U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78-733 PS 2002

H.R. 1906, H.R. 2818 and

H.R. 3936

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

April 16, 2002

Serial No. 107-104

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(V)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on April 16, 2002 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

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

of Utah, Prepared statement on H.R. 3936 ................................................ 16

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Hawaii ............................................................................................................ 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 1906 ........................................................... 7

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

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

Prepared statement on H.R. 1906, H.R. 2818, and H.R. 3936 ............ 2

Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement on H.R. 2818 ........................................................... 15

Statement of Witnesses:

Finfer, Larry, Assistant Director for Communications, Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. .......... 17

Prepared statement on H.R. 2818 ........................................................... 19

Prepared statement on H.R. 3936 ........................................................... 18

Manning, Gloria, Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System,

U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. ........................................................ 20

Prepared statement on H.R. 3936 ........................................................... 22

Morrow, Dave, Deputy Director, Division of Parks and Recreation, Utah

Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah ......................... 30

Prepared statement on H.R. 3936 ........................................................... 31

Nielson, Bryce, County Commissioner, Rich County, Utah .......................... 40

Prepared statement on H.R. 3936 ........................................................... 41

Smith, Dan, Special Assistant to the Director, National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. .................................. 23

Prepared statement on H.R. 1906 ........................................................... 24

Williams, Gene, Sandhills Resort, Inc., St. Anthony, Idaho ......................... 26

Prepared statement on H.R. 2818 ........................................................... 27

Additional materials supplied:

Maps of proposed Shoshone National Recreation Trail System submitted

for the record by The Honorable George Radanovich ................................ 3

The Wilderness Society, et al., Statement submitted for the record ............ 44

(1)

H.R. 1906, TO AMEND THE ACT THAT ESTABLISHED THE PU’UHONUA O HONAUNAU

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK TO EXPAND

THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT PARK;

H.R. 2818, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY

OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN

PUBLIC LAND WITHIN THE SAND MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY AREA IN THE

STATE OF IDAHO TO RESOLVE AN OCCUPANCY ENCROACHMENT DATING BACK TO

1971; AND H.R. 3936, TO DESIGNATE AND

PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE

SHOSHONE NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Welcome to the Subcommittee hearing

today. This is the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and

Public Lands, and we will hear testimony on three bills today,

H.R. 1906, H.R. 2818 and H.R. 3936. The first bill is H.R. 1906,

introduced by Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who is here with us

today.

Patsy—and again this would expand the Pu’uhonua O Honaunau

National Historical Park by 805 acres. This park has become a legacy of Hawaiian culture, housing some of the most significant artifacts of this island’s early village life. It is my understanding that

2

the expansion would include resources that would have been included in the park boundary when it was established in 1955.

Our next bill is H.R. 2818, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Mike Thompson. It would authorize—Mike

Simpson—and it would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

convey approximately 10.23 acres within the Sand Mountain Wilderness Study Area in the State of Idaho to the Sandhills Resort

to resolve occupancy encroachment dating back to 1971.

Our last bill is H.R. 3936, introduced by the Full Committee

Chairman, Congressman Jim Hansen, and would designate and

provide for the management of the Shoshone National Recreation

Trail and for other purposes. In order to compensate for the growing demand of off-highway vehicles in northern Utah, H.R. 3936

would designate already-existing trails as part of the national recreational trail system.

Congressman Hansen was stranded in Utah today, but we are

going to go on with the hearing and, of course, accept his full statement into the record.

At this time I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Mink

be permitted to sit on the dais following the statement. Without objection, so ordered.

Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman,

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on

H.R. 1906, H.R. 2818, and H.R. 3936

Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee will come to

order. This morning, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public

Lands will hear testimony on three bills, H.R. 1906, H.R. 2818 and H.R. 3936.

The first bill, H.R. 1906, introduced by Congresswoman Patsy Mink, would expand the Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park by 805 acres. This park

has become a legacy of Hawaiian culture, housing some of the most significant artifacts of the island’s early village life. It is my understanding the expansion would

include resources that should have been included in the park boundary when it was

established in 1955.

Our next bill, H.R. 2818, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Mike Simpson, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 10.23 acres within the Sand Mountain Wilderness Study Area in the State

of Idaho to the Sandhills Resort to resolve occupancy encroachment dating back to

1971.

Our last bill, H.R. 3936, introduced by the Full Committee Chairman, Congressman Jim Hansen, would designate and provide for the management of the Shoshone

National Recreation Trail, and for other purposes. In order to compensate for the

growing demand of off-highway vehicles in Northern Utah, H. R. 3936 would designate already existing trails as part of the National Recreational Trails system.

