ML20195H503
| ML20195H503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1998 |
| From: | Condit R, Jacqwan Walker AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195H508 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#498-19734 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9811240014 | |
| Download: ML20195H503 (23) | |
Text
l 4'y
\\
DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
% NOV 23 P4 :12
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'OFHE r?.
Lo, g.! 1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINO BOARD RUU3/e, Jf, D ADJUDO :
".T/EF Private Fuel Storage, a Limited Liability Company; Docket No. 72-22 November 18,1998 (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation).'
SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE Petitioner, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), by and through its counsel, Joro Walker and Richard Condit of the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies,165 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 and 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200, Boulder CO 80302, respectively, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714 'of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions ("NRC")
regulations hereby submits the following Request for Hearing (" request") and Petition to Intervene (" petition"). In support ofit's request and petition, SUWA states as follows:
I.
Introduction SUWA files this request and petition because its interests may be effected by this y,roceeding. Spe,cifically, SUWA's interests would be effected by approval of Private Fuel 1
i 9811240014 981118 PDR ADOCK 07200022 C
PDR bo3
Storage's ("PFS") proposal to build the Low Corridor Rail Spur to transport high level nuclear waste from the Union Pacific main rail line at Low function to the Skull Valley Reservation in Utah. This proposal was part of a recent amendment to PFS's license application to possess high level spent fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("lSFSI") on the Skull Valley Reservation. License Application Amendment, August 28,1998 (" Amendment"). This amendment, which was not published in the Federal Register, includes inter alia, as a preferred option, construction and operation of the Low Rail Spur.
The Low Rail Spur will traverse approximately 32 miles of undeveloped public lan-administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including the northern section of the Cedar Mountains, an outstanding natural area identified by SUWA as possessing wilderness character and therefore suitable for wilderness designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The Low Rail Spur will entail construction of a right of way of 250 feet on each side of the railroad center line, Amendment at Figure J.5-6. Sheet 1, and " clearing and grubbing activities for a width of approximately 50-ft." E at 3.2.1.5. Furthennore, "[t}o reduce the potential for increased range fires that may be caused by rail transport, the 40 ft wide rail spur corridor will be cleared of vegetation...." E at 4.4-9. As this description of the proposed project indicates, the construction and operation of the Low Rail Spur and the clearing of the fire buffer zone will irreversibly impair the wilderness character of the Nonh Cedar Mountains.
SUWA is a non-profit organization dedicated to identifying and protecting BLM roadless i
areas which possess wilderness character as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. SUWA 2
seeks to protect these lands in their present condition until Congress has the opportunity to designate them as wilderness, thus bestowing the added protections established by the Wilderness Act. As a result of this organizational mandate, SUWA has a profound interest in
~
insuring that the Low Rail Spur does not adversely impact the North Cedar Mountain roadless area and therefore does not impair the wilderness character of the area.
II.
Factual Background A.'
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
SUWA, a non-profit organization under 501(c)(3) of the Federal Tax Code, has a membership of 23,000 and a dozen staffin four Utah offices. The organization was founded in 1983 when the BLM refused to inventory the lands under its jurisdiction for wildemess character as required by the Wildemess Act of 1964,16 U.S.C.A. s 1131-36, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),43 U.S.C.A.
1701-84. When the BLM finally conducted the inventory, SUWA determined that the agency had not complied with FLPMA and the Wilderness Act in that the BLM had failed to identify millions of acres of public lands i worthy of wilderness protection.
In response to the BLM's failed wilderness survey, SUWA conducted its own inventory
'of BLM lands for wilderness character. SUWA subsequently developed the Citizens Proposal which sought designation of almost six million acres of BLM lands as wilderness. This proposal is the basis for legislation currently pending in the United States House of Representatives (H.R.
3
<.w
. i..
i........
u
-i
1 1
l 1500) and the Senate (S. 773) which would protect all the lands in the proposal under the Wilderness Act of 1964. This legislation now has approximately 147 co-sponsors among House and Senate members.
Recently, SUWA and the Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC) decided to update their inventory of BLM lands. SUWA initiated this effort to: 1) obtain thorough, accurate data to establish which BLM lands qualified for wilderness designation; 2) exclude areas that once, but no longer, qualified as wilderness; and 3) insure that any resulting wilderness proposal fully represented Utah's biological richness and geographic diversity.
