U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–856 PDF 2018

H.R. 4558, ‘‘GRAND STAIRCASE 

ESCALANTE ENHANCEMENT ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, December 14, 2017 

Serial No. 115–32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Vice Chairman 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, December 14, 2017 .................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 11 

Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Hand, Susan, General Manager and Outdoor Goods Buyer, Willow 

Canyon Outdoor Co., Inc., Kanab, Utah ..................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Leavitt, Hon. Mike, Former Governor, State of Utah ................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Pollock, Hon. Leland, Commission Chairperson, Board of Commissioners, 

Garfield County, Utah .................................................................................. 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

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

Utah ............................................................................................................... 6 

Varela, Vicki, Managing Director, Utah Office of Tourism, Film, and 

Global Branding, Salt Lake City, Utah ...................................................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 38 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 58 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4558, TO PROVIDE GREATER CONSERVATION, RECREATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND 

LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS 

IN GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH, 

‘‘GRAND STAIRCASE ESCALANTE ENHANCEMENT ACT’’ 

Thursday, December 14, 2017 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:29 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Westerman, 

Bergman, Bishop, Hanabusa, Lowenthal, Torres, Gallego, 

McEachin, and Brown. 

Also Present: Representative Stewart. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come 

to order. 

I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah, 

Mr. Stewart, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate in the remainder of the hearing following his testimony. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and 

the Vice Chairman. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses 

sooner and help Members keep to their schedules. Unfortunately, 

we are probably going to be interrupted by votes around 10:30 a.m., 

so we will try to get through the testimony and as many questions 

as possible before then. 

With that, we will begin with opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

meets to consider H.R. 4558, the Grand Staircase Escalante 

Enhancement Act, by Congressman Chris Stewart, and cosponsored by the entire Utah congressional delegation. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President with the 

authority to designate national monuments on Federal lands containing ‘‘historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or 

other objects of historic or scientific interest.’’ The law also specified that national monuments ‘‘be confined to the smallest area 

2 

compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be 

protected.’’ 

In the original congressional debate over this bill, Congressman 

Stephens asked whether it could ever be used to lock up large 

areas of land like the Forest Reserve bill. In response, the bill’s 

sponsor, Congressman Lacy, stated, ‘‘Certainly not. The object is 

entirely different. It is to preserve these old objects of special interests in the Southwest, whilst the Forest Reserve bill reserves the 

forests and the water courses.’’ 

President Theodore Roosevelt first used this limited authority to 

declare 1,200 acres around the Devils Tower in Wyoming as a 

national moment. Since that time, presidents have broadly interpreted the Antiquities Act to expand both the size and justifications for national monument designations. 

In 1996, President Bill Clinton, in a breathtaking abuse of this 

law, unilaterally declared 1.7 million acres of Bureau of Land 

Management lands in southern Utah as the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, without any consultation with 

members of the Utah congressional delegation, including 

Democratic Representative Bill Orton, in whose district these lands 

were located, or with Governor Mike Leavitt, who is one of our witnesses here today. 

Indeed, just 1 week before the announcement, the administration 

assured the state’s senior Senator, Orrin Hatch, that leaks of their 

intention to issue this declaration were untrue and that no such 

action was contemplated. 

President Clinton drafted his order in secret consultation with 

leftist environmental groups. This Committee later learned that 

their objective was to make grazing and future resource development impossible. The action devastated the state of Utah and the 

local communities affected. It cost the Utah public school system 

hundreds of millions of dollars in future revenues, deprived local 

families of high-paying local jobs, and forced historic grazing permittees from these lands. 

Let me put this in perspective. Hurricane Harvey inflicted nearly 

$200 billion of damage when it slammed into Texas this year. The 

low-end, conservative estimate of economic damage from Clinton’s 

Executive Order is $223 billion, just in lost economic activity from 

mineral development alone. And in Keystone Cops’ fashion, the 

administration only discovered that their designation included 

176,000 acres of land set aside for support of the public schools the 

day before they made the announcement. 

These abuses point to a simple truth: that no one person should 

have the authority to lock up millions of acres of land with the 

stroke of a pen. By giving Congress, and not the President, authority over public lands, our Constitution guarantees that all voices 

will be heard when a decision affecting millions of acres of land is 

made. Under our Constitution, the people expect their government 

to listen to those people most affected by local land use decisions, 

and not just out-of-state special interest groups. And they have 

every right to demand that Congress reassert its roll over management of the public lands on their behalf. 

This bill seeks to right this wrong and to go about monument 

designation the constitutional way: through open hearings, debate, 

3 

and congressional action. It would create Utah’s sixth national 

park, the Escalante Canyons National Park, and transfer Hole-inthe-Rock Road, a historically important Mormon pioneer trail, to 

the state of Utah. 

Further, it creates three new separate and distinct national 

monuments: the Grand Staircase National Monument, the 

Escalante Canyons National Monument, and the Kaiparowits 

National Monument. 

Finally, the bill would create a management council comprised of 

local officials to draft and oversee a management plan for the new 

monuments and the national park. 

We have a most distinguished panel of witnesses here today to 

discuss this bill, and I am looking forward to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON FEDERAL LANDS

Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to consider H.R. 4558, the 

Grand Staircase Escalante Enhancement Act by Congressman Chris Stewart and 

co-sponsored by the entire Utah congressional delegation. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President with the authority to designate 

national monuments on Federal lands containing ‘‘historic landmarks, historic and 

prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest.’’ The law also 

specified that National Monuments ‘‘be confined to the smallest area compatible 

with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.’’ 

In the original congressional debate over this bill, Congressman Stephens asked 

whether it could ever be used to lock up large areas of land like the Forest Reserve 

bill. In response, its sponsor, Congressman Lacey, stated: ‘‘Certainly not. The object 

is entirely different. It is to preserve these old objects of special interests in the 

Southwest, whilst the (Forest Reserve bill) reserves the forests and the water 

courses.’’ 

President Theodore Roosevelt first used this limited authority to declare 1,200 

acres around the Devils Tower in Wyoming as a national monument. Since that 

time, presidents broadly interpreted the Antiquities Act to expand both the size and 

justifications for National Monument designations. 

In 1996, President Bill Clinton, in a breathtaking abuse of this law, unilaterally 

declared 1.7 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in southern 

Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument without any consultation with members of the Utah congressional delegation (including Democrat 

Representative Bill Orton in whose district these lands were located), or with 

Governor Mike Leavitt, who is one of our witnesses here today. 

Indeed, just 1 week before the announcement, the administration assured the 

state’s senior Senator, Orrin Hatch, that leaks of their intention to issue this 

declaration were untrue and that no such action was contemplated. 

President Clinton drafted his order in secret consultation with leftist environmental groups. This Committee later learned that their objective was to make 

grazing and future resource development impossible. The action devastated the 

state of Utah and the local communities affected. It cost the Utah public school system hundreds of millions of dollars in future revenues, deprived local families of 

high-paying local jobs, and forced historic grazing permittees from these lands. 

Let me put this in perspective. Hurricane Harvey inflicted nearly $200 billion of 

damage when it slammed into Texas this year. The low-end, conservative estimate 

of economic damage from Clinton’s Executive Order is $223 billion—just in lost 

economic activity from mineral development alone. 

In Keystone Cops’ fashion, the administration only discovered that their designation included 176,000 acres of land set aside for support of the public schools the 

day before the announcement. 

These abuses point to a simple truth: that no one person should have the authority to lock up millions of acres of land with the stroke of a pen. By giving 

Congress—and not the President—authority over public land, our Constitution guarantees that all voices will be heard when a decision affecting millions of acres of 

land is made. 

4 

Under our Constitution, the people expect their government to listen to those 

people most affected by local land use decisions, and not just out-of-state special interest groups. And they have every right to demand that Congress reassert its role 

over management of the lands on their behalf. 

This bill seeks to right this wrong and to go about monument designation the constitutional way: through open hearings, debate and congressional action. It would 

create Utah’s sixth national park, the Escalante Canyons National Park, and transfer ‘‘Hole in the Rock Road,’’ a historically important Mormon pioneer trail, to the 

state of Utah. 

Further, it creates three new separate and distinct national monuments: the 

Grand Staircase National Monument, the Escalante Canyons National Monument, 

and Kaiparowits National Monument. 

Finally, the bill would create a management council comprised of local officials to 

draft and oversee a management plan for the new monuments and the National 

Park. 

We have a most distinguished panel of witnesses here today to discuss this bill, 

and I am looking forward to their testimony. I will now recognize the Ranking 

Member for her opening statement. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I now recognize the Ranking Member for her 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Chairman McClintock. 

Today, we will hear testimony on H.R. 4558, the Grand 

Staircase Escalante Enhancement Act, a bill introduced by 

Representative Stewart to ratify the boundaries of three new 

national monuments recently designated by President Trump, and 

create a new national park in southern Utah. 

Under normal circumstances, legislation to establish a new 

national park would have broad partisan support, but the circumstances surrounding this bill and the proposed national park 

are by no means normal. 

In 1996, President Clinton designated the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument. For 20 years, communities around 

the monuments have grown, diversified, and thrived. This is a 

story we will hear from Susan Hand, the owner of Willow Canyon 

Outdoor, a small business in Kanab, Utah. Ms. Hand will also tell 

us how last week’s announcements to repeal the Grand StaircaseEscalante and replace it with three disjointed small monuments 

threatens her business and the livelihood of many others in her 

community. 

President Trump based his action—something many people, 

including myself, believe is without legal authority—on a review 

conducted by Secretary Zinke, which my colleagues and I have yet 

to see, despite numerous requests. During this review, the Interior 

Department received 2.8 million public comments overwhelmingly 

in favor of leaving all national monuments intact. Secretary Zinke 

dismissed these comments and ultimately advised the President to 

significantly alter a number of existing national monuments. This 

recommendation was based on a visit to eight national monuments 

and their surrounding communities. But as we will hear from our 

witness today, Secretary Zinke refused to meet with many of the 

small businesses owners who live in the communities that depend 

on national monuments and public lands. 

5 

It is unfortunate that taxpayer dollars were wasted on a report 

meant to justify the action beyond the scope of the President’s 

authority under the Antiquities Act. Only Congress has the authority to shrink or rescind national monuments, which is why last 

week’s proclamation is already being challenged in court. Some also 

question the timing of this bill, introduced without maps and is in 

incomplete format, just 2 days after the President made his proclamation. In fact, I have maps and an exchange patent with the state 

of Utah that confirmed there was an agreement and puts this 

whole effort in question. I ask unanimous consent to put those in 

the record as part of the hearing record. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Ms. HANABUSA. The reality is that Congress has acted on numerous occasions to ratify the boundary of the Clinton designation. In 

the 105th and 106th Congresses, legislation to exchange lands with 

state and local governments advanced, and $20 million was appropriated to purchase mining claims within the monument. 

Finally, I would like to point out that the panel does not include 

a witness from either the Bureau of Land Management or National 

Park Service. This is particularly troubling, given the fact that this 

bill seeks to create a national park and it will be managed by an 

unelected board primarily comprised of representatives from state 

and local government. 

Additionally, this new national park would have a purpose that 

is contradictory to the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act. 

Under these circumstances, a review by the relevant Federal 

agency is appropriate, necessary, and consistent with prior proceedings in the House. 

Hundreds of letters from local businesses, community organizations, and concerned local residents have poured in over the last 

couple of days. And I also ask unanimous consent to enter these 

letters into the hearing record, and hope that we will consider 

these concerns as we examine this bill. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Ms. HANABUSA. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

Thank you, Chairman McClintock. 

Today, we will hear testimony on H.R. 4558, the Grand Staircase Escalante 

Enhancement Act, a bill introduced by Representative Stewart to ratify the boundaries of three new national monuments recently designated by President Trump and 

create a new national park in southern Utah. 

Under normal circumstances, legislation to establish a new national park would 

be applauded and showered with bipartisan accolades. But the circumstances surrounding this bill and the proposed national park are by no means normal. 

In 1996, President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument. For 20 years, communities around the monument have grown, diversified, and thrived. 

This is the story we will hear from Susan Hand, the owner of Willow Canyon 

Outdoor, a small business in Kanab, Utah. Ms. Hand will also tell us how her world 

was turned upside down by last week’s announcement to repeal the Grand Staircase-Escalante and replace it with three disjointed new monuments. 

President Trump based his action—something that many people, including myself, 

believe to be illegal—on a sham review conducted by Secretary Zinke. During this 

review, the Interior Department received 2.8 million public comments overwhelmingly in favor of leaving all national monuments intact. Secretary Zinke dismissed 

6 

these comments as the product of an organized campaign and ultimately ended up 

advising the President to abolish several existing national monuments. 

This recommendation was based on a visit to eight national monuments, but as 

we will hear from our witness today, he refused to meet with many of the small 

business owners who live in the communities that depend on national monuments 

and public lands. Leaving us to wonder if the decision was already made and the 

review was nothing more than window dressing. 

It is unfortunate that so many taxpayer dollars had to be wasted on a report 

meant to justify an action that is so clearly illegal. The Antiquities Act does not give 

the President the authority to shrink or rescind national monuments—only 

Congress has this authority, which is why last week’s proclamation is already being 

challenged in court. 

It also makes me question the timing of this piece of legislation. The Utah delegation had 20 years to file legislation to redo the boundaries of this monument. Why 

introduce this bill without maps and in an incomplete format just 2 days after the 

President makes a proclamation? 

The reality is that Congress has acted on numerous occasions to ratify the boundary of the Clinton designation. Both the 105th and 106th Congresses advanced 

legislation to exchange land with state and local governments and even appropriated $20 million to purchase mining claims within the monument. 

With the legal status of President Trump’s designation in limbo, it seems like any 

legislation that deals with Grand Staircase-Escalante should wait for judicial 

review. In fact, I have maps and an exchange patent with the state of Utah that 

confirm there was an agreement and puts this whole effort into question. I ask 

unanimous consent that these records are part of the hearing record. 

While today’s witness panel includes several people impacted by this legislation, 

I would like to point out that the panel does not include a witness from either the 

Bureau of Land Management or the National Park Service. This is particularly troubling given the fact that this bill purports to create a national park that will be 

managed by an unelected board made primarily of representatives from state and 

local government. It is also troubling given the fact that this new national park 

would have a purpose that is diametrically opposed to the 1916 National Park 

Service organic act. This is without precedent and I can’t think of a reason why a 

proposal this dramatic should be considered without review by the relevant Federal 

agency. 

Hundreds of letters from local businesses, community organizations, and concerned local residents have poured in over the last couple of days. I ask unanimous 

consent to enter these letters into the hearing record and hope that we consider 

these concerns as we examine this bill. 

With that I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Natural 

Resources Committee, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, if it is OK with you, because we do 

have votes coming up, I do have an opening statement, but can we 

hear from Congressman Stewart first and then reserve the right to 

give that opening statement afterwards? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize Congressman Chris 

Stewart of Utah. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS STEWART, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

And to my colleagues, Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, 

and Ranking Member Hanabusa, thank you for letting me come 

and speak to you about a bill that is extremely important to my 

district, H.R. 4558, the Grand Staircase Escalante Enhancement 

Act. 

7 

As has already been stated here, over 20 years ago, President 

Clinton stood in the state of Arizona, he didn’t come to Utah, he 

stood in Arizona, and with the stroke of a pen, using the 

Antiquities Act, he declared nearly 2 million acres of land in Utah 

as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. 

I am pleased that my friend and a man that I greatly admire, 

Secretary Leavitt, who was a governor during this time, will enlighten us on this episode and, I think, share some of his insights 

into the deceit and the deception that we were subject to. 

The Federal Government promised that the monument would 

take little away and, instead, create a boom of tourism in the community surrounding the monument. Over two decades later, we 

know that while there has been some increase in tourism, it has 

not been enough to economically sustain these communities. And 

let me illustrate that, because that is such an important point. 

In 2015, Garfield County was forced to declare a state of emergency based on rapidly declining school enrollment. Simply put, 

their schools were dying because families could not stay in the 

county. They couldn’t stay because there were so few jobs left capable of sustaining a family. 

Tourism alone is not able to sustain these communities. I support 

tourism. I am proud of my state. I would love for everyone in the 

country and around the world to come and enjoy this beautiful 

state of Utah, but this is a matter of common sense. Name me a 

job that you can sustain a family on working in the tourism industry from May to October. 

Now, some people have done really well, primarily business 

owners. I would ask you to ask them, how much do you pay your 

employees? How much do you pay your waitresses and those who 

are making up beds in hotels? Because I promise you, it is not 

enough to raise a family. And some say that this threatens business, creating this national park. That is just silly. How in the 

world does creating a national park in some way endanger tourism? In fact, our intent here is to do exactly the opposite, and that 

is to foster and to increase tourism. 

The situation has largely been forced upon residents by a misguided Federal policy, reminding us once again that Washington 

has a bad habit of drafting policies without giving local communities a seat at the table. 

Just this morning, I was reminded of some comments by elites 

in Hollywood and corporate CEOs who are being dishonest with 

people about this. I think many of these couldn’t find this area on 

a map if they had to. They have never been to Utah. Some of them 

haven’t had a conversation with anyone that is impacted by this in 

the local communities. 

I spent nearly 5 years meeting with local elected officials in an 

effort to strike a balance between conserving the beauty in Garfield 

and Kane Counties, while also providing access and economic 

growth for the local economy. 

The key to success in this region is finding creative solutions that 

benefit both tourism and natural resource industries, while preserving our western culture. This act does that. Specifically, it 

creates three new separate national monuments, creates a manageVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:17 Apr 06, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FEDERAL LANDS\12-14-17\27856.TXT DARLEN
8 

ment council, transfers a historically significant trail to the state 

of Utah, and creates a new national park. 

Let me take just a moment to explain the significant sections of 

this bill. First, it creates, as I said, three national monuments, preserving over 1 million acres of Federal land in Utah, while also 

allowing access for hunting, gazing, fishing, and trapping. 

