U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–874 u 2000

HEARING ON: H.R. 3605, TO ESTABLISH THE

SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT IN

UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 2, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–70

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held March 2, 2000 ................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah ............................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Statements of witnesses:

Curtis, Wesley R., Director, Governor’s Rural Partnership Office ............... 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49

Johnson, Commissioner Randy, Emery County, Utah .................................. 49

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

McUsic, Molly, Counselor to the Secretary, Department of the Interior,

accompanied by Sally Wisely, UT State Director, Bureau of Land Management ......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Martin, Wilson, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Utah Division

of State History-Preservation Office ............................................................ 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82

Matz, Mike, Executive Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance ......... 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Staff Report, Price Field Office ................................................................ 63

Nelson, Courtland, Director, Utah Division of Parks and Recreation ......... 41

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Petersen, Commissioner Kent, Chair, Emery County, Utah ........................ 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Meadows, William H., The Wilderness Society, comments on H.R. 3605 .... 87

Additional material supplied:

The Wilderness Society, comments on H.R. 3605 .......................................... 78

Text of H.R. 3605 .............................................................................................. 4

(1)

HEARING ON: H.R. 3605, TO ESTABLISH THE

SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT

IN UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

AND PUBLIC LANDS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 1324,

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Members present: Representatives Hansen, Duncan, Cannon,

Kildee, and Udall.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. Good morning and welcome. We appreciate your

coming to be with us today. You probably all realize that Congress

passed their last vote of the week yesterday, so many of our members are on holiday. We appreciate those who are here.

This morning we will hear testimony on Congressman Chris

Cannon’s bill, H.R. 3605, that would establish the San Rafael Legacy District and National Conservation Area in Eastern Utah.

The San Rafael region is host to many unique resources representative of the American West. These include influences from

Native American culture, exploration, pioneering, and industrial

development. H.R. 3605 will protect these resources while also ensuring the economic viability of the surrounding communities.

As many of the members are aware, Mr. Cannon has worked

very hard to protect this area. But we have had some problems

doing it, and he is continuing to work on it. We will return again

this Congress with similar legislation that has been worked out

with the administration and the local community.

Similar to past legislation, this bill provides real protection for

an area that deserves national recognition and conservation. H.R.

3605 is legislation that should serve as a model of how local communities can come together, work with the Department of Interior,

and work out a plan that preserves the land in a fashion that conserves and protects while respecting traditional users and values.

The Western Legacy District will be located in Emery County

and will consist of approximately 2.8 million acres. The District,

much like its heritage area, will be used to promote the developVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 073108 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\64874 pfrm09 PsN: 64874
2

ment of historical, cultural, and recreational resources related to

the heritage of the San Rafael region and the State of Utah.

Working through the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary of the Interior will appoint a 10-member Legacy Council who

will be charged with advising the Secretary as to the interpretation, conservation, and planning for the many resources located

within the Legacy District. Again, this plan calls for constant interaction between the local communities and the BLM to make sure

this Legacy District is a success.

Within the Heritage District, H.R. 3605 establishes the San

Rafael National Conservation Area. This land, consisting of almost

a million acres, will be established to conserve the many unique biological, aesthetic, and recreational resources for future generations.

This includes some of the wildest lands in Utah, some of the

greatest off-road recreation and the best bighorn sheep herd in the

State. All of these resources are in need of a comprehensive management plan to balance all of these interests. The National Conservation Area approach establishes these goals.

I want to thank Congressman Cannon for his efforts in sponsoring this bill. Moreover, I want to thank Commissioners Randy

Johnson and Kent Petersen for their undaunted courage to keep

working towards a solution. If these men were paid by the hour,

the county would go broke. They have worked literally for years to

craft a compromise that works on the ground and can survive the

political games played.

Needless to say, a great deal of time and effort have gone into

its preparation. My thanks go to our State representatives, Wes

Curtis and Courtland Nelson, who represent the Governor here

today, as well as the rest of our witnesses for being here.

Finally, I want to thank Molly McUsic, Secretary Babbitt, and

Sally Wisely for their dedication and work in bringing this legislation forward and working with Emery County. We sincerely appreciate the great work so many folks have done on this very difficult

piece of legislation.

I would like to turn to my colleague from Utah, Mr. Cannon, the

sponsor of this bill, for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Good morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come

to order. This morning we will hear testimony on Congressman Chris Cannon’s bill

H.R. 3605, that would establish the San Rafael Legacy District and National Conservation Area in Eastern Utah.

The San Rafael region is host to many unique resources representative of the

American West. These include influences from Native American culture, exploration,

pioneering, and industrial development. H.R. 3605 will protect these resources while

also ensuring the economic viability of the surrounding communities.

As many of the Members are aware, Mr. Cannon and myself worked very hard

during last Congress to protect this area but in the end were unable to provide the

necessary protections because a few local extreme environmentalists would rather

misrepresent the facts and fund raise rather than solve a problem.

Well we return again this Congress with similar legislation that has been worked

out with the Administration and the local community. Similar to past legislation,

this bill provides real protections for an area that deserves national recognition and

conservation. H.R. 3605 is legislation that should serve as a model of how local communities can come together, work with the Department of Interior and work out a

3

plan that preserves the land in a fashion that conserves and protects while respecting traditional uses.

The Western Legacy District will be located in Emery County and will consist of

approximately 2.8 million acres. The District, much like a heritage area, will be

used to promote the development of historical, cultural and recreational resources

related to the heritage of the San Rafael region and the State of Utah.

Working through the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary of the Interior

will appoint a ten member Legacy Council who will be charged with advising the

Secretary as to the interpretation, conservation and planning for the many resources located within the Legacy District. Again, this plan calls for constant interaction between the local communities and the BLM to make this Legacy District a

success.

Within the Heritage District, H.R. 3605 establishes the San Rafael National Conservation Area. This land, consisting of almost a million acres, will be established

to conserve the many unique biological, aesthetic and recreational resources for future generations. This includes some of the wildest lands in Utah, some of the greatest off road recreation and the best big horn sheep herd in the State. All of these

resources are in need of a comprehensive management plan to balance all of these

interests. The National Conservation Area approach accomplishes these goals.

I want to thank Congressman Cannon for his efforts in sponsoring this bill. Moreover, I want to thank Commissioners Randy Johnson and Kent Peterson for their

undaunted courage to keep working towards a solution. If these men were paid by

the hour, the County would be broke. They have worked literally for years to craft

a compromise that works on the ground and can survive the political games played

around here. Needless to say, a great deal of time and effort have gone into its preparation. My thanks also goes to our State representatives, Wes Curtis and

Courtland Nelson who represent the Governor here today as well as the rest of our

witnesses for being here today to testify. Finally, I want to thank Molly McUsic,

Secretary Babbitt, and Sally Wisely for their dedication and work in bringing this

legislation forward and working with Emery County.

[The Bill H.R. 3605 follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s holding this hearing this morning. As you know, we

have worked hard and long on this legislation to provide for the

reasonable management of the San Rafael Swell.

I would like to thank everyone who is here today, and also those

who are at home, who have been involved in formulating this legislation. Randy Johnson, Kent Petersen, Val Payne, Ira Hatch, Wes

Curtis, Wilson Martin, Courtland Nelson, who traveled from Utah.

And we also have Mike Matz who is here with us today, and Larry

Young—Larry has not traveled, but he is from Utah. We appreciate

the sacrifice you have made to be here today.

I am sure their testimony will be helpful, and I look forward to

the discussion of the merits of this legislation this morning.

I appreciate the support of the administration as expressed by

Molly McUsic’s testimony that she provided on behalf of the Department of the Interior. And, frankly, I am eager to send this bill

to the President for his signature.

But I would especially like to thank Sally Wisely, who worked

long, long hours on this legislation, and Molly McUsic, and Secretary Babbitt, for their work on behalf of the BLM and the Department of the Interior.

H.R. 3605 outlines a process to preserve the remarkable area famous for such outlaws as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Over the last three years, people in Emery County, Utah, have

come together with county officials, landowners, and Bureau of

Land Management to develop and support this plan. The San

Rafael Legacy and National Conservation Area Act would place 2.8

million acres into a Legacy District to be managed for the conservation of the region’s historical and cultural resources.

This bill allows management that would guarantee the preservation of the dramatic canyons, wildlife, and historic sites of the San

Rafael Swell. Additionally, this bill sets aside almost a million

acres as a National Conservation Area, withdrawn from future

mining claims and providing increased protection for primitive and

semi-primitive areas.

The Secretary of Interior, in conjunction with an Advisory Council, would develop a management plan for the National Conservation Area that would allow various land uses, while simultaneously

preserving the natural resources of the area for future generations.

Many of you may remember a similar bill that I introduced in

the last Congress. The concern with that previous bill related to

the designation of wilderness. This time, the County Commissioners sat down with BLM and the people who live near and care

about the San Rafael Swell and set up a process for dealing with

management of the whole area.

We, as Americans, are united in our love for the land and our

desire to use it appropriately.

This bill preserves a beautiful part of the State of Utah, while

taking into account local needs and interests. It provides a process

for managing access for people who come to enjoy the area. Additionally, this bill represents a breakthrough in land management

17

policy and provides a balance between preservation and recreation.

It proves that consensus can be achieved from the ground up rather than from Washington down.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work on this issue, and

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Subcommittee holding this hearing

this morning. You know we have worked long and hard on this legislation to provide

for the reasonable management of the San Rafael Swell area. I would like to thank

everyone who is here today and those at home who have played a role in formulating this legislation. Randy Johnson, Kent Peterson, Val Payne, Ira Hatch, Wes

Curtis, Wilson Martin, and Courtland Nelson have traveled from Utah. I recognize

the sacrifice they have made to be here. I am sure their testimony will be helpful

and I look forward to their discussion of the merits of our legislation this morning.

I appreciate the support of the Administration as expressed in Molly McUsic’s testimony provided by the Department of Interior. I am eager to send this bill to the

President for his signature. I would especially like to thank Sally Wisely and Molly

McUsic for their work on behalf of BLM.

H.R. 3605 outlines a process to preserve the remarkable area famous for such outlaws as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Over the last three years, people in

Emery County, Utah have come together with county officials, landowners, and the

Bureau of Land Management to develop and support this plan.

The San Rafael Legacy and National Conservation Area Act would place 2.8 million acres into a Legacy District to be managed for the conservation of the region’s

historical and cultural resources. This bill allows management that would guarantee

the preservation of the dramatic canyons, wildlife, and historic sites of the San

Rafael Swell.

Additionally, this bill sets aside almost a million acres as a National Conservation

Area, withdrawn from future mining claims and providing increased protection for

primitive and semi-primitive areas. The Secretary of Interior, in conjunction with

an Advisory Council, would develop a management plan for the National Conservation Area that would allow various land uses, while simultaneously preserving the

natural resources of the area for future generations.

Many of you may remember a similar bill that I introduced in the last Congress.

The concern with the previous bill related to the designation of wilderness. This

time the County Commissioners sat down with BLM and the people who live near

and care about the San Rafael and set up a process for dealing with management

of the whole area.

We, as Americans, are united in our love of the land and our desire to use it appropriately. This bill preserves a beautiful part of the state of Utah while taking

into account local needs and interests. It provides a process for managing access for

people who come to enjoy this area.

Additionally, this bill represents a breakthrough in land management policy. It

provides a balance between reservation and recreation. It proves that consensus can

be achieved from the ground up, rather than Washington down.

Mr. Chairman thank you for your work on this issue and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman from Utah.

Our friend from Michigan, Mr. Kildee?

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate

you having this hearing today. We are anxious to work out some

concerns we have on this bill, but I think that we can work those

concerns out. I look forward to working with Mr. Cannon and yourself, Mr. Chairman, to get this bill in the proper shape. And I think

we all have goodwill here in this, want to work together and move

the bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I also have another meeting of the Forest Committee right down the hall, so I——

Mr. HANSEN. I understand.

18

Mr. KILDEE. [continuing] will be popping in and out here today.

Mr. HANSEN. We understand and appreciate your being with us

for a few moments.

The gentleman from Tennessee has no opening statement.

We will call on our first panel, then. Molly McUsic, the Counselor

to the Secretary, Department of the Interior. She is accompanied

by Sally Wisely, Utah State Director, Bureau of Land Management.

And we will also on this panel have Commissioner Randy Johnson

from Emery County and Commissioner Kent Petersen from Emery

County.

If the four of you folks would like to come up. I am sure Nancy

there can figure out where you are supposed to sit.

We surely appreciate all of you being with us today, and we appreciate Molly McUsic being with us, especially knowing that she

has just come back from maternity leave. Thank you very much for

being with us.

We are probably going to be a little liberal on time today. So,

Nancy, don’t get excited if they go over. And you see that little

gizmo in front of you that says ‘‘five minutes,’’ well, if you need

extra time—for all our witnesses—we will be more than happy to

give you a little extra time.

We will turn to you. Molly, pull that mike just a little closer to

you, please.

STATEMENT OF MOLLY McUSIC, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED

BY SALLY WISELY, UT STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Ms. MCUSIC. Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Hansen,

for encouraging me last summer—and Sally and Barbara

Weyman—to go out and see the San Rafael area and to begin talking to the County Commissioners to see if we could find some common ground. I have to admit, as you probably realize, I was quite

skeptical of the possibility of any success in that regard. And I am

very pleased that at the end we were able to reach a bill that the

administration could support.

And as you and Congressman Cannon mentioned, a great deal of

that credit has to go to the Emery County Commissioners and the

amount of work that they did to come up with a bill that we could

support.

None of us got everything that we wanted, not what they got or

what we got. And if we could write the bill in a perfect world, of

course it would be different. But it is a good bill, and I am very

pleased to be here today to testify in support of it.

As the Chairman well knows, the San Rafael area is an amazingly beautiful place and well-deserving of the special designation

and protection that this bill confers. The administration supports

this legislation because of the substantial protections that arise for

these important public lands, including the withdrawal for mineral

leasing and sale and exchange. There were very important restrictions on off-road vehicle use and the innovative provisions of the

Legacy District.

However, we would like the opportunity to work with the Chairman and the Committee and Congressman Cannon to address a

19

few of our concerns. And I want to just highlight one today, which

is we urge the need to modify the water language in 202(k) prior

to markup. And we can talk about that.

As you are well aware, and as you can see from the map, both

the National Conservation Area and the Legacy District are wholly

within Emery County. What you may not be aware of is that

Emery County contains the longest American highway without any

highway services—over 110 miles. And what I like to imagine is

some tourist whipping down there about 75 miles per hour and

then suddenly being shocked by the amazing beauty of the cliffs

and pinnacles and ridges that are there, and just thinking wow.