To this end, SUWA and the UWC relied on the work of several staff,250 trained and carefully supervised volunteers, and new mapping technology to generate a rucise inventory of all BLM lands which qualify for wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Using the BLM's own criteria for wilderness and on the basis of ground photo documentation, field surveys and notes, aerial photographs, agency and state maps, SUWA and the UWC were able to establish with certainty which BLM lands were suitable for wilderness designation.
The groups then widely publicized the results of the reinventory to the public. The event generated a great deal of media coverage and was taken seriously by the government and the public. At the same time, polls demonstrated that support for protecting large tracts of additional wilderness in Utah is at an all time high - the av rage respondent polled favored protection of at least nine million acres. Ecc Articles related to SUWA and UWC's wilderness reinventory announcement and reactions, attached as Exhibit 1.
4
l l
l B.
Status of BLM Wilderness in Utah.
Importantly, Congress has not yet designated any wilderness on BLM lands in Utah and has never had the opportunity to determine the suitability of any BLM lands in Utah for wilderness protection. In addition, after admitting the inadequacies ofits previous inventory, j
l l
BLM is now undertaking a new survey ofits lands for wilderness character. BLM's decision to l
reinventory its lands was challenged in court, but was recently upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court i
of Appeals. That BLM is undertaking a new wilderness inventory and Congress has yet to designate BLM wilderness in Utah underscores the importance of SUWA's mission to protect areas possessing wilderness character from impairment until the mandate of the Wilderness Act is fulfilled.
C.
The Inventory Process and North Cedar Mountains The reinventory process undertaken by SUWA and the UWC identified the North Cedar Mountains as an area possessing wilderness character. See, Map -- The Impacts of the Low rail j
l spur on the North Cedar Mountains Roadless area (hereafter " North Cedar Mountains Map"),
attached as Exhibit 2. As a result, SUWA included the North Cedar Mountains in its 1998 1
Citizens' Wilderness Reinventory, which specifies all the BLM lands in Utah which qualify for j
wilderness designation. SUWA and the UWC will be engaged in educating members of Congress and encouraging passage of Federal legislation that will designate all the lands in the 1998 reinventory as wilderness. Until then, SUWA will take all necessary steps to preserve these lands, including the North Cedar Mountains, in their current state and protect them from any 5
l l
l
{
development or other impacts which would disqualify them for wilderness designation.
l To conduct its reinventory, SUWA relied on FLPMA, the BLM's Wilderness inventory l
Handbook and the Forest Service Handbook, scetion 1909.12,7.1la. (Importantly, both agencies are interperting the same statutory language when determining the suitability of an area for wilderness designation). These statutes and regulations provide definitions of" roadless,"
"substantially unnoticeable" impacts and other criteria necessary for determining the wilderness character of particular lands pursuant to the Wilderness Act. Essentially, large tracts of roadless public lands, where human impacts are substantially unnoticeable qualify for wildemess designation and must be determined as such by the BLM. See, Wildemess Act,16 U.S.C.A.
I131(c); FLMPA,43 U.S.C.A. @ 1782 (requiring BLM to review its lands for wilderness designation).
With this criteria as a basis, SUWA and the UWC conducted its reinventory field work in several stages. Prior to the actual field work, staff gathered as much information as possible about each large potential wilderness area. Staff modified United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute scale maps with land ownership infomiation and cross-checked the modifications with BLM's land status plats. The staff then consulted recent aerial photographs of the area to locate impacts not already on the USGS maps. Aerial maps proved to be a very reliable indicators ofimpacts, which, in a fragile desert environment, are easily identified from above. Affidavit of Jim Catlin,510, attached as Exhibit 3.
Next, carefully screened and trained volunteers and staff conducted field work to verify i
6
=..
t I
i j
map ini'ormation. Field workers traveled the outer boundary of each potential wilderness area, l
taking frequent photographs ofimpacts to the land. These workers traveled the length of any I
intrusions (and any branches ofintrusions) entering into a roadless area. Any impacts were photographed and these photographs linked to maps. As a result of this work, each roadless are,a was further documented as such by field notes and photographs (40,000 to 50,000 photographs in all). M.111-12.
The completed field work was reviewed by full time inventory specialists. If the review staff discovered gaps or inconsistencies in the field work, they would revisit the site, several
- times if necessary, to complete field checks. M.113. The review team also gathered additional information, including off-road vehicle routes, mineral deposits and grazing uses. On the basis of maps, field work and any additional information, a preliminary boundary recommendation was made. This recomrnendation was, in turn, reviewed and fine-tuned by the technical review team (TRT), comprised of four individuals who critiqued all preliminary recommendations for consistency and integrity. The TRT adopted stricter wilderness identification guidelines than the BLM so that the resulting boundaries would be above challenge. The boundary specifications that resulted from TRT review were then digitized into a Geographic Information System i
computer data base along with a written detailed description of the boundary. Because one of the goals of the 1998 inventory process was to use wilderness designation as a means to protect biological diversity, Wilderness Act,16 U.S.C.A.