Second, it creates a management council comprised of local officials to draft and oversee a management plan for the new monuments. This is an unprecedented move that will give local leaders 

a powerful voice and a seat at the table. And by the way, this is 

a county that 93 percent of it is controlled by the Federal Government. Why in the world would anyone object to giving the local 

community a voice in how it is managed? 

Third, the bill transfers Hole-in-the-Rock to the state of Utah to 

be preserved. This road is very historical and significant to 

Mormon pioneers, and it is only fitting that Utah own and preserve 

and manage this historically significant area. 

And last, the legislation creates Utah’s sixth national park, the 

Escalante Canyons National Park. This new park will be a win for 

conservation and a win for access and it will be a win for the local 

communities. It will increase tourism, giving a much needed boost 

to the local economy, while giving locals a voice in their own 

backyard. 

In addition, the national park provides for infrastructure spending, enhancing visitors’ experience by making resources available 

for things such as trails, restrooms, and roads. 

There is a reason I live in Utah. I love Utah. I could live anywhere in the world, just like any one of us could. I chose to live 

in Utah because I love to hike, rock climb, ski, and all the things 

that we enjoy there. I want to preserve that. This bill gives us an 

opportunity to do that. It truly is a win-win situation. And I urge 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions for Congressman Stewart? 

Seeing none, we thank you for your testimony. Oh, all right, then 

we will do a round of questions, and I will begin. 

Congressman Stewart, did you just say that 93 percent of the 

land in this county is held by the Federal Government? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir, that is true. Ninety-three percent of 

Garfield County is federally owned. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, that is 93 percent that is off the tax rolls. 

Mr. STEWART. That’s exactly right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And what impact did this designation have on 

the 93 percent of the land in the county that the Federal Government holds? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, can you imagine being a locally elected official who is responsible for roads, schools, and all the services that 

a community needs in order just to survive, and having 93 percent 

of your tax base taken out from underneath you? It is incredibly 

difficult for them. You will hear from some of our locally elected 

officials, and what it does is it leaves them coming to Washington, 

DC, and constantly begging for help, because they don’t have the 

9 

authority or the ability themselves to manage their own affairs. It 

is all at the whim of the Federal Government. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, because this Federal land was off the tax 

rolls, obviously, local governments are getting no tax revenues from 

it. Was there any kind of productive activity on these lands prior 

to the designation? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, there was. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What kind of commercial activities was the 

Federal land supporting? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, for example, in Utah, we used to have a 

thriving timber industry. It has been decimated because of some of 

these policies. We had the prospect of mineral development. That 

has been completely taken off the table because of some of these 

policies. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, even though those lands were held by the 

Federal Government and off the local tax rolls, they were still able 

to be put to productive use for the surrounding and for the remaining community in this region, correct? 

Mr. STEWART. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And what did the designation do to that? 

Mr. STEWART. As I said, it made it impossible. And by the way, 

if I can make an important point, even though they had this multiple use before that, the local community still managed it in such 

a way that it was pristine enough to still be designated as a monument. It is not like the people in Washington, DC, looked out there 

in Utah and said, ‘‘Oh, what a mess they have made, we need to 

go save them.’’ They had managed this land very well, as I said, 

to the point it was still pristine enough to be a national monument. 

And the presumption is many times, well, those fools out there in 

Utah, they are not smart enough to do this, we need someone in 

Washington, DC, to do it for them. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I wish my colleagues from other states where 

the Federal Government holds maybe 1 percent of the land area 

would consider what would happen to their communities if the 

Federal Government suddenly took over 93 percent of the land 

area, took all of that off the tax rolls, and then imposed draconian 

restrictions that prevented these lands from being put to any kind 

of productive activity. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, you make a point that I emphasize 

all the time. I feel like I am standing up for the little guy. I am 

standing up for families out in the rural communities who just 

want to keep their families together. Instead, their kids have to 

say, ‘‘Dad, I would love to ranch with you, but we can’t because our 

permits have been taken from us, and I am going to move to a city 

instead,’’ when they would rather be where they are and stay with 

their own communities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. In this process of taking that 93 percent of the 

land and, essentially, forbidding productive use of it, I assume at 

least those local communities were fully consulted by the Federal 

Government. There were hearings held that there was maximum 

input from the local community? 

Mr. STEWART. I appreciate your sarcasm, but, of course, that was 

not the case, which is one of the primary objections we have to this. 

If people felt like they had a voice, if they felt like they had an 

10 

opportunity to make their input and actually be heard, and if the 

decision went the other way, I think most people would be willing 

to accept that. They understand they are not the king. They don’t 

get to decide everything on their own. All they are asking for is, 

give us a chance to tell you what this has done to our community. 

Give us a chance to tell you what this has done to our families. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Perhaps that is why our Constitution gives to 

Congress, and not to the President, authority over the public lands, 

so that decisions like this that affect the livelihoods of families 

across the West would be done in the open, with full hearings, full 

consultation with the local communities affected, and ultimately, 

voted upon by all of the representatives of the people after open deliberations—not by a single individual with a stroke of a pen acting 

in secrecy, and worse than secrecy, actually misleading the local 

representatives of the community of his ultimate intent. 

Mr. STEWART. Chairman, I won’t repeat what you said, I will just 

say thank you for saying it, and I agree with you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

I recognize the Ranking Member. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Chair, in light of the fact that we are going to be called for 

votes, and we have a panel who have traveled a distance to be 

here, I am going to yield my time to Representative Lowenthal. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Ranking Member. And thank you, 

Congressman Stewart, for your service and your representation of 

your community and their needs. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I want to make sure I understand the bill as 

you are presenting it to us, so I am asking you, can you confirm 

that the bill does not repeal any of the approximately 900,000 acres 

of wilderness study areas under BLM, within the original Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Will they be maintained 

as wilderness study areas, those 900,000 acres? 

Mr. STEWART. This bill codifies the President’s action of last 

week. Some of those study areas reside within the national park, 

and they will be managed as a national park at that point. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Well, I am not talking about just the national 

park, we are talking about the monuments and the original land. 

Mr. STEWART. Right. No, it does not repeal any wilderness study 

areas. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Section 13 is quite ambiguous about that, so I 

appreciate that answer. 

Mr. STEWART. We would be happy to work with you on language 

that would clarify that. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. So, you are saying those 900,000 acres, which 

are now wilderness study acres, will remain wilderness study 

acres? 

Mr. STEWART. That is one of the misunderstandings. I don’t 

mean to say you misunderstand; I am talking more generally. 

Some of the misunderstandings that people have regarding this is 

that the assumption is it repeals any protections, and that is just 

not true. These are still federally owned lands. They are still 

federally managed, exactly like they were before. 

11 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

So, your answer is those 900,000 acres, if they are wilderness 

study acres now, will remain as wilderness study acres? 

Mr. STEWART. That is true. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Also, there are going to be approximately 677,000 acres of 

Federal public lands, and your bill would potentially open up those 

677,000 acres of Federal public lands that are no longer within the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. You are going to 

open those up to, for example, potentially, oil, gas, tar sands, coal 

leasing, as well as hard rock mining. So, you are understanding 

that now we are going to open these up to those development 

activities? 

Mr. STEWART. The intention would be for these to be managed 

like any other Federal lands. And if they are available and if there 

are no coal or gas resources there at this point—and I don’t think 

there is anyone who speculates that there are—they would be subject to all of the same protections that any other Federal land—— 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I am just making clear, really, and 

you have just—we are now, potentially, opening up all what was 

protected. 

Mr. STEWART. I appreciate you bringing up that point, because 

that is actually one of the things we want to do. I am not hiding 

from that. I am embracing that. Of course, we are trying to do that. 

That is one of the things we are trying to do for the local community, is to make these resources available to them so that, as I said, 

they can have opportunities that have been taken from them. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Do any other Members wish to avail 

themselves for 5 minutes of questions for Mr. Stewart? 

Seeing none, we thank Congressman Stewart for bringing the bill 

to us, and we would welcome him to remain and participate in the 

Subcommittee from the dais. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We will now ask our second panel of witnesses 

to come forward. While they are doing that, the Chair recognizes 

the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Bishop, for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I would like to do my opening statement 

now as the new panel is getting situated, so we can speed up the 

time. 

As a history teacher, I just want to go through the history of the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. An Interior 

Department Solicitor’s memo told the President that monuments 

proposed by the President do not require NEPA because NEPA 

compliance does not cover presidential action. So, in August of 

1995, that was a year before the Clinton re-elect, there was a series 

of memos that went through asking President Clinton to do something for his re-election campaign to, and I quote, ‘‘To help overcome the negative views toward Clinton, a designation of a new 

monument would create a compelling reason to enthusiastically 

support the administration.’’ 

12 

The idea of it taking place in Utah was, once again I quote from 

internal memos, ‘‘Opposition would come from those who, in candor, are unlikely to support the administration under any 

circumstance.’’ 

In 1992, Mr. Clinton had finished third in Utah behind both 

Bush and Ross Perot, so it was obviously easy pickings. 

On March 19, 1996, that was the election year, once again, 

memos went through there, and there was a letter coming from 

CEQ to the White House that needed to be signed because it had 

to look as if the President initiated this, not CEQ, not the Interior 

Department, so you could avoid NEPA compliance. If, and I am 

quoting again, ‘‘If the alleged letter only asked for information 

about Utah, it looked biased, but ask for a broader review and it 

would have been clear that there are more compelling areas for 

designation than Utah parks.’’ 

In fact, a week later, in another memo, they said these lands are 

not really endangered, which is one of the criterias for using the 

Antiquities Act. 

Then they also had, another week later, coming from OMB as 

well as CEQ, another report saying that Grand Canyon National 

recreation area, because McGinty and others may want to rope in 

Kaiparowits and Escalante Canyons, these regions, if the package 

ultimately doesn’t seem adequate. I would mention that what they 

are talking about adding later on to the package that they initially 

require is what this bill would be designating as a national park. 

As late as July 29, 1996, the CEQ and OMB were worried because a letter had not been signed. They once again sent another 

memo to the White House saying a letter does not have to be sent, 

but must be proposed and signed ASAP. 

In August of that same year, another memo went to the White 

House, resigned to having to wait because the Chief of Staff at that 

time, Leon Panetta, wanted time to talk to western Democrats before they actually signed and introduced anything. 

On September 9, news reports came leaking out in The 

Washington Post and other areas that the monument was going to 

be designated. On September 9, the CEQ then told the Utah delegation that no decision had been made. Secretary Babbitt told 

Senators Hatch and Bennet and Congressman Hansen that no decision had been made. 

On September 14, they once again said, I can tell you categorically no decision has been made with respect to this. Three days 

later, in a phone call to Senator Bennet, the White House said, oh, 

no, we deny these news reports. Anybody who says that this is 

going to happen, does not know what he is talking about. No decision has been made. 

On September 9, that story is why Governor Leavitt finally 

called the White House to try to find out the truth behind that 

story. 

That is the situation of how Grand Staircase-Escalante was originally established as a politically motivated area that was not 

necessarily in need of protection. In fact, other areas were in greater need, and it was added simply to try to get enthusiasm to election in a state that was not going to vote for Clinton regardless. 

13 

I yield back my time, and I welcome the guests who are here. I 

appreciate listening to your testimony. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

If there are no other questions, the Chair now recognizes the 

former governor of the state of Utah, the Honorable Mike Leavitt, 

who has come to us today from Salt Lake City, Utah. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE LEAVITT, FORMER 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. LEAVITT. Chairman Bishop, Subcommittee Chairman 

McClintock, and Ranking Member Hanabusa, I want to thank you 

for the invitation to appear. I have been asked to recount the history of the way in which the Grand Staircase came forward, at 

least from my perspective as governor at the time. 

Grand Staircase, as has been spoken of already, was done in 

stealth. It happened under wraps. It was done on the fly. There 

was no consultation done with any state, county, or local leaders 

of Utah, our Federal office holders, or our people. None. Worse, 

there was a deliberate effort made to conceal and to keep the 

monument planning process out of view. Secrecy was so vital a concern to this endeavor that the administration was denying the decision had been made, even as bleachers were being assembled on 

the North Rim of the Grand Canyon for an event. 

The obsessive secrecy was documented multiple times. Once in a 

letter from the Interior Department. Solicitor John Leshy wrote, 

and I am quoting: ‘‘I can’t emphasize confidentiality too much. If 

word leaks out, it probably won’t happen, so take care.’’ 

The need for secrecy was reinforced in a memo from the Council 

on Environmental Quality director, Kathleen McGinty. She said to 

another White House colleague, and I am quoting, ‘‘Any public 

release of information will probably foreclose the President’s option 

to proceed.’’ 

President Clinton announced the creation of the monument on 

September 18, 1996. The first reports came out 11 days earlier, not 

from a public announcement, not from an entry in the Federal 

Register, but a news leak that has been referenced in The 

Washington Post. 

I recounted in my written testimony of days of calls and inquiries 

by me, by members of the Federal delegation, and many others, to 

every level of the executive branch. I was told by the Secretary of 

the Interior directly that his department was not involved, and 

suggested I call the White House, which I did. I was told at the 

White House that they were not certain where that report in The 

Washington Post came from. 

I asked for a meeting with the President or the Chief of Staff. 

I was finally granted one on September 17, the day before the announcement. At the same time as I suggested the Government of 

the United States was denying the plan, they had White House 

events people on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon preparing for 

the event. 

At 1:58 a.m. in the morning on the day it was announced, I 

finally received a call from the President. The President was gracious, but he said to me, I am just now beginning to review this 

matter. I was back in Salt Lake City by that time, by the time the 

14 

announcement was actually made on the North Rim of the Grand 

Canyon in Arizona, not in Utah. 

This was a piece of land equal in size to the state of Rhode 

Island, the state of Delaware, and the District of Columbia combined. This is not the way public lands decisions should or were 

ever intended to be made. 

In 1976, the Nation made an important public policy decision we 

all know as FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act. It requires great deliberation and careful process in determining how public lands should be used. Our system of government 

was constructed to prevent one person from having that much 

power. 

I would like to assert three foundational issues. One, there was 

land within the boundaries of the Grand Staircase that needed protection, but the President’s order went way beyond that which was 

necessary or prudent. 

Second, the secrecy and the circumstances surrounding the 

monument’s creation amounted to abuse of power, process, and protocol so egregious that it is offensive to the concept of democracy 

itself. 

And finally, while this hearing does not consider the ongoing 

nature of the Antiquities Act, Congress needs to refine it to prevent 

ongoing misuse. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, GOVERNOR OF UTAH 1993–2003, 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2003–2005, 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2005–2009 

Chairman Bishop, Subcommittee Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member 

Hanabusa, and Committee members, thank you for the invitation to speak with you, 

as we again find monuments and public land protections in my home state of Utah 

in the national spotlight under debate. This is where we should have been all along. 

There are lands in our state that require protection, and the record will show me 

to be consistently supportive of responsible efforts to do so. My statement today is 

aimed at establishing two foundational points. First, both the Grand StaircaseEscalante and Bears Ears National Monuments were abuses of the 1906 Antiquities 

Act, setting aside far more land than was necessary to meet the law’s purpose. 

Second, the way Grand Staircase came forward was an abuse of power, process, and 

protocol so egregious that it is offensive to the concept of democracy itself. 

Debate is a wonderful thing. Good-faith collaborations yield extraordinary results. 

An open give-and-take involving governments and citizens at all levels makes democracies work. Trust is essential. Had any of these been applied to the original 

process of designating Grand Staircase in 1996, I doubt we would be here. 

The Grand Staircase monument is 21 years old. Bill Clinton was the president 

who created it. I was governor of Utah at the time. The monument was done in 

stealth, under wraps and on the fly. There was no consultation with any state, 

county, or local leaders in Utah, our Federal office-holders or our people. There was 

a deliberate effort to conceal and keep monument planning out of public view. 

Secrecy was so vital a concern to the endeavor that the administration was denying 

a decision had been made, even as bleachers were going up for the presidential announcement at the Grand Canyon. 

There were calls made by administration figures to Democratic politicians and allies in surrounding states. Activist groups had input and major newspapers received 

advance word. Aides to Mr. Clinton fretted over whether to give a heads up to 

Democratic candidates for office in other states. Utah didn’t rate. We couldn’t even 

get a map. The partisanship and unilateral power play were unprecedented and 

stunning to behold. 

Confronted with those circumstances, the move was contentious from Day One. 

With the stroke of a pen, local communities had their interests upended. Mining 

leases were impacted, as was statewide funding of public education. Commercial 

15 

development was precluded, a 7-year environmental impact study on the coal fields 

of the Kaiparowits Plateau jettisoned overnight. 

Then came the repercussions. Congressional hearings were held, lawsuits filed, 

the Antiquities Act challenged, and the smoking embers of national vs. western 

land-use antagonisms once again flamed. 

The law was followed, a court ruled 8 years later. But the breach of trust, Federal 

over-reach and disregard for the basic foundations of democratic government lingered in Utah much longer. The monument born of political expedience never had 

the buy-in and the constructive voice of surrounding communities those lands warranted and deserved. 

Twenty-one years later, a new president and a different Congress are taking 

another look. Grand Staircase faces a down-sizing and reconfiguration, along with 

Bears Ears. It did not have to be this way. 

There are parallels in the two cases. They rely on an expansive reading of the 

Antiquities Act in the creation of massive landscape monuments rather than the 

smallest-area-compatible standard required by the law. Where Grand Staircase was 

enshrined to curry favor and galvanize preservationist voters, Bears Ears came at 

the behest of environmental groups, backed by foundation money and fronted by 

representatives of Indian tribes. 