And if they stop for a minute and look at the map, I think they

would be equally shocked and surprised by the wonderful place

names in Emery County that suggest the great Western history

there—places like Black Dragon and Robbers Roost and Convulsion

Canyon, to name just a few.

Today, Emery County is poised to meet its economic future by

living in harmony with the beauty and history of this land. What

is striking to me about this legislation is that it reflects a recognition that the Federal lands can provide opportunities for economic

growth in ways not simply on extraction of resources but also with

protection and preservation of the resources.

The legislation simultaneously provides the opportunity for economic growth and protection with a unique two-tiered approach.

First, which is the inner boundary there, is a nearly one million

acre National Conservation Area. And then the outer boundary is

the larger Legacy District, and that is the two tiers.

The first one, the National Conservation Area, has important

protections. A number of them, it is withdrawn from mining, mineral leasing, sale and exchange. It also has important management

language which requires the Secretary to only allow such uses as

are consistent with conservation of the area.

It also, importantly, provides a limitation on vehicular travel

cross country. Travel for off-road vehicles would be limited to designated roads and trails. The designation of which roads and trails,

along with other management issues like that, would be decided at

the local level in a planning process. And there would be, of course,

a great deal of complete public input and partnership with the

County Commissioners in determining that.

But, of course, while the planning process was going on—and

even after the plan was finished—BLM continues to have the authority and the obligation to prevent any resource degradation

caused by off-road vehicle use or any other use that damages the

resource.

The National Conservation Area also encompasses six wilderness

study areas and about 350,000 acres of land that have been found

to have wilderness characteristics by the BLM in its 1999 inventory. This legislation has no effect on the wilderness status of these

plans. It essentially has a hold harmless clause. It doesn’t make

any wilderness, and it doesn’t release any of the lands from management, either as a WSA or the interim management of BLM.

Section 202(k) deals with water, and we have serious concerns

about that language. It contains sweeping language that is not contained in any other law dealing with public lands. We would appreVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 073108 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64874 pfrm09 PsN: 64874
20

ciate the opportunity to work with the Committee and with Chairman Hansen and Congressman Cannon to resolve this before the

bill goes to markup. We would also like to clarify some accurate

acreages and map issues before the bill is marked up.

The second tier of this legislation, the larger boundary, is the

Western Legacy District. And it is a new and unique concept that

we think will work well here. As the Chairman mentioned, it encompasses over 2.8 million acres of land, of which a little over two

million is BLM-managed public land.

The role of the Western Legacy District is to promote the conservation, history, and natural resources of this area, and this in

turn will provide new economic opportunities for the local community. The bill also authorizes a total of $10 million in matching

grants and technical assistance.

This money would be available for a wide range of projects, including planning, historic preservation, and educational facilities.

We believe that this will allow the local community to more fully

realize the potential economic benefits derived from the protection

of the San Rafael Swell area.

In sum, what is wonderful about this legislation is that it both

provides considerable new protection for the public lands. At the

same time, it provides the local community with opportunities for

economic growth.

Let me end, then, Mr. Chairman, by commending, again, the

Emery County Commissioners and the efforts they have made.

Randy Johnson, Kent Petersen, and Ira Hatch deserve enormous

amounts of credit for the bill before the Subcommittee today.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McUsic follows:]

STATEMENT OF MOLLY MCUSIC, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 3605, the San Rafael

Western Legacy District and National Conservation Area Act. As the Chairman well

knows, the San Rafael Swell is an area of immense beauty that deserves the special

designation and protections that this bill confers. The Administration supports this

legislation because of the additional protections it provides for important public

lands including the withdrawal from mineral development and sale or exchange, restrictions on off highway vehicle (OHV) use and innovative provisions for a Legacy

District. However, we would like the opportunity to work with the Committee and

Congressmen Cannon and Hansen to address particular concerns.

The modification of the sweeping water language in section 202(k) must be addressed before markup. Furthermore, we believe the issue of NCA boundaries may

need further modification. Wilderness designation for an appropriate portion of this

area is a difficult issue that remains. The Administration believes that wilderness

protections for a significant portion of this area is warranted and would have preferred that it could have been resolved in this legislation.

Both the NCA and the Legacy District are wholly within Emery County, in central Utah—an expanse of nearly 4,500 square miles populated by only 11,000 hardy

souls. Emery County contains the longest stretch of interstate highway in America

(110 miles from Green River to Salina) without highway services. Even with a 75

MPH speed limit, the stark and stunning beauty of the vertical cliffs, buttes, ridges,

alcoves and pinnacles captures the eye and the imagination of nearly every daytime

traveler who uses this remote stretch of interstate to traverse this extraordinary

area. The place names of Emery County (Black Dragon, Robbers Roost, Humbug

and Convulsion Canyon to name but a few) speak to a storied past and a promising

future inextricably linked to the human history, rugged grandeur and harsh demands of these lands.

The beauty of the San Rafael Swell area began 40 to 60 million years ago when

a massive uplift formed a geologic structure called an anticline. This bulge in the

21

earth’s crust was later eroded to leave high mesas, deep canyons, domes, spectacular

arches and spires. The terrain varies from sheer cliffs and dazzling canyons to more

gently eroded badlands broken by shallow washes. The fins and folds of the San

Rafael Reef jut through the southeast side of the area with dramatic sheer-walled

cliffs, pinnacles, knobs, twisted canyons and valleys of stunning colors. Few canyons

can compare to the entrenched, narrow gorges of the Black Boxes of the San Rafael

River which twists and turns through the San Rafael Swell. The rugged nature of

the region has long served to discourage exploration and settlement except by the

hardiest of individuals.

Human occupation of the area dates to at least 11,000 years ago. Petroglyphs and

pictographs attest to occupation of indigenous people of the Fremont culture at the

turn of the first millennium. Early European exploration of the area probably dates

to the mid-to late 18th century Spanish explorers. Through the 1800s American explorers traveled through and around the San Rafael Swell region and were as awestruck by the area as we are today. Lieutenant E. G. Beckwith, a member of a 1853

railroad exploration expedition, wrote this of the region:

Desolate as is the country over which we have just passed, and around us, the

view is still one of the most beautiful and pleasing I have seen. As we approached the river yesterday, the ridges on either side of its banks to the west

appeared broken into a thousand forms—columns, shafts, temples, buildings,

and ruined cities could be seen, or imagined, from the high points along our

route.

Nineteenth Century settlement of the area can be traced to the last colonizing

mission called by Brigham Young. Fifty families were sent to settle Castle Valley

by Brigham Young in August 1877, less than a week before the West’s greatest colonizer left this life. In 1880 Emery County was created by the Utah Territorial Legislature and the 1880 Census counted 556 people, a number which increased to 4,657

by 1900.

Today, Emery County, which includes both the San Rafael Swell Area as well as

more hospitable grasslands and river bottoms, is poised to meet the future by living

in harmony with what these lands hold. The legislation before us today shows reflects a recognition that the Federal lands offer opportunities for economic growth

that do not rely simply on extracting from the land but also on preserving and protecting special areas.

The San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act provides

important protections for this beautiful area, insuring future generations may also

enjoy it. Not only will the people of Emery County have the opportunity to rediscover and rejoice in their own considerable history and contributions to the region

but they will be able to share this history with the rest of the country—what a gift

to all Americans.

The bill takes a unique two-tier approach to protecting this important region.

First, H.R. 3605 creates a nearly one million acre National Conservation Area. The

San Rafael National Conservation Area created by the bill encompasses approximately 959,000 acres of BLM managed public lands. (There may be room to consider

whether these are the most appropriate boundaries or if modifications may be advisable.) Subject to valid existing rights these lands will be withdrawn from mining,

land laws and mineral leasing providing important protections. The Secretary is

charged under the bill with allowing only such uses of the NCA as further the purposes for which the conservation area is established—another critical protection.

Importantly, vehicular travel within the NCA will be limited to roads and trails

designated for their use. The designation of roads and trails, along with many other

aspects of management, will be finally determined as part of a management plan.

This management plan will be developed with complete public input and involvement, and in partnership with the Emery County Commissioners.This bill does not

in any way constrain current BLM authority to limit OHV use as necessary to prevent resource degradation. The BLM is committed to taking whatever interim actions are necessary to protect the resources of the area while the management plan

is being developed.

The NCA encompasses six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) totaling 269,736 acres

and an additional 354,866 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics as determined by the BLM in its Utah Wilderness Inventory 1999. This legislation addresses

wilderness with a hold harmless clause. Section 4(l) of the bill makes clear that

nothing in the bill alters the provisions of the Wilderness Act and FLPMA as they

pertain to wilderness resources within the NCA. Appropriate wilderness designation

is a component of providing full protection for these irreplaceable lands, and the Administration would like to have seen the wilderness issue resolved as part of this

bill. However, this bill does protect these areas against degradation.

22

We are concerned about the language in section 202(k) of the bill that deals with

water. It contains sweeping language not contained in any other law dealing with

public lands. We would like the opportunity to work with the Committee and Congressmen Cannon and Hansen to resolve this and clarify accurate acreages before

the bill is marked up. Also, it is our understanding that the map, dated February

8, 2000, and created by the BLM for the Emery County Commissioners, is the map

that the bill will reference after markup.

The second tier of this legislation, a Western Legacy District, is a new and unique

concept, and one that we believe can work well in this situation. This concept was

developed from the Heritage Area model which has been so successfully used in the

East, but here has been tailored to work in a western landscape dominated by Federal lands. The San Rafael Western Legacy District encompasses over 2.8 million

acres of Federal, state and private lands. The vast majority of these lands are 2 million acres of BLM-managed public lands. The Western Legacy District encompasses

the NCA and is coterminous with the boundaries of Emery County.

The role of the Western Legacy District is to promote the conservation, history

and natural resources of the area. This in turn will provide new economic opportunities to the local community. The San Rafael region has a story just waiting to be

told to a public fascinated with the history of the old west. Emery County doesn’t

need Hollywood to create that story—the people of Emery County lived it! Whether

it’s a retelling of Sid’s Leap which commemorates a daring and dramatic leap on

horseback over a 100-foot deep canyon by one of the Swazey Brothers or the attempt

by another brother to tame a mountain lion, there is a tale to be told to a public

eager to come, see, and hear it.

The bill establishes a Legacy Council which will provide the Secretary advice and

recommendations for management of the entire area. The bill also authorizes a total

of $10 million (no more than $1 million in any one year) to be available for matching

grants and technical assistance. These monies may be used for a wide range of

projects including: planning, historic preservation and educational and interpretive

facilities. We believe it will allow the local community to more fully realize the potential economic benefits derived from the protection of the San Rafael region.

In addition to retelling the history of the settlement of the West, there are other

opportunities for increased tourism, and economic growth. Within the proposed NCA

boundary in northern Emery County is one of the world’s foremost sites for dinosaur

fossils—the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. Over 12,000 bones including those of

the Allosaurus (the largest carnivore of the Jurassic Age) and its prey including

Stegosaurus, Diplodocus and three distinct dinosaur species found only in Emery

County have been excavated at the site. While scientists have explored the quarry

since the early part of the 20th century, it has become a growing tourist attraction

in more recent years. The Visitor Center with its mounted Allosaurus attracts 5-

7,000 visitors annually. This site arguably rivals Dinosaur National Monument and

the potential for increased visitation is excellent.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us provides considerable new protections for

these important lands. It provides the local community with opportunities for economic growth and it does so in a rational, realistic manner.

Finally, Mr. Chairman let me take a moment to commend the Emery County

Commissioners and the efforts they have made. Randy Johnson, Kent Peterson and

Ira Hatch deserve enormous amounts of credit for the bill before this Subcommittee

today.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you so very much.

Sally Wisely, do we turn to you?

Ms. WISELY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply echo what Ms.

McUsic has said today, and, again, lend my support to the bill and

the recognition, again, of the County Commissioners and the work

that they have put into the bill.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you, and we want to tell you how much

we appreciate your working with the County Commissioners, and

in a reasonable, thoughtful way trying to resolve a very tough problem. Thank you so very much.

Commissioner Johnson, we will turn to you, sir.

23

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER RANDY JOHNSON, EMERY

COUNTY, UTAH

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hansen, members of the Committee. I would also like to express my appreciation to Molly and

Sally, and all of the others who have been willing to spend so much

time with us.

It is with great pleasure that I testify on behalf of H.R. 3605

today establishing the San Rafael Western Legacy District National Conservation Area. With your considered help, I believe that

this bill could represent the future of public land management in

America, not just because of how well it protects our public lands,

but also because of the extensive process that has brought us to

this point.

H.R. 3605 withdraws over a million acres of the San Rafael Swell

area for special protection, thereby creating the San Rafael National Conservation Area. Working in tandem with this protective

withdrawal would be a 2.9 million acre Western Legacy District,

which is designed to protect the wonderful heritage and history of

the San Rafael Swell.

These two plans are designed to work together. They complement

each other. When we combine the special protection afforded by the

NCA with the unique features of the Legacy District, our historical

sites are protected, visitors to the San Rafael Swell are well instructed and receive an enhanced tourist experience, and the more

pristine areas of the NCA are protected from unnecessary impacts.

The Western Legacy District part of the plan addresses the wonderful blend of man and nature which is unique to the San Rafael.

Here the footprints of history trace themselves across the rugged

beauty of the Swell. Dinosaur remains scatter the area. There is

also ample evidence of Native American cultures throughout the

Legacy District, with many of examples of their wonderful history

preserved in rock art.

Further, the heritage of the early settlers of this unforgiving land

is woven into the area and is every much as deserving of protection

as the rocks surrounding them. Such treasures as Sid’s Leap,

Swasey’s Cabin, and Temple Mountain are as much a part of the

San Rafael Swell as sand and wind and deep canyon draws.

The Legacy District works to identify and protect these and other

wonderful sites for the enjoyment of all who come to the San

Rafael. Few other places in the world can provide such an ample

supply of heritage sites. This wonderful blend of man and his world

is the very heart and soul of this plan.

Tracking the various footprints of natural history and human

heritage through the San Rafael Swell gives the breath of life to

these lands and causes all who become hooked by the excitement

and mystery of the area to take some share of ownership in the

process of preservation and protection.

The National Conservation Area part of the bill works to preserve the more pristine areas of the San Rafael Swell in various

levels of protection as directed by the land. We have been criticized

by some because our bill does not contain any wilderness, but that

is the very point of what we have tried to accomplish here. It is

a process.

24

H.R. 3605 is wilderness neutral. We recognize that there are

many complex issues to address in determining public land management policy. Consequently, we have proposed that we first withdraw more than a million acres and then, with that protective designation in place, we establish a four-year planning process in

which we develop the permanent management plan.

It is during that process that we will work to protect the more

pristine lands at an appropriate level. The result is protection within protection.

