area as wilderness shall be in accordance with said Wilderness Act."

This language is taken from the Act establishing Capitol Reef National Park which was approved on December 18, 1971. Similar language is also contained in the recent Acts establishing Arches National Park and enlarging Canyonlands National Park. The only change is a reduction from three to two years in the deadline for the completion of the wilderness review. The change was made in order that both the wilderness study and the proposed study of road alinements will be completed at the same time. A wilderness study is particularly needed to counterbalance the development-oriented road study.

Our suggested amendment would provide for the same procedure including ample opportunity for public participation that is required of all areas reviewed under the Wilderness Act. The final decision on any proposed wilderness would, of course, be made by Congress.

Since the question of the impact on other resource users has been of concern to many people, I would like to quote briefly from two sections of the National Park Service administrative policies concerning wilderness in national recreation areas. Under “Grazing" this policy states:

"Where expressly authorized by statute or established as a use prior to the establishment of the recreation area, grazing may be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary to protect wilderness values."

The section on "Mining and Prospecting" provides:

"Mining and/or prospecting, under lease or otherwise, will be permitted where it is expressly authorized by statute; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress, egress, exploration, operations, and restoration as may be prescribed by the Secretary to protect wilderness values."

While some additional restrictions designed to protect the recreational and wilderness values can be expected, it should be obvious that grazing and mining activities do not automatically terminate as a result. The more severe restrictions would fall on mining and prospecting since they are inherently much more destructive of the values which we are attempting to protect. Properly managed grazing has little effect on wilderness values and it is generally considered to be an acceptable use of wilderness in the west.

In closing I would like only to reaffirm the importance of requiring a study of all potential wilderness in the proposed Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF PAUL SALISBURY, CHAIRMAN, UINTA CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB

Mr. SALISBURY. My name is Paul Salisbury. I am a native of the State of Utah and chairman of the Uinta Chapter of the Sierra Club. I submit my written testimony and merely wish to state we heartily

support the concept of the conservation area as outlined by Congressman Lloyd in 15073. Aside from some minor changes and adjustments which appear in my written testimony we simply would like to express concern that the inclusion of this provision in the bill might retard settlement of the differences between this bill and S. 27 and feel that the conservation area, though a valid concept, would be more fitting in a separate bill.

Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

(Mr. Salisbury's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF PAUL G. SALISBURY, CHAIRMAN, UINTA CHAPTER OF THE
SIERRA CLUB

As originally presented, the Canyon Country National Conservation Area appeared to be little more than a ploy-a substitute for adequate boundaries for the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and as such, the Sierra Club opposed the proposal because it offered less protection to many areas than S. 27 and certainly less than was deemed adequate. Now that Congressman Lloyd has further clarified the boundaries of GCNRA so that they form a more adequate protective area, the Conservation Area proposal appears in a very different light. It has been thirty years since this exceptional area has been considered in such a total natural context. Once referred to by the National Park Service as the Escalante National Park, the entire Colorado River Basin, from Island in the Sky, to Marble Canyon, was studied for a potential national park. Though the concept was never fully developed and we now have only fractionalized areas, there was the recognition of a natural entity which this new concept can respond to. The importance of the proposed conservation area lies in the fact that it ties existing national parks, monuments, forests, and the recreation areas together and begins to recognize the geologic, scenic and environmental interdependance of these areas. The potential here is exceptional. The bill itself does not deliver perhaps because of lack of precedent. We would, therefore, make the following additions and corrections to the proposed H.R. 15073, and offer further provisions or clarifications:

Page 2 line 3: Should read "that these resources must be properly utilized and conserved." Line 10: The word "water-oriented" should be removed, being too restrictive.

Page 4 line 1: Should read, "the Secretary may revise the boundaries of either area only after such proposed changes are considered in public hearings." Line 14: The arbitrary establishment of a maximum acreage does not seem rational when the Secretary's program may require additions as well as deletions. Line 20: Should read "program for the conservation, management, development, and use of the conservation area,". and Line 23: Should also insert the word 'conservation' before management."

Page 5 line 1: Should read "this Act and compatible with the adjoining National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas and Forests. Nothing in this Act shall preclude the Secretary from designating, as the result of further study, additional areas within the Conservation Areas for inclusion in or designation as National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas, Forests, or Wilderness Areas. Line 4: Should read "of Utah (or any political subdivision thereof) as well as public interest groups and private individuals with respect to the area.”

Page 6 line 22: Should read, "the effective date of this Act and subsequent development of existing claims or rights shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe to carry out the purposes of the Act." This is an important modification because of the way many existing mining laws are written. In many cases to keep a claim active, a certain amount of improvements must periodically be made. These make work "improvements" can be very destructive to scenic and environmental values without really benefitting the mine's productivity.

Page 9 line 14: The width of the corridor should be restricted to the necessary highway right-of-ways since there is a subsequent section providing for turnouts at scenic vistas. A corridor through such a scenic area should never be allowed to spawn strip commercial development.