Both monument designations were a race against the clock to do something before 

time ran out, either to win votes or secure a historical footnote. And both had the 

effect, whether calculated or not, of forestalling other more time-consuming but comprehensive and workable initiatives to protect the same lands—more assiduously in 

some cases—while balancing conservation with the economic stability of local communities. One of those initiatives was a Canyons of the Escalante National Ecoregion my administration proposed 3 years before Grand Staircase, the other was 

the Utah Public Lands Act Initiative launched and led here by Representatives Rob 

Bishop and Jason Chaffetz. 

There is a reason that Washington declarations like Grand Staircase and Bears 

Ears are described in Utah as ‘‘midnight monuments.’’ They are sprung on the state 

by a Federal Government removed from the aftermath and disinterested in its socioeconomic realities. This time, we can do better. We can work it out for the American 

people and for Utah, in open discussion with honest brokers, congressional authority 

and the state of Utah’s imprimatur. 

That starts with some undeniable truths and a look back on the Grand Staircase 

process with the perspective of two decades. First, Utah is a state where 65 percent 

of the lands are federally owned and administered. San Juan County alone, where 

Bears Ears is located, is home to a National Park, a National Forest, a National 

Recreation Area, three National Monuments and the highest poverty rate in Utah. 

In Kane and Garfield counties, which share the Grand Staircase footprint, it is 

a Godzilla-sized imprint. Half of Kane County is taken up by the monument. In 

Garfield, 98 percent of the land is federally owned. 

The preservation of public lands in Utah is always a familiar issue. I grew up in 

southern Utah, where all of our national parks and both of these monuments are 

located. No one in this country can love those lands more than those of us who live 

there. These places are vast and beautiful. They symbolize America and define 

Utah. They are home. But we also have to honor the processes and laws that guarantee ultimate stewardship and effective management. 

In Utah, we seek out new and better ways to work with the Federal Government 

in the planning and administration of these lands. Governors and local officials 

build relationships, forge partnerships and lay the groundwork for interagency cooperation. This is one reason the Grand Staircase designation caused shock and outrage. It was inconceivable that someone entrusted to the highest office of the United 

States would be willing to undertake a process that was purely partisan on a matter 

of such importance. 

I’ll remind you of how it transpired. President Clinton announced creation of the 

monument on September 18, 1996. The first reports of it that I or any other elected 

official in the state received came just 11 days earlier from a story in The 

Washington Post. 

This kicked off days of phone calls, conversations, delays, and denials by the 

White House and Interior Department. Secretary Bruce Babbitt said his department 

was not involved. The White House’s director of intergovernmental affairs told me 

they weren’t certain where the report came from. I asked for a meeting with 

President Clinton or Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and was given one a week later 

on September 17, one day before the still undisclosed monument announcement. 

Media reports, meanwhile were indicating that an important environmental announcement was planned at the Grand Canyon the following week. When we inquired directly of the administration about the time, place, and subject, they would 

16 

not even confirm an event would occur. Local governments in Utah were becoming 

more and more concerned. On two other occasions that week I had conversations 

with Mr. Babbitt or his office. They continued to indicate that they had no information, insisting that the matter was being handled by the White House. When we 

called the White House, we were referred to Interior. 

Phone calls and meetings with local officials continued through the weekend, and 

we were still being told that ‘‘no decision had been made.’’ On Monday September 

16, 1996, the Governor’s office could still not get confirmation of where or what the 

official announcement would be, despite the fact that buses were being organized 

to take Utahns to Arizona. I traveled to Washington for the Panetta meeting. That 

meeting lasted just under an hour. Mr. Panetta was attentive and gracious. He told 

me that was the first time he had been able to focus on the issue and that he had 

set aside the afternoon to prepare a recommendation to the President. 

I reviewed for him the Canyons of the Escalante Eco-region proposal, a new model 

of land designation that incorporated the requirements of all the others and tailored 

the correct land use to specific land parcels. It matched up with the contours of the 

new Grand Staircase and had been previewed at least a year earlier to Secretary 

Babbitt. Ironically, the most pristine areas would have been afforded much more aggressive protection in that proposal than what was ultimately proposed. 

The bulk of the meeting, however, centered on the presence of school trust lands 

within the monument. These are lands scattered across Utah that derive revenues 

from energy, mineral resource development, grazing and timber production. The 

monies flow to a permanent endowment created at statehood to support public education. Prior to that discussion—and this is the day before the announcement—Mr. 

Panetta had been unaware of those lands’ existence and the importance they held 

for the school children of our state. 

At the end of the presentation, Mr. Panetta told me I had made a compelling case. 

To which I replied, ‘‘If this is compelling to you, then before the President sets aside 

a piece of land equal to Rhode Island, Delaware, and Washington, DC, combined, 

he needs to hear the same information directly from the governor of the state.’’ I 

was told Mr. Clinton was campaigning in Illinois and Michigan, but he would call 

me later in the evening. 

At 1:58 a.m. on September 18, I got the call, and we talked for 30 minutes. The 

President said he was just then beginning to review the matter. I restated the 

points raised with Mr. Panetta and offered to put them into a memo the President 

could read in the morning. This was before laptops and smart phones, so I sat at 

the hotel desk and wrote three pages by hand, then faxed it to the President at his 

hotel at 4:30 a.m. 

The memo said that if a monument was going to be created, the President should 

create a commission that included state and local government officials to recommend boundaries and solve a number of management questions. It stated that 

it should work toward a policy that protects the land, preserves the assets and 

maintains the integrity of the public process. 

Several hours later, I spoke again with Mr. Panetta, who said my ideas had merit 

and that he would be reviewing this again with the President. Later in the morning, 

he informed me that the monument would be announced and said some of my 

suggestions on water, wildlife access, and a planning process with local and state 

participation were being incorporated. 

I was back in Salt Lake City at the Capitol when the announcement was made 

at the north rim of the Grand Canyon—in Arizona. As governor, I had never seen 

a map, read the proclamation or been invited. Simple courtesies were never the 

issue. The issue was process and public trust. It’s hard to believe this was how such 

a decision could be made by the executive branch of the U.S. Government. 

Grand Staircase was a major land decision, still one of the biggest in the United 

States. It was not made the way public lands decisions should or were ever intended 

to be made. In 1976, the Nation made an important public policy decision when 

Congress passed the landmark Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

It required great deliberation and careful process in determining how public lands 

would be used. That Act and other related legislation contains protections for state 

and local communities. It was the policy of my administration then to assure that 

our state was not denied those protections, to defend Utah’s interest against abuses 

of power, and to seek additional protections when existing measures proved 

inadequate. 

Use of the Antiquities Act to create Grand Staircase was a clear example of inadequate protection. Our system of government was constructed to prevent one person 

from having that much power without checks or balances from another source. 

The Antiquities Act was originally intended to provide emergency power to protect 

Indian artifacts and objects of historic and scientific importance, not to create 

17 

sweeping monuments of a million-plus acres, with minimal regard for the relationship between the land and the local economy. In southern Utah, both Grand 

Staircase and Bears Ears individually are larger in size than our five national parks 

combined. 

Using the Antiquities Act also has another downside. What one president can do 

with a pen, a phone, and a podium at the north rim, another can undo or unravel. 

Congressional action, had it not been pre-empted by executive over-reach, would 

have required more time and debate. It also would have provided a solid, enduring 

foundation. 

In the ensuing months, we pressed forward with the administration on our objectives for the monument. We reached agreement on the management plan, and it 

was better because of the state’s involvement. 

Two years later, we signed an agreement for a historic land swap: the state exchanged 370,000 acres of trust lands within Federal holdings for 140,000 acres of 

Federal land and leases for coal and natural gas and $50 million in cash. 

In future years, I served in the Cabinet of the George W. Bush administration, 

first as EPA Administrator and then Health and Human Services Secretary. For 

nearly 6 years there, I saw how important decisions should be made in the White 

House. Nothing ever rivaled the abuse of power and questionable ethics of the 

Grand Staircase episode. 

More was uncovered in time, sometimes under subpoena, about the undemocratic 

process that occurred—and also about monument impacts and competing values. 

The obsessive secrecy was documented multiple times: once in a letter from 

Interior Department Solicitor John Leshy to the Colorado professor who drafted the 

proclamation. Leshy stated, ‘‘I can’t emphasize confidentiality too much. If word 

leaks out, it probably won’t happen, so take care.’’ Another time it was reinforced 

in a memo from the Council on Environmental Quality Director, Kathleen McGinty, 

to another official at the White House. That one stated warned that ‘‘any public 

release of the information will probably foreclose the President’s option to proceed.’’ 

Mr. Panetta and President Clinton both indicated at the time that they did not 

like how it all unfolded, but felt that the momentum of the event had swept things 

irrevocably forward. 

I believe with considerable certainty that the monument originated at the Department of the Interior, working closely with national environmental groups. The proposal was given to CEQ to manage. I’m confident that Mr. Panetta and the 

President liked the idea of creating a national monument, but I suspect the 

presidential campaign and environmental organizations clearly took over the 

process. 

Somebody got worried that the White House might start asking questions and 

delay the event, so they leaked the monument proposal to The Washington Post, making it impossible for them to back out. The fact that it was sprung as a surprise, 

even after being denied all week was morally wrong. The fact that the White House 

discussed it with the governors of other states, but not Utah was a clear indication 

of the political nature. 

Some additional mindsets and methodologies were revealed in more recent recollections of staff members who gave oral histories for college libraries. Those included 

statements that locking up coal reserves in the monument was the primary motivation, and that the administration could have used litigation to squeeze out leaseholding coal companies without paying them, but made deals out of fairness. 

There was speculation about the future of coal. Solicitor Leshy stated in 2014 that 

half the coal-fired plants in the country were shutting down, and ‘‘coal is on its way 

out.’’ He described southern Utah’s interest in coal development as shortsighted, and 

surmised that the monument payout gave Andalex—the company with the EIS 

proceeding for its lease on the Kaiparowits—an excuse to ‘‘basically beat a retreat.’’ 

With a straight face I imagine, he also lamented that the atmosphere in Congress 

surrounding the Antiquities Act had become so partisan and assessed that Grand 

Staircase was the formal end to the region’s ‘‘dream’’ of a heavy industry economy 

and the turning point to a future based on recreation and tourism. Good to know. 

There was a revelation that in drawing up the monument boundaries, a drafter 

called a friend who had worked at the Grand Canyon Trust to help set the southern 

border. And in a candid reflection, U.S. Geological Survey biologist Jayne Belnap, 

who helped craft the monument, suggested that most people likely believe it is God’s 

will that land be taken care of, but then dialogue falls apart when it comes to defining what caring for the land truly means. 

The Sand Flats Recreation Area near Moab, she said, was ‘‘killed off’’ by mountain 

bikers, not ranching and grazing, and there was no prevailing on bicyclists to acknowledge otherwise. As she put it, ‘‘I watched it several times, people riding everywhere making a mess. I tried to talk to some of them about it and they were the 

18 

most arrogant . . . ‘I am a well-educated environmentalist who sends my money to 

Sierra Club. You have nothing to tell me.’ I would way rather deal with a rancher, 

frankly.’’ It’s all about the construct and point of view. 

One other e-mail that surfaced a year after the monument designation was starkly prescient. Written by an associate director of the CEQ, it noted that presidents 

before Mr. Clinton ‘‘have not used their monument designation authority in this way 

in the past—only for large dramatic parcels that are threatened. The bad guys— 

her words—will have the chance to suggest that this administration could use this 

authority all the time all over the country and start to argue that the discretion 

is too broad.’’ 

Twenty years later, by the end of 8 years in office, President Obama had used 

the Antiquities Act 34 times to lock up more than 553 million acres of land and 

water as national monuments—66 percent of the total ever designated as a national 

monument under the Act. It was more than any other administration in history. 

To my knowledge, neither president has ever set foot in Grand Staircase or Bears 

Ears. Yet the proponents of their unilateral actions always maintain that the people 

who live in these areas will come around and learn to love the monuments. What 

they never seem to comprehend is that we always did. 

The opportunity now lies with Congress to protect and set apart the places in 

Utah that deserve it, to consider what the lands mean to those who live on them 

as well as those who visit, to apply the law as designed and assert its proper 

authority in establishing the best fit for Utah and all of America. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the Honorable Leland 

Pollock, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners from Garfield 

County, Utah. He comes to us today from Panguitch, Utah. 

Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LELAND POLLOCK, 

COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH 

Mr. POLLOCK. Good morning. My name is Leland Pollock. I am 

a Garfield County Commissioner. I am also a lifetime resident of 

Garfield County. 

One of the best places on this planet is Garfield County. And 

very frankly, I am tired of all of the propaganda, 21 years of stories 

about the Grand Staircase that are not true, so I am glad that you 

all are giving me an opportunity to come back here to tell the 

truth. And anybody today that doesn’t believe what I have to say, 

come on out, I will take you around. It will take us, I mean, they 

have said 1.7 million acres, it is about 2 million acres, after all the 

state trust lands and everything were consumed by this process 

within the boundaries of the Grand Staircase, you are talking 2 

million acres of land. 

To put this into perspective, Garfield County is the size of 

Connecticut. Ninety-three percent of my county is Federal lands, 

31⁄2 percent state, 31⁄2 percent private. So, from a county perspective, and if you have ever tried to do taxes and tried to collect 

revenue, just put that into perspective how hard it would be to 

manage a county. But that is not the point. The point of the matter 

is there have been negative impacts. 

Number one, school enrollment in the little town of Escalante, 

prior to the Grand Staircase, was 150 children, 7th through 12th 

grade. That was the school enrollment, 150. Congressman Stewart 

brought up the state of emergency. We didn’t make that up. The 

County commissioners didn’t do that. We did that at the request 

19 

of the school district, because the school enrollment numbers had 

dropped to 51 children, 7th through 12th grade. Everybody here 

that is listening knows how hard that would be to educate 51 

children, 7th through 12th grade. 

So, if all of this economic benefit that has been talked about is 

true, why did the school enrollment drop? Well, Number one, it is 

pretty obvious, all the traditional uses of all that land were taken 

away from us. 

Now, I would like to make another point. Probably 20 percent of 

that monument is visited. I don’t doubt that. I applaud the fact you 

are trying to do something with that, say, 20 percent. But 80 

percent of the land mass—if you don’t believe me come on out, we 

will go out—a lot of it, the roads have been closed, but it is just 

BLM rangeland like you will find anywhere in the western United 

States. And I am sorry, people are not going to travel from all over 

the world to look at sagebrush and regular BLM rangeland. There 

is no tourism value. 

Why is that the case? Because it was tied up for political reasons. 

It was tied up to stop coal mining. It was tied up to limit and prohibit the traditional grazing practices. As far as grazing goes, there 

has been a story that no AUMs have been cut, animal unit months. 

Animals on the ground, basically, is what it is. That is not true. 

Those AUMs have been suspended. That means you cannot run 

them on the land. Why have they been suspended? Because we 

have not been able to do actual range recovery projects. We have 

not been able to maintain the land. 

On western land in 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act—that is what 

created the BLM, the way I understand it—was created to do recovery projects. Now, on all this BLM land that is still BLM monument, there have been no recovery projects. Water sources have 

dried up. That does not just hurt cattle, that hurts mule deer, big 

horn sheep. It hurts the land, soil erosion problems, all kinds of 

evasive/invasive weed problems, pinyon and juniper encroachment. 

Western land has to be maintained. I am sorry. I know there are 

radical environmentalists, so-called environmentalists that say, oh, 

no, just leave it alone. You cannot do that with BLM land. That 

is why the BLM was created. 

In closing, I applaud this effort, and I just ask you, please look 

at all the facts. Don’t get wound up about political agendas, just 

look at the facts. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pollock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LELAND F. POLLOCK, COMMISSIONER, 

GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, my 

name is Leland Pollock, and I am the chairman of the Garfield County, Utah 

Commission. I also serve as chairman of the National Association of Counties Public 

Lands Committee and have formerly served as the Chairman of the Utah Association of Counties Public Land Steering Committee. I am also the son of a Park 

Service employee and literally grew up within the boundaries of Bryce Canyon 

National Park. I have lived on and around public lands my entire life, and understand their importance to the local communities and the Nation as a whole. Based 

on a lifetime of experience with public lands and National Parks, I believe I am informed and can accurately testify before you today. 

20 

Garfield County is a scenic rural area roughly the size of Connecticut. Ninetythree percent of the land base is under Federal ownership, and I believe we are the 

only U.S. county that contains portions of three National Parks (Bryce Canyon, 

Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands). We are also home to significant portions of the 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, the Dixie National Forest, the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM or Monument), two BLM field offices, and a small segment of the Fish Lake National Forest. Private ownership is 

extremely limited, and is only 3 percent to 5 percent of the total land base. On that 

limited tax base Garfield County is responsible for schools, road maintenance, garbage collection, emergency medical services, law enforcement, search and rescue, 

and a host of other public services. Garfield County, like Kane County, is responsible for the liabilities on millions of acres of Federal land within their boundaries, 

without a voice in how those lands are managed. 

I am here today to testify on local needs of Garfield County for the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the Escalante Canyons National Park 

proposed by Representative Chris Stewart. Public lands, monuments, and parks are 

a wonderful thing. The basic premise of preserving outstanding resources for the enjoyment of current and future generations is honorable. The BLM and Park Service 

have developed wonderful skills at managing people while preserving resources. 

Unfortunately, over the past few decades, enjoyment of public land and park resources by current generations has suffered at the hands of those who believe 

Federal lands should be managed to lock people out and prohibit reasonable visitation and access. It has suffered by a misguided notion that the best management 

comes from agency heads that are significantly influenced by special interests and 

political lobbying. For the past 21 years Garfield County has been forgotten by 

Federal managers thousands of miles away who do not understand the impact the 

Monument has had on the lives of real people in southern Utah. As a County 

Commissioner I must speak up for those forgotten families, forgotten stewards of 

the land, forgotten hunters, ranchers, and tourists, those who are clinging to a life 

they once knew and that could be restored if those people had a voice that was 

heard in Washington, DC. 