H.R. 3605 would establish permanent protection for over a million acres through congressional action, and it does it in a correct

manner. It is built from the ground up, with all possible stakeholders and managers having a hand in the process, and drawing

from those who know and understand the land best. It is permanent protection—protection within protection.

I would just like to point out several reasons why I believe that

H.R. 3605 is important at this time. First, I think it is time for us

to break the seemingly eternal logjam that we have had in the public land debate. And I think that H.R. 3605 would allow us to do

that in a way that preserves and properly protects the land.

Second, H.R. 3605 allows for the involvement, in a respectful

manner, of all possible stakeholders. Our public lands are owned

by all of the people of this Nation, and they all have a right to their

say in how these lands are managed. H.R. 3605 is a product of that

extensive dialogue, and, consequently, there is a sense of ownership

in the goals of this bill that builds a feeling of responsibility and

respect in all of those who have played a part in the development

of our bill and who use our public lands.

Third, H.R. 3605 combines the protective withdrawal of the National Conservation Area with the Western Legacy District, thus

coordinating the management of the land with the management of

the people who visit the land, to the benefit of both. This hybrid

combination will enhance our ability to protect the land because we

will be able to better focus the human interaction with the land.

H.R. 3605 has, with deliberate intent, drawn all possible stakeholders into the development stages. It, further, has worked to assure that all relevant ideas and concerns are addressed. This bill

is not just about helping people carefully and respectfully coexist

with the land; it is about helping people coexist with people, with

respect for the opinions and ideas of each other while working for

common solutions.

H.R. 3605, Mr. Chairman, represents a dream for our public

lands, a dream of using our best work, through vision, science, and

cooperative effort, to protect and care for our public lands. Also, it

contains a prescribed manner for applying that vision for the land

in such a way that the dream can actually be accomplished.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER RANDY G. JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

It is with great pleasure that I testify on behalf of H.R. 3605, establishing the

San Rafael Western Legacy District/National Conservation Area. With your considered help, I believe that this bill could represent the future of public land manageVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 073108 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64874 pfrm09 PsN: 64874
25

ment in America—not just because of how well it protects our public lands, but also

because of the extensive process that has brought us to this point.

H.R. 3605 withdraws over 1,000,000 acres of the San Rafael Swell area for special

protection, thereby creating the San Rafael National Conservation Area (NCA).

Working in tandem with this protective withdrawal would be a 2.9 million acre

Western Legacy District which is designed to protect the wonderful heritage and

history of the San Rafael Swell.

These two plans are designed to work together. They compliment each other.

When we combine the special protection afforded by the NCA with the unique features of the Legacy District, our historical sites are protected, visitors to the San

Rafael Swell are well instructed and receive and enhanced tourist experience, and

the more pristine areas of the NCA are protected from unnecessary impacts.

The Western Legacy District part of the plan addresses the wonderful blend of

man and nature which is unique to the San Rafael. Here, the footprints of history

trace themselves across the rugged beauty of the Swell. Dinosaur remains scatter

the area, focusing at the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, one of the largest

sources of fossil remains in the world. There is also ample evidence of early Native

American cultures throughout the Legacy District, with many examples of their

wonderful history preserved in rock art. Further, the heritage of the early settlers

of this harsh and unforgiving land is woven into the area, and is every much as

deserving of protection as the rocks surrounding them. Such treasures as Sid’s leap,

Swasey’s Cabin, and Temple Mountain are as much a part of the San Rafael Swell

as sand and wind and deep canyon draws.

The Legacy District works to identify and protect these and other wonderful sites

for the enjoyment of all who come to the San Rafael. Few other places in the world

can provide such an ample supply of heritage sites. Places such as Swasey’s Leap

Historical site, Outlaw Joe Walker Trail Corridor, Hidden Splendor Historical Site,

the Spanish Trail Corridor, Copper Globe Historical Area, Rock Art Historic Corridor, and many, many others. Access to these destinations will be accomplished by

means of existing and long-used roads and trails. Most importantly, the ever-increasing flow of tourists will find a greatly enhanced visit to the San Rafael Swell,

while we are able to better manage that flow of people and better protect the more

pristine parts of the San Rafael lands.

This wonderful blend of man and his world is the very heart and soul of this plan.

Tracking the various footprints of natural history and human heritage through the

San Rafael Swell gives the breath of life to these lands, and causes all who become

hooked by the excitement and mystery of the area to take some share of ownership

in the process of preservation and protection. It is a user-friendly plan, and everyone benefits from its manageable approach.

The National Conservation Area part of the bill works to preserve the more pristine areas of the San Rafael Swell in various levels of protection as directed by the

land.

We have been criticized by some because our bill does not contain any wilderness.

But that is the very point of what we have tried to accomplish here. It is a process.

H.R. 3605 is wilderness neutral. We recognize that there are many complex issues

to address in determining public land management policy. Consequently, we have

proposed that we first withdraw more than a million acres, and then, with that protective designation in place, we establish a four year planning process in which we

develop the permanent management plan. It is during that process that we will

work to protect the more pristine lands at an appropriate level. The result is protection within protection.

We have also been criticized because, while there are many layers of protection

already on the land, it is not permanent. They say that only wilderness can make

it permanent. H.R. 3605 establishes permanent protection for over 1,000,000 acres,

through congressional action, and it does it in the correct manner. It is built from

the ground up, with all possible stakeholders and managers having a hand in the

process, and drawing from those who know and understand the land best. It is permanent protection—protection within protection—resulting from collaboration and

cooperation rather than something being thrust down from above and forced into position whether it fits or not.

I would like to point out several reasons why I believe that H.R. 3605 is important at this time:

First, it is time to break the seemingly eternal logjam we have had in the public

land debate. Wilderness purists would have us believe that until we accept huge

and ever-increasing areas of wilderness, we will never adequately protect our lands.

And since our bill does not accomplish that, it is ‘‘anti-wilderness.’’ But the wilderness advocates are not interested in what protection our bill does offer. They are

only concerned that it is not all wilderness, and therefore it does not meet their

26

moveable acreage quotas. But, how long must we remain hostage to such impossible

tactics? It is time to move forward with new ideas and renewed commitment to resolve issues and solve problems. H.R. 3605 will allow us to do just that.

Second, H.R. 3605 allows for the involvement, in a respectful manner, of all possible stakeholders. Our public lands are owned by all the people of this nation, and

they all have a right to their say in how those lands are managed. The current debate does not allow that. But H.R. 3605 is a product of that extensive dialogue, and

consequently, there is an sense of ownership in the goals of this bill that builds a

feeling of responsibility and respect in all those who have played a part in the development of our bill and who use our public lands. This sense of ownership will create

a better quality of protection than any amount of attempting to just ‘‘lock people

out’’ could ever do.

Third, H.R. 3605 combines the protective withdrawal of the National Conservation

Area with the Western Legacy District, thus coordinating the management of the

land with the management of the people who visit the land, to the benefit of both.

This hybrid combination will enhance our ability to protect the land because we will

be able to better focus the human interaction with the land.

Part of the problem with the current debate is that it omits the human equation.

There is a growing number of people who love the public lands and who have every

right to expect to be able to visit and enjoy them in their own way. Wilderness proposals ignore this human element, but the San Rafael National Western Legacy District/National Conservation Area bill takes into account the people part of the equation and works to resolve it. The result will be a better brand of protection.

I would like to further illustrate this point by pointing out the differences between

H.R. 3605 and current wilderness proposals:

• Wilderness purists remain focused on one thing only—wilderness. They will

not be part of any discussion that may vary from that focus.

• H.R. 3605 takes into account all possible points of view and works to draw

each perspective into the process.

• Wilderness purists rely on contention and controversy, and therefore they continually work to escalate the urgency of their claims.

• H.R. 3605 is designed to resolve long-standing issues and works for permanent

and genuine resolution.

• Wilderness purists claim that all public lands are beautiful, all public lands

are at risk, and that only wilderness will protect them from the risk.

• H.R. 3605 recognizes all levels of need, takes into account current protections,

and views wilderness as one tool in a complex management system.

• Wilderness purists refuse to come to the discussion table, refuse any form of

dialogue, and reject any type of consensus building.

• H.R. 3605 recognizes all the values of the land and all the people who use it.

It works to resolve land management issues with respect for all stakeholders.

• Wilderness purists view man as a harmful intruder in the natural world.

• H.R. 3605 asserts that man and nature can and must coexist in a sensitive

and respectful manner.

• Wilderness purists believe that as long as there is no progress in the debate,

they have won their cause. A loggerhead is a victory.

• H.R. 3605 contends that we have the science, the understanding, and the inclination to address our public land management issues to the benefit of the land

and all who use it.

• Wilderness purists use such words as ‘‘War,’’ ‘‘Fight to the death,’’ and ‘‘No net

loss’’ in the public land debate.

• H.R. 3605 uses such words as ‘‘Solution,’’ ‘‘Cooperation,’’ and ‘‘Peaceful resolution’’ in development of its on-going planning process.

Lastly, the third, perhaps most compelling reason for H.R. 3605 is because we

need a solution to our public land management dilemma. We have been at loggerheads for far too long. I believe that H.R. 3605 has the potential to move around

the blockade and create a positive future for public land management in America.

Unfortunately, in a nation where diversity is the central thread in our national

fabric, we have created a situation in the public lands debate where gross generalities dictate the parameters of the discussion and diverse opinions are no longer welcome.

We have always had widely diverse points of view on all the different issues of

running this nation. And, we have always been able to draw those viewpoints to the

table to create solutions that are a blend of the best ideas and are the best for all

involved. It is important to have a process where these viewpoints can come together to establish common ground and to seek common solutions.

27

Unfortunately, we do not have that ability in the current wilderness debate. Consensus building and dialogue are considered to be hostile to the vision of ‘‘pure’’ wilderness.

It is deeply concerning to me that, in this nation, any group or individual would

be able to say, ‘‘Our idea is so sacred and so perfect that no other perspectives will

be entertained.’’ What is even more alarming is that such a group could gather

enough power as to be able to essentially hold hostage any democratic process and

thwart any true progress toward resolution of the issues in question.

Quite frankly, the wilderness issue is just such a scene. The wilderness vision,

as defined by current advocates, cannot do all things that the land needs, and creates enemies of people who should be cooperative allies.

In deep contrast, H.R. 3605 has, with deliberate intent, drawn all possible stakeholders into the development stages. It further has worked to assure that all relevant ideas and concerns are addressed. This bill is not just about helping people

carefully and respectfully coexist with the land, it is about helping people coexist

with people—with respect for the opinions and ideas of each other while working

for common solutions.

We have become much too intolerant of each other, unwilling to bend, unwilling

to consider the needs of the other. Perhaps it is because we have become so consumed with the issue itself that we have lost sight entirely of who we are.

A great man once said, ‘‘Tolerance may be a virtue, but it is not the commanding

one. There is a difference between what one is and what one does. What one is may

deserve unlimited tolerance; what one does only a measured amount. A virtue when

pressed to the extreme may turn into a vice. Unreasonable devotion to an ideal,

without considering the practical application of it, ruins the ideal itself’’.

No dream has real value unless there is a practical application of its vision.

The wilderness dream has no practical application. It is laden with difficulty.

Wherever it is proposed it creates far more problems than it could ever solve.

H.R. 3605, on the other hand, represents a dream for our public lands—a dream

of using our best work, through vison, science, and cooperative effort to protect and

care for our public lands. But also, it contains a prescribed manner for applying that

vison to the land in such a way that the dream can actually be accomplished.

H.R. 3605 is Vision and Reality as cooperative partners.

We believe that we must re-evaluate our public lands management philosophy.

We must look at the conflict we have created, and ask ourselves where we are going

and who benefits from the continual contention.

I close my testimony with the Words of Thomas Jefferson, from the walls of the

Jefferson Memorial:

‘‘I am not an advocate for the frequent changes in law and constitutions, but

laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human

mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries

are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the

change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the

times. . .’’

It is time to move beyond the loggerhead. It is time to keep pace with the times.

It is time to do the right thing.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson.

Commissioner Petersen?

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KENT PETERSEN, CHAIR,

EMERY COUNTY, UTAH

Mr. PETERSEN. Chairman Hansen, and members of the Committee, my name is Kent Petersen, and I am Chairman of the

Emery County Commission. I am just happy to be here.

The San Rafael Western Legacy District includes all of Emery

County—2.8 million acres—and it will be established really to take

care of the historical, cultural, natural, and scenic resources of the

San Rafael region and will help the local communities to continue

to exist. Perhaps most importantly, it will collect the history and

stories of the San Rafael and tell these stories to the people who

come to visit.

28

It will also help us to develop a control basis for a tourism-type

economy that will benefit the local people but will not overrun us.

The San Rafael National Conservation Area will provide enhanced

management and protection for about 1.1 million acres on the San

Rafael Swell. It will manage the land and the people who come to

visit. Combining the Legacy District with the NCA will provide a

plan for managing and protecting the land and managing the people who come to visit.

Geologically, as it has been explained a little bit, the San Rafael

Swell is an uplifted dome that has eroded over millions of years to

leave amazing canyons, buttes, pinnacles, and even open grassland.

And the San Rafael Swell, it must be pointed out, is in the middle

of the conservation area. The conservation area surrounds it and

contains all of it.

It is a land of scenic beauty, but it is much more than that. It

has a unique history and heritage. Many of the dinosaur skeletons

on display in museums throughout the world came from the Cleveland Lloyd Quarry on the edge of the Swell. Rock art and other

remnants of the early Native Americans abounds throughout the

Swell.

Butch Cassidy and the Robbers Roost gang frequented the Swell.

Cowboys have managed their livestock on the Swell from the early

1870s until today. Prospectors and miners searched for and mined

valuable uranium on the Swell from the early 1900s until the late

1960s.

If you protect the San Rafael as all wilderness, as many here

today may suggest that we should do, you will have one more area

of fantastic rocks, but that isn’t unusual in Utah. If you don’t hear

the stories, you miss the best part of the Swell.

This proposal will not only preserve the land, but it will preserve

and pass on the story. If you go and visit the Lower Black Box, you

will see a magnificent gorge about 20 feet wide and 300 feet deep,

with the San Rafael River in the bottom. If you know the stories,

you can imagine Sid Swasey jumping his horse across the canyon

to win a bet with his brother Charlie.

Since the early 1900s, the people of Emery County have worked

with the government to protect the land. In the early 1900s, they

petitioned for the existence of the Manti National Forest. Again, in

the 1930s, we worked to help to develop the Taylor Grazing Act

and protect the land that is now the San Rafael.

Following in this tradition, Emery County, in 1992, became a

pilot county in an effort to resolve the Utah wilderness issue, in a

project developed by Project 2000, A Coalition for Utah’s Future,

which is a broad-based public interest group. We met with a widely

diverse group of stakeholders, including environmentalists, oil and

gas interests, everybody. And we reached consensus on many

issues, but we didn’t reach final solution because of outside pressures.