Once again, I appreciate the witnesses being here to testify today and I now turn

the time over to the ranking member, Mrs. Christensen for an opening statement.

[Maps submitted for the record by Mr. Radanovich follow:]

3

4

5

6

And Mrs. Christensen, Ranking Member, will not be here today,

but we will go ahead and start then with the witnesses.

Congresswoman, it is a pleasure to have you before the

Committee and please proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much. The bill which I am presenting today, H.R. 1906, represents a very historic, culturally significant establishment on the Kona coast of the Big Island; and my

bill calls for the authorization of 805 acres to be added to the

Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historic Park.

Mrs. MINK. The bill has also been introduced in the Senate. Senator Akaka introduced S. 1057, which was passed by the Senate,

and has a reduced acreage of 397 acres. The difference is shown in

the map which I have illustrated there. The green area marked

over to the right of the map is the difference between the Senate

bill and my bill. I seek to add the additional portion there, which

is marked in green. I believe you have this in your testimony papers.

The city of Refuge National Historic Park, which is the

Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historic Park, was authorized in

1955. It was established formally in 1961. It is a very historic park.

We believe that the historic evidence is back to the 12th and 13th

century. It was a place where native Hawaiians could seek refuge

if they were being hunted down by someone, threatened with criminal offenses and so forth. They could find refuge there and be

saved, and at some point later be allowed to leave the lands.

The proposed addition contains 800 cultural sites, 25 caves, a

minimum of 10 heiau (the native Hawaiian temples), 20 platforms,

26 enclosures, 40 burial features, and many, many other remnants

of trails and other historic evidences of the ancient culture. We feel

that it is extremely important that this park be extended to the

areas that we have indicated.

The coastal waters are pristine class AA waters, and with the absence of development in the area, the coast is absolutely gorgeous.

We have problems of runoff in other areas because of development,

and therefore, the extension of this park at this time is very, very

critical.

Burial sites are a particularly sensitive issue in Hawaii; they are

considered very sacred. And so the set-aside of these lands because

of the burial sites is very, very important.

The local community is in strong support of the incorporation of

the full 805 acres to the Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historic

Park. I would like to submit a copy of our Hawaii County Council

Resolution 149-01 in support of my bill, H.R. 1906, and the 108-

acre expansion.

I would also ask unanimous consent that the testimony of

Hawaii County Council member Nancy Pisicchio be included in the

record and in the files of the consideration of this bill, together

with some 150 communications that she has submitted to me for

inclusion in the record, if I may have your consent to do that.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Without objection, so ordered.

7

1 An ahupua’a is a traditional Hawaiian land division that extends from the uplands or mountains to the sea.

Mrs. MINK. It is, of course, my intense interest to have all of the

800-plus acres to be included in the park. But I am also aware that

the Senate, having passed S. 1057 in October, 2001, also made appropriations available, subject to the authorization. It is critical

that a bill pass and be signed into law or we will forfeit the amount

of money that has been set aside in the appropriations bill.

Therefore, for the purposes of this markup, Mr. Chairman, I

would ask that the bill—my bill be amended so that it would include the precise acreage as specified in the Senate bill, S. 1057,

in order to move this bill forward. I would also, however, like to

ask the Subcommittee, in the legislation, to request that the National Park Service do a reconnaissance study of the remaining 400

acres, which are not covered in S. 1057, in order to establish the

rationale for this inclusion which I hope we can do perhaps in the

next session.

On behalf of the people of Hawaii and certainly the people in the

County of Hawaii and all the native Hawaiian organizations, I

would like to thank this Committee and Chairman Radanovich for

his interest in this matter. And I am very grateful for whatever assistance you can provide to move this bill forward that it may

reach final passage this year. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Patsy, and again you

are more than welcome to join us on the dais for the remainder of

this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Mink follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Patsy T. Mink, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Hawaii, on H.R. 1906

Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen, and Members of the Subcommittee

First, I want to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on H.R. 1906,

which authorizes the expansion of Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park,

a unique national treasure located in South Kona on the island of Hawaii.

I introduced H.R. 1906 with Representative Abercrombie in May 2001. Senator

Daniel Akaka also introduced a bill, S. 1057, in June 2001, to expand the boundaries of the Park. The major difference between the bills is amount of land authorized for expansion. H.R. 1906 authorizes 805 acres whereas S. 1057 authorizes 397

acres. I submit a map showing the current area of the Park (180 acres), the area

authorized by S. 1057 (397 acres), and the area authorized by H.R. 1906 (805

acres).

Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park, formerly known as the City of

Refuge National Historical Park, was authorized by an act on Congress on July 26,

1955 (60 Stat.376) . . . for the benefit and inspiration of the people. . .’’ The park

was formally established in 1961. All the lands included within the park are listed

on the National Register of Historic Places.

The overall management goal for the historical park is for the resources to accurately represent a slice of time ranging from pre-contact (circa 12th - 13th century)

to about 1930, when Ki’ilae village was completely abandoned. The objectives developed to meet that goal focus on preservation, stabilization, and restoration of the

park’s cultural and natural resources.

A significant portion of the ancient Hawaiian village of Ki’ilae lies outside of the

current park’s boundaries. The proposed addition of 805 acres, located within the

traditional land divisions of Ki’ilae ahupua’a 1 and Kauleoli ahupua’a, contains significant cultural and natural resources, which complement the Park’s mission of

preservation and rehabilitation of Hawaiian natural, cultural, and historic

resources. These lands contain at least 800 cultural sites, structures, and features;

at least 25 caves (or cave openings), many of which are refuge caves; a minimum

of 10 heiau (temples); more than 20 platforms; 26 enclosures; over 40 burial features

8

(or highly probable burials); trails and trail remnants; a minimum of 6 residential

compounds; a holua slide; several canoe landing sites; a water well; numerous walls

and wall remnants; and a wide range of agricultural features.

Ancient Native Hawaiian burial sites are a particularly sensitive issue in Hawaii.

Many descendants of the Ki’ilae villagers live in the area and want to make sure

that the graves of their ancestors are respected and that archaeological and historical sites are preserved. There are also important landmarks and rock formations

on the land, which have been used by Native Hawaiians for generations to locate

their fishing grounds.

The area is also a place of great natural beauty and spiritual renewal. The

Pu’uhonua was a place of safety and refuge where people who had violated kapu

(taboo or sacred law) could flee to avoid what otherwise would be certain death.

After being absolved by a kahuna (priest) they could go free. People often went to

the Pu’uhonua during times of war to avoid the conflict.

Ki’ilae Village, which is part of the area that would be added to the park by this

bill, was also an important trading place for Native Hawaiians from the 12th century. The land provides a critical link to Hawaii’s past and protects an ancient landscape in the face of encroaching residential sprawl along the Kona coast.

The coastal waters in this area are pristine class AA because of the lack of development in the area and the fact that the coast is rocky and, therefore, little soil

drains into the ocean. We have already experienced severe problems in other locations along the Kona coast where rain runoff from soil brought in for development

polluted AA-class coastal marine resources.

The local community strongly supports incorporation of the full 805 acres into

Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park. I submit for the record a copy of

Hawaii County Council Resolution 149–01 in support of H.R. 1906 and the 805-acre

expansion. I also submit testimony from Hawaii County Council Member Nancy

Pisicchio and the more than 150 communications sent to the Council Member by her

constituents over the past two weeks in support of H.R. 1906.

Despite my desire to see the full area authorized, I would support amending

H.R. 1906 to make it identical to S. 1057, which passed the Senate on October 17,

2001, in the hope that we will be able to promptly send a bill to the President.

S. 1057 contains an authorization for up to 397 acres, and includes the 238-acre

parcel considered most critical for protection by the National Park Service. Senator

Akaka was successful in securing an appropriation of $500,000toward acquisition of

this parcel in Fiscal Year 2002, but we must have an authorization before these

funds can be spent. The 238-acre parcel (Parcel A on the map) has been purchased

by the Trust for Public Land, which is holding it in trust for the National Park

Service. The owner of Parcel B (the additional lands authorized in S. 1057) has indicated a willingness to donate a major portion of these lands to the park.

I wish to ask that this Subcommittee request the National Park Service do a reconnaissance study of the remaining 400+ acres not covered by S. 1057 to establish

the extent of the historical, cultural, and natural resources in the portion of Kauleoli

ahupua’a south of Parcels A and B.

On behalf of the people of Hawaii, I extend a warm aloha to Chairman Radanovich and Ranking Member Christensen for your assistance in holding this hearing.

I would be very grateful for your continued assistance in moving the bill through

the Subcommittee and Committee and to allow its final passage by the whole House.

Thank you.

{Attachments to Mrs. Mink’s statement follow:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. RADANOVICH. Our next panel will be—I just wanted to say,

I know how to do Pu’uhonua O Honaunau, but I have a hard time

with Simpson. I apologize. But for an opening statement, please

proceed and we will go on to our next statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. SIMPSON. That you, Mr. Chairman. I suggested to you that

this Subcommittee needs to have a more direct input into this proposed expansion in Hawaii, so I am suggesting that the

Subcommittee go over and take a look at it personally and decide

what we need to do that.