The proposed Escalante Canyons National Park and the various units of the 

GSENM, to be of any significant benefit to anyone, must be managed (a) largely 

under the direction and guidance of local elected officials who best know and understand the resources, and (b) to accommodate a variety of the American public by 

becoming ‘‘people places.’’ They must be places that allow the current generation to 

enjoy and appreciate the great wonders of the area, while preserving the resources 

for future generations. 

Garfield County has the skills, technical knowledge, and ability to accomplish 

these two tasks simultaneously: (1) facilitate and allow the enjoyment of Garfield 

County’s outstanding resources by the current generation; and (2) preserve our outstanding resources for future generations. These are not mutually exclusive management goals. The local people had accomplished those multiple use/sustained yield 

goals for over 100 years prior to the designation in 1996. Unfortunately, many individuals and groups create conflict and promote exclusive, single-use designations for 

the purpose of restricting public access to public lands. 

MONUMENT EFFECTS

President Clinton’s monument designation 21 years ago started a suffocation of 

Garfield County. While no single industry felt an instant fatal blow, the effect of 

the restrictions cumulatively was death by a thousand cuts. 

Socio-economic Deficiencies 

Prior to 1996 Garfield County was a growing economy and population. For approximately 120 years multiple-use land-based industries that sustainably and 

reasonably used public lands surrounding Escalante supported the families of that 

community. With severe monument restrictions on that land, businesses started 

closing and young families were forced to move to metropolitan areas to find employment. That exodus caused a self-perpetuating effect in all industries that now 

had a dwindling customer base. This economic shrinking has continued for 21 years. 

The tourism jobs that were promised were never realized, as the monument has 

never been managed for tourism and access to visit the incredible sights, but rather 

for limited recreation and more like a conservation area. The few jobs that outfitting 

and recreation guiding did bring are seasonal and low wage; more suited for college 

students in the summer than for a living wage to support a family year-round. 

Nationally, 10.5 percent of the economy is made up from service industries. In 

Garfield County tourism and service industries (and it is usually the low end jobs 

from those industries) comprise approximately 44 percent of the local economy. 

21 

Attached is a chart showing the seasonality of Garfield County employment 

compared to two nearby communities and the state of Utah. All other effects stem 

from a struggling local economy hobbled by over-burdensome land restrictions. 

Please also note, some will attempt to mislead you into believing the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument has been a great economic boon to Garfield 

County. They often cite an economic study produced by Headwaters Economics. That 

study draws its data from communities that are hundreds of times larger than 

Garfield County, such as the Phoenix metropolitan area, and the area designated 

for monuments is 5 percent to 10 percent of that designated for Garfield County. 

The study also includes the largest community in southern Utah in the analysis, 

even though it is two counties (over 100 miles) away and on the other side of Zion 

National Park and Bryce Canyon National Park. 

Loss of School Kids and Families 

Since creation of GSENM in 1996 enrollment in the 7th through 12th grades of 

Escalante High School has dropped from over 150 students to less than 50 today. 

That is a loss of more than 66 percent. We would not permit the loss of two-thirds 

of the juveniles in any species on this planet. But yet, we manage our public lands 

that completely surround the communities in Garfield County in a manner that results in that very same loss. Only in this instance, we’re talking about people, families, and human lives. Even when classes are available, the quality of education 

with only a few students per class, without sufficient student/social interaction, suffers compared to an energetic class of 15–20 students discussing and sharing diverse 

viewpoints. The situation became so unbearable that in 2016 the County was forced 

to issue an emergency declaration. 

Increased Burdens on Local Governments 

Garfield County has tremendous scenery. Creation of the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument brought attention to that scenery and required 

increased local government services in the form of road maintenance, law enforcement, search and rescue, and other services. For example: The Hole in the Rock 

Road, a route originally traveled by pioneers in 1879, has increased approximately 

2,000 percent since 1996. However, the Monument Management Plan, written and 

controlled by agency heads without accepting local input, prohibits improvements to 

the road. That means Garfield County cannot install culverts or drainage improvements to accommodate floods which leads to poor road quality and increased automobile incidents not equipped to handle the rough roads. The BLM and Park 

Service then repeatedly call our road crews out in the middle of the night—risking 

our lives—to rescue trapped and stranded visitors. Here again, local elected officials 

have the information and experience to correctly manage problems, and agency 

heads in Washington, DC are unfamiliar with the territory. 

Similarly, utility corridors, well established prior to the Monument designation, 

have been severely restricted by poor management without local input. Garfield and 

Kane Counties have been limited in expanding fiber optic connectivity for internet 

and cell towers because of management restrictions within already prescribed utility 

corridors. Beside the economic potential that connectivity would provide, the lack of 

adequate cell reception has created a safety issue that could often be prevented by 

stranded visitors being able to call for help or use mobile-based navigation. 

That same utility corridor restriction caused an emergency in the town of 

Henrieville which was not permitted to access its water lines for repair in the 

Monument and suffered a catastrophic collapse of its entire water system. Tens of 

thousands of gallons of water for drinking only was hauled to the city at great expense over a week until the right to access the lines was allowed by Monument 

management. 

Lack of Adequate Signing 

The same Monument Management Plan prohibits guidance signing in approximately 94 percent of GSENM. People on even the most popular hikes are frequently 

lost; and in July of this year we had another death on the trail to the second most 

popular hike in the Monument because the hiker could not find the trail back to 

his car. Most of the consequences of poor management are preventable with proper 

simple signage. However, the expense for poor management is passed on to Garfield 

County when called for search and rescue, medical, and law enforcement services. 

Loss of Artifacts and Objects of Antiquity 

One of the great ironies of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is 

collection of artifacts and souvenirs. The Monument Management Plan prohibits 

any rock or artifact removal, including for the Monument itself for use in display 

purposes in the visitor center because the visitor center is located in Canonville 

22 

Town, outside monument boundaries. However the Management Plan allows 

universities and museums to come to Garfield County, extract and raid our worldclass archaeological and paleontological artifacts and take them out of the County 

with no remuneration and without any local hope of their return. If the landscapes 

are unique to the area, and worthy of visitors coming to experience them here, the 

unique paleontological and archeological resources are equally impressive and researchers should come to Garfield County to experience them. Federal agencies have 

long promised, in accordance with scientific protections of the Antiquities Act, to 

make the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument a science monument with 

a science research center and on-site university classes, but for 21 years those promises have never been fulfilled. 

Closing the Monument to Visitors 

A 1.9 million acre Monument should be large enough to accommodate many 

visitors. However, the Management Plan, written without genuine local input, 

severely restricts visitation in almost all parts of GSENM. In two-thirds of the 

Monument many small groups of friends or family cannot legally visit together because they will be over the 12 person limit. In 94 percent of the monument family 

reunions or scout camp-outs are illegal because of the 25 person limit. In the front 

country designation it is a violation to collect dead and down firewood, so families 

cannot roast marshmallows or hot dogs unless they bring their own firewood. The 

monument management plan is written to keep people out rather than accommodate reasonable visitation and allow the public to enjoy the area in a reasonable 

manner. These explicit rules also restrict historic religious and cultural heritage 

events, which were supposed to be grandfathered into the Monument Plan, but the 

Harvey rule precluded that use. 

Much of that closing to visitation is implicit. A purposeful lack of most infrastructure discourages the vast majority of Americans from enjoyment of these public 

lands. The second most popular destination, the Peekaboo and Spooky trails, lack 

any restroom facilities, and the trailhead and parking area is covered in trash and 

human waste by more than 20,000 annual visitors leaving a health hazard and 

stench. Another popular religious and cultural attraction, Dance Hall Rock, finally 

received a restroom, the only restroom in over 40 miles of popular attractions, only 

after 19 years of persistent requests. 

Wildlife Habitat Recovery and Livestock Grazing 

The Monument has historically been a coveted hunting ground for mule deer and 

other species. Wildlife benefited greatly from livestock producers who maintained 

vegetative quality and water sources for livestock and wildlife alike. While livestock 

grazing was guaranteed by the 1996 designation, Monument management decisions 

to not allow habitat recovery projects or for equipment use for water source maintenance that naturally erode over time, has severely limited livestock producers and 

their livelihood. Monument management repeatedly cite that few livestock numbers 

have been permanently reduced, but in reality over a third of the guaranteed AUMs 

have been ‘‘permanently suspended’’ due to dwindling grazing conditions on the 

ground. Monument management does not need to cut AUMs from livestock grazing, 

the ranchers will be forced to do it themselves because there will not be anything 

on the ground for their livestock, or the wildlife, to eat. 

The effect of that restriction has also impacted wildlife, including critical mule 

deer migratory corridors. This wildlife decline has impacted the local population as 

well as sportsmen across the intermountain region who have historically relied on 

southern Utah as a premier hunting destination. Without the habitat recovery 

projects carried out on public lands across the West, all animals suffer. 

FUTURE SOLUTIONS

These are just few of the real-life problems that have occurred because local elected officials were not given any voice in managing lands within their jurisdiction. 

Admittedly, Federal officials provided lip-service, held open houses, and requested 

comments in the Federal Register. However none of the local input was adopted into 

the plan. While a historic view of the effect of poor management could continue, I 

prefer to focus on solutions for the future to better accomplish the dual goals of enjoying and using the land now, and preserving the resources for future generations. 

Congressman Stewart’s legislation for Garfield County, Canyons of the Escalante 

National Park, and the units of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 

will provide a balance between Federal management and local input and establishes 

a platform to best accomplish those dual goals. 

Primarily the proposed legislation will better place public lands in public hands 

again. Critical to that aim is the distinction between tourism and recreation. 

23 

Tourism is conducted by larger groups of people and is generally attraction based. 

Tourists come prepared for a specific set of activities and are looking for a specific 

set of outcomes, locations, schedules, or accommodations. Many details and other aspects of their experience may be handled by others. The presence of other individuals participating in the same activity is accepted and sometimes welcomed. 

Frequently tour buses, shuttles, paved roads and trails, trams, and other facilities 

for transporting people to various places are used. 

Quite differently, recreation is most generally self-directed and involves much 

smaller numbers of people, possibly only one or two individuals. The presence of 

others participating in the same activity, at the same time in the same place is unwanted and unaccepted. Often, facilities are not required or are even shunned. In 

parks and monuments where tourism and recreation are both accommodated (e.g. 

Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks) recreation makes up a very small percentage of the visitors, generally less than 5 percent to 10 percent. 

The more heavily visited areas of Zion and Park Bryce Canyon National Parks 

are examples of tourism and represent people parks/monuments/public lands. The 

remote areas of Capitol Reef National Park and the Maze District of Canyonlands 

National Park are example of land base parks. It should be noted that even people 

parks like Bryce and Zion use a relatively small percentage of their lands to accommodate the vast majority of their visitors, and recreationists are able to enjoy the 

majority of the land in solitude that most tourists will never try to visit. A key distinction is also that people parks/monuments accommodate both tourism and recreation. Land base parks/monuments only accommodate recreation. Hence, land based 

parks have a much smaller visitation and a much higher per visitor cost than people 

parks. 

In order for the Grand Staircase-Escalante area to fully benefit the American 

public it needs to maximize the value to both tourists and recreationists, while at 

the same time preserving the attractions, heritage, scenery, activities, and resources 

that justified the designation in the first place. Time and space are insufficient to 

discuss all aspects of managing the public lands in the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

area, but summarized below are some of the most important aspects that need to 

become foundational management principles. 

Access 

In order for the Grand Staircase-Escalante lands to be a benefit to the American 

public, access needs to be provided for tourism and for recreation. For the past 20 

years access in the GSENM has been woefully inadequate. It is the main source of 

conflict between the Federal Government and the state of Utah and its counties. 

Even remote access roads throughout the Monument have been repeatedly restricted and closed throughout the 21-year history. On the current trajectory there 

will not be any motorized access inside the monument in another 21 years. 

Generally, the Grand Staircase-Escalante area is bounded on the south and west by 

U.S. 89 and on the north by State Highway 12; an All-American highway. Other 

than those two state highways, paved roads in the monument are limited to 14 

miles of the Burr Trail Road, a short section of Kodachrome Road from the town 

of Cannonville to Kodachrome Basin State Park, and a few miles of Johnson Canyon 

Road through private land in Kane County. Hole in the Rock road, the most heavily 

used road in the interior of the monument, has management plan prohibitions 

against reasonable improvements. In order to make the entire area work for the 

public, access must be improved, roads must be reliable, and infrastructure supporting recreation and tourism must be developed. Many of the search and rescue 

efforts could be prevented with better road access and signage on those roads so 

visitors know what their vehicle is suited to and where they should avoid. 

Associated with such improvements are adequate rights-of-way along the existing 

roads and trails. The rights-of-way need to include sufficient width to accommodate 

turnouts, overlooks, bus turnarounds, rest stops, restrooms, bike lanes, interpretive 

areas, and other features normally found in national parks and monuments. It is 

estimated that a width of 330 feet on each side of state highways or county road 

centerline would be sufficient for all major collectors and arterials. For local roads 

and resource roads a width of 165 feet on each side of centerline would be generally 

adequate with provisions in specific instances to increase to the 330 foot width identified for larger transportation facilities. 

Attractions 

There are numerous spectacular natural attractions along the existing county 

roads and state highways. Many more attractions exist within walking distance 

from major transportation facilities. However, the current monument management 

24 

plan prohibits the development of pathways, trails, and facilities that will accommodate visitors and especially Americans with disabilities. 

Adequate flexibility needs to be provided, so as attractions are identified, they can 

be accessed by those desiring to participate in tourism-based activities. More remote 

attractions which require knowledge of the backcountry, technical skills, or strenuous efforts can be reserved for those individuals and groups that desire to participate in less developed recreation oriented activities. The area is more than large 

enough to easily accommodate both without competition. 

Community Development 

It is recognized that development of tourism related facilities is best located in 

communities adjacent to parks and monuments and not on public lands. Tourism 

related facilities accommodating a large number of people, large developed campgrounds, eating facilities, and other convenience based infrastructure should be located on private lands within towns and communities. Facility development within 

the parks and monuments should be limited and relatively primitive. Campgrounds 

should not compete with local businesses. Concessionaires and tours should be 

housed primarily in nearby communities, parking areas should be adjacent to 

county roads and trails, and local communities should be sustained in every manner 

possible. Likewise, employee housing, as much as possible, should be included in the 

communities so that park and monument employees become integrated into the 

communities where they live to develop relationships with the local residents and 

better understand the relationship between Federal lands and local populations. 

Scenery 

Visitor use surveys conducted by various Federal agencies indicate motorized 

recreation for viewing of scenery and pleasure is the dominant recreational activity 

on public lands in Garfield County. The scenery is what draws people to the area. 

State highways and county roads need to be augmented with adequate turnouts, 

viewpoints, and parking areas. Rest stops need to be carefully placed, so viewing 

may be maximized and safety ensured. Wherever possible, such parking facilities 

should also be tied to attractions, interpretive sites, and points of interest. 

Traditional Uses 

One of the major problems with the creation of the Monument in 1996 was subsequent management attempted to curtail or eliminate traditional activities that have 

occurred in the area since settlement. Hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, rock 

hounding, backpacking, canyoneering, mountain bike riding, ATV use (limited to existing roads), and other activities that have been going on for half a century need 

to be authorized and continued. Significant work has been done by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and others to restore various wildlife habitats and populations. Wildlife management is a significant aspect of UDWR’s 

program and must continue to be managed by the state of Utah. Proper wildlife 

management, hunting, and fishing within Federal designations must continue to be 

under the jurisdiction of the state of Utah and needs to be supportive of local values 

and interests. The Monument must be able to work better with UDWR and other 

wildlife organization to enhance and restore critical wildlife habitat and ensure that 

hunting those areas, as well as other traditional uses, will continue in perpetuity. 

Domestic Livestock Grazing 

Domestic livestock grazing is a critical part of the local heritage and continues 

to be a significant economic driver. It is engrained and entwined in our way of life 

and culture and is under constant threat from outside special interests. As a County 

Commissioner, I seek a voice for the quiet rancher working tirelessly to provide for 

his family as many previous generations did before him. Currently that rancher is 

not sure whether he will be able to continue ranching, what future monument 

boundary changes will mean for his family and heritage, or whether there will even 

be a resource to graze. Those families need certainty in the future from Congress. 

Livestock grazing must be continued and enhanced through reasonable and sustainable vegetative and water projects in perpetuity to guarantee this part of our 

heritage in the American West is not lost. 

Hiking and Camping 

Hiking and camping activities need to be supported through development of appropriate facilities. As these activities get increasingly remote, the facilities can be 

reduced accordingly. However signing needs to be available at all popular hikes and 

should be developed in a manner that is conducive to the activities. There must always be adequate information available, so someone who is lost or having trouble 

will have an opportunity to receive the support they need. 

25 

Scientific Research and Museum 

Garfield County views the loss of scientific resources (archeological and paleontological) as an extraction industry that has resulted in a loss to the local area. High 

on Garfield County’s list of needs is Scientific Research and a Museum. The science 

industry is a clean technology that would provide valuable jobs, a critical element 

to a diversified economy, and other benefits to areas that are losing valuable archeological and paleontological artifacts. The state of Utah, Garfield County, public entities, and private enterprise are engaged in an effort to develop a human history 

museum in Escalante. It is partially complete; and preliminary plans are designed 

to accommodate Federal participation in the scientific research and the curation of 

artifacts. Archeological and paleontological specimens collected from Kane and 

Garfield Counties should remain here, and the scientific research associated with 

them should also be conducted here. Colleges in Utah have partnered with Bryce 

Canyon National Park to provide joint educational opportunities connected with 

college degree programs. Those efforts should be expanded to include the communities and schools in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Canyons area. Kane and 

Garfield Counties could become science hubs of unique resources and bolster the scientific and educational opportunities not usually provided rural counties. However, 

these endeavors are only guaranteed through local input in the management of 

those resources as Federal management has been ineffective thus far. 