But this led to the development of the Emery County Public

Lands Council, which meets regularly with all of the citizens and

the public agents. They were responsible, with the Department of

the Interior, for the development of this bill.

29

We found that we all wanted the land protected. We also found

that wilderness isn’t the only method. In fact, sometimes it isn’t

the best method.

We studied various protection methods and determined that the

National Conservation Area, with various protection schemes inside the NCA, would be the best way for managing the Swell. And

that is what is proposed in this bill.

You will probably recall we bought H.R. 3605 to this Committee

about two years ago. It was received friendly in some places, but

then was shot down in the Omnibus bill at the end of the session.

After that, we thought we ought to get back together and see what

we could do to make this thing work. And that is when we talked

to the Department of the Interior.

Molly came out to see us, Molly and Sally. We drove around the

San Rafael, and we even arranged for a small band of bighorn

sheep to be sitting right underneath the ledge when we arrived

there for them to see. I think that probably helped Molly in selling

her on the concept.

And we invite all of the members of the Committee, even the

ones who aren’t here—and members of the environmental community—to come out and see us. We will show you around the San

Rafael. We will talk to you, tell you some of the stories, tell you

about our views, and we will serve you some good food while we

are there.

We think this is a good bill, and we think that it may be able

to provide a blueprint for resolving public lands issues in the West.

In many ways, it is similar to the establishment of a national

monument, which seems to have been popular with this administration and the environmental community, except that it was started from the ground up.

Details for the management of the lands in the conservation area

will be developed over a four-year planning process, just as was

done with the Escalante Grand Staircase National Monument.

And the first area to be considered in this management plan is

the development of an access management plan, which will control

the use of ORVs in the Swell. When this plan is developed, it will

be enforced in probably the only way that something like this can

be adequately enforced. It will not just be the BLM, but the Emery

County Sheriff’s Department will be involved. We think that is a

way to accurately take care of it.

Thanks to you for giving me the opportunity testify, and thanks,

Chairman Hansen, for holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petersen follows:]

STATEMENT OF KENT R. PETERSEN

Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee, my name is Kent Petersen.

I am chairman of the Emery County Commission. I was elected to the Commission

in 1992. I am pleased to be here to talk to you about H.R. 3605, The San Rafael

Western Legacy District and National Conservation Area.

The San Rafael Western Legacy District includes all 2.8 million acres of land in

Emery County. It will be established to preserve, conserve, and interpret the historical, cultural, natural, and scenic resources of the San Rafael region of the state of

Utah, as well as the economic viability of rural communities in the region. The San

Rafael National Conservation Area will provide enhanced management and protection of 1.1 million acres located on the San Rafael Swell in the heart of the Legacy

District.

30

Only 8 percent of the land in Emery County is in private ownership, 82 percent

is in Federal ownership, and 10 percent belongs to the state of Utah. The citizens

of Emery County have a long history of caring for the land whether it was private,

Federal, or state. In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s you could tell the location, from

the valley floor, of the sheep and cattle herds 15 miles away on the mountains, by

the clouds of dust they kicked up from the severely over grazed land. Large herds

of cattle from outside the area, of cattle from outside the area, even from outside

of the, state were grazing uncontrolledly on the public lands. Local citizens petitioned the government for the establishment of the Manti National Forest. Through

cooperative efforts of the local ranchers and the Forest Service the lands have recovered and are once again very productive.

In the 1930’s we cooperated with the Federal Government to establish Taylor

Grazing Act, on the lands in the San Rafael Swell. Again grazing was limited to

holders of grazing allotments. Through conservation efforts of local users and the

BLM, the condition of the land is again improving.

The San Rafael Swell which is within the National Conservation Area is a land

of scenic beauty, but it is much more than this. It has a unique history and heritage. Many of the dinosaur skeletons on display throughout the world have come

from the Cleveland Lloyd Quarry operated by the BLM on the northern edge of the

Swell. Rock art, and other remnants of the early Native Americans, abounds

throughout the Swell. Butch Cassidy and the Robbers Roost gang frequented the

Swell and used it as a getaway route after more than one robbery. Cowboys have

managed their livestock on the swell from the early 1870’s until today. They also

named most of the landmarks and places of interest. Prospectors and miners

searched for, and mined valuable uranium on the Swell during the 1950’s and 60’s. These are only a part of the history and legacy we will be protecting with the San

Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Area.

When I was elected to the County Commission in 1992 the wilderness debate had

been going on for more than 10 years with no solution in sight. We in Emery County

decided we should work for our own solutions. We became the pilot county in an

effort to resolve the Utah wilderness issue developed by Project 2000, A Coalition

for Utah’s Future. They are a broad based public interest organization. We met

with a widely diverse group of stakeholders to see if we could come to a consensus

resolution of the wilderness issue in Emery County.

The stakeholders included members of state and national environmental groups,

oil, gas, mining and utility interests, OHV users, ranchers, local government, state

and Federal land management agencies, and local citizens. We met for about two

years. We were able to reach consensus on many issues but were unable to come

to a final resolution because of outside political pressures.

These discussions led to the formation of the Emery County Public Lands Council.

It is a broadbased group of local citizens that meet on a regular basis to discuss

and resolve public land issues. We have signed Memorandums of Understanding

(MOU’s) with the BLM, Forest Service, and State Agencies. We decided if we were

going to have a say in our destiny we would have to become proactive and seek

workable solutions. These discussions also led to the demise of the Utah Wilderness

Association, the main environmental group working with us. They were blackballed

by the other Utah environmental organizations for working with us.

While meeting with Project 2000, The Coalition for Utah’s Future we found

that our goals for the land were not all that different from most members of the

environmental community. We all wanted the San Rafael to remain forever as it is

today. The differences were in how we were to accomplish this goal.

At a public meeting in Castle Dale, Montell Seely, a local sheep rancher and historian, and George Nickas, a member of the Utah Wilderness Association, described

very similar visions for Sid’s Mountain in the heart of the San Rafael. They differed

only in the methods for accomplishing their vision. George, the environmentalist

thought it should be made a part of a large wilderness area. Montell said that it

should always remain wild and that its location would ensure that it would. H.R.

3605 will satisfy both of their visions.

We determined that we all wanted the land protected. We also found that wilderness was only one method of land protection and is often not the best method. It

is, in fact, a non management tool. We studied various protection methods and determined that a National Conservation Area (NCA) with various protection schemes

inside the boundary would be the most effective method from the ground up. Details

for management of lands within the Conservation Area will be developed during the

four year planning process.

This is a bill started at the local level with strong consideration of national interests. It will protect some very important lands. It will protect and manage the wildlife who live on these lands. It will manage the people who visit and use these

31

lands. And it will protect the heritage and the history of those who have called these

lands home.

I am sure that after careful study you will agree that H.R. 3605 is the ideal management tool for the San Rafael Swell and for all of Emery County, Utah. Maybe

it will be the model for a new way to resolve public land disputes in the west.

Thanks to you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and thanks to Chairman

Hansen for holding this hearing.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner Petersen. We appreciate

your testimony.

Commissioner Petersen is quite renowned for his cowboy poetry,

too, and the last time he was here he——

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] delighted the Committee with a few

extra things concerning the San Rafael Swell.

Questions for the panel? We will start with you, Congressman

Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Ms. McUsic, let me congratulate you on the new addition to your family. It is nice to see you.

Could you comment, Ms. McUsic, on the role of the BLM after

the previous bill was determined to be unsatisfactory. What happened after that? I mean, you guys were wonderful about taking

some initiative there.

Ms. MCUSIC. Sure. Let me actually defer to Sally Wisely of the

BLM to explain how the BLM helped.

Mr. CANNON. Great.

Ms. WISELY. Shortly after I came to Utah—actually, on my very

first round after I was appointed Director, in the visit with all of

you, you asked me to take a look, thought there were some good

ideas in the previous bill and asked me to revisit that.

And, again, Ms. McUsic and myself and Barbara Weyman, at the

Commissioner’s invitation, went out to the Swell to spend a couple

of days with them, taking a look on the ground at the issues and

what opportunities there might be.

In the interim, then, our office has been talking a lot with the

County Commissioners, as they really took the lead in terms of

making suggestions and really taking a hard look at what we

thought worked and what we thought maybe there were some problems with in the last bill, to craft something, then, that everyone

felt good about.

Mr. CANNON. Ms. Wisely, thank you in particular for all of the

time that you did spend on this. I know that it was a lot of time,

and I think the bill reflects your efforts there.

For either you, Ms. Wisely, or Ms. McUsic, how do you anticipate

dealing with OHVs? Has the county worked with BLM so far in

setting up management for off-highway vehicle use?

Ms. WISELY. If I could take a shot at that. First of all, let me

just mention that we are aware that we have some OHV issues in

that general area. There is no question that we have some issues

there.

What we have been doing within BLM is taking a hard look at

trying to figure out what those issues are, how to get our arms

around that, how best, then, to address that. We have been having

some discussions with the Commissioners, and what I would expect

32

is that very shortly here we will then take some actions to kind of

lay out a strategy in terms of how to approach that.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I went on a

four-wheeler trip in the area last summer, and it was really truly

a remarkable experience. It is beautiful. It is interesting. I was

deeply concerned about what kind of damage might be done. Where

we went—the country can handle that. We were with a very responsible group of OHV handlers, and—I think it is an important

element of what we do.

Commissioner Johnson, thank you, again, for coming. Would you

mind elaborating a little bit on the process used to establish the

outline for this bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. As you recall, last year when we presented this bill, we essentially used the San Rafael Swell itself as

the outline for the National Conservation Area.

But in the process of working with the Department of the Interior, we looked at all of the other lands that had, you know, the

need for some form of management and the need for this sort of

special protection afforded by an NCA, and decided that we would

expand those boundaries to cover those lands that would benefit

from this four-year process. And, essentially, that is what we came

up with in that process—you know, taking into account all of the

factors of the land itself.

Mr. CANNON. Is it your sense that the people in the county support the bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. When we came to terms with this bill with the Department of Interior and BLM, we felt it was essential that we let

our constituents in Emery County know where we were with this

bill. It certainly is a movement for the local constituents in terms

of its new concept and its sort of expansive dream.

And so we decided that we would take it to as many people as

we could. And in the process of doing that, we went to town councils, to water boards, cattlemen associations, OHV groups, every organization that met in our county in any manner—we attended

their meetings and presented this plan to those folks.

We also held a public hearing at the end of that process and invited folks to come and give their input on the plan. And they were

overwhelmingly in support of our proceeding with this bill.

Now, I would hope that we, in some way, could express to you

what a wonderful concept this is for the folks of Emery County,

who largely have sort of had these concepts of land management

thrust down upon them over the last 20 or 30 years in a manner

which has made them feel that they have not adequately taken

care of those lands, and that they could not adequately continue to

take care of those lands.

So it has caused them to be a bit defensive. For them to recognize the status of public lands issues at this time in the history of

this process, and for them to be willing to take this kind of a step

to protect those lands, I think is a remarkable thing and a tribute

to the understanding and willingness of the folks in Emery County

to take good care of the San Rafael Swell area.

Mr. CANNON. I also think it is a remarkable thing.

Mr. Chairman, I notice my time has expired. Could I ask unanimous consent to extend my time for another five minutes?

33

[Laughter.]

I won’t do that, but I do have a few more questions.

Let me just ask you, Commissioner Johnson, one other question,

or a compound question, actually. The bill doesn’t provide specifically for wilderness designation. Could you talk a little bit about

the advantages that has? And do you anticipate that some of the

land will actually be managed in the same way as wilderness?

Mr. JOHNSON. There is no question that much of the land will

be managed as wilderness. Whether we call it wilderness, or

whether we call it primitive, or what it ends up calling, I can’t predict that. But I will tell you that there will be much of the land

within that NCA that there is no question in my mind will be managed for its primitive qualities.

And I think that there should be no threat to the fact that there

isn’t wilderness there. I think it should be more threatening if it

was, because part of this whole process is that we have four years

to look at that land in a very deliberate manner with a planning

team that has expertise in recognizing qualities of the land and

how they should be protected.

And in that four-year process, I believe it will come up with a

management scheme that fits the land very well. So I am comfortable that the land will be managed for—in the manner that it

needs to be managed, and that those pristine lands will be adequately addressed.

Mr. CANNON. The county has rights of way and access on many

roads in the area. Do you expect to be trading off some of those

rights in the context of an overall plan?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know if trading off those rights would be

an accurate way to say it. I think that there are places within this

NCA where there is some indiscriminate use. But I would hope

that folks would understand that there is a small handful of folks

that sort of ignore the rules and the laws governing OHV use.

It is the same in any other area of law. There is always a handful of folks who ignore the law and do what they want to do. And

I would not want to paint a picture of OHV use being just indiscriminate whenever anybody starts a four-wheeler.

Emery County has a lot of roads and a lot of trails in that area

that we assert as RS2477. But we recognize that an early part of

this planning process would be that we identify an access plan and

work with the BLM and the Department of the Interior to come up

with that access plan. And there most certainly would be some

spurs and some trails and some roads that we would close as a result of that, because they are unnecessary or they are causing some

undue degradation.

But we also remind you that having a proper access plan is an

essential part of the Legacy District. And so we would identify

those roads which would most benefit getting to and from the sites

that the tourists would want to see and that we need to preserve

and protect and provide access to. So that will all be part of that

plan.

But the reason that I believe this will work in this plan to the

benefit of all is because, in a cooperative effort, we draw everyone

into this discussion, and the end product everyone has ownership

34

in. And so if we have opened the road, everyone has decided that

road is essential.

If we close a road, everybody has decided that road is unessential. And we don’t just have something that people feel threatened

by, and, therefore, those handful of folks that are going to break

the laws anyway are continuing to go into.

The other part of it is that you have a couple of factors enter into

it because of this process. One is we have the ability and the finances to do a far better job of educating the public. Some of the

damage that is done down there is not deliberate.

It is done because they are unsure where the trail is or where

to go in some circumstances, and where they can and can’t go. We

would have a good, extensive education process that would come

out of this to keep people in the proper places.

The second thing that would come out of it is that we would have

a cooperative enforcement effort. Now, the BLM simply doesn’t

have the manpower to handle a county the size of Connecticut with

one man, essentially. When the county enters into it, then we

would become partners in that protection, and we would help them

make sure that the roads and trails that do remain part of this access plan are used properly and that undue degradation doesn’t

occur.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Petersen, I really enjoyed your comment, your

idea that, I think you said, if you don’t hear the stories, you have

missed the best part of the Swell. So we need a commitment from

you—and I haven’t quite formulated this yet—but it has got to

have to do with numbers of years you commit to live and number

of poems you write per year.