Mrs. MINK. Absolutely. But don’t delay passage of the bill.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling the hearing on H.R. 2818 to convey approximately 10 acres of public land

located within the Bureau of Land Management Sand Mountain

Wilderness Study Area, located near Saint Anthony in southeast

Idaho, to the owner of the Sandhills Resort. The Sandhills Resort

will pay fair market value for the land as valued by an appraisal.

Mr. SIMPSON. In 1971, Mr. Williams, who is with us today to

testify—he is the current owner of the Sandhills Resort—purchased

the 5-acre resort and existing developments, and over the ensuing

31 years had added numerous improvements to the property. The

resort is a gateway to the Sandhills sand dunes, a popular recreational area in southeast Idaho. The land comprising the resort

was originally conveyed out of Federal ownership in 1953, when

the BLM sold 5 acres of public lands adjacent to the Saint Anthony

Sand Dunes.

Over the years numerous improvements were made to the property, including a bar, restaurant, dance hall and swimming pool.

When Mr. Williams purchased the land in 1971, he converted the

existing improvements to a recreational development, catering to

campers and users of the sand dunes. Unfortunately, the 5-acre resort was inadvertently included in the BLM’s Sand Mountain Wilderness Study Area boundary, which was established in 1981.

Mr. Williams successfully operated the resort until the early

1990’s, when the BLM began to question the location of the resort

and several facilities located on the resort. In 1995, a survey was

initiated confirming that the majority of the resort’s facilities, including a portion of Mr. Williams’ house, were encroaching on public lands. Since June 1998, the resort has operated under a Special

Use, Special Land Use Permit which temporarily authorizes Mr.

Williams’ use of the public land in question and allows BLM to collect fair market rent.

In June 1997, the BLM began to work to sell Mr. Williams’ 10

acres of land in order to resolve the encroachment issue. In September 1997, the BLM published a notice of intent to prepare a

land use plan amendment, the first step of a process that would

have adjusted the boundary of the Sand Mountain Wilderness

Study Area and allowed the BLM to sell approximately 10 acres of

the Sandhills Resort. Unfortunately, the local BLM office was not

able to move forward with the plan amendment due to concerns

from the BLM Idaho State office that the proposed sale violated the

15

BLM’s interim management policy for wilderness study area management.

While the 10 acres in question is located within the Sand Hill

Mountains Wilderness Study Area, I would like to point out to my

colleagues when the Sand Hill Mountains Wilderness Study Area

boundary was drawn, it mistakenly included the Sandhills Resort

and a small strip of land containing roads, camping sites, and a

power line. According to the BLM, ‘‘The developments impair the

naturalness of the wilderness study area and should not have been

included within the WSA boundary.’’ it is quite clear that the sale

area, which contains various facilities—as I said, camp sites, roads

and power lines—does not have the characteristics which make it

suitable for wilderness.

Unfortunately, until the encroachment issue is resolved, Mr. Williams cannot gain clear title to his property, preventing him from

obtaining a loan against the property or making improvements to

the property. Furthermore, this prevents Mr. Williams or his family from selling the resort, placing an undue financial hardship on

Mr. Williams and his family. This common-sense legislation will

allow BLM to resolve the longstanding encroachment problems and

allow Mr. Williams to gain clear title to this property.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for holding this hearing and

the opportunity to present this legislation to the Committee.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Michael Simpson, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Idaho, on H.R. 2818

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for scheduling this hearing on H.R. 2818.

H.R. 2818 is a simple, straightforward bill that would convey approximately ten

acres of public land located within the Bureau of Land Management Sand Mountain

Wilderness Study Area, located near St. Anthony in southeast Idaho, to the owner

of the Sandhills Resort. The Sandhills Resort will pay fair market value for the land

as valued by an appraisal.

In 1971, Mr. Williams, the current owner of the Sandhills Resort, purchased the

five-acre resort and existing developments and over the ensuing thirty-one years has

added numerous improvements to the property. The resort is a gateway to the St.

Anthony Sand Dunes, a popular recreational area in southeast Idaho. The land comprising the resort was originally conveyed out of Federal ownership in 1953, when

the BLM sold five acres of public land adjacent to the St. Anthony Sand Dunes.

Over the years, numerous improvements were made to the property, including a

bar, restaurant, dance hall, and swimming pool. When Mr. Williams purchased the

land in 1971, he converted the existing improvements to a recreational development

catering to campers and users of the sand dunes. Unfortunately, the five-acre resort

was inadvertently included in BLM’s Sand Mountain WSA boundary, which was established in 1981.