Consistency, Cooperation and Coordination 

Garfield County recognizes great value in consistency, cooperation, and coordination between the various levels of our Nation’s governments. Garfield County 

desires to be fully engaged in the planning and development phase for the modified 

monument and adjacent lands. Garfield County has gone to significant effort to educate itself regarding Federal processes associated with CEQ regulations, NEPA, 

FLPMA, and Park Service regulations and guidance. We believe the County is in 

a position to be a cooperating agency and valuable resource on every plan or project 

proposed by the Federal Government. Additionally, we believe, in many instances, 

we are ideally suited to serve as a joint lead agency, especially where the facilities 

either impact or are maintained by Garfield County. This is certainly true for the 

transportation network which is entirely maintained by Garfield County. It is also 

true for those activities that involve search and rescue, law enforcement, emergency 

medical services, solid waste collection and disposal, water quality governed by the 

Clean Water Act, and air-quality governed under the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. Management plans for monuments and parks are best developed in cooperation 

and coordination with local elected officials, and FLPMA mandates that Federal 

plans be consistent with state and local plans to the maximum extent allowed by 

law. That has not happened in the last 20 years and nothing but conflict is the obvious result. Local elected officials must have a meaningful seat at the table throughout the planning and development process and must be full partners with local 

agency executives in the development and implementation of resource management 

plans. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 4558 best provides for the best management of the incredible beauty and resources located in Garfield and Kane Counties. Through local input working in 

cooperation with Federal land managers, we can achieve the goals of enjoyment and 

use of the land now and preservation of these lands for future generations of all 

Americans, not just a select few. Only the principles in this legislation allow us to 

return these public lands back to public hands. 

There will be some who criticize this testimony and attempt to pick it apart word 

by word. Admittedly, I am not the most eloquent of individuals in verbal or written 

presentations. However, I can assure you, my sincerity cannot be questioned. 

Local elected officials know the land best, know what their constituents need, and 

know how to best serve the visiting public while preserving the resources that 

brought them to our area in the first place. And we have skin in the game. We will 

be here long after Federal officials are transferred and the visitors return home. We 

will live—and die—with the management decisions that are made. We should have 

representation in those decisions. 

There is adequate room in the concepts I have presented for improvement. Things 

may need to be altered, changed, and modified. But there is no fault in local elected 

officials having a say in what happens within their jurisdiction; and there is no deficiency in our ability to solve differences if we want to. There is adequate acreage 

for a variety of experiences; there are adequate resources; there are technical skills 

that can be employed; there are a host of management structures that can be used; 

26 

and importantly, Mother Nature has the ability to assist us and correct our minor 

flaws. But even she cannot help us if groups or individuals focus on exclusion and 

conflict rather than solutions. And she smiles on those industrious local officials 

that do their best to cooperate with her and preserve her resources for current and 

future generations. 

We are hopeful that, after careful consideration, Congress will take appropriate 

steps to make Garfield County’s lands more available to the public, better managed 

by including local management and more supportive of local and national socioeconomic needs, by quickly passing this bill with bi-partisan support, showing 

Garfield County that Congress has no longer forgotten them. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking today. 

Exhibit 1: A chart of Garfield County school enrollment depicting the period of time 

the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has been in existence. Please 

note, it has not broken out the Escalante High School enrollment. Had that specific 

school been shown separately, you would notice more pronounced impacts that are 

shown on Exhibit 1. We can provide that data as needed. 


27856.001.eps
27 

Exhibit 2: A graph depicting unemployment figures from Garfield County with those 

from Cedar City, Utah and St. George, Utah. 

Among the permanent workforce, about one person in six will be unemployed in January 

every year. 

While Garfield County unemployment dropped below the regional and state averages in the 

summer months during the early years of the Great Recession, it exceeds those areas in recent 

years. 

***** 

ATTACHMENT 1 

The following information is provided to augment testimony provided at the 

hearing of December 14, 2017 for the Grand Staircase-Escalante Enhancement Act 

1. Visitation statistics for areas near Willow Canyon Outdoor Company, Kanab 

Utah 

2. Testimony was provided indicating GSENM visitation at the visitor’s centers 

was approximately 1 million visitors per year. The visitor’s centers for the GSENM 

are located primarily in established communities outside the monument boundaries 

and are located along US-89 or State Highway 12. Visitation at these established 

facilities within municipal limits is not reflective of visitation within the Monument 

boundaries. The visitation figures at the visitor’s centers more accurately reflect 

motorists on US-89 and SR-12 that need to use the public restroom or want to take 

a short break from driving. 

Although Monument visitation figures are not highly reliable, GSENM staff indicate Lower Calf Creek Falls is the highest used area in the entire Monument and 

receives somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000 visitors per year. The second highest use area is Dry Fork with the Peekaboo and Spooky slot canyons. Visitation approximations indicate a combined total of only 22,000 visitors per year at the two 

sites. In other words, the total visitation at the two most popular sites in the 


27856.002.eps 27856.003.eps
28 

GSENM is less than 60,000 per year. Discounting drive through traffic on US-89, 

SR-12 and county maintained routes, it is unlikely total visitation in the GSENM 

exceeds 180,000 per year or 1/10th person per acre per year. Comparatively, visitation at Bryce Canyon National Park (which abuts the GSENM and is located in 

Garfield and Kane Counties) is more than 68 persons per acre per year— 

approximately 700 times more than the GSENM. 

3. A witness (Susan Hand) at the December 4, 2017 hearing indicated they did 

not desire to take their children hiking in an area where hunting was allowed. She 

then indicated they had gone hiking in Lower Calf Creek Falls in GSENM. It should 

be noted hunting is allowed in Lower Calf Creek Falls (except in the established 

campground) and has been an ongoing authorized use during the 20 years since the 

Clinton Proclamation in September 1996. It is authorized today under the President 

Trump modification; and it will not change with designation of a National Park 

proposed by the Stewart legislation. 

4. Ms. Hand also testified over 120 outfitters and guides hold permits on GSENM. 

She also testified, ‘‘Utah’s outdoor recreation provides 110 jobs that depend on protected public lands. It should be noted the witness did not testify that Kane and 

Garfield Counties had the 110 jobs. Those jobs were identified with the statewide 

economy and do not necessarily benefit the local economies of Kane and Garfield 

Counties. Also notable, Kane and Garfield Counties already house protected lands 

that make up approximately 90 percent of their land base. Nothing in the Stewart 

legislation prohibits continuation or expansion of the outfitter and guide business; 

and nothing prevents continued use of the lands by the 110 jobs. In fact, the 

Stewart legislation enhances such opportunities. 

5. Although visitation numbers are significantly less than several protected areas 

in and near Garfield County, Utah, road use and road maintenance needs have increased. For instance, Garfield County has been required to grade Hole in the Rock 

Road approximately 20 times per year in order to provide a suitable surface for passenger vehicles. The County has also been called out by BLM to rescue motorists 

stranded by floods. Yet, at the same time as road maintenance needs are increasing, 

the current Monument Management Plan prohibits any surface improvements to 

the county’s roads in the Monument. The Plan prohibits making access safer and 

more reliable—hardly management that protects the public interest. 

6. Representative Stewart’s proposed legislation recognizes Garfield and Kane 

Counties’ responsibility regarding Hole in the Rock Road. BLM’s Interior Board of 

Land Appeals (IBLA) recognized a similar responsibility in 1988. Exhibit 1 is a 

document in which IBLA recognizes the Hole in the Rock Road to be an RS 2477 

right-of-way. The recognition of Hole in the Rock Road as a County managed transportation facility is codification of previous BLM decisions. 

***** 

The following document was submitted with this supplement to Mr. Pollock’s 

testimony. This document is part of the hearing record and is being retained in the 

Committee’s official files: 

—Exhibit 1. August 17, 1988 IBLA Ruling 

29 

ATTACHMENT 2 

1. Mapping indicates Washington County Utah was included in the Headwaters 

study. Washington County, Utah is the only County in the study that does not contain a monument. The table below lists pertinent facts about the Headwaters 

counties. 

2. Mapping indicates Washington County is included in the Economic region impacted by the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Washington County 

has a population approximately 12 times that of Kane and Garfield Counties 

combined. So it is the dominant economic driver. 

3. Headwaters says. ‘‘Services industries that employ a wide range of people— 

from doctors and engineers to teachers and accountants—have driven economic 

growth and now make up the large majority of jobs, even in rural areas.’’ Service 

industries also employ motel maids, bus boys and dishwashers. In 1996 there were 

three engineers in Garfield County. Now there is one. 


27856.004.eps
30 

4. Income per capita has risen because the loss of children. Husband & wife at 

$48K each with 1 child was $32K per capita. 51 employees at $48K with 4 total 

kids is $44K per capita. 

5. From https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Escalante.pdf. 

‘‘Services jobs—such as doctors, engineers, and teachers—account for the 

majority of employment growth in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Region in 

recent decades. These jobs are increasingly mobile, and many entrepreneurs 

locate their businesses in areas with a high quality of life. 

From 1996 to 2008, in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Region: 

• Services grew from 3,627 to 5,749 jobs, a 59 percent increase 

• Non-Services shrank from 1,294 to 1,148 jobs, an 11 percent decrease’’ 

The summary indicates service jobs grew by 2,122 jobs. If doctors, engineers and 

teachers make up a majority that would mean at least 1,062 new doctors, engineers 

and teachers in Kane and Garfield Counties. Clearly the report is about Washington 

County. 


27856.005.eps
31 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Susan Hand, General Manager 

and Outdoor Goods Buyer for Willow Canyon Outdoor, from Kanab, 

Utah. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN HAND, GENERAL MANAGER AND 

OUTDOOR GOODS BUYER, WILLOW CANYON OUTDOOR 

Ms. HAND. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member 

Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity 

to testify. 

I am co-owner and manager of Willow Canyon Outdoor Company 

in Kanab, Utah. I am wildly passionate about the magnificent 

landscapes that comprise my homeland. But I came to talk to you 

about our local economy and how the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument has supported it over the last 21 years. 

I will start with an excerpt of an Op-Ed piece I wrote as the 

review of our national monument began. 

With my husband and two small children, I settled in Kanab in 

1994. We purchased a dilapidated commercial property three blocks 

from a humble downtown. On one side, a shuttered garage cradled 

decades of junk. On the other was an abandoned bakery. Old signs 

from long defunct enterprises stood like ghosts on either side of our 

dream. A herd of rusting cars grazed the lot behind ours. 

We stripped our small building to its bones, opening just in time 

for Christmas. We underestimated the challenge of business in this 

diminutive rural town. A long winter stretched into a long hard 

year. While our business slowly grew, our savings quickly shrank. 

The following year, 1996, President Clinton invoked the 

Antiquities Act to proclaim the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument. It was controversial at the time and, clearly, remains so. 

Still, in the couple decades since, I have witnessed positive outcomes for our business, our community, and the myriad visitors 

from around the world that gather here in awe. Now, you can have 

your car serviced in the garage next door, you can stay in the threestory hotel that replaced the old bakery. Two additional four-story 


27856.006.eps
32 

hotels have opened down the street, and another is under construction. You can breakfast at our delightful new bakery. In fact, several 

new restaurants are thriving, but you will need a reservation— 

inconceivable 20 years ago. Come morning, a host of outfitters will 

offer to show you the Grand Staircase. 

Over 120 guides hold permits on the Grand Staircase-Escalante. 

Utah’s outdoor recreation provides 110 jobs that depend on protected public lands. Jobs tied to the monument can’t be outsourced. 

Our monument created a diverse spectrum of revenue flows, extending well beyond travel and tourism. It provided an extraordinary quality of life. People choose to retire in the area or keep 

a second home. Some are entrepreneurs or work remotely. This activity increased property values as well as incomes. 

Visitation is exploding. A million people stopped in the visitors 

centers last year, while countless others visited the monument 

independently. In the town of Escalante, transient room taxes increased by 24 percent year to date. 

The chamber of commerce representing Boulder and Escalante 

have been vocal advocates of monument. In Kanab, a town of 4,000, 

businesses organized a rally that drew 400 citizens. 

The destruction of our monument threatens our economic future. 

The stroke of a pen reduced our monument by half, severed it into 

fragments, and diluted protections. The Utah delegation is bent on 

prioritizing grazing and mineral extraction. We are offered a 

national park and preserve. It is like no other national park we 

know. It doesn’t respect the Organic Act of 1916. It enshrines grazing and mandates hunting, an awkward mix with hikers and children. Four county commissioners and a state representative would 

dominate the management. This is unprecedented. 

Those who would manage the public lands want a coal mine. The 

one proposed prior to the monument designation promised 360 

double-trailer trucks through Kanab every day. That would damage 

the tourism economy and quality of life. Meanwhile, jobs in the 

solar industry far outnumber those in coal. Nor will grazing save 

us. Cattle ranching has great cultural significance in our communities, but it is a marginal enterprise in the high desert, which is 

why it is subsidized. Agriculture represents only a tiny portion of 

our region’s economy. 

America’s national monuments are wildly popular, as the review 

comment period plainly shows. Most Utah citizens favor protection 

of their monuments. On the local level, Boulder, Escalante, and 

Kanab businesses submitted 80 letters to Secretary Zinke advocating for our monument. Kanab and Kane County public hearings 

drew crowds where the vast majority voice support. To attack 

national monuments batters our local economies and communities. 

It ignores the will of the American people, and this land belongs 

to all Americans. 

To codify the unraveling of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument is to disrespect that. To throw in a national 

park is to apply lipstick. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hand follows:] 

33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN K. HAND, GENERAL MANAGER, WILLOW CANYON

OUTDOOR CO, INC. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Susan Hand, co-owner and 

manager of Willow Canyon Outdoor Company in Kanab, Utah. Our shop sells books, 

espresso, and outdoor gear. 

I am wildly passionate about the magnificent landscapes that comprise my homeland in southern Utah. But that is not what I came to talk about. I’m here to talk 

about money, about resources and profit. I’m here to share with you what I’ve 

witnessed over the last 23 years, as a member of Kanab’s business community. 

To that end, I offer this excerpt from an Op-Ed piece I wrote as Secretary Zinke’s 

review of our national monuments was just beginning: 

I dwell on the flanks of the Grand Staircase. I was drawn here like a bee 

to a blooming flower—attracted to the stunning landscape and the opportunity to make a living. With my husband and two small children, I settled 

in Kanab in 1994. 

We purchased a dilapidated commercial property three blocks from a 

humble downtown. On one side, a shuttered garage cradled decades of junk. 

On the other was an abandoned bakery. Old signs from long-defunct 

enterprises stood like ghosts on either side of our dream. A herd of rusting 

cars grazed the lot behind ours. 

We stripped our small building to its bones and created a shop to sell books, 

coffee, and outdoor gear, opening just in time for Christmas. We underestimated the challenge of business in this diminutive, rural town. A long 

winter stretched into a long, hard year. While our business slowly grew, our 

savings quickly shrank. 

The following year, 1996, President Clinton evoked the Antiquities Act to 

proclaim the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. It was controversial at the time—and remains so. Still, in the couple decades since, I’ve 

witnessed positive outcomes for our business, our community, and the 

myriad visitors from around the world that gather here in awe. 

Now you can have your car serviced in the garage next door. You can stay 

in the three-story hotel that replaced the old bakery. Two additional, fourstory hotels have opened down the street, and another is under construction. 

You can breakfast at our delightful new bakery. In fact several new restaurants are thriving, but you’ll need a reservation—inconceivable 20 years 

ago! Come morning, a host of outfitters will offer to show you the Grand 

Staircase. 

Meanwhile, the town ushered in a new hospital, school, library, and 

swimming pool. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the 

Monument, opened a visitor center and a comely administrative center. 

We can’t know that my little town’s economic success is a direct result of the 

Monument. But common sense, as well as research conducted by Headwaters 

Economics and the University of Utah, confirms that the Monument has not had 

an adverse effect. 

On the contrary, economic studies reveal that such protected public lands are economic engines for nearby communities. The 1996 Monument designation brought a 

‘‘diverse spectrum of revenue flows.’’ Kanab’s economic expansion extends well beyond travel and tourism. People choose to live near the Monument because of the 

extraordinary quality of life. Some have retired there, some keep a second home, 

some are entrepreneurs, and some are able to work there remotely. This activity has 

increased property values as well as incomes. 

But if we want to talk about travel and tourism, Kanab has a long, rich tradition. 

Dave Rust, born in 1874, grew up in Utah to marry the daughter of Kanab’s mayor, 

Dee Woolley. He embarked on a 33-year career as a guide and outfitter based in 

Kanab. Since then, travel and tourism have become the backbone of our economy. 

Ranching is a charming bit of southern Utah culture, but grazing cattle on the 

high desert has always been a marginal enterprise, dependent on Federal subsidies. 

The allotments were scarcely changed by the Monument. To enshrine cattle grazing 

will not develop a strong economy. 

How about the coal beds of the Kaiparowitz Plateau? The coal mine proposed 

prior to 1996 promised 360 double-trailer trucks through Kanab every 24 hours. 

Who wants that in their town? In the meanwhile, the market for coal has gone bust. 

Now, our economic future is at risk. In fact the damage may already be underway. 

Whereas Willow’s sales grew steadily over the last couple of decades, peaking in 

2016, this year looks different. In the first 5 months of 2017, we had 6 percent 

34 

growth year-to-date; but since then our sales dropped by 4 percent as compared to 

the same period last year. 

The downturn coincides with negative press generated by the monument review 

and Zinke’s visit to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. Social media reveals 

that a boycott against Utah is underway. The public perception is that the Utah 

delegation and the current Administration have assumed a hostile attitude toward 

our state’s national monuments—which were wildly popular. 

Frustrated with the Utah delegation, the international Outdoor Retailer trade 

show, which branded our state as an outdoor mecca for the last two decades, has 

left Salt Lake City. We’re worried about long-term repercussions. 