I 131(3)(4), the TRT, in consultation with biologists, gave priority to areas containing large elevation gradients, large complexes on 7
contiguous roadless areas, and riparian areas.
The inventory of the North Cedar Mountains area was conducted according to this standard procedure. Inventory staff spent approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> preparing maps for field survey work, which included review of aerial photographs. The area was then surveyed by a volunteer who took field notes describing each of the 24 pictures linked to USGS maps.
Inventory staff members (one of whom was a member of the TRT) revisited the site and took 38 more photographs, which were also described in field notes and linked to maps. The TRT then used this information to determine the boundaries of the proposed wilderness area depicted on the North Cedar Moutains Map.
D.
The Low Rail Spur As indicated above, the Low Rail Spur will traverse approximately 32 miles of undeveloped public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including the North Cedar Mountains roadless area, identified by SUWA as suitable for wilderness designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The relation eithe rail spur to the North Cedar Mountains roadiess area was determined by digitizing the aligunent of the spur onto a map delineating the boundaries of the roadless area. he North Cedar Mountains Map.
If constructed pursuant to the PFS amendment, the Low Rail Spur will significantly intrude into the North Cedar Mountain roadless area so that it will no longer be an area which
" generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
[ human] work substantially unnoticeable;..." Wilderness Act,16 U.S.C.A.
I131(c)(1). In 8
l addition, the operation of the rail spur will significantly intrude upon the areas curre. t Medag
" outstanding opportunities for solitude...." E, 1131(c)(2). Finally, the construction and l
l operation of the rail spur will have adverse impacts on the area's wildlife and plant life, values l
which are essential to the ecological health of the area. E, 1131(c)(4).
l III.
REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE l
Based on SUWA's organizational mandate to protect potential wilderness areas from impairment and the threat posed by the Low Rail Spur to the North Cedar Mountains roadless 1-area, SUWA is entitled to participate and have its contentions addressed in this proceeding as it deals with the Low Rail Spur. Examination of the relevant Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations confirms this conclusion.
Any person whose interest may be effected by a proceeding may file a petition to intervene. In a matter such as this one, noticed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.105, any potentially effected person may also a request a hearing. Where a petitioner does not file a petition and request with in time allotted in the notice of hearing, it may do so after that time if the balancing of several factors weighs in favor of the request. As demonstrated below, SUWA qualifies as an intervenor in this case and its petition and request should be accepted at this time.
A.
A Balancing of the Relevant Factors Favors Consideration of SUWA's Petition.
For this petition to be accepted for consideration, SUWA must demonstrate that a balancing of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) support accepting its petition. Those factors include: (1) good cause, if any, for failure to file on time: (2) the l
9 1
availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; (3) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (4) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; and (5) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. SUWA's petition and request meet each of these criteria.
First, SUWA clearly has good cause for filing its petition and request after the initial time period. PFS did not submit its amendment application until on or about August 28,1998. This proposed amendment to PFS's application was not published in the Federal Register or any local newspaper or local media outlet. Indeed, most of the parties to this proceeding did not receive copies of the amendment or other notice thereof until early October. Thus, SUWA received no t
notice of the amendment. This failure to notify the public of what constituted a considerable alteration in its license application - one which because ofits significant departure from the initial license application plainly could and did implicate the interests ofindividuals and entities who were not then parties to the proceeding - establishes that SUWA had good cause not to file its petition and request earlier. Furthermore, once SUWA did learn of the amendment, it acted as quickly as possible in submitting this petition and request.
Second, there exist no other means by which SUWA can protect its interests in this proceeding. Thus, fairness dictates that SUWA be allowed to participate in the present proceeding.
Third. SUWA's participation will help develop a sound record in this proceeding.
l 10 i
l
SUWA's knowledge of the Cedar Mountains and the criteria for wilderness designation uniquely qualifies it to provide information regarding the potential impacts of the Low Rail Spur on the wilderness character of the North Cedar Mountains roadless area. SUWA is represented by experienced counsel and is assisted by experts, including those who conducted the 1998 reinventory, as well as other biological and legal experts.