Mr. Williams successfully operated the resort until the early 1990’s when the

BLM began to question the location of the resort and several facilities located on

the resort. In 1995, a survey was initiated confirming that the majority of the resort’s facilities, including a portion of Mr. Williams house, were encroaching on public land. Since June of 1998, the resort has operated under a Special Land Use Permit, which temporarily authorizes Mr. Williams’s use of the public land in question

and allows the BLM to collect a fair market rent.

In June of 1997, the BLM began working to sell Mr. Williams ten acres of land

in order to resolve the encroachment issue. In September of 1997, the BLM published A Notice of Intent to Prepare a Land Use Plan Amendment, the first step

of a process that would have adjusted the boundary of the Sand Mountain WSA and

allowed the BLM to sell approximately ten acres to the Sandhills Resort. Unfortunately, the local BLM office was not able to move forward with the plan amendment

16

due to concerns from the BLM Idaho State office that the proposed sale violated

BLM’s Interim Management Policy for Wilderness Study Area Management.

While the ten acres in question is located within the Sand Mountain WSA, I

would like to point out to my colleagues that when the Sand Mountain Wilderness

Study Area boundary was drawn, it mistakenly included the Sandhills Resort and

a small strip of land containing roads, camping sites, and a power line. According

to the BLM, ‘‘the developments impair the naturalness of the WSA and should not

have been included within the WSA boundary.’’ It is quite clear that the sale area,

which contains various facilities, camping sites, roads, and power lines, does not

have characteristics which make it suitable for wilderness.

Unfortunately, until the encroachment issue is resolved, Mr. Williams cannot gain

clear title to his property, preventing him from obtaining a loan against the property or making improvements to the property. Furthermore, this prevents Mr. Williams or his family from selling the resort, placing an undue financial hardship on

Mr. Williams and his family.

This common-sense legislation will allow the BLM to resolve the long-standing encroachment problem, and allow Mr. Williams to gain clear title to his property.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to bring this legislation before the

Committee.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And, again, Mr. Hansen would have an opening statement on H.R. 3936, but he is not here. So with there

being no objection, we will submit his opening statement for the

record. There being no objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman,

Committee on Resources, on H.R. 3936

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

I am pleased to have Mr. Dave Morrow from the Utah Department of Natural Resources and Mr. Bryce Nielson, County Commissioner from Rich County, Utah with

us at our hearing today. I am very appreciative of the time and hard work that they

have invested, together with other local officials, in the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3936 would designate approximately 337 miles of existing

trails, already open to OHV’s in northern Utah, as the Shoshone National Recreation Trail. It would also allow for the addition of connecting and side trails, to be

added administratively through existing authority, once local counties have identified appropriate access points and local trails through their communities. Once

these connecting and side trails are added, it is expected that there will be over 500

miles of trails in the system.

In 1968, Congress responded to the public’s desire for additional outdoor recreation opportunities by enacting the National Trails System Act. This Act allowed

for the creation of a National Recreation Trail system. However, despite being cited

specifically in the Act, these recreation activities have not been well represented in

the trail system. In recent years, Utah has seen a dramatic increase in the number

of registered OHV’s. This growth has presented Federal and state land managers

with the difficult challenge of finding and identifying appropriate places to ride for

this growing group of recreationists. Experience has shown that when an organized

system of trails has been identified that it becomes easier to direct these recreational activities to appropriate places and to protect the areas where OHV riding

would not be appropriate. This bill is a proactive attempt to channel this growing

recreation activity. In fact, many who are not generally supportive of OHV recreation have expressed their support for this legislation because of its ability to channel these activities.

This bill will designate only those trails that are already open to OHV use and

are recognized in the local Forest Service and BLM travel plans. However, as provided in the National Trails System Act, the legislation allows that additional trails

may be added at a future point, through the normal process.

Prior to the introduction of this legislation, meetings were held with locally elected officials in each affected county. Based upon their input, meetings were held with

local Forest Service and BLM personnel to identify appropriate routes for the trail

system. Consequently, some routes under previous consideration have been deleted.

This has resulted in a system of trails with broad support that is supported by the

local counties and Federal land managers.

17

I believe this is a win-win proposal. It is not only a positive for those who enjoy

OHV riding as a recreation activity, but is also a positive for those who want to ensure that OHV riding takes place in appropriate areas and avoids sensitive locations.