Last year, we invested in a new front on our commercial building. We planned 

to remodel our espresso bar kitchen over the coming winter, but with the downturn 

in sales we’ve deferred that. We’ve also suspended plans to hire a new, full-time 

position—Community Liaison. 

We don’t feel that the excised monuments and proposed ‘‘national park’’ will ever 

replace the loss of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our final witness is Ms. Vicki Varela. She is the Managing 

Director of Utah’s Office of Tourism, Film, and Global Branding 

from Salt Lake City, Utah. Welcome to the Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF VICKI VARELA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTAH 

OFFICE OF TOURISM, FILM, AND GLOBAL BRANDING 

Ms. VARELA. Good morning, Chairman McClintock, Ranking 

Member Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee. I am here 

to testify in support of H.R. 4558, establishing Escalante Canyons 

National Park and Preserve in south central Utah. 

If you have been to Utah, you know that Mother Nature played 

favorites, providing us the greatest snow on Earth and spectacular 

red rock landscapes. This proposed national park features winding 

slot canyons, other worldly sandstone domes and plateaus, and 

pinyon-juniper woodland against shimmering palettes of red. 

H.R. 4558 gives this area national park recognition that is long 

overdue. The bill protects these beautiful places in perpetuity for 

some of the best exploration and recreation on Earth. 

The amenities offered in national parks, including trails, signage, 

transportation access, parking, and staff, will enable us to properly 

welcome visitors from Utah and all over the world. The designation 

will generate prosperity in an economically distressed region of our 

state. 

Tourism is big business in Utah, generating $8.4 billion in spending last year, and creating more than 144,000 jobs. This created 

household relief of $1,226. The Mighty 5 promotion of our five 

national parks and the campaigns that followed are the most successful tourism marketing campaigns in Utah history, generating 

$6.72 billion of economic benefits. We want to provide Garfield 

County and the surrounding region a larger share of this tourism 

prosperity, and also provide a welcome mat for other economic 

development. 

An attractive place to visit is also a more attractive place to work 

or relocate a business. National park designation is the way to 

accomplish these community goals. 

Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve would be located 

at the midpoint of one of the most glorious roads on Earth, the All 

American Road: Scenic Byway 12. Two of Utah’s five national 

35 

parks bookend this scenic byway: Bryce Canyon to the southwest 

and Capitol Reef to the northeast. This 122-mile ribbon of road 

with a new national park in the middle will be an unparalleled triangle of adventure and discovery in the heart of south central 

Utah. 

Utah’s economy ranks among the best in the Nation, but we have 

a silent recession in many rural communities. Young people are 

fleeing the towns where they grew up. They can’t find work or community to sustain them. Governor Gary Herbert has called on 

Utahns to work together to create 25,000 jobs in rural Utah by 

2020. Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve is a missing 

puzzle piece to create many jobs. 

You may wonder why we aren’t already promoting this area. 

Well, we do feature a limited set of destinations and recommendations on our website. The lack of funding for BLM staff, signage, 

and visitor amenities as simple as restrooms have made it impractical to promote. To put it simply, it is not safe for many visitors. 

National park status and all the amenities that come with it is 

an important tool for making the landscape more accessible. 

Establishing this new national park will also distribute demand 

from national parks that experience seasonal constraints and overcrowding. It will spread out the love. 

It is important to note that our national parks are severely underfunded. Utah’s Zion National Park had a 60 percent increase in 

visitation since 2010, paired with a 3.7 percent funding cut. That 

is not tenable. While national park status will dramatically improve investment in the area, it is essential that national park 

funding also be restored. I know this is important to Congressman 

Stewart and others. I look forward to seeing long-term investment 

restored to protect national parks for generations to come. 

In summary, investing in our landscapes for visitation is a path 

to jobs and vibrant communities. These communities deserve to 

have their children stay in the community where they were raised. 

The Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve is the breakthrough to make this happen. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Varela follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICKI VARELA, DIRECTOR OF UTAH OFFICE OF TOURISM

Good morning, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members 

of the Subcommittee. My name is Vicki Varela. I am the director of tourism, film 

and global branding for the state of Utah. I am here to testify in support of 

H.R. 4558, establishing Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve in south 

central Utah. 

If you have been to Utah, you know that Mother Nature played favorites, providing us with The Greatest Snow on Earth® and extraordinary red rock landscapes. 

This proposed national park features winding slot canyons, other-worldly sandstone 

domes and plateaus, and pinyon-juniper woodland against shimmering palettes of 

red. H.R. 4558 gives this area National Park recognition that is long overdue. The 

bill protects these beautiful places in perpetuity for some of the best exploration and 

recreation on earth. The amenities offered in national parks—trails, signage, transportation access, parking and staff—will enable us to properly welcome visitors from 

all over the world. This designation will generate prosperity in an economically distressed region of our state. 

36 

Tourism is big business in Utah, generating $8.4 billion in spending last year, 

creating more than 144,000 jobs and $1,226 of tax relief per Utah household. The 

Mighty 5® promotion of our five national parks and the campaigns that followed are 

the most successful tourism marketing campaigns in Utah history, generating $6.72 

billion of economic benefits. We want to provide Garfield County and the surrounding region a larger share of this tourism prosperity, and also provide a 

welcome mat to other economic development. An attractive place to visit is also a 

more attractive place to work or relocate a business. National park designation is 

the way to accomplish these community goals. 

Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve would be located at the midpoint 

of one of the most glorious roads on earth—the All-American Road: Scenic Byway 

12. Two of Utah’s five national parks bookend this scenic byway—Bryce Canyon to 

the southwest and Capitol Reef to the northeast. This 122 mile ribbon of road—with 

a new national park in the middle—will be an unparalleled triangle of adventure 

and discovery in the heart of south central Utah. 

Utah’s economy ranks among the best in the Nation, but we have a silent 

recession in many rural communities. Young people are fleeing the towns where 

they grew up. They can’t find work or community to sustain them. Governor Gary 

Herbert has called on Utahns to work together to create 25,000 jobs in rural Utah 

by 2020. Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve is a missing puzzle piece 

to create many jobs. 

You may wonder why we aren’t already promoting this area. While we do feature 

a limited set of destinations and recommendations on our website, the lack of funding for BLM staff, signage and visitor amenities as simple as restrooms have made 

it impractical to promote. To put it simply, it is not safe for many visitors. National 

park status and all the amenities that come with it is an important tool for making 

this landscape more accessible. Establishing this new national park will also 

distribute demand from national parks that experience seasonal constraints and 

overcrowding. It will spread out the love. 

It is important to note that our national parks are severely underfunded. Utah’s 

Zion National Park had a 60 percent increase in visitation since 2010 paired with 

a 3.7 percent funding cut. While national park status will dramatically improve investment in the area, it is essential that national park funding also be restored. I 

know this is important to Congressman Stewart and the rest of you. I look forward 

to seeing long-term investment restored to protect national parks for generations to 

come. 

In summary, investing in our landscapes for visitation is a path to jobs and 

vibrant communities. Tropic, Cannonville, Henrieville, Escalante, Boulder, Grover 

and Torrey all deserve a bigger share of Utah’s economic prosperity. They deserve 

to have their children stay in the community where they were raised. The Escalante 

Canyons National Park and Preserve is the breakthrough to make this happen. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to offer input, and I’m happy to answer any 

questions. 

37 

***** 

ATTACHMENT 


27856.007.eps
38 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HANABUSA TO VICKI VARELA, 

DIRECTOR, UTAH OFFICE OF TOURISM

Question 1. Does the Utah Office of Tourism work directly with tourism boards 

and chambers of commerce that represent the region affected by this legislation? 

1a. If so, please describe the nature of your relationship with these organizations? 

Answer. The Utah Office of Tourism collaborates and welcomes input from regional tourism partners and chambers of commerce. There is no formal reporting 

system or methodology for collecting feedback. 

1b. Do the local tourism boards in the area impacted by H.R. 4558 support this 

bill and the effort to dissolve Grand Staircase-Escalanate National Monument into 

three separate and smaller national monuments? 


27856.008.eps
39 

Answer. There is not a consensus. There is some enthusiasm among tourism 

organization in the area, while other entities would prefer to retain the original 

monument boundaries. 

Question 2. In the testimony provided to the Committee, you support the establishment of a new national park unit because it would bring infrastructure, signs and 

other improvements that BLM has not provided. Your testimony also points out that 

there has been a 3.7 percent budget cut to Utah’s National Parks, while visitation 

has risen. President Trump’s FY 2018 budget proposed cutting all Department of the 

Interior agencies by 10–13 percent, with the National Park Service facing a cut that 

would eliminate over 1,000 staff positions. Do you support President Trump’s 

proposed 10 percent cut to the National Park Service? 

Answer. I oppose cutting the national parks budget. The Utah Office of Tourism 

is actively engaged in trying to increase funding for national parks. Zion National 

park has experienced a 60 percent increase in visitation over the last 5 years, concurrent to a 3.7 percent budget cut. Protecting the quality and safety of the national 

park experience requires increased investment in operations and infrastructure. 

Question 3. Do you support cutting funds from other national park units in Utah 

to support the new park established by H.R. 4558? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. Normally, 

we go in seniority order here on the Subcommittee, but those lists 

are modified by the Majority and the Minority, depending upon the 

circumstances, and we will do that in this case. I will begin by recognizing Mr. Stewart for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very gracious 

in allowing me to do this. And to the Members, thank you for 

giving me some time. 

I would like to hit a couple of things just very quickly. I am 

aware that votes are coming and we do need to go quickly. 

Ms. Hand, I would to address a couple of questions to you, if I 

could. Are you aware that there are national parks that allow for 

grazing at this time? 

Ms. HAND. Yes, I am. 

Mr. STEWART. Do you know how many? 

Ms. HAND. I don’t know how many. I know there are some. 

Mr. STEWART. It is about 20. 

Ms. HAND. OK, thank you. 

Mr. STEWART. And are you aware that there are some that also 

support hunting? 

Ms. HAND. I am aware of preserves, park preserves that do that, 

yes. 

Mr. STEWART. Would you suggest that we would repeal those 

hunting and grazing rights in those parks that now allow for that? 

Ms. HAND. I would not necessarily, but I think it is a bold move 

to—— 

Mr. STEWART. Why is this any different? 

Ms. HAND. May I finish, please? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Ms. HAND. I think it is a bold move to suggest this park and preserve without the attending maps. It is difficult to comment, to tell 

you the truth, on the specifics, but I do know the area of Calf 

Creek, I have hiked there, my son broke his foot at the waterfalls. 

I remember it very well. The landscape there is a very broken one, 

40 

a very challenging terrain. So, to imagine how you put hikers, 

hunters, and trapping all in the same area is a bit of a challenge. 

I think the management will be difficult. 

Mr. STEWART. I think it is possible. I agree with you, some of this 

area is challenging, but we have done it in other parks. I think we 

can certainly do it in this. I am glad that you would not suggest 

repealing it where this access granted in these other parks. 

Your primary interest is in tourism. Is that true? Your own 

personal financial interest? 

Ms. HAND. My personal financial interest is in tourism, although 

we also sell books and espresso at our store. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Do you have any employees? 

Ms. HAND. I do. We employ seven people. 

Mr. STEWART. And would you mind telling us how much you pay 

your employees? 

Ms. HAND. Our pay scale ranges from $10 to just over $20 an 

hour. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. 

Ms. HAND. We do have benefits, health benefits for full-time 

employees. We also have a simple IRA retirement plan for them, 

and they all earn sick and vacation leave. 

Mr. STEWART. And are any of them seasonal employees? 

Ms. HAND. No. They are all permanent employees. 

Mr. STEWART. So, at $10 an hour, that is roughly $20,000 a year. Can you raise a family on $20,000 a year? 

Ms. HAND. I would turn that question back to you and ask you 

to reflect on the minimum wage, I think. We are trying to stay 

ahead of that. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. My point is that the claim is often made, and 

again, I want to emphasize, I support tourism. That is why we 

have Vicki here. We are proud of tourism. We want you to do well. 

Ms. HAND. Uh-huh. 

Mr. STEWART. We want you to have 100 employees, but the reality is, as I stated in my opening statement, it is very difficult to 

raise a family in a tourism industry. There are a few people who 

do really well. The owners, primarily. Many of them are seasonal. 

The vast majority of them are seasonal. And the point is, the perception is often made, well, if we just offer tourism and everything 

is great down there and these families do well. They don’t, because 

the vast majority of them can’t make a living in a tourism industry. 

Ms. HAND. One of the—— 

Mr. STEWART. So, I would ask you, I will get to my question now, 

why would you object to fostering tourism through the creation of 

a national park? 

Ms. HAND. I want to say that the outdoor industry is much bigger than retail shops like mine. In Utah, we have companies like 

Black Diamond, Petzl, Klymit, Chums, EK, Imlay Canyon Gear, 

Kuhl, Dowson, and many others that I don’t have time to name. 

These are not retail jobs, these are manufacturing jobs. 

Mr. STEWART. But they are not located in this area. 

Ms. HAND. They are not located in this area, but these public 

lands do support those jobs, 110,000 jobs in Utah. 

Mr. STEWART. But we are talking about the local community. 

And I am asking—— 

41 

Ms. HAND. And if we talk about the local community, what I 

would say is one of the biggest problems our local community faces 

is that the drive to sustain tourism has led many people in our 

community to transfer their properties from rental properties into 

vacation rental properties, short-term rentals, so there is a housing 

shortage in our area, and our construction business is being driven 

by that, but it is not keeping up with the demand. 

That is one of the problems that those wages do create a problem 

for. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. I appreciate that. My time is almost up. I 

would like to just be clear. You support the tourism industry, you 

are asking us to encourage that, and yet you are opposing the 

creation of a national park. Is that true? 

Ms. HAND. I oppose the creation of a national park as described 

through this bill, undoubtedly. I will be very solid on that. 

Mr. STEWART. And the reason is? 

Ms. HAND. The reason is I feel that this codifies an inappropriate 

decision and one that puts at risk an economy that has come to 

rely over more than two decades on the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Again, we are trying to help you, we are 

trying to create more tourism, not less. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Next on the Minority’s list is Mr. Gallego. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And to begin, Representative Stewart, I will gladly have you 

jump on my minimum wage increase bill if you are interested in 

minimum wage for our workers. 

To begin with, I have a question for Mr. Pollock. Mr. Pollock, you 

are the Chairman of the Garfield County Commission. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGO. In your testimony, you state that local management is better than national management because you can protect 

the resources better. Can you share with us what qualifications you 

believe or your management team believe has to manage a national 

park? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I will give you one example—and by the way, 

Bryce Canyon National Park, when you talk about tourism, that is 

35,000 acres. You still have a national monument, basically, that 

you control that is over 1 million acres. And I want to make that 

point. 

To get back to your question, yes, I will give you one good example. A lot of this land needs to be recovered. Sage grass, that has 

been a threatened species. Everybody knows about sage grass. Did 

you know we cannot do projects to recover the habitat for that 

species within the old boundaries of the monument? We cannot do 

recovery projects. That is a classic example. 

About 100 yards across the street, basically, we are doing recovery projects on BLM rangeland. These projects that are happening 

on BLM rangeland are happening in the same building that the 

monument is managed in. They are the same people. And as far 

as anything changing, you are just changing the management from 

42 

BLM monument staff to BLM Kanab field office staff. So, for us to 

work with those folks, absolutely. I work with Harry Barber all the 

time on a local basis to do good recovery projects. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. Since you are familiar with the 

National Park Service, I am sure you agree with the NPS under 

the Organic Act that does not manage for multiple uses. In fact, 

this is the very thing you are railing against in your testimony, or 

have railed against, I should say. The NPS mission is to protect 

wildlife and the resources, exactly these protections that H.R. 4588 

takes away. 

To move on to another question, you told us that your county 

does not have the money to manage the lands within the 1996 

monument boundary. Is that correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Those are Federal lands. We cannot manage them. 

They are managed by the monument staff. 

Mr. GALLEGO. But you will somehow have the money to manage 

them once they are outside that boundary. 

Mr. POLLOCK. We are not going to manage them, we are going 

to have input on the management. We work with the people that 

manage them. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Maybe I misunderstood what you had said earlier 

about the responsibility. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, you did, because I will tell you, we work with 

the people that work for the BLM on a local level. That’s government-to-government cooperation. 

Mr. GALLEGO. If this bill moves forward, the management will be 

turned over to whom? The counties and under a management council system. Is that correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Well, you can interrogate me all day long, but I 

will tell you just like this, flat out, we can manage those lands a 

lot better than they have been managed. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Well, this is actually not an interrogation. If this 

bill moves forward, management will be turned over to the counties 

under a management council system. Is that correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely. 

Mr. GALLEGO. OK. How much money does your county have in 

the budget to manage three monuments and a national park unit? 

Mr. POLLOCK. We would not be managing those lands. Your 

BLM, the government’s BLM and the Park Service would be managing them. The county would not be managing the lands. That is 

like saying, do you want to transfer me that land? Do it right now, 

transfer me that land and I will manage it, I will tax it. 

Mr. GALLEGO. The management shall develop and implement the 

comprehensive—— 

Mr. POLLOCK. Well, let’s get back to that question for a minute. 

If you are talking about management—— 

Mr. GALLEGO. I am reclaiming my time, sir. The management 

council shall develop and implement the comprehensive management plans for the Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve. 

What does that mean when the management council shall develop 

and implement the comprehensive management plans? That 

sounds like the local management organization. 

Mr. POLLOCK. OK. But who owns the land? You do, the BLM 

does. If you want me to manage them and bear the burden of the 

43 

cost, transfer them to Garfield County, we will take them. I will 

tax those lands. 

Mr. GALLEGO. But, sir, we are talking about the actual text of 

the amendment, and the text of the amendment says—— 

Mr. POLLOCK. Well, we are talking about reality here. The reality 

is the Bureau of Land Management is the one that is going to bear 

the burden of the cost. 

Mr. GALLEGO. We are moving on here. 