Fourth, no other party will represent SUWA's interests in this proceeding. As is evident from review of the record, no other party has indicated a concern with preserving the wilderness character of the lands over which the Low Rail Spur will be constructed and operated. No other party has inventoried the area for wilderness character or publicly determined that it should be designated as wilderness. As a result, none of the existing parties will adequately represent SUWA's interests in this matter.
Fifth, SUWA's participation in this matter will not unduly ~oroaden or delay the proceeding significantly, as the scope ofissues currently accepted as justiciable by the Licensing Board is quite broad already. Furthermore, the Board has already admitted issues that are similar, although not identical to, those raised by SUWA's participation in this matter. Moreover, the Board has yet to rule on new issues raised by other intervenors. Thus, at this time, SUWA's filing will not delay the proceeding. Furthermore, any delay is outweighed by the significance of this issue raised as a result of the new Low Rail Spur proposal. Accordingly, SUWA satisfies the NRC's criteria for late consideration.
11
l B.
SUWA Has Standing to Intervene and Qualifies As an Intervenor under 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(d)(1).
i To determine whether those seeking party status have standing as a right, the agency 1
requires a potential participant te establish (1) it has suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable injury that constitutes injury-in-fact within the zones ofinterests arguably protected by the governing statutes (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the National Environmental i
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)); (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. &g Yankee Atomic Electric Co.
(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-1,43 NRC 1. 6 (1996). Further, when, as here, an organization seeks to intervene on behalf ofits members, that entity must show it has an individual member who can fulfill all the necessary elements and who has authorized the organization to represent his or her interests.
In assessing a petition to determine whether these elements are met, the Commission has stated that it will " construe the petition in favor of the petitioner." Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111,115
'(1995).
Even if a petitioner fails to demonstrate its standing as of right, it is not necessarily deprived of the opportunity to obtain party status in an agency adjudicatory proceeding. The Commission has recognized that a petitioner can be granted party status, as a matter of discretion, based upon the presiding officer's consideration of the following factors:
12
I L
(a)
Weighing in favor of allowing intervention --
(1)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(2)
The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(3)
The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
(b)
Weighing against allowing intervention --
(4)
The availability of other means whereby petitioner's interest will be protected.
(5)
The extent.to which the petitioner's interest will be represented.by existing parties.
(6)
The extent to which petitioner's participation will inappropriately broaden or delay the proceeding.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Sorings Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610,616 (1976).
Applying these standards to SUWA's request demonstrates that the organization has standing to participate in this proceeding. Particularly in light of the agency's duty to favor intervention, SUWA should be granted party status in this matter.
First, as established above, the proposed Low Rail Spur threatens an injury to SUWA that is distinct and palpable. SUWA is dedicated to obtaining wilderness designation for qualifying BLM roadless areas. SUWA has concluded, after much analysis, that the North Cedar Mountains roadless area qualifies as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. SUWA is further 13
committed to protecting wild roadless areas in their current state until Congress has the opportunity to designate them as wilderness. In fact, the Low Rail Spur threatens the wilderness character of the North Cedar Mountains, and if constructed and operated, will disqualify the area for wilderness designation. This injury is within the zones ofinterests arguably protected by the relevant governing statutes such as NEPA. See, NEPA (analysis of potential impacts to the environment must be undertaken). As a result, the threat posed by the Low Rail Spur to SUWA is real and imminent.
Second, SUWA's injury is directly traceable to the proposed Low Rail Spur-if the Low Rail Spur and the fire buffer are constructed and the rail line operated, the North Cedar Mountains will no longer qualify for protection under the Wilderness Act. Thus, the construction of the rail spur will harm SUWA's interests.
Third, f,r the same reasons, a favorable decision - the realignment or abandonment of the Low Rail Spur -- will redress SUWA's injury. If the rail spur is not built or its alignment significantly altered so that it does not jeopardize the North Cedar Mountain's wildemess character, SUWA will not be harmed.
Fourth, as the attached affidavit confirms, Jim Catlin, a member of SUWA, has l
established that he fulfills all the necessary standing elements and has authorized SUWA to A
represent his interests in this proceeding. Affidavit of Jim Catlin, j 18-21. Mr. Catlin shares l
SUWA's dedication to preserving potential wilderness areas and its concern for the potential impacts on the North Cedar Mountains roadless area caused by the Low Rail Spur. If the Low 14
s Rail Spur is realigned or abandoned, Mr. Catlin will not be harmed.