Once again, thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the

opportunity to address the merits of this legislation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Now, thank you, Panel 2: Mr. Larry Finfer, the

Assistant Director for Communications at BLM; Ms. Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest Service; and

Mr. Dan Smith, Special Assistant to the Director of the National

Park Service. Welcome to the Committee. We have a panel after

you, so I ask everyone to stay within the 5-minute warning. If you

don’t know the system, green means go, yellow means hurry up,

and red means stop.

Mr. RADANOVICH. So we will go ahead and start with Mr. Larry

Finfer.

Mr. Finfer, welcome and please begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE A. FINFER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

FOR COMMUNICATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. FINFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify on

two bills, H.R. 3936, the Shoshone National Recreational Trail Act,

and H.R. 2818, an act to convey certain public lands in the Sand

Mountain Wilderness Study Area in Idaho. I submitted statements

on both, which I request be included in the record, and I will keep

my remarks brief.

Mr. FINFER. As to H.R. 3936, while the U.S. Forest Service is the

primary land manager within the proposed trail area, the bill also

encompasses existing trails on BLM-administered lands primarily

in the eastern portion of the area in question. The administration

supports this bill and looks forward to working with the Committee

and our partners in Utah on its implementation. Once designated,

the Shoshone National Recreation Trail will provide a high-quality,

interconnected trail network in Rich, Cache, Box Elder and Weber

Counties in northeast Utah.

According to the State of Utah’s department of natural resources,

the number of registered OHV users has doubled in the State since

1990. The BLM strongly supports the provisions in section 1(c)(2)

of H.R. 3936, which promotes the use of cooperative agreements

concerning the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, the State of

Utah DNR, and appropriate county governments regarding trail

management. We believe it imperative that a cooperative management plan and framework be established that includes all parties.

This cooperative effort is consistent with Secretary Norton’s ‘‘4 C’s’’

principle, which stresses consultation, cooperation, and communication, all in the service of conservation.

We appreciate Mr. Hansen’s visible recognition of the importance

of cooperative management, which he has provided in this bill.

While supportive of the bill, we have identified some issues that

need to be addressed in order to develop appropriate trailhead and

staging facilities, maintenance and protections for resources we

manage in this area and, further, to acknowledge other land

resource users.

18

We look forward to working with the Committee to address these

concerns, which are noted in my testimony; and I thank you for the

opportunity to comment on H.R. 3936.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finfer follows:]

Statement of Lawrence A. Finfer, Assistant Director, Communications,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3936

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony

regarding H.R. 3936, the Shoshone National Recreation Trail Act. While the U.S.

Forest Service is the primary Federal land manager within the proposed trail, the

bill also encompasses 67 miles of BLM-administered lands. The Department supports this bill and looks forward to working with the Committee and our partners

in Utah on cooperative management strategies to implement H.R. 3936.

Bill Analysis and Background

H.R. 3936 provides for the designation and management of a 521-mile system of

trails in northeastern Utah to provide recreational access for motorized vehicles and

other users as appropriate. In addition, we understand that the trail would serve

as a ‘‘connection’’ for a number of small communities within the region by providing

economic opportunities through services to recreational users of the trail. We further understand that H.R. 3936 enjoys strong local support within the State of

Utah.

Once designated, the Shoshone National Recreation Trail would provide 521 miles

of scenic and high-quality interconnected trail segments in Rich, Cache, Box Elder,

and Weber Counties in Northeast Utah. According to the State of Utah’s Department of Natural Resources, the number of registered Off- Highway Vehicles (OHVs)

has doubled in the State since 1990. H.R. 3936 will assist agencies such as the

BLM in meeting the needs of this growing user group on Federal lands.

The BLM strongly supports the provisions in Section 1 (c) (2) of H.R. 3936 which

promotes the use of cooperative agreements between the Secretaries of the Interior

and Agriculture and the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources and appropriate county governments regarding trail management. We believe that it is imperative that a cooperative management plan and framework be established that is inclusive of all parties involved in the trail, whether they are land owners or recreational users. This cooperative effort is consistent with Secretary Norton’s ‘‘4 Cs’’

principle, which stresses consultation, cooperation and communication, all in the

service of conservation.

Management Concerns

While supportive of the concepts embodied in H.R. 3936, especially the use of existing trails, we have identified certain issues that need to be addressed in order

to develop appropriate trail-head and staging facilities, trail maintenance, and protections for the resources BLM manages under the provisions of the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). We look forward to working with the Committee to address these concerns.

Among our concerns, is the language contained in Section 3 of the bill, entitled

‘‘Motorized and Non-motorized Use’’. Section 3 states: ‘‘Non-motorized use of the

Trail may be allowed to the extent that such use is compatible with motorized use.’’