Sir, does Garfield County receive PILT payments to carry out 

vital services such as research, rescue, road maintenance, and 

other kind of services? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Pennies in lieu of taxes? 

Mr. GALLEGO. Yes. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Are you kidding me? On that land, it is actually 

pennies. 

Mr. GALLEGO. How much do you receive? 

Mr. POLLOCK. It is not a payment. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Answer the question, how much do you receive? 

Mr. POLLOCK. About $830,000 a year. 

Mr. GALLEGO. $893,189. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Roughly, give or take, so what is your point? 

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Pollock, you claim that there is no local voice 

when it comes to management of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument. But isn’t it true that there is extensive local 

planning that went into the 1999 management plan that did include or did not disinclude a creation of the monument advisory 

committee, a committee that you have served on since? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I am glad you brought that up. There was input, 

but since then, OK, where did the 12 heartbeat rule come from? Do 

you understand that rule? Let me tell you what that rule is. 

On 64 percent of the Grand Staircase, the old Grand Staircase 

National Monument, you can only have 12 horse—well, 6 horse 

heartbeats and 6 cowboys, 64 percent at one time. That was never 

in the original plan. That was made up by the monument staff. 

OK, 12 heartbeat rule. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am loathed to interrupt this, but 

unfortunately, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chair recognizes Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. This is frustrating. Let me try to get some clarity 

to what you are talking about because you are using the same word 

but you are using it with different definitions. 

Mr. Pollock, if there is a management team, you will come up 

with a management plan, that is how it will develop, correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Will you actually, as a county, then run that plan, 

or will the BLM run the plan? 

Mr. POLLOCK. The BLM will bear the burden. 

Mr. BISHOP. The BLM will also fund the plan? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, when you are talking about management plan, 

you are talking about coming up with the rules of engagement of 

how the monument will be run. You will not actually be running 

44 

it. The Federal Government will still be running it. And the 

Federal Government will still be paying for it. 

Governor Leavitt, when this was originally established, there 

were 377,000 acres of SITLA lands within the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument. Were they actually covered in the 

proclamation that President Clinton did? 

Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman, on the day before I pointed this out 

to the President’s chief of staff, who made it clear that that had 

not been contemplated, they were not aware of that. 

Mr. BISHOP. How long did it take you to work out a deal with 

the administration to try to manage or try to account for those 

acres that were put in there by a proclamation? 

Mr. LEAVITT. It was a matter of years. 

Mr. BISHOP. At least 2 years, over 2 years. If this had been done 

by congressional action or if this had been done by the administration working with the state of Utah, would you have solved these 

problems ahead of time? 

Mr. LEAVITT. They certainly would have been solved in principle, 

and it would have happened much more quickly and much more 

efficiently. 

Mr. BISHOP. If this new monument is created, Commissioner 

Pollock, it will be right outside the town of Escalante. Is Escalante 

the town that has the greatest financial problems going forward 

within your county? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is Kanab farther away from this new monument 

area than like Panguitch or Escalante in your county? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, Kanab is down on the southern end of it. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, Vicki, let me ask you. When people do tourism 

down in Kanab, because I go through there a lot and I spend 

money, but I am always going to Lake Powell. Kanab is also the 

closest drop-off point to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. So, 

in your estimation, if there is economic development taking place 

in Kanab, can it all be related to the Grand Staircase or is some 

of it going to Lake Powell, or is some of it going to the Grand 

Canyon? 

Ms. VARELA. A big part of Kanab’s tourism economy is also driven by Zion National Park. Certainly, there would be some that 

would be related to this region, but most of it would be the areas 

that you have highlighted, as well as Zion National Park. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. And, Ms. Hand, to be honest, you can pay your 

employees what you want to, regardless of what the minimum 

wage is. Pay them more money. Governor Leavitt, let me come 

back to you. Is this designation of the national monument done in 

Grand Staircase, is this a one and done, or has this happened since 

that time as well? 

Mr. LEAVITT. It has been used repeatedly over the course of time 

in many instances. 

Mr. BISHOP. This Committee has passed out a CAP Act, which 

tries to put an established process that would guarantee, depending on the size, there would be public involvement before the designation, and conversely, if you are going to rescind or downsize, 

there would be public involvement in that as well. Do you think 

that is a wise use of our time and energies? 

45 

Mr. LEAVITT. I know of no other circumstance where public acts 

are created, other than The Antiquities Act, where it is not required, and where it is not carried out. The Antiquities Act is 

unique, it is wrong, it is not democratic, and it needs to change. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I would do one other thing for the panel 

here. Oftentimes, as we had this miscommunication of what the 

term management actually meant, there is also a 

miscommunication of the difference between a national park and a 

national monument. They are different entities. There are special 

interest groups out there that are trying to confuse that, as if one 

is synonymous to the other; they are not. 

As we continue talking about what a park system can do, what 

the BLM to a monument system can do, they are totally separate 

entities and should be recognized as solely separate entities. And 

because I respect this Subcommittee so much, because I used to 

chair it, I have 30 seconds left and I am going to yield it back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Lowenthal. The reason why we are going out of order, by the way, 

is in large part because of flight schedules and other concerns 

today. So, Mr. Lowenthal, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for 

Governor Leavitt. And, first, I want to thank the panelists for coming and traveling all the way from Utah to Washington. I hope that 

is not calling us to vote. 

I want to understand, there have been a lot of issues that have 

been raised about the initial legality and the process under which 

President Clinton had done this, and there were questions that had 

been raised in this hearing. I want to make clear that right after 

he issued the proclamation Executive Order, we are aware that in 

the 105th and 106th Congress, that Congress ratified these new 

boundaries. It talked about buying out and provided resources to 

buy out the mineral interests. And, Governor, that you signed the 

land exchanges between the state and the Federal Government, 

pursuant to the Federal law that was passed, and that the Federal 

courts have dismissed all claims about the legality, especially in 

2004 the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City upheld the legality of this and dismissed all claims challenging the legality of the 

courts, and that has been upheld in the appeal courts also. 

So, my question to you is, if there were all these questions about 

legality, what did President Bush do about this? He followed. Why 

are we waiting all these years later? 

Mr. LEAVITT. Congressman, I don’t think for a minute that you 

would defend the level of secrecy that was used in enacting public 

policy in the context of the Grand Staircase. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I realize you raise issues about 

that, but I am just talking about the overall legality of this and the 

challenges in the courts you are aware of, and the signing, that we 

must assume for all the courts, that there may have been problems 

in the process that you have raised, but this was legally done 

under The Antiquities Act. And the Congress has done it by ratifying those boundaries, and the courts have upheld it. Is that not so? 

That is all I am saying. 

46 

Mr. LEAVITT. I acknowledge that some 8 years later and some 8 

years of litigation, the court did conclude that the President was 

within his rights as the Chief Executive to use the Antiquities Act. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. That is right. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Thus, I have argued that The Antiquities Act ought 

to be changed. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Well, that may be true, and I respect that opinion. But there have been lots of issues thrown out here that this 

was done for political reasons, it was not legal, it overextended his 

boundaries and the courts have decided, and the Congress right 

after that, have already said that is not true. 

Mr. LEAVITT. It is hard to argue that this was not done for 

political purposes, that has become evident. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. We are politicians. Everything is done for political purposes. We appreciate that question, and I grant you your 

right. 

Mr. LEAVITT. You asked, Congressman, about the Bush 

administration? 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. 

Mr. LEAVITT. The Antiquities Act was used in the Bush administration. However, there was substantial public input in the process. 

I recognize today is not the day to talk about The Antiquities Act, 

but I am here because this is unfinished business for me. I am no 

longer a public servant, but this needs to change. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. But those questions were raised in the Federal 

court and the Federal courts did not say they were violated. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Well, no, but the Federal courts act as a matter of 

interpreting existing law, and I am here arguing that bad outcomes 

come when things misuse appropriate language. This was bad 

policy, and I think what the President recently did was enacting 

a separate policy. And this Committee, by this hearing, will have 

exceeded in proportion any public process that went into the Grand 

Staircase. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I think the courts will have to deal with that 

issue. You are right. Whether in fact the President, or a subsequent President, has the right to change previous actions in terms 

of massive change of land for both monuments and other Federal 

lands, and I think that will be a question that the courts—— 

Mr. LEAVITT. I am sure it will. And my point, and I think we 

would agree, that in the halls of Congress we ought not to be arguing so much about process and we ought to be arguing more about 

policy. And the President of the United States, in this case, 

changed a policy. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And the Congress agreed with the President, 

and the courts agreed with the President. 

Mr. LEAVITT. But this Committee is now considering, in a very 

public and organized, thoughtful way, whether or not lands ought 

to be used in a particular way. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. We have been called for votes. 

There are 10 minutes remaining on that clock. That will give us 

time for one more round of questioning, and that will be done by 

Mr. Tipton. 

Then we will recess. 

47 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for 

taking the time to be able to be here today. I do have to take one 

issue with Ms. Varela’s comment on Utah having the best snow on 

Earth, I think that is in Colorado. But I appreciate you being here 

and your passion on tourism, it is important for the state of 

Colorado as well. 

I have admired Utah’s program of what you labeled as the 

Mighty 5. Was there a marketing advantage for you being able to 

say, we have this great portfolio of parks for you to be able to visit? 

Would it enhance, as I read Congressman Stewart’s bill, to be able 

to create three more monuments, another national park. You would 

be the Mighty 6, and be adding monuments. Would you see that 

as a plus-up in terms of being able to create economic development 

for the communities that probably need, from what it sounds like 

down in the areas around Kanab, over in Escalante, to be able to 

help those communities? 

Ms. VARELA. First of all, thank you for the question. I will continue the discussion with you afterward about the greatest snow on 

Earth. But to your question, yes. The Mighty 5 campaign has been 

nationally recognized as a break-through campaign that differentiated Utah in a profound way. That has lead to the most successful years of marketing and economic benefits that the state has 

ever experienced from tourism. 

And, yes, having another national park, particularly in this remarkable area, would be a huge boon to our economic development 

strategy. The elegance of this is that it is a combination of this remarkable asset that has not really been accessible for many years, 

and a remarkable need in these local communities that we have 

talked about that have so much economic distress. 

This ribbon of road, 122 miles of the most beautiful road on 

Earth, that the brilliance of proposing this national park right in 

the heart of that road gets me really energized about the marketing potential for the next wave of Mighty 5, whether it is 

Mighty 6, and we have a lot of other ideas that I will not belabor 

right now. 

Mr. TIPTON. For the clarity of the benefit, perhaps, of approaching it as Congressman Stewart’s bill would, each of these areas 

does have unique and distinct characteristics that you would be 

able to individually market, but then collectively package in terms 

of promoting tourism and creating jobs? 

Ms. VARELA. Yes, that is right. And Susan has made some very 

good points, and I would like to respond to one of them, which is 

that you want every national park to have a unique offering, to reflect the local community, its heritage, its history, and the unique 

things that are available in that area. 

Some examples of what we would highlight around this national 

park would certainly be our dark skies. Utah has some of the best 

dark skies on Earth, and we are now being recognized for that. 

Dinosaur bones. Paleontology. There is history of 90 million 

years of dinosaur bones, some of the best findings on Earth. Native 

American artifacts. Great Mormon heritage. The Hole-in-the-Rock 

Road that goes through the proposed national park, is a road that 

Mormon pioneers travel as they established themselves in the area. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you. 

48 

Ms. VARELA. I just want to make one more point to Susan’s question, there would be a front country that might be very accessible, 

and perhaps a back country, where it would still be accessible to 

backpackers and other uses. But that is the beauty of it, being able 

to design exactly what this should be for this region. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Pollock, we have 

heard many of the same comments that you have made, particularly with regards to sage grass management in the state of 

Colorado as well. I think you provided clarity, as did the Chairman 

as well, in terms of the actual role that the commissioners would 

be able to play. Can you maybe describe a little bit of the distinct 

benefit that you would bring in terms of developing that plan? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Actually, this is going to have to be a yes or 

no answer, and the rest will have to be in written response. 

Mr. TIPTON. If you can do that for the record, we would certainly 

appreciate it. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you all for taking your time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. I want to apologize to our witnesses, we have been called to votes. There are 5 minutes remaining on the first vote. I think there are four in this series. We would 

expect to have those votes concluded by about 11:25. It is an occupation hazard around here, it happens, so we will have to recess 

the hearing until votes have concluded at about 11:25. I thank you 

for your indulgence and patience. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee will reconvene. I, again, 

want to apologize to our witnesses for taking up almost an hour of 

your time on votes, but as I said, it is what we do around here. 

The Chair will now continue questions of the panel, and resume 

with the Ranking Member, Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I join in the Chair’s comments to you, we apologize for the delay. My questions that I would 

like to begin with are, of course, with Ms. Hand. 

Ms. Hand, you said you moved your family to Kanab—is it 

Kanab or Kanab? 

Ms. HAND. Kanab. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Kanab. Two years before President Clinton’s 

proclamation. You gave us a description by reading your Op-Ed 

about what it was like when you moved there, and, of course, how 

it is today. 

I was just curious, what was the economic base before you moved 

there that resulted with no service repair shops and everything 

closed down? What was the economic engine for Kanab before that? 

Ms. HAND. One unfortunate thing that occurred just about the 

time that we moved to Kanab is that there was a lumber mill that 

was cutting trees on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon area, the 

Kaibab Plateau, not within the park, but with the forest there, and 

that closed. They had used up the old growth forest that they were 

allotted and never retrofitted to cut smaller trees, and therefore, 

closed down. That displaced about 200 families. 

When we moved to Kanab, the largest employer in the county 

was the public sector, basically government work. The largest 

49 

private employer now in Kanab is the Best Friends Animal 

Sanctuary. When I moved to Kanab, they had 43 employees, but 

they now have over 500. So, they have experienced a tremendous 

growth, and have become a really important part of our economy 

as well. 

I think their choice of—they live in upper Kanab, not live, but 

their sanctuary is placed in upper Kanab Canyon, and it is, again, 

a quality of life and placement for them, a delicious place to be for 

their operation. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Would it be a correct statement that the 

economic base now is tourism related to the Grand Staircase? 

Ms. HAND. Tourism related to the Grand Staircase and to the 

other protected public lands in the area. And I would emphasize 

that, actually, travel and tourism have a long rich history in 

Kanab. There is a biography written by Frederick Swanson about 

a man named Dave Rust, who was born in the 1800s, the father 

of his wife was the mayor of Kanab, and D. Woolley was his name, 

and the two of them set about developing eco-tourism in the early 

part of the last century before there were roads or anything really 

to support that. They went out on horseback or with pack mules 

and explored the area. Dave Rust did that for 33 years, so he began 

a long-standing tradition of eco-tourism and travel in the area. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Let me ask you. Did you have a chance to 

participate in the initial management planning? 

Ms. HAND. I did, yes, because there were numerous meetings 

held in the different communities that were open to the public, and 

I was actually very impressed with that process. I felt like it was 

a very safe environment for communication that was established by 

the BLM operating these meetings, and that they heard diverse 

voices, and they recorded what they heard in a public format. 

And I felt like if you participated in those meetings or you wrote 

in your concerns by letter, that they were incorporating that. A 

really good example is that the monument—the public meetings 

that I attended, many of the people asked not to have this monument, which was the first managed by the BLM to be managed in 

a way similar to the Park Service where there are exclusive concessions and development within the boundaries, and instead, to allow 

the outside communities to develop their businesses to support 

that. 

That is what we have done. That is how the BLM set it up, and 

I think it has worked very well for those communities. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. Ms. Varela, I just have a quick question for you. Your testimony focused on the three parks that are 

being proposed with, I think you said your scenic Route 12 going 

through it. You did not take a position on the ‘‘reduction’’ in the 

Grand Staircase. Do you have a position on that? 

Ms. VARELA. I am not the right person to speak on that issue. 

I have been on the periphery of land use issues my entire career. 

I would defer to people on both sides of that issue who have spent 

their entire working lives trying to solve that problem. 

My experience, my expertise, is around tourism. As a result of 

that expertise, I have developed a really good working knowledge 

of our national parks. But I don’t pretend to have expertise on 

50 

solving the larger, complex, land use issues that come when 65 

percent of your land is owned by the Federal Government. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, General Bergman. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of you on the panel who took the time to testify here today. 

I would like, for the record, to get into the best snow on Earth 

contest, because living in the middle of the million acre Ottawa 

National Forest in the upper peninsula of Michigan and right next 

door to the Sylvania Wilderness area, I have snowmobiles, and I 

have them for two reasons: (1) primarily, in a worst case emergency situation, given the timing, that is our only way out; and (2) 

I like to ride on a beautiful sunny day, even though it is 40 degrees 

below zero—so just know that I am in on the snow contest. 

As a kid growing up, I spent all of my time outside. I could still 

live outside. I am married to a lady who prefers to live inside, and 

I understand that, so we have indoor quarters here in Washington, 

DC. But as a boy scout, I had the chance to learn, live, and understand by traveling to some of the most beautiful parts of the country as a boy scout troop. My grandsons, who live in Northern 

California, are boy scouts, and they travel as well. 

Mr. Pollock, could you expand on the restrictions that exist that 

prevent groups of 25 or more from recreating in the monument 

areas? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. I will give you a good example. It doesn’t 

matter what religion that you hold to, we are predominately LDS. 

We have similar programs to visit these areas. And down in the 

Hole-in-the-Rock area, a couple of years ago, we had an LDS youth 

activity where they were trying to take 30 or 40 individuals down 

into that area on the same type of trip, and they were forbidden 

from doing that. They were stopped from doing that, and all of that 

was canceled because of the 12 heartbeat issue. You cannot have 

more than 12 heartbeats in certain areas of the monument. 

I will give you another example. When I was a kid, my dad 

worked for the Park Service, but I grew in Tropic, that is in the 

monument. Back then, we used to go down on horseback into what 

is in the monument now, down into a remote area, and that was 

traditionally like your boy scouts. That is where they kind of made 

sure that we were on the right track in life. That has been prohibited as well. 

