State of Utah Home Page
This has been released to the public at large and there have been news release asking for public input.
Maggie Kelsey explained that all three agencies looked at wild and scenic rivers during their planning processes. They look at three things: eligibility for designation by Congress, classification of rivers and suitability. Eligibility is based solely on river values. Classification is based on the amount of development and disturbance. Once it is classified, that is how they propose to manage it. It could be classified as scenic, recreational or wild. Suitability evaluates whether designation as a national wild and scenic river would be the highest and best use of eligible rivers. She reviewed the issues which are addressed while considering whether a river is suitable for inclusion in the national system. This is on page 8 of the draft.
She said there has been much concern from the Utah delegation and Governor Leavitt about the lack of coordination and cooperation by the agencies in how they do their planning. Both the governor and the delegation asked them to come up with a joint process so there can be a more consistent finding. This is what they have tried to do with the draft process. It is basically an interagency policy paper that tells their people how to go about these studies. It doesn't reiterate existing policies. The paper focuses on the eligibility process and agency coordination.
She reviewed the draft criteria. Page two covers eligibility. The following issues are studied for eligibility: 1) Free-Flowing character - in order for a river to be determined eligible it has to have free flowing characteristics; 2) Outstandingly remarkable values (river related; regionally significant; and rare, unique or exemplary).
She also reviewed the nine hydrologic regions proposed in the joint criteria. (Appendix A of the draft). These suggested regions are just a starting place. Some of the regions extend out of state and on these they would work in cooperation with other state agencies of these areas. They would like to hear from people if they don't agree with these regions. Ken Esplin said that the Shivwits Indian Reservation was not on this map. A question was also raised as to why the Little Colorado was not included on the map but the Virgin is. Someone else asked what the regions were used for. She explained that they would be used to compare rivers. Ron Thompson asked will sub regions become regions? Ron Thompson said he thought they were using the Colorado Plateau as a region and now the suggestion that this will be broken down into subregions causes him great concern as that will result in comparing the Virgin river against itself and that changes the criteria considerably. Maggie Kelsey said that they didn't intend to exclude anything in particular. John Redlinger suggested that consistency in region definition would be very important because it would ultimately effect decisions. Dane Leavitt asked how other states have handled defined regions. Maggie said that every state has done it differently and that is one of the problems.
Ron Thompson believes the federal statutes refer to regions as major river systems. The smaller you make regions the more rivers segments would qualify. Bill Lamb explained that this is the first time they have set down and reviewed this and tried to come up with something that everybody would be comfortable with. This is why they- want everyone's comments to fine tune this.
Appendix B, the outstandingly remarkable value rating factors was reviewed by Maggie Kelsey. She said that the outstanding remarkable values have not been rated and that the rating factors are just generic guidelines.
There was a discussion regarding agency cooperation. The lead agency would be whoever is coordinating that particular assessment or doing a plan at that particular time. The lead agency would notify other agencies, develop a rating form and convene a multidisciplinary team.
John Williams said he didn't see anything about state and local involvement in the draft criteria. They cannot just be treated as another special interest group. Maggie said that was because this is an interagency paper. She said they will research this. Ron Thompson said he has read the act and the BLM guidelines and both contemplate state and local participation. If state and local people are a part of the process and they all work together there is a chance for success. If they are not made part of the process and treated just as another special interest group, he feels it is doomed for failure.
Bill Lamb reiterated that they would welcome and would like to receive comments from everybody involved in SUPAC. Ron Thompson said he does feel this a major step in the right direction. Bill Lamb commented that if we bring the congressional delegation in now and work together maybe we won't have to go through the kind of process they did with wilderness.
Jeannine Holt discussed funding for a statewide study. She said there had been no discussion recently. Bill Lamb said they would still go ahead even without special funding with this draft criteria; it would just move along slower. Jeannine said they had asked for $3,000,000 but they have not heard anything on this recently. There was discussion regarding how this would work if the funding didn't come through. It was explained that if the forest service is doing their planning, then BLM and park service would work with them on their study and plan using the criteria. Whichever agency started the process would have the cooperation of the other two and it would be done piece by piece instead of statewide.
Brad Barber said he felt like the language in Paragraph one needed to be broadened. Where it refers to "scoping process" change it to "public review process". The sentence would read: Only those who submit written statements during the public review process would be given the privilege of appeal. This will also change two other references to scoping process to public review process.
Tom Contreras said in Paragraph #2 we should probably have some clarification on the forfeiture of bond. Add "to the appropriate agency" as follows: If the administrative law judge finds the appeal is only for delay and without a legitimate legal basis in fact or law the judge shall forfeit the bond to the appropriate agency and may assess costs and attorney's fees. Ted Stewart also suggested taking out the words "not emotion" and adding the word "verifiable" before facts so it would read: Specific evidence, based upon verifiable facts, not emotion, should be required.
There was some discussion of the $1,000 bond requirement. Ron Thompson said this is to put in a good faith requirement on the federal level. Ted Stewart said we are just trying to send a message, we don't need to get too caught up in the legal details. The ultimate message here is that we want people to think twice before filing appeal and have a basis for it. After further discussion, Roger Holland made a motion to accept the resolution as changed today. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner and all voted aye.
**Brad Barber will see if the Governor can sign it as chairman of SUPAC. If he cannot then Dane will sign as Vice-Chairman. **Dane will provide copies of final resolution to all SUPAC members.
Pete Rowley of USGS was introduced next. He showed some of the local work done. He showed geologic maps of the Newcastle quadrangle and the Beaver quadrangle. They have done work in those areas for 30 years. These geologic maps are more specialized. The topographic maps are probably one of their most requested and used items.