The BLM recommends that this section be amended to reflect the provisions in current regulations under 43 CFR 8342.1(c) which states: ‘‘Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into

account noise and other factors...’’ This regulation promotes compatibility among the

various uses of National Recreation Trails.

The BLM has some further concerns regarding appropriate management of the

Trail which include continued protection for lands that contain riparian areas, fragile soil types, big game crucial winter range, sensitive sage grouse habitat, and

raptor nesting sites. To protect these species and the associated sensitive habitats,

the BLM would need to continue the current seasonal restrictions on portions of the

proposed routes. This should not be a major conflict with Trail system operation or

deviate from the current management scenario. Additionally, two BLM campgrounds (Little Creek and Birch Creek) are proposed as trail heads for the system.

One campground will require renovation, the second will require additional infrastructure. These concerns will need to be addressed through the cooperative management framework proposed in the bill.

19

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3936. The BLM looks forward

to participating in the cooperative management agreements and implementation of

the Shoshone National Recreation Trail if designated. I would be happy to address

any questions you may have.

Mr. FINFER. I now turn my attention to H.R. 2818. The administration supports this bill, as its enactment will resolve a unique,

longstanding problem involving the Sand Mountain Resort. The

Sand Hill Resort is located on a 5-acre parcel in Saint Anthony,

Idaho. It was established in 1971 when the current owner purchased an abandoned resort facility originally constructed in the

1950’s. It is located within the current boundary of the Sand Mountain Wilderness Study Area and is completely surrounded by public

lands.

When the WSA boundary was approved in 1981, it included

10.23 acres that contained, among other things, the resort’s existing access road. At the time, neither BLM nor the owner realized

that some of the resort’s building utilities and facilities were located on the 10.23 acres. When a Cadastral survey was finally completed in 1997, it revealed that resort facilities, including showers,

restroom, storage building, garage, camp sites and most of the owner’s residence are located on public land within the WSA.

H.R. 2818 seeks to effect a permanent solution to this problem,

thereby obviating the need to issue and review the Special Land

Use Permit under which the owner now operates. It authorizes the

Secretary to convey the 10.23 parcel for fair market value determined by a qualified land appraisal. It also exempts the parcel

from requirements of the Interim Management Policy for Lands

Under Wilderness Review.

The owners of the resort have had a long and positive relationship with the BLM. As I mentioned, the owner acted in good faith

in purchasing the property. Neither he nor the BLM were aware

of the boundary problems. Compounding the issue, the area was inadvertently included in the WSA when it was established in 1981,

even though the lands in question do not have wilderness characteristics. This chain of events makes necessary a legislative remedy, and we appreciate Mr. Simpson’s introduction to this bill

which will indeed solve the problem.

Accordingly, as H.R. 2818 will resolve the longstanding issue

and correct an inadvertent mapping area affecting wilderness values and restore the integrity of the Sand Mountain Wilderness

Study Area, we support the bill and look forward to any questions

the Committee may have.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Finfer.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finfer follows:]

Statement of Lawrence A. Finfer, Assistant Director, Communications,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on

H.R. 2818

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 2818, an act to convey certain public lands in the Sand Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA) in the State

of Idaho to resolve an occupancy encroachment dating back to 1971. The Department supports H.R. 2818 as its enactment will resolve a long-standing problem involving the Sand Mountain Resort which has impacted the Bureau of Land ManageVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:38 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78733.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
20

ment’s (BLM) efforts to effectively manage the lands located within the WSA. We

thank Representative Simpson for his sponsorship of H.R. 2818 and his efforts to

remedy this problem.

Background

The Sandhills Resort is situated on a 5 acre parcel located in St. Anthony, Idaho.

The Resort was established in 1971 when the current owner purchased an abandoned resort facility originally constructed in 1953. The Resort is located within the

current boundaries of the Sand Mountain WSA and is completely surrounded by

public lands. When the WSA boundary was approved in 1981, it included 10.23

acres that contained, among other things, the Resort’s existing access road. At the

time, neither the BLM nor the Resort owner realized that some of the resort’s buildings, utilities and facilities were located within the 10.23 acres. However, a Cadastral survey was completed in 1997, which revealed that a majority of the resort’s

facilities, including showers and restrooms, storage buildings, garage, improved

camp sites, and most of the owner’s residence is located on public land within the

WSA.

