OCR Text |
Show ls.ox G310 Lincoln, Neb. C0506 Canyonllands road proqram cariiclld A soon l he-rclfased General Man-HKcim-iit 1'laii Tor Caiiyonlaiuls National I'ark will cancel all further major access road development in Hie massive I'ark, a lealme artiele in the Denver Post's l.nipire Maaine concluded Sunday. The article, entitled "The Great Canyonlands Double Cross," and written by veteran journalist 7,eke Scher, who has wati heel the evolution of Canyonlands for nearly fifteen years, painstakingly details the factors that led to a decision apparently made by recently-ousted Park Service Director Gary Everhardt in Washington, even though many NPS officials opposed that decision, and supported plans for park access development develop-ment including an expensive bridge and road extension which would have made the Confluence Overlook area of the Needles District accessible to the passenger-car public. Release of the first official draft of the Park Management Plan has been I promised since June. It has been delayed ' (and still not been officially released) due 1 in part to the replacement of Everhardt I by William J. Whalen, and in part by the j expected controversy the plan would surely develop. I Specific Cum-cllutlons Along with a long list of non-contro-I versial items, the Plan cancels by virtue of Everhardt's decisionthe Big Spring Canyon bridge and the Confluence access road in the Needles District; it cancels the paving or development of any roads in the more accessible Island in the Sky section of the park, and early reports indicate that it will prohibit the use of motorized river craft jn Cataract Canyon. In defending his decision to stop ! park development in Canyonlands, ; former Director Everhardt told the Post: , "There have been many changes in the country since the confluence road was . proposed changes in philosophy, changes chan-ges in concerns for energy and wilderness conservation, changes in the desires to preserve park environment . . . There were a number of factors to consider, like the bridge and the road costs, the impact on the park, the visitation patterns. And it was critical that I make a decision because the money was about to be appropriated. With these changes in attitudes. I felt it was time to say, 'Hold on!' The park should be protected for j future generations. Maybe there will be ) different modes of transportation tomor-- tomor-- row and I would hate to see our options removed today." Too Much Money! Park people, and others who had i philosophically opposed any further -uiajw. road development in Canyonlands for many years, had comfortably rested in the knowledge that the price tag on - Canyonlands road development was : staggering since the inflationary spiral of 1974-75. The projected cost of the Big Spring Canyon Bridge had risen from an estimated $2 million to well over $7 million, and the entire road development budget for the Rocky Mountain Region of the NPS had been less than $4 million per year until this year. The prospect of availability of funding, however, made a decision on what to do about the road a major issue this summer. Congress announced that Canyonlands would get a big chunk of money (estimates have run all the way from $7 million to $13 million) from the Bicentennial Heritage Fund program. In articles early this year, The Times-Independent detailed some of the early news about that coming appropriation, along with comments from local park officials to the effect that they didn't know anything much about it, and really didn't know where the money would be spent, if it was spent at all. Lengthy History The history of the Big Spring Canyon Road plan is lengthy, and involved many people including former Utah Gov. Calvin L. Hampton, who traveled to Washington to meet with then Director of the NPS, George Hartzog, to negotiate a compromise compro-mise development plan which would allow passenger-car traffic to at least one of the Park's major attractions, while preserving the bulk of the park for environmental protection. Hartzog, one of the chief salesmen who convinced Utahns in the early 0's that they should agree to the withdrawal of a quarter million acres of land for park purposes, utilizing a slick public relations presentation consisting of booklets, brochures and color movies to show how a "fully developed" Canyonlands might look in the future, soon backed off that position when the Park bill passed, and the history of foot-dragging on development develop-ment began. The Rampton-Hartzog compromise has been under fire for nearly a decade, however, from persona opposed to any development of any kind in what author Edward Abbey (sometime resident of Moab) termed in a letter to the NPS, "the very heart, the sacred center of Canyonlands National Park, a place which should be regarded as holy, a kind of natural shrine..." There was little discussion, however, opposing paving an already existing dirt road network in Island in the Sky roads which have allowed the passenger-car public to visit Aztec Butte, Upheaval Dome and Grandview Point for nearly half a century, and roads which are terribly difficult to maintain in their ' present form, according to former Superintendent Bates E. Wilson. The "Island" had always been considered as (Continued Page A2) ! i : Canyonlands road plan . . . i I (Continued From Page Al) I the best place for maximum road I development, and the l-vcrhurdt decision on this aspect of park planning came as a . complete surprise to observers. It took Teamwork" The soon-to-bc-relcnscd draft mnti- I ngemcnt plan was drafted by local Park I officials; a team of technicians from the ' Denver Service Center of the NPS, and regional and national NI'S officials I following a scries of "workshop" sessions held in a number of cities last I year Including one held in Moab. I Attendance at those workshop ' sessions whs small. In Moab, only a . handful of persons attended and no local I city or county officials were In j attendance. In Monticcllo, a few I government leaders did attend, although I County Commission Chairman Calvin ' Illiuk stated that after a decade of attending planning hearings on park j development, he didn't sec much use In going to yet another hearing. j j Those workshop sessions, however. I ! and the letter-writing that followed, were I j instrumental in guiding the management plan team in developing their "no-devel- . opmcnt" approach to the park's future. That plan was stiffened even further by j , I-vcrhardt in Washington. Everhardt . denied that he was tntlucncco by letter! or political pressures in making his decision, and stated further that his . decision "doesn't slam the floor shut." j People will still have an opportunity to comment on the draft plan, he Indicated. The Empire Magaine feature will he followed next week by a second part, developing the theme: "Why should people be allowed In Canyonlands anyway?" The tone of the first article, j however, was summed up by t statement by author Scher. "1 (the Prk ' Management Plan) is a setback also f the vast majority of park visitors. There apparently will Ve no passenger cf access to any of the pack's buck country. 1 |