I suspect in the meantime we could get away with just a commitment that, as people visit, that you will share some of your cowboy

poetry with them.

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, we will certainly commit to doing that.

Mr. CANNON. And you and I can talk later on about the other

output issues.

Mr. PETERSEN. If you will give me a guarantee on the number

of years, I will be glad to accept it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CANNON. Maybe we could increase the output over the years

and then it is your responsibility to do the output and then get the

years or something. I don’t know.

Could you talk a bit about what the purpose of the Legacy District is, and what some of the problems are that you are currently

having that it will solve?

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, we look at the Legacy District as a way to

pull the whole thing together and make the local area part of it.

This is the thing that will help to preserve the stories. In fact, we

are out there doing that right now. Even as we speak, we have a

couple of people who are out gathering oral histories to continue to

have the history of the San Rafael Swell, and they are doing it with

modern technology, so they have videotapes in addition to audio.

But we want to have the stories, and we want—we know there

are people that come to visit the Swell right now. I drive across it

fairly regularly. Molly talked about the I-70 across there. I wonder

35

what people think who have no idea what they are coming on, they

have never heard of the San Rafael, and they are coming from the

east and they see the San Rafael Reef, and then they drive across

the Head of Sinbad, and they see all of that country, and they don’t

have the slightest idea what it is. I just wonder what people think.

We want to tell those people what they are seeing. We want to

get them into our community, so that perhaps they can leave a few

dollars. We want to focus the visitors so they can go out and have

a good experience, so they can hear the stories and they can see

the things out there, but they don’t destroy what they are seeing

in the meantime. We don’t want to have everybody in the world

coming out there and tramping around, but we do want some of

them to come and help us to sustain some kind of an economy with

it.

Mr. CANNON. I have to say that drive over I-70 is one of the most

remarkable on earth. It is breathtaking. I love to travel my district.

I really love going over that stretch of highway.

Can you talk a little bit about what kind of dialogue you have

had on off-highway vehicle use within the county?

Mr. PETERSEN. There has been a lot of it. I guess that would

summarize it fairly well. But I think we need to make this point

very clear. I think the majority of people down there already feel

that we think the off-road vehicle use should be on designated

roads and trails.

We have talked a lot with the BLM. I suppose when we get right

down on a few roads we might have some very interesting dialogue.

But overall, I think we can agree that we want to control it. The

ORV community has joined together to work with the BLM to try

and protect some areas, and we have some very interesting things

that have been done.

They volunteered to put in some of the signage. We think that

if a sign is out there, if it isn’t a sign that just says the BLM says

this is wilderness, you can’t go, but is something done by the local

ORV community saying, ‘‘This is where the road goes, up here. If

you stay on this road, this is what you will see. Don’t get off this

road. You will destroy our land,’’ those kind of things we think will

work.

Mr. CANNON. Great. Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous with the time. I

would just like to thank this panel. This group has been remarkably assiduous in a long and difficult task, and I think that the

product is really good for Utah public lands and for America and

for the citizens of America.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Cannon.

The gentlemen from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, any questions for

this panel?

Mr. UDALL. I will pass, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,

though.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Udall.

Molly, let me just submit to you some questions. As I have been

getting up to speed on this bill, it seems like if there is a little

rough spot we have got to kind of sand down a little bit, it may

be on water rights. And so if I could, I would like to probably not

36

really ask you specifically here but maybe submit to you questions

about the administration’s concerns on that.

And also—and I am sure you realize the in-stream flow right of

the State of Utah that they have in the San Rafael River. If I could

prevail upon you to respond to those by letter, I would really appreciate it. I could get that to you. And I do want to tell you and Sally

Wisely how much we appreciate your testimony today.

Commissioner Johnson, one of the debates we have had around

this Committee for the last 20 years is where do we stand on just—

I want your opinion. I know few individuals, you and Commissioner

Petersen, who have spent more time on the lands of Utah. And

there seems to be a debate that always is prevalent in this Committee. Is wilderness the only way to protect ground?

I have heard this debated since the day I walked in here in 1980.

And, actually, under the past two administrations they argued, as

this one has sometimes, that the management plans of BLM, Forest Service, Park Service does a better job of protection.

There seems to be a perception out there that is fast dwindling,

is what is the best way to protect ground? A man of your stature

and your understanding, I would like you to respond to that issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly not trying to offend anyone, but

just responding to you from my personal perspective, I would say

that it is concerning to me when we have a concept or an idea that

is held by one group or individual that they feel is so pure and so

perfect that all other ideas are hostile to that, and that it becomes

so pervasive that it sort of deadlocks and logjams all other considerations.

And I am afraid that what was once an excellent concept of setting aside certain exemplary lands has so permeated the land management discussion that it causes us to be at odds with each other

all the time, it causes us never to be able to make progress, and

it causes us to constantly be in turmoil over what we should do on

our public lands.

Now, what I am saying is that the original vision of wilderness

I think was a good one, but it has been taken to the point where

it makes it impossible for us to even get any work done, and because of that I don’t like the concept of wilderness. Not because I

don’t like that vision, but because I don’t like where it has been

taken.

What we have tried to do with this discussion is to recognize that

everyone has an opinion on how our public lands should be managed. It is interesting to me, because when I pull up through I-70—

or I used to live up in the Oregon area years and years ago, and

there are some wonderful arching bridges that cut across some of

those canyons and gorges down the Columbia River Gorge.

It is a remarkable thing to me to see the engineering of man as

you watch a glistening highway cut across some of those lands or

a beautiful bridge cut across against those green hills. I think it

is a wonderful thing to see the ingenuity of man blended against

the beauty of nature. I think that is wonderful.

There are those who think that any sign of man is a scar on the

land. Am I wrong and they are right? Are they wrong and I am

right? And, see, that is where we have been thrust with this whole

37

wilderness debate. There are many opinions that ought to be valued.

We have the OHV use, for example. The way that we have portrayed that is that anybody who gets on a four-wheeler and wants

to go down and visit those beautiful lands is evil and destructive,

and they are going to go off and do bad things. That is largely untrue. In fact, some of the OHV clubs in the State of Utah are the

most responsible users of our public lands, and yet their voice is

constantly pushed to the side because of the image that is created.

What we have tried to do with this bill, sir, is draw everyone possible to the table and say, ‘‘We value your opinion. Let us come up

with a package that can protect these lands properly, that can

manage the use of those lands, that factors in the human equation

that we cannot ignore, and then comes up with a protective package that does all of that properly.’’

I think that we can do that with this bill, and I think that that

is where we need to go with public lands issues, because we simply

can’t abide a deadlock for the rest of our lives. I am tired of the

fight, and I think a lot of people are.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate that well thought out answer. You

know, I think that the agencies—BLM, Forest Service, Park Service—have really done a remarkable job over the years in taking

care of the public lands. You have got to hand it to them for working very well.

Of course, there has been an entire industry built around one

word, and, really, kind of a misconception in many areas. We have

done a very unscientific area of what happens to an area once it

is put in wilderness. It draws a lot of attention. It is almost like

a big, red, sore thumb sitting there saying, ‘‘Come and see us.’’

And sometimes areas that are never mentioned have the most

pristine qualities to them. Always a tough issue, but it is one of the

biggest issues that we face in this Committee, if I may say so. Appreciate your comments.

The gentleman from Utah, the gentleman from New Mexico, any

further questions for this panel? Anybody inspired to say anything?

[Laughter.]

Mr. UDALL. A couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. This is one of those easy days. Nothing is going on

on the floor, and they rarely happen this way. You know, most of

the time we are pressed for every second.

The gentleman from New Mexico?

Mr. UDALL. The last discussion we just had was about wilderness

and the idea that it had been taken too far. My understanding is

there are some lands within this area that may well have wilderness values. Do you agree with that? I would ask the members of

the panel. And if you do, what are your intentions as far as getting

these into wilderness? And I would—go ahead, Commissioner, we

will start with you, and then——

Mr. JOHNSON. Since this is rather—a little less stressful than

some I have testified at in this area, I would like to recognize that

I have my granddaughter Libby with me today, and she has come

to share this experience, Mr. Chairman, and then I will answer

your question.

38

I would be the first to acknowledge that there are lands within

this NCA that have pristine qualities. Absolutely. And I would be

the first to assure you that in this planning process those areas

would be addressed to protect those pristine qualities.

Again, I reiterate, I don’t know the answer as to whether we will

call that wilderness or we will call it something else. But it will address the wilderness qualities of the land and protect for them.

Within this area, there are already established WSAs, and so nothing about this bill would take away the BLM’s responsibility to

manage those WSAs for non-degradation.

So they are under an obligation to address those lands in the

planning process, because they are already in WSA status.

There are also some lands in here that have been reinventoried

and found to have some wilderness qualities. So you can see that

we are not trying to sidestep that issue by this planning process.

We recognize that in the four-year plan we will have to address

those, and we will do so willingly.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. Any other members of the panel that

wish to comment on that?

Ms. MCUSIC. Yes, Congressman Udall. We believe strongly that

there is a significant portion of this area that is deserving of wilderness protection. There is at least some over 600,000 acres of

land that has WSA status currently or were inventoried to find wilderness characteristics.

There is nothing in this bill that is inconsistent with ultimately

having wilderness protection or the continued management of these

WSAs and interim protections. This essentially holds harmless

while the debate continues. It provides significant protections for

these lands by eliminating the mining and leasing and providing

off-road vehicle protections. But, yes, we believe that a significant

portion of this land should be protected.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Udall. We appreciate your comments.

We want to thank the Committee. You have been very generous

with your time, and we appreciate your being with us, appreciate

the excellent testimony from all of you, and recognize Libby, Commissioner, and we are glad your granddaughter could be with you

at this particular time.

At this time, we will call our second panel. Our last panel is Mr.

Wilson Martin, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Utah

Division of State History; Courtland Nelson, Director, Utah Division of Parks and Recreation; Wesley R. Curtis, Director of the

Governor’s Rural Partnership Office; and Mike Matz, Executive Director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Folks, please come up. We appreciate your being here with us.

Get everybody in their place there and ready to go.

Mr. Martin, we will start with you, and the same thing holds. It

is one of those easier days. You can go ahead and——

39

STATEMENT OF WILSON MARTIN, DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICER, UTAH DIVISION OF STATE HISTORY-PRESERVATION OFFICE

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is good to be here again. I

am glad to have Sally Wisely back in Utah. It was just a few years

ago that we worked together on the Four Corners Heritage Council,

which I currently serve as Chair, and she was very helpful and instrumental in helping us bring that partnership together, which

has some similarities with this partnership.

So I am glad to have her back on board. She spent a little stint

in Alaska, and then came back to us in Utah. So we are glad to

have you back, Sally.

Mr. Chairman, some two years ago, this Committee considered

another proposal similar to this, and we found and made good

progress because of this effort and also the BLM’s commitment,

providing some funding to help us move the Legacy District concept

along. Also, the County Commission has held numerous meetings,

which have been very helpful in establishing a dialogue on the Legacy District.

In partnership with Utah State University, we have also developed a database of heritage shops and businesses and attractions

which we think will be very important in planning this legacy area.

The county has also committed a significant number of assets, but

it is interesting, the history.

Edward Geary said the earliest European-American travelers

clearly on record as visiting the county was Jedidiah S. Smith during a southwestern expedition of 1826. Smith found the region unpromising, he said, describing it as very barren, rocky, with little

appearance of Indians, and quite scarce in the area of mountain

sheep and antelope. Now we have seen a change in that.

The Old Spanish Trail reached its further northernmost point in

Emery County in order to skirt the canyonlands and take advantage of the Green River crossing and the relatively low elevation

of the Wasatch Pass. In some places, visible traces of thousands of

horses and mules that traveled the trail remained imprinted on the

land until the mid 20th century.

Now only the San Rafael name has remained to memorialize the

era, though at one time many landmarks bore Spanish names.

Huntington Canyon was known as San Marcus, Cottonwood Creek

as San Mateo, Muddy Creek as Rio del Morro or Castle River, and

Ivie Creek as Rio del Puerto or the River of the Pass.

Most of the recorded impressions of the Emery County region by

early travelers carried on the uncomplimentary tradition established by Jedidiah Smith. George Yount, a member of the 1830 William Wolfskill party, remembered Castle Valley as the most desolate and forlorn dell in the world. ‘‘Everything about it was repulsive and supremely awful,’’ he said.

Hanna Seely, compelled to trade a spacious brick home in Mount

Pleasant for one-room log cabin on the banks of the Cottonwood

Creek, was initially less optimistic than her husband about the region’s prospects. She later recalled, ‘‘The first time I ever swore

was when we arrived in Emery County.’’

[Laughter.]

40

I said, ‘‘Damn a man who would bring a woman’’—can I say that?

‘‘Damn a man’’—I guess I can. ‘‘Damn a man who would bring a

woman to such God-forsaken country,’’ she said.

The district, however, contains examples of pre-Columbian and

Native American culture, Paleontological resources, geologically

unique land features, and the history of exploration, pioneering,

settlement, ranching, outlaws, prospecting, and mining. The San

Rafael’s resources support the development of a Legacy District.

The rock now exposed contains a wealth of a geological record,

including fossils of dinosaurs, as we have talked about before at the

Cleveland Lloyd. Over 300 Pictograph and Petroglyph panels are

scattered throughout this complex maze of canyons and cliffs in a

region along with Paleo-Indian sites, the Black Dragon Canyon Pictographs, Ferron Box Pictographs and Petroglyphs, RochesterMuddy Creek Petroglyphs, and the Temple Mountain Wash Pictographs.

All are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These

sites have national significance for their beauty and for their age—

many historic sites, and also attractions, that exist in the communities.

Other destinations include Cedar Mountain Driving Tour, which

gives the public access to archaeological sites of the area. There are

not just National Register sites that can attract visitors, but sites

from the 1950s, including Temple Mountain Uranium Mines, where

unique stories can be told.

Emery County residents not only cherish their rural heritage,

but also place a high value on easy access to both the Wasatch Plateau and the San Rafael Swell. Local people tend to read their own

and their families’ histories in these public lands. They return year

after year to the same mountain campsites or take their Easter excursions to some favorite destination in the San Rafael.

Ask Kent about those experiences. The Easter celebrations in

San Rafael are notorious.

They show their children and grandchildren where a pioneer ancestor scratched his name on a rock, or where a sheepherding

great-uncle carved an inscription on the smooth white bark of a

quaking aspen. The trails where the family’s cattle were once driven to the summer range on the mountains or the winter range in

the desert, the forest clearing where a relative once operated a

sawmill, the ledge where grandpa almost struck it rich during the

uranium boom, all have deep personal meaning, according to Ed

Geary.