And that was not only a function of the local churches, but it was 

also a function that our good old local role models carried on for 

years. That was stopped. So, traditional uses, like what you are 

talking about, have been stopped. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Not that I am putting words in anybody’s mouth, 

but when you have the opportunity to experience a national monument, that is more of a didactic learning experience as opposed to 

when you can utilize a national park or even a wilderness area, 

that is an experiential learning for people of all ages, but especially 

the young boys and girls of our country, who in many cases did not 

have a chance to grow up in a small town or in rural America. That 

sense of actually not only seeing nature, but being involved with 

it and feeling it. 

51 

As part of that developmental portion of those very, very important years of, let’s say, those early teens, with what we are 

proposing here, we are going to have more experiential learning, 

am I right, in going forward with what we are talking about here? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely, sir. And not only that, a lot of that 

area, you have to realize, it is not like Bryce Canyon, back to what 

I said, 35,000 acres. That land mass was 2 million acres. A lot of 

that land is just regular rangeland that these young youthful folks 

you are talking about should be able to go out and experience 

nature, and go under the BLM rule of multiple use. 

But the problem is, when you take that land and you create a 

single use type monument, and that is what it was in a lot of 

areas, no matter what you might hear, that is restricted. And that 

is nonsense to do that on this type of land. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield 

back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Pollock, 

Devils Tower was 1,200 acres. That was the first national monument of a natural phenomenon that was used under the Antiquity 

Act. This was 1.7 million acres. You testified that the vast bulk of 

this is simply open rangeland, is that correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. That is absolutely correct, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And how many tourists come each year to visit 

this 1.7 million acres of open rangeland? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Well, most of it they can’t. They will come in a 2- 

wheel drive vehicle, a lot of folks rent a vehicle back east or from 

wherever, and that is inaccessible. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But my point is, I would assume that the 

major tourist destinations within the monuments are much more 

limited in their scope to essentially the territory identified in the 

Stewart bill, is that correct? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, we are setting aside the tourist destinations within a permanent designation, but freeing up rangeland 

which really does not attract a lot of tourists. Is that essentially 

what we are doing? 

Mr. POLLOCK. You are absolutely doing that and that is why I 

support this. You are doing the right thing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, we are not harming tourism. In fact, we 

are protecting tourism. But, at the same time, we are opening up 

the rest of this acreage to actual productive use. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely. Not only that, tourism was restricted 

in a lot of that monument. I was told when I was voted in as a 

commissioner, by an assistant monument manager by the name of 

Sarah Slinger—I was trying to promote tourism at the time, by the 

way—and she looked at me, and said, ‘‘the monument was not created for tourism.’’ If you go back and look, it was created for the 

check science study or something like that. Their plan was not to 

promote tourism. We are going to make tourism better. We are not 

against tourism. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is the 12 heartbeat rule you have 

referenced several times? 

52 

Mr. POLLOCK. That is the remote areas. They have come up with 

that, it is not one part of the management plan that we can find, 

but these agencies that basically have their own agendas. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is the 12 heartbeat rule? 

Mr. POLLOCK. That means that if it is a dog, it has a heartbeat, 

you can only take that one dog. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. This is what, per acre? 

Mr. POLLOCK. No, on 64 percent of that monument, I believe the 

12 heartbeat rule applies, without some sort of a special usage 

permit that you cannot get. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, General Bergman’s point, if you had a 

scout troop of 13 people, that would not be allowed? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, and if you had a scout troop of 12 and they 

brought their dogs, that would not be allowed either. If they rode 

horses, then that would not be allowed. You cannot even take 12 

of the scouts down if they are riding a horse. A horse is a heartbeat, according to this ridiculous rule that they made up. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. Varela, are the tourist areas that are currently designated within the monument boundaries preserved 

under the boundaries of this new act? 

Ms. VARELA. The monument is currently more of a drive-thru 

experience than a place that tourists can stop and visit and extend 

their stay. This legislation would create, of course, the national 

park that would guide the tourism experience. That would create 

signage. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. In your view, would that enhance tourism? 

Ms. VARELA. Yes. It would definitely enhance tourism. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Once again, we are not harming tourism with 

that bill, in fact, we are enhancing tourism. But we are also opening up vast acreage that has been set off limits for the enjoyment 

of the American people, and for the prosperity of the regional economy. Is that correct? 

Ms. VARELA. Absolutely. That is a dramatic enhancement of 

tourism and a safer, more defined experience for visitors. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Commissioner Pollock, you termed PILT 

funding, pennies for dollars. Could you explain that? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I think we just did the math, actually, after the 

question was posed to me. It is like 26 cents an acre, which is what 

PILT comes out to. I think Garfield County is 3.3 million acres of 

Federal land. It is like 26 cents an acre. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, you would gladly trade the PILT pennies 

for the many dollars that these lands could generate for the economy, for the county, if you were treated the same way as most of 

the counties east of the Mississippi? 

Mr. POLLOCK. It would make my trip worth it if I come back with 

that news, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My time has expired. Do any Members want 

to do a second round of questioning? Great. 

We have concluded with our questions. There may be additional 

questions that will be submitted to you, we ask that you respond 

in writing. We will keep the hearing record open for 10 days in 

order to receive them. 

Mr. Bishop. 

53 

Mr. BISHOP. Governor Leavitt, let me ask one more, just as we 

leave here. As you look back on the history of how you were involved in this, is there, in your mind, a clearer way which this 

could have been done better to establish greater input and solve 

some of the problems before the declaration than after the 

declaration? 

Mr. LEAVITT. Ironically, the first time I ever heard the word 

monument used, occurred probably 2 years earlier when I had a 

meeting with the Secretary of the Interior to lay out a plan or an 

idea for what we called the Canyons of the Escalante National EcoRegion. This was an original idea. The idea was to break the land 

down into different uses and to manage the land according to its 

best and most productive use. 

It would have applied substantially more protection to the most 

pristine of the lands, more than is now extended. Yet, it would 

have kept lands that could have been used, as the Chairman suggested, in more productive uses to be used as such. That idea was 

rejected by him, but in the course of a conversation, there was a 

side decision between he and a member of his staff, and used the 

word monument. That did not dawn on me at the time. I had no 

idea that that is what they were discussing. 

But to your point, if the state, local, and Federal Government 

had worked together to care for the land in a way that was focused 

on the land and its best use, it could have been done collaboratively, it could have been productive, and it could have been done 

successfully. As it is, we have had 8 years of litigation. We have 

now had 20 years of conversation, and we are continuing to visit 

it in a divisive way. 

Could it have been done better? Absolutely. But it needed to be 

done in a way that did not involve secrecy, that involved the kind 

of hearing you are having today for that purpose. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that comment, and that 

is why I want to commend Mr. Stewart for the legislation that you 

have here. That is exactly the process we are trying to have, going 

ahead and doing it ahead of time so you solve problems first. 

Vicki, you were talking once again about how we do a good 

marketing campaign in Utah on the Big 5, right? 

Ms. VARELA. The Mighty 5. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, the Mighty 5—you don’t do that well of a campaign. We are now talking about having maybe six that can be part 

of that campaign. 

Those five come up to about 830,000 acres combined for all five 

of those. This would be coming down from 1.7 million acres to 

something that could be more manageable and could be part of that 

campaign. 

I also want you to know, there is another potential we have up 

in the northern part of the state, so you can make this from six 

to seven. But as part of that campaign, if you are going to do anything in my area, one of the things to market has to be the other 

kinds of activities that are in that area. 

If someone wants to come up to like Golden Spike, as a destination point, you also have to be able to say what other things are 

available. We have never been able to do that with Grand 

Staircase-Escalante. 

54 

I think what you were saying, if I have this right, is that by 

going through this process and his bill, we can actually come up 

with something that can be marketable, that can be useful, and 

you keep emphasizing the word safer, which will encourage people 

to actually see this and attend it. And let’s face it, if there is a 

reason for this land to exist to be seen, it should be seen, and you 

should do things to incite people to see that. 

I think I am hearing that coming from you at all times, that we 

can do better if we try to do it the right way. Bad process brings 

bad results. I think that is what happened in 1996. But this is a 

good process that could bring a good result. Am I mis-stating you 

at all? 

Ms. VARELA. No. That is actually a very good summary. I will 

just add to that, that what you have just outlined is consistent with 

a strategy that I have just rolled out in the state for the vision for 

our next 10–20 years of Utah tourism. It is around quality 

visitation. 

Offering up something to our customers that is different because 

it is in our beautiful landscapes, but also because we have thought 

through the visitor experience to make sure that it is safe, that it 

is unique, that it is designed consistent with what the local communities want to accomplish. 

So, everything that we are talking about with the canyons of the 

Escalante National Park and Preserve is exactly aligned with that 

strategy. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I would like to talk more to Mr. 

Bergman about Mackinac Island, but I am out of time. 

You should realize, the second national park created was 

Mackinac Island, and we gave it back to the state of Michigan because you did better stewardship than we were doing. And it is still 

within the state of Michigan, isn’t it? 

Mr. BERGMAN. It is. And, the trivia question for Michiganders 

and anybody else, is Mackinac Island part of the upper peninsula 

or lower peninsula? And it is interesting, the rationale. By the way, 

just to set the record straight, it is part of the upper peninsula. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, but after you have been to Lake Tahoe, 

you really don’t care. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Hand, in addition to ceding management control of the three 

new national parks and a purported national park, one that is 

being proposed, this bill continued a provision to transfer the Holein-the-Rock Road to the state of Utah, further advancing the deeply 

unpopular Federal lands transfer movement. Proposals like this 

that recently led the Outdoor Industry Association to move its 

annual trade show out of Utah. Outdoor recreation is big business 

in Utah, but it seems like Utah politicians are driving a wedge between the industry and the state. 

My question to you is, how did you feel when the Outdoor 

Retailer Show pulled out of Utah because of what it perceived as 

its politicians’ lack of support for public lands? 

Ms. HAND. Well, I think that it was a great loss for Utah in a 

number of ways. The loss of the Outdoor Retailer Show was probably a $50 million loss per year to the city of Salt Lake. But the 

55 

impact of Outdoor Retailer being in Utah for a couple of decades 

is much larger than that because Outdoor Retailer branded our 

state as an outdoor mecca. It has also given a very public black eye 

to our state and the state’s outdoor industry, I think. There has 

been discussion of boycott on social media, and just in general, a 

lot of negative press generated by that withdrawal of Outdoor 

Retailer. 

For me, personally, it is a loss because I have always really enjoyed taking my staff to Outdoor Retailer, and it will be much more 

expensive and less accessible to us now that it is in Denver. It is 

more than twice the driving time. It is not convenient or affordable 

to fly my staff, in all cases, from St. George, which is our nearest 

airport. It is a couple hours drive to get there, so I feel that they 

have lost an opportunity for enrichment, and that the cost of doing 

business for us has greatly increased. 

Ms. HANABUSA. How do you feel that this bill further threatens 

Utah’s outdoor recreation economy? 

Ms. HAND. My sense is that people, in many cases, will see a new 

national park, and they think it is a great thing. But I think when 

they visit it, it may not be what they expected. And, this is not a 

national park similar to other national parks, or most national 

parks, that they visited in the West, so I think that it may prove 

a bit of a disappointment or create unexpected circumstances for 

visitors. 

I think also that the negative press that is generated through the 

process of having the monuments torn asunder, while knowing that 

they are incredibly popular with American citizens, is damaging 

also. This is making a lot of headlines, it is in the news and people 

are aware of this issue. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I think you were sort of asked a question similar 

to the one I am about to ask, and that is, do you think tourists 

would feel the same way about Bryce Canyon and Zion National 

Park if locals could hunt and graze their cattle in the middle of 

those national park units with basically no input from the National 

Park Service, because part of this would transfer it to the state? 

Ms. HAND. I think it would certainly change the experience, and 

one of my concerns is that this could prove to be a slippery slope. 

How would this impact our parks? As Ms. Varela has brought up, 

the funding for our parks has been in steady decline, even while 

attendance has been steadily increasing. The attendance is very 

difficult to manage in some of our parks now, particularly in 

Arches National Park and Zion National Park. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I think Ms. Varela’s testimony was that it is 

probably put on us, that we are not funding the National Park 

Service sufficiently, so that is why there is a reduction in the 

‘‘services that are being rendered.’’ I assume that you have dealt 

with the National Park Service yourself in Utah? 

Ms. VARELA. Yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Am I interpreting what you were saying in your 

testimony correctly, Ms. Varela? 

Ms. VARELA. The parks have been severely impacted by the lack 

of funding. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And you are talking about the Federal funding, 

right? 

56 

Ms. VARELA. Correct. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Do you agree that it is a loss to Utah that this outdoors major convention that has left now with $50 million a 

year, is that a correct statement as to how much it is worth to Salt 

Lake City? 

Ms. VARELA. The Outdoor Retailer Convention was a wonderful 

part of the tourism economy for many years. We talk about failures 

of policy being about failures to communicate, and I think that was 

a classic example where everybody tried really hard to communicate, but no one ever understood each other very well. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. My time is up. 

Ms. VARELA. And the reason that I am optimistic about this bill 

is that it is a step toward positive communication. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We will go to Mr. Stewart and you can 

continue that comment. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. Did you have a chance to conclude 

your thought? 

Ms. VARELA. I just wanted to say what a positive way I see this 

bill as restarting a conversation around the things that we agree 

on. There have been so many years and years of efforts to communicate. And when we look at it in the millions of acres category, 

everyone comes away fairly unsatisfied that their point of view has 

been heard or understood. 

I think that the brilliance of what Congressman Stewart is advancing here is to say, let’s take 100,000 precious acres that we all 

agree should be preserved and should be visited, and let’s work together to figure out how we can make that a part of our National 

Park System. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. Then, Chairman, again, I will be very 

brief. I know that we have been delayed here somewhat. 

Two things I think we can hit very quickly, and I think, 

Commissioner Pollock, a good friend of mine, and a man that I 

greatly admire, you probably can best answer these questions. It 

has been described that some people would come to this park and 

feel disappointed. Do you agree with that expectation? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Do you mean the proposed new national park? 

Mr. STEWART. The proposed national park, yes. Do you think 

that landscape out there would disappoint people? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely not. I think you are doing the right 

thing here. You are trying to give an area the infrastructure so 

people can actually visit it, they can’t right now. I am sorry, the 

services are not there. 

And it brings up a good point, as well. The emergency services, 

the county does that. We do that, so we have to go out and get 

these folks when there is no signage, back to the Hole-in-the-Rock 

Road, you can hardly get down that road. We are not allowed to 

maintain it. In a park setting, like Bryce Canyon, for example, this 

is the perfect solution to this problem. Yes. 

Mr. STEWART. And having been to that area many times, I have 

never been disappointed in a visit there. It is spectacular scenery 

and it is something that is worthy of a national park, no doubt. 

Very quickly, and again, Commissioner, you are probably best to 

answer this. Does the monument at this point allow for hunting? 

It does, doesn’t it? 

57 

Mr. POLLOCK. It does, yes, sir. 

Mr. STEWART. So, this does not change that status at all. We 

would preserve those hunting rights within the park, and we have 

been able to manage any conflicts, whether it is a monument, we 

could certainly manage any conflicts between tourists and those 

who are hiking and people who are hunting as well, wouldn’t you 

agree? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I agree. That is correct. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Thank you. I will just conclude with this. 

Again, to my friend, Mr. McClintock, and to Chairman Bishop. 

Thank you for allowing us and considering this bill. We have tried 

to do something where you didn’t have a winner and you didn’t 

have a loser. We genuinely created a situation where both sides 

had something that they wanted and could claim as a victory, 

where we really did have a win-win and it protected families and 

communities, it protected the western culture. 

Thank you for your support of this bill. And, Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

General Bergman. Oh, OK. 

Governor Leavitt, let me just close with one final question on 

The Antiquities Act. You said we need to make changes in it, but 

The Antiquities Act seems to me to be fairly clear. The President 

has authority to designate national monuments on Federal lands 

that contain ‘‘historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest.’’ And it goes 

on to limit that, saying that it must be confined to the smallest 

area compatible with proper care and management of the objects 

to be protected. The seizure of 1.7 million acres hardly seems to fit 

that definition in The Antiquities Act. 

Obviously, we have presidents who have given a different interpretation to it. And as Mr. Lowenthal pointed out, courts have 

given a different interpretation to it, but I don’t know how much 

clearer we can make the language. 

Mr. LEAVITT. The language is clear, to my reading. However, it 

seems insufficiently clear to the courts and to the executive branch 

to constrain it to good judgment. And, obviously, there would be 

need for more precision. I will leave that to you as to how that 

should be done. But the language as it stands is not producing a 

good policy outcome. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I wonder when the Constitution grants to 

Congress the sole prerogative over the management of the public 

lands for the Congress then to cede such authority to the executive, 

I think is questionable constitutionally. It is certainly contrary to 

the architecture of the Constitution, and invites the kind of abuse 

of power that brings us all here today to try to correct. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Agreed. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That now concludes all of our questions. 

Again, I want to thank all of you for joining us and for your time 

today. 

If there is no further business to be brought before the 

Committee, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

58 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Rep. Grijalva Submissions 

—Letter to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and Ranking 

Members Grijalva and Hanabusa from Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, dated December 13, 2017. 

—National Parks Conservation Association—Position for the 

House Natural Resources Subcommittee Hearing on 

December 14, 2017, dated December 13, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and 

Ranking Members Grijalva and Hanabusa from The Trust 

for Public Land, dated December 13, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and 

Ranking Members Grijalva and Hanabusa from community 

dated December 13, 2017. 

Rep. Hanabusa Submissions 

—State of Utah Exchange Patent No. 19232. 

—H.R. 3910 Sec. 201 original map. 

—Letters to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva 

from more than 734 in opposition of the monument 

designation. 

Æ