Dane Leavitt expressed appreciation for their presentation as it will help the SUPAC people that are involved in planning know what resources are available. Dane asked them if they could provide Lloyd Johnson, SUPAC data committee, a catalog of resources they have available. **They said they would provide that.
The presentation continued with Jeff Freethey discussing two other division of USGS, the mapping division and water resources division. He showed what the mapping division of USGS is doing in this area. They are now working on digital orthophoto quad maps. There is a joint funding agreement with AGRC on this quad map digitizing. They will participate in funding the digitization of 344 topographic quad maps along with the State. This includes significant portions of Washington County. The water resources division is mostly information gathering. Their basic function is to collect data and interpret data for specific types of studies. He showed an example of a map of gaging stations in Utah. They also monitor water quality and he showed a map of surface water quality sites and ground water quality sites. These are available to anyone by contacting the SLC office. He also showed a map of observation wells in Utah. He showed examples of recent studies of unsaturated zone flow in Millard County; recharge study, defining sewer recharge occurs in certain areas for Kane, Millard and Washington Counties; and seepage studies for Sevier River Basin, Beaver Valley, and Virgin River. They have been doing water use studies in St. George for the past year. They do a lot of groundwater flow model studies which is a mathematical representation of how groundwater moves through the aquifer system. They also do a yearly report on groundwater development in Utah which details what is happening with ground water levels. It is published by the state and entitled Groundwater conditions in Utah. This is available to anyone. He showed other reports available for Southwestern Utah.
They have computer data bases on local and national levels where this information is available. They also have archives and published reports, some of which are available at local public libraries and university libraries. They are also in the process of developing a home page on the world wide webb on Internet to make this information more readily available. Their address on Internet will be available in about two weeks. They also have a bibliography of available information.
Bill Lund, Deputy Director of the Utah Geological Survey explained what their department does. They investigate geological resources and hazards in the State of Utah along with topography. They work statewide and have been operating for 40 years. Their offices are in SLC but they have been working in Southwestern Utah for over 30 years. Because of the rapid growth down here they can no longer carry out their mandate for this part of the state doing it on a commuter basis so they have received funds and will be opening a permanent office in Cedar City in late fall or early winter. They will have somebody down here fulltime working in Southwestern Utah. They maintain a number of data bases, including a geological map data base. He also explained some of their programs such as applied geology and economic geology. He discussed their mapping program and answered questions. In Southern Utah right now they have just completed quadrangle maps for St. George and Washington and are currently mapping the Santa Clara quadrangle which will be done by late fall. They are also preparing a geological framework for the Navajo Aquifer Study. They will have a staff person on this study for the next couple of years. He explained what SMAC, State Mapping Advisory Committee does. They meet yearly and listen to people with geographical concerns and which are the most important mapping areas. They would like people to take advantage of this process so they will know what peoples concerns are. He reviewed all the other projects they are working on in this area. They hope that having an office in Southwestern Utah will increase involvement with people in this area. Bill Lamb asked what their relationship with USGS was. USGS has national responsibility; the geological survey is constrained within the boundaries of Utah. However, they work cooperatively together on many things.
On the challenging or bad news end, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service feels there is a direct link between the desert tortoise and the Virgin River management plan. Bill said that they do not agree that these should be tied together and Washington County feels very strongly about it. Washington County feels there is no scientific evidence to link the two together. They are also concerned that at a later date the service could write an opinion on another species and claim that the operation of the HCP was detrimental to another species and try and get our HCP changed or revoked. Another issue that has become burdensome is the appraisal issue. Two appraisals were done on one parcel; the first appraisal came in and then the second appraisal done with the tortoise factor in mind came back at about l/7th of the first appraisal. This is a great concern and the BLM is trying to help straighten this out.
Reed Harris said that there is obviously still some disagreement but assured that once a decision is made on the HCP that is the way it will remain. As far as the water issue and the HCP they have spoken to their regional director about this. They believe that the continued growth in the use of the underground aquifers effect the river system and they are looking at the indirect effects. They would like to see that plan implemented and would like to get some sort of good faith commitment such as an MOU with the water district to protect them. Reed Harris said he believes this can be accomplished and that the HCP will be approved and this point will become moot. He said they understand the county's concerns for assurances regarding the longevity of the HCP but this has to work out for both sides. They feel this is much broader than protection of tortoises. Ron Thompson said he didn't feel USFWS should be looking at anything more than protecting species. Reed Harris further stated that the Environmental Assessment is a done deal and that the biological opinion should be out in a short time. He believes that the permit will be issued in November and hopefully by the next SUPAC meeting they will be able to say that has been issued. Reed Harris in conclusion said that he doesn't think there are any issues that will kill the HCP; these are all issues that can be worked out. **There will be an updated on the progress of the HCP at the November meeting.
Lloyd said that there is new technology recently developed for CD ROM drives. A standard CD now holds approximately 600 megabytes. The new standard agreed upon will store 7 billion bytes of data. These will probably be out in less than a year so keep that in mind when purchasing new equipment. It will have dramatic impacts on the industry.
The Utah Association of Counties is having a meeting near the end of October or first part of November where there will be a GIS presentation and workshop and perhaps a homepage training seminar can be scheduled for the same time. He will send information out to the SUPAC and data tech committees. Also, on October 16 and 17 for anyone interested the Southwest Arc Info users are having their semi-annual users meeting at the Homestead. Anyone interested in that could go or send a representative to it.
He said the SUPAC home page is working now and they have established links to the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. **He will give a demonstration of home pages at the next SUPAC meeting. **Lloyd Johnson will also talk to USGS people about a link into their data.
Dane reviewed the agenda items he has for the November 14 meeting, after which the meeting was adjourned.
State of Utah Home Page