Wallace Stegner remarked on the aloofness with which this country greeted human intrusion and the effect it had on its settlers.

The plateau remains aloof and almost uninhabited, but the valleys

are a collaboration between land and people, and each has changed

the other.

The San Rafael Swell has the resources, the people, and the organizations to develop a Legacy District. Together they can assist

in conserving this important heritage area, establish and maintain

interpretive destinations, develop recreational opportunities and increased public awareness, and appreciation of the natural, historical, and cultural resources.

41

Not only this, but economic development can be realized. Much

of the land is Federal and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which makes the Legacy District a good idea and a good

fit.

The Legacy District, developed in conjunction with businesses,

local, State, and Federal partners, has an excellent opportunity for

success. Most importantly, it is a partnership for economic development and has, as we call it in Utah, the opportunity to develop a

heritage industry, a partnership between private and public sector

to achieve economic success through the use and protection of our

past.

These landscapes and culture and heritage of these people and

these communities will better be protected and served through the

designation of the county as the San Rafael Western Legacy District, where they will serve as a living part of our national historic

heritage for current and future generations. We strongly support

the passage of House Resolution 3605 to create the San Rafael

Western Legacy District in Utah.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you very much for that very interesting

testimony. I like that part where you said grandpa almost struck

it rich.

Mr. MARTIN. There is a lot of stories like that out there, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. My father was one of those.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CANNON. Maybe this was from him. I don’t know.

Mr. HANSEN. Courtland Nelson, grateful to have you with us. We

will turn the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF COURTLAND NELSON, DIRECTOR, UTAH

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Mr. NELSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. I am

Courtland Nelson, Director of the Utah Division of Parks and

Recreation. Under the direction and support of Governor Michael

Leavitt, our organization has worked diligently to cooperate with

local and Federal agency partners to protect Utah’s natural, cultural, and recreational areas.

Specifically, in Central and Southern Utah, we have several

parks which have direct or collateral responsibilities with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service in the protection of resources and the management of recreation on State and

Federal lands. Our joint planning efforts and management activities, whether initiated by Federal requirements or State policy,

have led me to some observations regarding the San Rafael area.

The San Rafael Swell has been discovered. Bisected by I-70, in

close proximity to Moab, and within 250 miles of two million people, the ever-growing impacts are real. Every year, each spring,

comes more and more users to the area. The users are wide and

varied in their interests, but visitors have impacts which need to

be managed.

Second, without a plan which has come from local, State, Federal, and special interest groups, management and the public good

will be lost on individual issues. This bill spells out a solid fourVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 073108 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64874 pfrm09 PsN: 64874
42

year planning process desperately needed for an area that is on the

front end of significant change.

Parenthetically, House Bill 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, could be a very strong financial tool for the application

of this plan.

Number three, wilderness values need to be an important part

of the planning discussion. Certain areas within the Swell have significant wilderness components. The six wilderness areas, however,

are often adjacent to locations, showing the impacts of 150 years

of man’s influence, whether it is ranching, mining, or recreational

activity.

The history of the Swell is a geological, biological, and cultural

story. For our purposes, the stories have different audiences—wilderness proponents, educational interests, grazing leaseholders, archaeological enthusiasts, miners, and so on. Let us find a way to

have the beauty and wonder of wilderness protected but not at the

exclusion of other legitimate activities.

I have hiked the Swell in the dead of winter and the blast furnace heat of summer, meandering from slot Canyons to scenic

mountaintops with vistas of 200 miles or more. I have traveled on

roads lined with ancient Petroglyph panels, sneaking a peek at the

more modern autographs of the Butch Cassidy gang on the same

wall.

I have camped on Sid’s Mountain, in old mining camps, in an isolated mesa where my family and I enjoyed the solitude of the high

desert on a cloudless evening. I have enjoyed dirt bikes, mountain

bikes, day hikes, dutch oven dinners, cowboy poetry, spring water

in the heat of the day at Swasey’s Cabin, and the campfire stories

of geologic wonders and human blunders while recreating in the

Swell. The San Rafael is a wonderful place.

However, as Director of Utah State Parks System, I am deeply

concerned with the ramifications of population growth in the inner

mountain area, compounded by ever-increasing tourism. Both of

these trends result in greater and greater impacts on natural and

cultural resources. The abundance of wildlife populations, the presence of irreplaceable cultural resources, the variety of recreational

opportunities and majestic landscapes, are all elements which can

be negatively affected by the sheer growth of unbridled recreation

use.

This scenario is being replicated across Utah and throughout the

West, as we all know. All land management agencies, local, State,

and Federal, struggle with this relatively new condition. One way

our agency has found to deal with this problem is by working together across boundaries to resolve issues of mutual concern.

Utah State Parks partners with the BLM in places as diverse as

Yuba Reservoir, Coral Pink Sand Dunes, the Colorado River, and

to assist in the problems of protection of the resources and public.

We work with local governments in places like Goblin Valley in

Emery County and Antelope Island in Davis County and the Great

Salt Lake to do the same.

I believe that H.R. 3605 is a recipe for just such a collaborative

effort. I support the bill because I believe the planning process it

outlines will ultimately bring more human and financial resources

to the planning table.

43

And what a wonderful piece of American West the San Rafael

Swell is—an anticline of immense proportions, cut by deep canyons,

rare, arid, high evaluation grasslands, ringed by sandstone domes,

buttes and mesas. It is a land of secret, hidden springs surrounded

by grand, vast, open vistas.

It is an ecosystem supporting one of the largest bighorn sheep

herds in Utah. The western saga has also left its imprint, which

Wilson covered.

As the Committee well knows, the land use issues that are currently—we are dealing with are some of the most divisive, rancorous, and emotions facing the American West. Only by working

together, building respect, trust, and confidence, can we ever hope

to truly and permanently solve some of our land use issues.

In conclusion, the variety and range of resources in the San

Rafael Swell demands a sophisticated approach in utilizing the

land manager’s entire tool set.

H.R. 3605 conceptualizes a planning process to bring together

citizens with diverse interests and values to work with Federal,

local, and State agencies to protect these lands and benefit the public. The Division of Parks and Recreation and our sister agencies

in the Department of Natural Resources stands ready to roll up our

sleeves and work with the citizenry, the BLM, the Department of

Interior, and Emery County to do a wonderful thing in the San

Rafael Swell.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

44

45

46

47

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you, Mr. Nelson. Also, I wanted to thank

you for taking me into that area and spending time with me and

explaining a lot of things to me. That was very kind of you to do

that.

Mr. Wesley Curtis, we will turn to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF WESLEY R. CURTIS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR’S

RURAL PARTNERSHIP OFFICE

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Wes Curtis.

I am a member of the Governor of Utah’s senior staff, as well as

Director of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Office. I am here

today representing Governor Leavitt and the interests of the State

of Utah. I do appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about a remarkable proposal for protecting one of the Nation’s unique public

land and heritage treasures—the San Rafael Swell.

I begin by stating that H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy District and the National Conservation Area, has the full endorsement and support of Governor Leavitt.

H.R. 3605 is the product of years of work and a long process of

public involvement. It is a marvelous manifestation of local initiative acting in the national interest. It is a remarkable example of

the innovation and quality that can occur when public processes

are allowed to take root and develop in a natural and healthy way.

The product of this effort is a proposal that addresses both the

protection needs of the public lands, as well as the long-term economic future of the region. It is a unique proposal that could only

be designed by those who are closest to the lands and who understand its intricacies and nuances.

This proposal is evidence of a positive and courageous attitude on

the part of the local leaders in Emery County as well. They have

been willing to break ranks with many of their sister counties and

actively pursue a legitimate conservation initiative. They have done

this because they honestly want to see the Swell managed in a responsible manner that will protect all of its resources, both natural

and historic.

Consider for a minute what this measure will do. First, the National Conservation Area will provide comprehensive management

for what amounts to an entire ecosystem, preserving the integrity

of the whole resource.

Second, this proposal withdraws the threats of new oil drilling,

mining, and timbering from the lands within the NCA boundary—

a remarkable concession for a rural county with an economy based

on mineral extraction.

Third, it recognizes the new economic realities being faced by

rural communities in the West. Thus, it provides an innovative

means for helping the region transition from an extractive/resource-based economy to a new sustainable economy, while at the

same time preserving nationally important historical treasures.

This will be accomplished through the creation of a Western Legacy District. Preserving the scenic and historic resources of the

Swell is viewed locally as caring for the goose that can lay the golden eggs. It is critical to the future economic viability of the area.

This legislation is viewed as an important step in the direction

of environmental protection, as well as being a far-sighted apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 073108 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64874 pfrm09 PsN: 64874
48

proach to achieving a greater degree of economic sustainability in

the San Rafael region.

At this point, I would like to address two other important concepts related to the objectives and the intent of this legislation.

The first has to do with the potential for future wilderness designations within the National Conservation Area. This bill has deliberately avoided any attempt to designate any specific lands as

wilderness because there are other processes in motion—on the

part of the BLM and others—that will ultimately determine which

lands will receive wilderness designation.

It is important to note that this bill is wilderness neutral. It does

not affect nor delay these wilderness review processes in any way.

It allows the wilderness issue to be dealt with through the processes and mechanisms that are already in place, without hampering nor hindering those processes.

In that same context, it is also important to note that this bill

does not contain any wilderness release language, so no lands with

wilderness potential are adversely affected by this legislation.

What this bill does do is provide a much higher degree of protection for these lands during the time that wilderness issues are

being reviewed and debated—namely, withdrawal from mining and

drilling. This bill is not a compromise on the wilderness issue, nor

is it an attempt to circumvent the wilderness processes. It simply,

and deliberately, does not deal with the issue. It is, however—and

I emphasize this—an important step forward, a step toward protecting these lands until these issues are ultimately resolved.

The second issue I wish to address has to do with the management of off-road vehicle use within the San Rafael Swell. I can assure you that the State of Utah, along with the local citizens of the

San Rafael region, are very concerned about the damage that is

being caused by the misuse of OHVs. It is reassuring to note that

there is strong local support for addressing this concern and for

taking action to stop the bleeding.

For this reason, Emery County has formally asked the BLM to

address this issue and to develop a comprehensive transportation

management plan for the area as soon as possible. Emery County

recognizes that this issue must be addressed whether or not this

legislation passes. The BLM has responded positively and affirmatively, and is already moving forward in addressing this OHV

issue.

It needs to be clearly understood that the implementation of a

BLM OHV management plan will not have to wait on the four-year

planning process associated with the National Conservation Area.

These wheels are already in motion under existing NEPA processes, and may well be completed before the NCA planning process

even begins.

In conclusion, may I repeat that this legislation takes an important step forward in the conservation and management of one of

the Nation’s most important natural and historic resources. At the

same time, it is also sensitive and innovative in dealing with future

economic needs of the affected region. There is no down side to this

proposal. Passage of this legislation just simply makes good sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me the opportunity to

address this Committee.

49

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:]

STATEMENT OF WES CURTIS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR’S RURAL PARTNERSHIP

OFFICE,STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, my name

is Wes Curtis. I am a member of the Governor of Utah’s senior staff, as well as director of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Office. I am here today representing Governor Leavitt and the interests of the State of Utah. I appreciate this opportunity

to talk to you about a remarkable proposal for protecting one of the nation’s unique

public land and heritage treasures—the San Rafael Swell.

I begin by stating that H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy District and

National Conservation Area, has the full endorsement and support of Governor

Leavitt.

H.R. 3605 is the product of years of work and a long process of public involvement. It is a marvelous manifestation of local initiative acting in the national interest. It is a remarkable example of the innovation and quality that can occur when

public processes are allowed to take root and develop in a natural and healthy way.

The product of this effort is a proposal that addresses both the protection needs

of the public lands, as well as the long-term economic future of the region. It is a

unique proposal that could only be designed by those who are closest to the lands

and who understand its intricacies and nuances.

This proposal is evidence of a positive and courageous attitude on the part of local

leaders in Emery County. They have been willing to break ranks with many of their

sister counties and actively pursue a legitimate conservation initiative. They have

done this because they honestly want to see the ‘‘Swell’’ managed in a responsible

manner that will protect all of its resources—both natural and historic.

Consider for a minute what this measure will do:

First, the National Conservation Area will provide comprehensive management

for what amounts to an entire eco-system, preserving the integrity of the whole resource. Second, this proposal withdraws the threats of new oil drilling, mining and timbering from the lands within the NCA boundary—a remarkable concession for a

rural county with an economy based on mineral extraction.

Third, it recognizes the new economic realities being faced by rural communities

in the West. Thus, it provides an innovative means for helping the region transition

from an extra active/resource based economy to a new sustainable economy—while

at the same time preserving nationally important historical treasures. This will be

accomplished through the creation of a Western Legacy District. Preserving the scenic and historic resources of the Swell is viewed locally as caring for the goose that

can lay the golden eggs. It is critical to the future economic viability of the area.

This legislation is viewed as an important step in the direction of environmental

protection, as well as being a far-sighted approach to achieving a greater degree of

economic sustainability in the San Rafael region.

At this point, I would like to address two other important concepts related to the

objectives and intent of this legislation.

The first has to do with the potential for future wilderness designations within

the National Conservation Area. This bill has deliberately avoided any attempt to

designate any specific lands as wilderness because there are other processes in motion—on the part of the BLM and others—that will ultimately determine which

lands will receive such designation.

It is important to note that this bill is ‘‘wilderness neutral.’’ It does not affect nor

delay these wilderness review processes in any way. It allows the wilderness issue

to be dealt with through the processes and mechanisms that are already in place,

without hampering nor hindering those processes.

In that context, it is also important to note that this bill does not contain any

wilderness release language, so no lands with wilderness potential are adversely affected by this legislation.

What this bill does do is provide a much higher degree of protection for these

lands during the time that wilderness issues are being reviewed and debated—

namely, withdrawal from mining and drilling. This bill is not a compromise on the

wilderness issue nor is it an attempt to circumvent wilderness processes. It simply,

and deliberately, does not deal with the issue. It is, however, an important step forward—a step toward protecting these lands until these issues are ultimately resolved.

The second issue I wish to address has to do with the management of off-road

vehicle use within the San Rafael Swell. I can assure you that the state of Utah,

along with the local citizens of the San Rafael Region, are very concerned about the

50

damage that is being caused by the misuse of OHVs. It is reassuring to note that

there is strong local support for addressing this concern and for taking action to

‘‘stop the bleeding.’’

For this reason Emery County has formally asked the BLM to address this issue

and to develop a comprehensive transportation management plan for the area as

soon as possible. Emery County recognizes that this issue must be addressed whether or not this legislation passes. The BLM has responded affirmatively, and is already moving forward in addressing the OHV issue.It needs to be clearly understood

that implementation of a BLM OHV management plan will not have to wait on the

four year planning process associated with the National Conservation Area. These

wheels are already in motion under existing NEPA processes.