Finally, the balancing of the permissive standing criteria also favor SUWA's participation in this matter. As already established, SUWA's participation will help develop a sound record, will serve to protect SUWA's profound interest in this proceeding, and will, if the ruling is favorable, eliminate the harm to SUWA's interests. In addition, SUWA has no other means for protecting its interests other than participation in this matter, as no other parties will adequately protect SUWA's interests. Finally, SUWA's participation will not unduly delay this proceeding.
For these reasons, and because the agency is required to favor intervention, SUWA has standing to fully participate in this proceeding.
IV.
SUWA Should Be Permitted To Intervene In Those Aspects of This Proceeding Dealing With the L.ow Rail Spur.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s2.714 (b) (2), a petitioner is required to state the " specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding" as to which it wishes to intervene. The purpose of this requirement is not to judge the admissibility of the issues, as the petitioner has the.
right to amend its petition to intervene with contentions later in the proceeding. Consumen Power Co. (Midlands Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27,8 NRC 275 (1978). Rather, the purpose of the requirement is to determine whether the petitioner specifies " proper aspects" for the proceeding. Id. Thus, the petitioner may satisfy the requirement "by identifying general i
potential effects of the licensing action or areas of concern that are within the scope of matters that may be considered in the proceeding." Vermont Yankee, supra, LBP-90-6,31 NRC at 89, 15
e citmg Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAD-146,6 AEC 631,633 (1973).
As stated above, SUWA has specified the effects which the Low Rail Spur may have on its interests. To this end, SUWA seeks to participate in those aspects of this proceeding that deal with the decision concerning the construction and operation of the Low Rail Spur and the construction and maintenance of any associated fire buffer or other associated proposals that may impact the wilderness character of the North Cedar Mountains. SUWA also seeks to participate in aspects of this proceeding that concern the adequacy of consideration to attematives to the construction or alignment of the Low Rail Spur. SUWA seeks participation in these aspects of the proceeding so that it can protect the wildemess character of the North Cedar Mountains. Importantly, SUWA has filed herewith its contentions regarding the Low Rail Spur which furthe: demons: rate that the organization has properly identified that the potential effects of the licensing action of concern to SUWA are within the scope of matters that will be considered in the proceeding.
V, CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, SUWA respectfully requests the following relief:
- 1. approval of SUWA's request for a hearing;
- 2. approval of SUWA's Petition for Intervention and permission for the organization to participate as a party to this proceeding; and
- 3. all other appropriate relief.
l 16 l
-. _. ~. _..... _...
l' 4
Respectfully submitted this 18* day of November,1998.
~
1 JORO WALKER I
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 165 South Main Street, Suite 1 3-Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 355-4545 i
RICHARD CONDIT' Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 444-1188 ext. 219 Boulder,Co 80302 Attorneys for Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance n
4 17 i
4 9
~
t v
=> - - - -
r,
-_.,.m_
.y...
....y,
i NI DeseretNews lj i tt u tt 3 D A Y, Jul. Y 9.19 9 8 8.5 million acres r
of wilds urged b, d 1.gi m,
gf,,
areas
.2
- .,. v, K,Ai 3m Utah coah.. tion s wish h.st is
~'
l cheered at U. open house u
.c.n -
~e.
j w ua v.
'k By Joey Hews
- g andJerry Spangler N' toont
..! L' Dascret News staM witers
~; 4 4
l The results are in, and they are big. About 8.5 mil-h "6 N'S o
g,,,,,,,
lion acres hig.
W..
J On Wednesday, the Utah Wilderness Coalition un-veiled the 8 5-million acre wish list generated by its
~
i'Md ' '
muno I
-^A #
citiren( wilderness inventory of Ihsreau of I.anet Man-swreve agement lands during an ope'n house at the University
_,*['
'"g el Utah.
- A*
More than 800 people filled the Olpin Student
?m?
i[i Union Hnilding to cheer the results of what some be-i heve is
- the most extrnsive citizens mienterv in j
y,m United States history" and Io increase the political
,j
, rioit wmr 1
pressure on Utah's Republican majority to retract its 1
opposition.
o Areas added Wednesday to the wilderness list were I*N conrin mostly from the west desert and the Graal Basin re-g.ans - approximately 2 million new acres.
All fokl. Ihe 8 5 million arres are 2.8 million more i,,,,.
than tha mahtionN iast wikierness proposal of 5 7 mil-u unune
.m hon are es and about 6 5 nullion acres more Ihan Ihe 1motmf prrymed in virilins bills by Utah's congres-D L
smn,1 delegation O
+
..,,m.y..v,~-,,--,.
.--,..,....,,-4,-,,--.-~.--.,--w e-....e
,,--..,~.---e
+++,~,m
,-,-..v--m
.--.ww-v~--ew--
--,-~+w
- - * * ~ * * * ' - - " ~ * ' ' - ' " " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ " ' * * * ' * ' " ' ' ' ' ~ "
Coalition open house.The pepub.
lican delegation has been ada-beinterpreted as unequivocalsup-mantly opposed to the designation port for8 5 million acres of wilder-theyare quietly going aboutdnirg of big wilderness,andCook cau.
ness.In fact, Cook would not com-their jobs
Treas added to Ihe wilderness tioned that"what decisionis mit tohow much wilderness should Cook's opponent, Democrat Lil be designated.
Eskelsen, promised that if sheis 'y reh list include rule Valleyis the reached should be based onsei.
Even though Cook's dis rict-elected shewillco-sponsor a big u est desert. Pilot Peak range bor.
ence and facts,"not mythologyand whichcomprisesmuchof alt wiMerness bill to protect every last dermg Nevada. Dome Plateau
- hearsay, lake County,islargelysupport,ve acre of undeveloped public land in near Moab.and the central Price Cook then surprised everyone of bigwilderness, Utah s first-term Utah.
i Riverand llammond Canyon areas in centralIItah byannouncinghewas withdrawing congressman couldface withering However,as longas Hepublicans hissupport of a GOPproposalfor opposition from Utah sveteran controlCongrest, big uilderness Ilundreds of volunteersdonated the San RafaelSwellthatincluded has willlikely neverget beyond com.
Ihousands of hours over the past some wilderness,but not nearlyas.
p[t da b h,,d
~
mittee dchate.
fu o re ars wafLint Utah's back.
much as wildernessadvocales had nat nganythingmore than 2 mil-rountry 19 identify those landsIhat wanted.
I on acresof UhMet remam unmarred bydevelopment
, Icannot support orvotefor the The BLM is conductingitsown and meet Ihe legaldefinition found San Rafael bill,' hesaid to a roar re inventory to see which wild
?
- he !!W Wilderness Act. The re..
sultsof thatstarveyhavebeenre-of cheers from thecrowd.
lands meet wilderness criteria.
"It's a huge announcement,"
BLM directorand Utah native Pat
! cased piecemeal overthe past said Mike Matz, executivedirector Shea,who was in Park CJV several weeks, and Wednesday's of theSouthern Utah Wilderness Wednesday fora conferenseof openhouse was thelast of fourin Mliance "Havinga Republican university deans of agriculture,
- litah, The Utah Wilderness Coalition memberof Congress from Utah said theinventoryisprogressing v di now conduct open houses in say hewillvoteagainst theSan Ra-withoutinterferenceorinfluence
< thermajor metropolitan areas faelbillishugebecauseitprovides from eitherside.
i hke San l'ranciscoand Boston a great deal of cover forother Re-The results of the Utah Wilder-
- "Ikcauseof thisinventory.Iltah publicans from outside thestate/* ness Coalitioninventory havenot e now a modeland the nation is However, Cook's lack of support and willnot influence BLM staff-ers,he said. "Our peo paying attention."said Bob Ding-forIhe San Rafaelbillshould not what the (wi'derness)ple know lawis,and h.un.fielddirectorof theSierra Cinbane of the more than 150 rm nonmentalorganizations that comprise the Utah Wiklerness Co-ahlien 4
1ine person w ho is paying atlen-c iis Rep Merrill Cook. R-tItah.
' a w: s the first major eierted of-r in ::d to attend a Utah Wilderness 0
e
.m
-^'-~^--
-. - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ^ ~ ~
u
.m p
M.
c-c C
O e
C.3$
D B's BRENT ISRAELSES Z
THE SAL.T t.AKE TutDCNE h
Having simmered for more than a year. Utahi wt!derness y
debate is back on full boil.
p.,s Wilderness advocates Wednesdav announced they believe w
no fewer th.m 8 5 mdlion acres of public land in Utah quahfy G
~
for federal wilderness protection, the most restrictive land-management designation.
And they say they have the evidence to prove it.
p.,:
This is the rnint rigorous. technical citizens mventer,":of 7
w:!dernessi that s ever been done in the United States." said y
Lar y Young. co-chairman of the Utah Wilderness Coalition o
( U WC).