In conclusion, may I repeat that this legislation takes an important step forward

in the conservation and management of one of the nation’s most important natural

and historic resources. At the same time, it is also sensitive and innovative in dealing with future economic needs of the affected region. There is no down-side to this

proposal. Passage of this legislation just simply makes good sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the opportunity to address this Committee.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.

Mr. Mike Matz, we will turn to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF MIKE MATZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE

Mr. MATZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Mike Matz, and I am the Executive Director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah’s largest conservation organization with 18,000 members, over half of whom live in our beautiful State.

We are very grateful for the opportunity to present our views

today on H.R. 3605, legislation which would establish the San

Rafael Western Legacy District, and the San Rafael National Conservation Area. We wish also to express our lament and concern

that we don’t see Representative Vento on the dais there with you,

but we understand he is making progress, walking a mile a day,

even as he undergoes treatment, and we hope he is back among

you in good health very soon.

As you well know, Mr. Chairman, the Utah wilderness to date

has been an arduous one. You and Senator Garn passed legislation

in 1984 to designate wilderness for lands administered on behalf of

the American public by the U.S. Forest Service, and we applaud

you for that legislation.

Since then, the as yet unanswered question of how much public

land administered by the Bureau of Land Management should be

designated as wilderness has lingered. The conservation community has united behind H.R. 1732, a bill which would answer this

question completely by designating a bit under 40 percent of BLM

land in Utah as wilderness.

It is a reasonable resolution that has considerable support. The

majority of people in Utah stand behind the citizens’ proposal and

the national interest is apparent in the fact that more than 150

members of Congress have co-sponsored this legislation.

Five years ago, Mr. Chairman, you sponsored legislation that

would have designated a little more than 180,000 acres of wilderness in the same region covered by the legislation on which today

you are taking testimony. Two years ago, another bill like H.R.

3605, introduced by Representative Cannon, included about

51

140,000 acres of wilderness—less than what you had earlier proposed. Neither of those bills passed.

Today, this Subcommittee is gathering testimony on legislation

that would designate no wilderness. This is movement in the wrong

direction and signals a disappointing backwards regression.

The administration has indicated its interest in H.R. 3605, based

on its discussions with Emery County officials, and testimony by

the Interior Department has covered the detail. We would like to

take a step back and point out the bigger picture.

The Clinton Administration has of late exercised its rightful authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act to establish new national

monuments much like the Grand Staircase Escalante in our own

State.

Secretary Babbitt has announced his intention to create a legacy

of what he calls national landscape monuments, which is a proposition we avidly support, as does the general public. Mr. Babbitt

would like to ensure that large tracts are withdrawn from mineral

development and oil and gas development, two of the more serious

threats.

By moving legislation to do just that for the San Rafael Swell,

you are helping Secretary Babbitt and we support your assistance

in accomplishing his goal.

We are very appreciative this legislation would prevent oil and

gas development or mining from spoiling most of the San Rafael

Swell. Secretary Babbitt understands that these activities are

harmful to any landscape, yet he and others at the Interior Department are perhaps not fully aware of the specific problem in the San

Rafael Swell.

Field professionals in the Bureau of Land Management are

acutely aware of the specific problem. This place is being overrun

by off-road vehicles. BLM has documented widespread soil erosion,

airborne dust, degradation of water supplies, impacts to wildlife

and its habitat, and serious loss of native vegetation. Written field

reports are awash with examples of ORV abuses.

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter these BLM field

reports into the record.

Mr. HANSEN. No objection.

Mr. MATZ. This legislation does nothing to deal with that pervasive problem. H.R. 3605 makes the problem worse, actually, because it would postpone anything from happening until four years

from the date of enactment. During that four-year period, as yet

another plan for this region is prepared—and likely beyond that

time, as the experience with other plans demonstrates—continued

abuse of off-road vehicles will occur.

Mr. Chairman, my written testimony provides details regarding

rampant use of ORVs in the San Rafael Swell. So let me conclude

by simply summarizing. We would very much like to see resolved

the general issue of wilderness in Utah. H.R. 3605 makes no

progress in this regard. The bill, as written, unfortunately makes

the problem in that region even worse.

We would like to support H.R. 3605, but until two significant deficiencies are remedied we cannot. One is that the legislation

should include all of the San Rafael Swell. The other is that ORVs

have to be dealt with in a meaningful manner.

52

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I am happy

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matz follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

[The information follows:]

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Matz. Appreciate your testimony.

Mr. Cannon, you are recognized for questions for the panel.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, thank you all for coming. We appreciate your time here.

If I could just start, Mr. Matz, with just one question for you. You

heard earlier Ms. McUsic noted that this bill provides considerable

new protections for this land.

In our discussions, and with others in the room who have had

this continuing discussion about wilderness, we are looking at a

long time—maybe 10 years is the number that has been bounced

around—before we really—I think before many people in your association expect to solve the wilderness problem.

Isn’t some protection, as set forth in this bill—and as Ms. McUsic

said—better than just letting things go as they are in the status

quo?

Mr. MATZ. What I heard the earlier panel say was that what

seemed to me was a great deal of support and acknowledgement on

the part of Emery County and the Interior Department, that there

are areas here that qualify as wilderness, that those areas should

have protection. So it is kind of perplexing to us to see that wilderness designation isn’t included in this legislation.

Now, that is not to say that withdrawing the area from oil and

gas development, or mineral development, aren’t steps forward. It

is just that it doesn’t move in the direction of providing resolution

for this area, for this particular area.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I appreciate your input on that. You

did raise—if I might, just one other question. You raised Secretary

Babbitt’s national landscape monuments, and said that you—and I

expect you are speaking for your organization—support those.

If you would just—have you considered the legal implications of

national landscape monuments in the context of the law itself, the

Antiquities Act, which requires that the minimum amount of land

reasonable be used, and that the law exists only to protect cultural

and historical objects, which, of course, are defined? Have you considered the implications of the Secretary’s proposal in the context

of what the law actually says?

Mr. MATZ. It is my understanding that Secretary Babbitt is on

solid legal footing. I mean, for instance, President Carter’s Interior

Secretary made a proclamation to establish 130 million acres of national monuments in Alaska, and all of those—that one included,

and all of those previous, have withstood legal challenges. So I believe that the Secretary is on very solid footing, using the 1906 Antiquities Act to set aside landscape national monuments.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you.

Mr. Curtis, appreciate your being here today. Would you talk a

bit about who you view in Utah today as being supporters of this

bill?

Mr. CURTIS. Who has been supporters?

Mr. CANNON. Who are the groups of supporters out there of the

bill?

Mr. CURTIS. Over the years—this is a process that wasn’t completed overnight. It has been a long process. It has taken many

years. And over that period of time, there have been a lot of interested parties and stakeholders involved in the discussions regardVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:03 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 073108 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64874 pfrm09 PsN: 64874
70

ing this bill. And, for the most part, many of those are supportive

of these things.

Certainly, the State of Utah is supportive. We have a great deal

of support locally from the public, from local leaders. And we, of

course, extend an invitation to any who have concerns to work with

Emery County in the planning process as they proceed to develop

the actual management plan for this National Conservation Area.

Mr. CANNON. Are you aware of any other proposals out there

right now that have the potential to address land management in

this area?

Mr. CURTIS. I am not aware of any real legitimate proposal that

has any momentum or traction going for it at this point in time.

I think the point that really needs to be made clear on this legislation is that the intent of this legislation is to conserve the resources

of the San Rafael Swell, and to better manage the visitors and to

control abuses that may be taking place right now.

It is a good, solid, environmentally sound bill. I think the real

threat would be to let the status quo continue as it is, to not create

this NCA and provide the protections that this bill offers, but be

a step backwards. This is a significant step forward.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. You know, I am deeply appreciative of

all of the effort you have put into this bill, and thank you again

for that.

Mr. Nelson, aside from the fact that you have the neatest job on

earth, would you tell us a little bit about how you anticipate working with BLM under this bill?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, Representative, we hold a series of

responsibilities in the State of Utah—law enforcement activities as

they relate to off-highway vehicles, education responsibilities,

working with the local law enforcement agencies as well as the

Federal agencies.

In a number of cases around Utah, we have been successful, we

feel, in educating the recreators, which is the first step that you

need to take any time you are trying to effect a change or to keep

certain activities from happening.

The second is a presence. You have to have a presence to underscore the education, and to give support to those who are trying to

do the right thing. The comments that were made earlier about the

off-highway vehicle club members and the other associations is

very accurate. Those aren’t the people who are, in general, causing

problems.

It is others who either through their position of not being informed or of what we call the five percenters, those to whom rules

don’t mean a whole lot, and will take opportunities as they come

in any recreational activity. You have to have this presence in

order to make sure that the impacts of those individuals are lessened.

And then the third is to make sure that individuals understand

what it is you are trying to protect, the bigger picture, the values

of the area that they are playing in, and there are many successful

examples that we would think would be appropriate for the San

Rafael.

There needs to be an effort in this planning design, should this

come to pass, to really talk to these potential users, no matter what

71

their background or their interest about the history, the background of the Swell, why it is important that we have those individuals’ support for the protection of the area, and, at the same

time, explaining to them what the fun opportunities are, what

there is to learn, where they can go to enjoy those natural resources.

Mr. CANNON. Thanks. Do you expect changes in how you manage

Goblin Valley State Park? And what do you expect those changes

would be?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, Representative, we certainly would

expect the continued growth in the visitation at Goblin, as well as

at Huntington and Millsite. For those individuals who are not familiar, in the southeast corner of the Swell is a State park that has

gone from 10,000 visitors to over 80,000 in the last year.

We are the only permanent presence in that area. And everybody

who has any kind of a problem, any kind of a need, whether it is

information or a medical emergency or a law enforcement situation,

they come to us first. And I would think that that is a toehold.

That would be a great opportunity for us to work with the BLM

and the county in these issues of control and management and education.

There would certainly be an opportunity, should our partners

want to take advantage of that presence, for us to expand our involvement.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. And I appreciate the time you have

taken to come out here from what I know is a busy schedule with

all the work you are doing in preparation for the Olympics and all

of the other normal pressures of the incredible park system that we

have in Utah. I appreciate your management.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, Representative, thank you.

Mr. CANNON. And, Mr. Martin, I really appreciate your comments and insights. I love this area, and I love the stories of the

area. What role do you think the Legacy District will play in determining what sites visitors come to see?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Representative, we often find that the visitors

direct themselves. And if we don’t have a plan to direct them to the

sites that we have designated, they will continue to visit whatever

site they choose. By having a planning effort, we will be able to direct the public to the sites that are most capable of taking the visitor and we will be able to interpret those sites.

The dilemma without the plan is visitors go undirected, and that

is one of the efforts that the Legacy District does is help us build

that plan to direct them to the best sites that are best prepared

to accept the visitor.

Mr. CANNON. This is early in the process, and we haven’t done

much planning. But do you actually anticipate changes in what

people will want to see and where they will go as information becomes—as you make information available, or identify information

that you want to make available through the planning process, and

then making it available?

Mr. MARTIN. We have done that on the Four Corners area by

what we call marketing and demarketing. We market the attractions that we feel we can accept the visitors to, that have the best

opportunity for interpretation, that have the best ability to sustain

72

the site as well as entice the visitor, and have a diverse experience.

We demarket sites that are fragile, that are not capable of sustaining that kind of activity.

We think we can be successful through a good planning effort of

marketing and demarketing, to direct them to the sites that give

them a wide breadth of experience, but also provide the opportunity for them to come in contact with the past, which is what

they want to do. They want to touch the past, and that is what

they want to do.

Mr. CANNON. And this gives them the human past and a much

longer past beyond that.

Mr. MARTIN. Both.

Mr. CANNON. Sort of puts our lives in perspective. Thank you

very much for your testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Cannon.

Let me point out to you that this hearing is basically H.R. 3605,

and I have been pretty liberal, let everything else come up, like national monuments. And let me point out in respect to everybody

here, the case with President Carter settled. It wasn’t resolved; it

was settled, due to other legislation being passed.

And the majority of people who have looked at this feel that the

1906 antiquity law is an unconstitutional law. There is a lot of

legal thought on this. If there is any bill that I have ever—or any

law I have ever seen passed, that I would like to see the Supreme

Court rule on, it would be that one.

We have since looked at it in detail, as you know, in this Committee. And I can’t see, and none of the people we have had look

at it can find one tool that it gives to BLM, Park Service, whoever,

that they don’t already have under the management plan. In the

opinion of some folks on this Committee, it is more of a facade. I

don’t mean to get into that, but it has been raised here, so——

Mr. CANNON. I would like to thank the Chairman for making

those comments. Recognizing that the focus of this Committee, I

didn’t want to respond myself, but I want to associate myself with

the comments you have made.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I would hope that folks would realize also

that this bill has 270,000 acres of de facto wilderness in it now.

And also to realize that de facto wilderness is treated in a more

pristine manner than wilderness per se. It is not as if it doesn’t

have something in it.

Our friend from New Mexico, Mr. Udall?

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To maybe jump off on the point of the Chairman’s comment

about de facto wilderness, Mr. Matz, could you tell me, how would

wilderness designation address the ORV use in the San Rafael

Swell?

Mr. MATZ. Because of the definition of wilderness included in the

1964 Wilderness Act, motorized recreation is not allowed or permitted legally in designated wilderness. And so it would provide a

very effective handle to be able to remedy a serious problem on the

San Rafael Swell now the agency itself has been unable to deal

with.

73

They had a resource management plan in 1991 that proposed to

close 9 percent of the entire resource area to ORVs in order to protect some sensitive habitats. And in order to do that, they needed

to pull together a travel plan, which they began to do in 1992. By

1997, five years later, they had released a draft travel plan, but

that plan was never made in final.

So we are still now, 10 years later, dealing with not just the

problem that resulted in a recognition in 1991 that it needed to be

dealt with, but 10 years of very increasing use there that has

caused even more significant problems, to the point where BLM

now has, unfortunately, been required to develop a habitat management plan to try to protect some endangered species in the San

Rafael Swell.

Wilderness designation would give us a much better legal handle

to stem the tide of ORV abuse in the San Rafael Swell.

Mr. UDALL. You say BLM was forced. Was that as a result of a

lawsuit?

Mr. MATZ. I am not sure if it was a lawsuit, Congressman, or if

it was just the requirements under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. UDALL. Could you, Mr. Matz, give me your opinion on this

boundaries issue? It seems to me that the boundaries here, if we

are talking about protecting the San Rafael Swell, the San Rafael

Swell—my understanding—doesn’t end at the boundaries of the— is it—it is Emery County. They don’t end right there, do they?

What are your thoughts on that?