~*
On Wednesday, the UWC, which represents 155 environ-g mental groups pushmg for a big Utah wilderness bill, re-leased findings of a two year "reinventory" of some 22 mil.
f-lion acres of land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
I We Thev evneluded that their current wilderness bill -
W
'0"
~
HR15d0. which called for setting aside 5.7 million acres -
c Sils short by nearly 3 milhon acres. Most of the shortfall, y
q
. bout 2 mill.on acres, is found in the Great Basin. an area y
h O
m largely overicoked in environmentalists' original inventories.
c._
p
@!.s D
The Great Rasin is characterized by large desolate valleys CD 2
mterrupted by steep. rugged moun-1-
O L
O E'
ain ranges. most of wfuch remain g
largely untouched by humans, wil.
dt.
QR p.s det ne>s advovates say.
, w',,,,m C-Off road enthusiasts disagree.
o About a dozen members of the Utah p
%_y 4 Wheel Drive Association worked the crowd to make it clear e-*
gg they seriously question whether the new inventory of wild e
6 lands honestly deals with what could become the biggest stick-h.
]
y ing point: roads g
cg3 r
co 2
Association spokeswoman Marsha Terry said, "They are proposing to close roads and trails that families in Utah have C0 4
M enjoyed for os er 100 years."
O Also m a press statement released before Wednesday's p,3 4
meeting. the newly orgamzed " Utah Association of Rural p
t Countier slammed the UWC's reinventory methodology, and C.
r called the new wi3h list a " completely pohtical exeretse."
g l
'The UWC primtry motive in increasing their demands
\\
is an attemp to make their existing but still extreme 3a s
milhon acre wilderness proposal seem more moderate." said rt WG
. the rural county group, whose only named member on the y
W news release aan Millard County Commissioner Lana Moon.
e Attended by about 700 people packed into the University of 3e*
Utah's stuacnt Umon Ballroom, Wednesday's meeting had a decidedly pohtical air to it.
3 Bob Bingaman, a UWC co-chairman. said Utah's congres-o
<ional delegarmn made a " big custake" in the last Congress by p.,
g introducing a bill callmg for just 2 million acres of wilderness y
a bd! that mobilized environmentalists nationwide and 6 entualle died n the Senate.
(*D h
}
h
.~
f.aa. dan promaed :he renewed battle for bu vilderness s
M 5
~
J.
n nard.iought.
'%., a. ye ;Nht df organtzed people agam crganned O_,.,
h 7
,a
-s e
O ww
, ~ _,...
{
~
ing, agrtcultural and off roait m
("h g "Q,"
I,d' ato n Utah Rep Merrdt Cook j
terests who hhely are to oppow a on Wednesday broke par-Cook. a Repuhm pmed h Large wilderness bill.
g;wg.s efforts saying the new in-ty rank, announcing he 4
l Mike Matz, director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alli-ventorv will be helpful in resolv.
Will not support a conser-ing the' debate, but he would not vation bill sponsored by 3
ance, said the new 85mdlion-commit to how much wilderness GOP Rep Chris Cannon acre figure is a starting point.
he supports' Cook said he has reser-e UWC members plan to sit down ook said he favors a "scientif.
vati ns about the scientif-g,C.ap roach to determme the ap.
with politicians to determine ic integrity of the pro-which af these areas should be in-propriate bill to protect ecosys-posed San Rafael Swell
- ems-National Heritage / Con.
4 l
cluded in a new wilderness bill.
Lilv Eskelsen, a Democrat vv-servation Area Act.
ing to unseat Cook, said she would "Although it is based on
~
clans at ednesday s mee in Notat)lv missing were representa, co-sponsor HR1500, and wants to good intentions... I can-protect "every acre of wilderness not support or vote for in Utah" that qualifies.
(Cannon's] San Rafael 4
l bill." Cook said.
i nvironmen jE derness Proposal '
' *t?
i Utah environtrentalists have unveiled a new proposal to prote;t atout 8 5 million acres of w%emess -just less than 16 percent of the state.
h g Wildemess areas proposed by
{
Box Elder
\\
Rich Utah environmentallets.
g Existlng Forest Service I ' **
j j
wuderness arvaa 4
.7,..
g National parks, monuments "
ch, e
v and recreation areas.g j
l Weber Proposed wHderness area l ;
i i
1:
san national monument y
j i*
i U
b'"#"
Tocele
. i-h t j-;g g
5
,,. 80
,.,fMM/r) EL.
g'
. g,,,
!C F'. Wasatch 4
De t
Pen, --
he s -....y.>.h s
- e..
4 4
n U
c4 l
La
$Q 9 '.
+.
a,
.e c.
,\\
/
pu Utah l
esne- _, -
s y? ',
n n-
)
]f f'
Py y
j
>w
%*%6 ?
camon YK W
we m
' % Book j
+.y p,.
"" t j
/
'e C!!fts Notch' 8
Sancete l Arh, k,
l ^'
f Peak
$sa Rafael,, s
,\\ :
anwen' Q
s 1'
['J.j' Sevoeb.
?v I
,J,.
. e... &
Arc s
y.
'Y WC A
. N
.h j
a Beaver i
/
' Piute, Wayne W
\\
A
.. +
' Gas.eter G
g f.
,[
%y
[ ls ery i
v tron J.----
n
,k l
l Gran$staarcase
' h 'cedei }
j P
Escalante rMesa -
/
l A
-corn y
,I"$*ff
.. L.,._g.-
g*d
- 2CC-SLS-!O8 52208 astusa d9C*20 8G 81
^OW
r, She Sintes-@nbepetthetti --- Thursday, June 25,1998 l
Full house packs wilderness meetinj.
by Franklin Sea,
sage heard at the UWC open house ment that a section ofland be staff writer in Moab Wednesday - the first in as large as the BLM standard a It was standing roors only at a series planned for different towns 10,000 acres instead of 5,000.,
the Moab Arts and Recreation Cen.
across Utah over the next two Though the new inventory ter last Wednesday evenia g as the months.
pears to include more acres Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC)
"This is about places, not num-previously proposed by the unveiled its re-inventory c' Utah bers," said Lawson Legate, South.
the procean also eliminated Ian lands that they believe 6e tough west Regional Representative of from wilderness designation which federal standards of what, excetly, the National Sierra Club who ad-had become unsuitable due to new I
wildernen is.
dressed the overflow crowd of 130.
usage patterns or development Every available wall was ecv-SUWNs Kevin Walker, a key since the previous inventory was ered in maps, at the front of tha 6gure in the erTort to gather all the conducted in the 1970s. One map l
room tables were piled high with data, explained how the detailed on the wall showed several large boxes of Sles - the data, accumu.
process of gathering the data was areas near Moab marked in red which meant they had been lated dunng the past two years p. carried out, and why. *Our position over 300 volunLeers, that the has always been,if there's so little dropped from the old proposal.This Southern Utah Wilderness Allia4ce wilderness left in Utah, then let's means that now,95 percent of all I
(SUWA) and the UWC are hoping Snd out what is really wilderness.*
Moab's annual Jeep Safari trails lie will help them win the battle to "The criteria that we used were outside proposed wilderness areas.
save Utah's remaining wilderness.
generally stricter than required by Despite the revamped battle In the long running debate BLM regulations,* said Walker.The cry," Wild Utah,' which avoids the over exactly how much land, and idea was to end up with a system sticky issue of numbers, numbers which tracts, in Utah to designate of proposed wilderness boundaries were obviously still part of the cal.
]
1 as wilderness, the battle cry of the that could be defended more easily culation. 'The numbers are going pro-wildernese forces has been in the coming legislative battles, up," said Walker. "But it's not tew',
fixed un a number - 5.7 million One example of how the standards It's old wilderness that's being acres. Well, " forget the numbers used in their new inventory were newly recognized. Our proposal is game from now on* was the mes-more stringent was the require-changing, but that's because we're doing a betterjob ofidentifying it.'
Steven Taggart, ad mimatrative assistant for Utah Rep. Chris Can-non, had come to observe. He wasn't sure if the UWC was truly sending f
a signal that they had backed off their insistence on a set total of acres. 'I don't really linow," said Taggart. '"I' hat truly is one of the great mystenes.*
l I
I
(
l l
gd WBEE-G69-IO8 s22og astuag dsg:20 8G 8I
^0N
. e exHENT.'m
[j? g' g The impacts of the Low rail spur on the North Cedar Mountains Roadless area
!R b_tu f
wm B
B
'.qq se % a_, h u~ a-4)
SI m ontain
~
m a,
[
f l[.
h 5^
n 3
- Central Nor :: -
m) 5 2
D m
?
montain.
y 05
[c g
h ha, t -
o fJD aaa e
m i
b E
b kuth Coder,
.uina r T4S 3
d $!
]C 733 E
0 h
3
-~T G
- rrnr, f
Proposed alignment Proposed PFS Legend of the proposed (nuclear waste)
N Prwd RaR Line site Land ownertip g Forest Service 2
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 Miles E WHdNfe Reserves i ii i
i i
i i
j Designated Wilskeness Areas Nadve American Private State Maior roads Produced for the Land and Water Fund 1 UWC carddate wilderness area by the Wild Utah Project Nov 1998