Mr. MATZ. It is disappointing to us to see that something called

the San Rafael National Conservation Area does not, in fact, constitute all of the San Rafael Swell. There are important areas to

the west, including Eagle Canyon, Molen Reef, and Mussentuchit

Badlands, that are left out. To the south, on the southern end of

the reef, there is Factory Butte, which is a very notable feature,

and Upper Muddy Creek, that are omitted from this legislation.

So from our perspective, it turns it into more of a county recreation park than it does a conservation area intended to maintain

the integrity of the San Rafael Swell as a whole.

Mr. UDALL. Under this piece of legislation, under H.R. 3605,

there are created some advisory groups. I mean, what has your experience been working with advisory groups like this?

Mr. MATZ. Again, there is ample opportunity under the existing

planning processes that BLM undertakes for local citizen involvement. And we have no disagreement that local involvement should

be made a priority, but it should not be made—be prominent priority. And in establishing another Advisory Council of this type and

makeup, it makes it—it defers too much to the local authorities

and does not take into consideration—or actually abrogates the

duty of BLM to take into consideration the national interest in

what are America’s public land.

Mr. UDALL. In trying to find some common ground here between

proposals for wilderness and this proposal that is before the Committee, what would you need included in H.R. 3605 in order to support it?

Mr. MATZ. It is simple, really. The two significant things that

need to be remedied are, one, the boundaries for the NCA should

be extended to include all of the areas of the San Rafael Swell. So

74

that would include the areas to the west that spill over into Sevier

County, and the areas to the south that spill over into Wayne

County.

And then, secondly, I think since there is such wide recognition,

apparently, of the wilderness attributes in portions of the Swell, it

is a mystery to us why there wouldn’t be wilderness designation included in this legislation, and hopefully to take that issue off the

table.

Mr. UDALL. To the other members of the panel, do you have any

objection to expanding beyond Emery County, to include the other

areas of the Swell?

Mr. CURTIS. If I may answer that, Mr. Chairman. We really have

a misrepresentation here of what constitutes the San Rafael Swell.

The boundaries of this National Conservation Area, in fact, are just

about double in acreage the actual acres of the San Rafael Swell.

The San Rafael Swell, that geologic feature is a small—it is a central piece of this National Conservation Area. But these boundaries

go well beyond the San Rafael Swell as they stand right now.

These other areas that are being referred to aren’t even contiguous to the NCA boundaries as they exist right now. They are several miles to the west of these boundaries, and it just really doesn’t

make sense geographically or in any other way to include those

lands. And, of course, this bill, this proposal, is not going to adversely affect the future of those lands in any case.

Mr. UDALL. Any comments from other panel members there? No?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you, Mr. Udall. Appreciate your comments.

You know, I really think this is a well-drafted piece of legislation.

We look at a lot of legislation in this Committee, probably more

than any other committee. And some of them are very poorly drafted. This is well put together. This has got—takes care of a lot of

things. I think, as I mentioned earlier, there is ample protection in

this area—270,000 acres of WSA, which subsequently someone

could act upon if they are so inclined to do.

And I think that area—the 270,000 acres—does fit the criteria of

the ’64 Wilderness Act Mr. Matz talked about. That is a big issue.

We talk about it all of the time. And I surely understand that.

And it is kind of like beauty in a way; it is kind of in the eye

of the beholder. Really, the ’64 Wilderness Act probably should be

refined a little bit because it is really tough to figure out a lot of

things—roads, things such as that.

Now, in my many years on this Committee, it has kind of

switched. It used to be that the right of access was with the cattlemen, the timbermen, and the miners. It has kind of fallen to the

wayside. The access question now is with the guy who rides a motorbike, an ATV, a back country pilot, a river runner, hunter. It

has kind of switched that way.

And people want access to public ground. I actually think the

majority of Americans are pretty good conservationists. They really

want to take care of it. A lot of you have alluded that there are

always a few bad apples, and they should be treated that way.

They should be brought up short for doing those areas.

Now, I honestly feel of all the pieces of legislation that I have

seen come before this Committee regarding Utah, this is one that

75

really ought to make it. And we will do our best to see that it does.

Does it need some refinement? Probably so. I think Molly brought

up something. Sally brought up an area. And we will work on those

things.

I would like to ask this panel, if I could, what is a big concern— and, really, hung it up last time—was Sid’s Mountain. And there

you folks from Utah have put in, what, the desert bighorn sheep?

It means an awful lot to some people.

I have had more letters—this is the first time in my 20 years on

this Committee that I have had more letters from people on the

other side, because the others are orchestrated. I mean, you know,

one guy writes it and 10,000 of them come in. But these are really

from the heart with people who are in this sheep bunch.

And I don’t know too much about it except they go out and they

do what is called a Grand Slam. Courtland, you probably know

more about this than I would. Or Wes would probably know. Where

they shoot five sheep—one is in Mongolia, one is in Siberia, and

one is in Sid’s Mountain, and a few other areas—these people are

very, very concerned about this legislation and they feel very

strongly about Sid’s Mountain, where they have the desert bighorn

sheep.

And they have guzzlers in there, you know, where they evaporate, things to get water from, because there is not a natural flow

of water in that area.

Maybe Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curtis, you would want to comment on

that. What are you doing on this desert bighorn sheep? Which is

a big issue to a lot of folks all around America, not just Utah.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there are several points to

be made, as I understand them. First of all, the advocates for the

bighorn sheep are not only the hunters, not only the consumptive

people, but those individuals who would like to see the continued

expansion of the range of bighorn sheep for other non-consumptive

values.

The Sid’s Mountain area I think is unique in a couple of ways.

Number one, there is an observation opportunity for people who

are willing to make some effort where they can see bighorn sheep.

And I think in some of the tourism plans that are in place or would

be desired to be in place by Emery County folks that that is an important item.

Secondly, the sheep activity in Utah has been expanded greatly

over the last number of years. There are now many places where

an individual can go and have a hunt, either have an opportunity

to hunt or an opportunity to photograph various subspecies of the

bighorn population.

As you well know, we have recently introduced California bighorn sheep on Antelope Island. And that, Mr. Chairman, is a nursery herd. And when that herd reaches a certain size, then we will

trap and relocate, possibly down to the San Rafael area, where yet

more people can have an opportunity to see those species down

there.

There is a definite attraction for individuals who want to see

what is colloquially called the Charismatic Mega Fauna by some

groups. Those large species, the ungulates, that are attractive to

watch, that give a sense of natural history, that go back even to

76

Native American times. And I think the major effort here is to secure the strong biological presence of that sheep herd, as well as

to provide various opportunities for people to harvest, to photograph, or otherwise just be aware that those sheep are out there

in their native habitat.

Mr. HANSEN. But this bill and this whole thing we are working

on does allow for citizens to see this bighorn sheep. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I think I will defer to Wes on that

particular item, as it relates to the location of Sid’s Mountain in

viewing opportunity.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, yes. In answer to your question, it

does allow—does not guarantee that they will see those bighorn

sheep, obviously, but——

Mr. HANSEN. How did you possibly arrange it for these people

from the BLM? How did you train the sheep to come in?

Mr. CURTIS. That is a local secret. We are not going to share

that.

[Laughter.]

But, no, we take a great deal of pride locally in the bighorn sheep

there. And, in fact, in the previous proposal two years ago, it was

proposed to create a desert bighorn sheep natural area to really

emphasize and promote this aspect of the Swell. That idea certainly hasn’t gone away, and I think you will see over time that

we will attempt to develop those types of activities that make it

possible for the public to enjoy that great natural resource.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, that was the one issue that probably brought

this thing down last time, if we worked a little harder on it, but

we didn’t work that hard on it. But we will work hard on this one.

Mr. MATZ. Mr. Chairman, may I address this?

Mr. HANSEN. Surely. Surely.

Mr. MATZ. I just wanted to quote here from one of these field reports. One of the biggest problems in the San Rafael Swell related

to the bighorn sheep is the problem of ORVs.

I just wanted to cite here that a Division of Wildlife Resources

biologist told the BLM the herd numbers were stable but distribution was quite different from previous observations. They annually

fly the herd units in a helicopter. This year, in some of the areas—

they usually see sheep—instead, they saw new OHV tracks. The

sheep were found now in areas unaccessible to vehicles. This was

in 1997.

The areas of concern that haven’t had OHV use in were Upper

Red Canyon in Mexican Mountain WSA, Cactus Flatts, Mesquite

Wash, Saddle Horse, and McCarty Canyons, in the Sid’s Mountain

WSA. So even with the WSAs there that you mention, we still have

the problem of ORV use getting into these areas and disturbing the

bighorn sheep population.

Mr. HANSEN. Comment? Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I just want to clarify, that would be illegal use of

ORVs in areas where they are already prescribed, would it not?

Mr. MATZ. That is correct. They should not be in WSAs.

Mr. CANNON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Curtis, you had another comment?

77

Mr. CURTIS. Yes. If I could speak to that for just a minute. OHV

misuse is certainly a concern that we all share, and we share that

with the State of Utah, with the local citizenry, and with the BLM

and Department of Interior. As everybody here knows, OHV use

has accelerated dramatically over the past few years. It has accelerated faster than we have been able to get a handle on it, management-wise.

And whether we designate an area wilderness or any other designation, it still doesn’t guarantee that we have the manpower and

the ability to enforce those designations. That is a concern that we

have.

Let me just, if I could, point out some of the things that are taking place locally with regard to this OHV issue. I think a rather

significant, a real change in attitude that I have observed over the

years—in Emery County, they are taking several different approaches trying to help the BLM and address this issue.

In the first place, they are currently making an in-depth inventory of the routes and trails on the San Rafael Swell to determine

which ones are important and which may be considered for elimination. Emery County is putting together an access management

team, which will include representatives from resource management agencies, both State and Federal, as well as many different

user groups and stakeholders.

And the intent is to develop a consistent and understandable access plan. Along with this, to provide education, to provide signing,

to in some cases build barricades if necessary to help protect these

lands.

The Emery County Sheriff’s Office is applying for a grant and exploring the possibility of providing some trail rangers. This is on

the part of the local county government to help police and monitor

what is going on out there. The Recreation Subcommittee, the Public Lands Council in Emery County, has initiated an education program to help teach the youth the importance of not abusing their

privileges in using their vehicles out there.

And on National Public Lands Day this past summer—and, Representative Cannon, you attended this gathering—170 people representing many different organizations gathered out on the Copper

Globe area of the San Rafael Swell. They marked legitimate trails.

They erected barricades blocking illegitimate trails. They put up

signs. They did many different things. They seeded, they raked,

they did a lot of things to restore lands that had been abused.

There really is a strong local movement to deal with this issue.

And I think we ought to, rather than point fingers and say, ‘‘Look,

here is a problem,’’ let us all work together and continue this effort

to resolve the problem.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you four members of the panel, thank Mr.

Cannon, Mr. Udall, for being with us. I realize that most members

are headed to the four corners of the earth right now somewhere

and should be back next Wednesday.

So with that said, thanks so very much to the panel, and all of

you who are here today. And we appreciate the excellent testimony.

This hearing is adjourned.

[The information follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

[Whereupon at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

87

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. MEADOWS, PRESIDENT, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, as President of The Wilderness

Society, and I am pleased to offer testimony regarding a matter of great significance

for our nation’s natural resources and public lands: the protection of the magnificent

red rock canyons and other public lands in Utah. We have convened to discuss these

important lands on many prior occasions, in April 1 of 1998, for example, I testified

regarding H.R. 3625, ‘‘The San Rafael Swell National Heritage Conservation Act,’’

introduced by Representative Chris Cannon in that same month.

The Wilderness Society has a longstanding commitment to the protection of Utah

wilderness and the wild and beautiful San Rafael Swell and its many natural values. This magnificent area—a great uplifted dome of sedimentary rock—rises 1,500

feet above the surrounding desert. Jagged cliff faces, deep gorges, narrow slot canyons, and hidden valleys make the Swell one of the most popular primitive recreation areas in Utah. Citizen wilderness inventories conducted during the 1980’s and

recently updated (1998) have thoroughly cataloged, mapped, and identified the wilderness and related values of the San Rafael Swell.

As a result of these extensive efforts, the Utah Wilderness Coalition, of which The

Wilderness Society is a member, has Identified 17 wilderness quality areas in the

San Rafael area—magnificent and remote places with evocative names including

Devils Canyon, Red Desert, Wild Horse Mesa, Lost Spring Wash, and Mexican

Mountain. Taken together, these areas include 1.03 million acres of wilderness quality lands located not only in Emery, but also in Sevier and Wayne counties.

But before I proceed further, I would like to thank both Representative Cannon

and the leaders of Emery County for their continuing efforts to address the protection of the San Rafael Swell. Although The Wilderness Society can not support H.R.

3605 in its enjoyment of wilderness resources. Too often, ORV use and its resulting

noise, pollution, erosion, and other impacts undercut opportunities for many longstanding public uses of these lands, including hiking, horsepacking, hunting, fishing

and wildlife observation and therefore displace other public land users. ORV travel

can degrade an area’s naturalness and other wilderness values and create routes

that antiwilderness interests seek to characterize as ‘‘roads’’ in order to disqualify

the area for wilderness protection.

The BLM and other Federal agencies have the authority to manage and control

ORV use to protect Federal resources. Nevertheless, in too many cases—and particularly in Utah—the BLM has failed to use its management and planning authority to adequately manage ORV use and prevent resource degradation. The BLM has

repeatedly failed to produce and implement adequate ORV management policies and

resource damage to fragile natural resources has resulted. As a result of the BLM’s

ongoing failure to properly control ORV use and prevent resource damage on public

lands in Utah, The Wilderness Society recently joined with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s ORV planning and

management failures.

In light of the BLM’s poor record of performance in creating and implementing

land and resource management plans that adequately manage ORV use, we believe

that the ORV planning requirements contained in H.R. 3605 will not adequately address the threat of ORV resource damage to wilderness quality lands. In light of

the severity of the resource damage caused by ORVs and the fragility and relative

scarcity of wilderness quality lands remaining in Utah and across the West, The

Wilderness Society supports the elimination of all ORV use on all Wilderness Study

Areas and other wilderness quality lands managed by the BLM.

Conclusion

The Wilderness Society and its members have been active participants in the effort to identify and protect Utah wilderness and the San Rafael Swell for at least

2 decades. TWS has actively fought numerous threats to these magnificent public

land wilderness resources. Our understanding of these threats—mining, road construction, and off-road vehicular use, to name but a few—has led us to the strong

conclusion that Utah’s remaining public land wilderness resources deserve the highest level of protection Congress can afford—designation as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. We urge this Committee and the Congress to amend

H.R. 3605 to address the Issues outlined in this testimony to provide full protection

for the 17 wilderness quality areas found within the Swell.