As a result of this discovery, since June of 1998, the BLM has issued a land use

permit to the Resort. However, the permit, which must be renewed every three

years, is a temporary measure to allow for continued operation of the Resort without

unduly impacting the land owner and his business. H.R. 2818 seeks to effectuate

a permanent solution to this problem, thereby obviating the need for issuing and

renewing the land use permit.

Bill Provisions

H.R. 2818 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 10.23 parcel of

land in question to the owner of the Resort for fair market value as determined by

a qualified land appraisal. In order to facilitate the conveyance, the bill also exempts the parcel from the requirements of the Interim Management Policy for

Lands Under Wilderness Review of the BLM and authorizes the Secretary to require such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate

to protect the interests of the United States.

Conclusion

The owners of the Resort have had a long and positive relationship with the BLM,

as do the many off-highway vehicle users that frequent the Resort and the surrounding public lands in the Sand Mountain area. H.R. 2818 would resolve the

long-standing issue surrounding the Resorts encroachment on public lands, would

correct an inadvertent mapping error affecting wilderness values, and would restore

the integrity of the Sand Mountain Wilderness Study Area. While H.R. 2818 has

the positive benefit of resolving long-term management issues, it also enhances the

cooperative partnerships and relationships with the constituents that use the public

lands in this area for recreation and other approved uses.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Next, Ms. Gloria Manning with the U.S. Forest

Service. Gloria, welcome and please begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF

FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Ms. MANNING. Thank you for inviting me to discuss H.R. 3936.

It would designate a series of existing and planned roads and trails

in and around the Wasatch-Caches National Forest in Utah as the

Shoshone National Recreation Trail.

The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the State

of Utah and local governments and other groups and individuals

have been working for some time to establish the Shoshone Trail.

Because H.R. 3936 is consistent with existing authority that allow

the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to designate the existing

portions of this trail system, and with land owner approval, those

portions not on Federal lands, as a national recreation trail, we

support enactment of this bill.

21

H.R. 3936 would provide motorized recreational opportunities in

northern Utah by designating a system of approximately 337 miles

of off-road-vehicle roads and trails as the Shoshone National Recreation Trail. From our viewpoint, this makes sense. OHV is an important and increasing demand on public lands that, when properly

planned and monitored, can be accommodated without significant

resource damage. Established OHV roads and trails meet the demand for this form of recreation by potentially decreasing unauthorized use in more sensitive areas.

The Forest Service, along with our Federal, State and local partners, have been working to establish an OHV trail system. In my

written testimony, I discuss the specific trail knowledge and ownership; those figures were based upon preliminary estimates and do

not reflect any additional miles currently under consideration for

designation. We will work with our partners and the Subcommittee

to clarify which roads and trails will be included in the designation.

To be fully successful in this endeavor, several issues, including

public access to roads and trails that cross both public and private

lands, will need to be explored in the coming months; and support

from local communities is critical. The good news is that the State

of Utah is working closely with the Forest Service, and the local

communities have written letters in support of the Shoshone National Recreation Trail.

Challenges for the future include providing access to the trail

from local communities. As the population of northern Utah has

grown, so has the demand for various forms of recreation, including

OHV opportunities. Many of the foothills and private lands adjacent to the National Forest System lands have been developed, and

in many cases public lands are not accessible.

The completed trail, as envisioned by H.R. 3936, will require, for

any future expansion, acquisitions and new rights of way and easements.

We cannot do this alone. We must develop partnerships with the

State, county and municipal jurisdictions to ensure that public access is secured before development of any future trail occurs, since

it often becomes impossible to acquire access after those areas are

fully developed. In addition, successful management of this trail

will require coordination with State and local jurisdiction, especially in areas of regulation that govern OHV use.

Mr. Chairman, we realize that the National Forest System lands

in northern Utah play a significant role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities. However, in the context of all land ownership,

we are only a small part of the whole. A large percentage of the

land is in private ownership and close working relationship with

private landowners and local governments would be required to

fully implement the Shoshone National Recreation Trail. We are

pleased to work with members of the Committee, other Federal

agencies and officials from the State of Utah, as well as local governments, to provide varied recreational opportunities and to ensure that the natural resources are managed appropriately.

We support the enactment of this bill. This concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Ms. Manning.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]

22

Statement of Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3936

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss H.R. 3936. I am

Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

H.R. 3936 would designate a series of existing and planned roads and trails on

and around the Wasatch–Cache National Forest in Utah, as the Shoshone National

Recreation Trail. The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State of Utah

and local governments, and other groups and individuals have been working for

some time to establish the Shoshone Trail. Because H.R. 3936 is consistent with existing authority that allows the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to designate the existing portions of this trail system, and with landowner approval, those

portions not on Federal lands, as a National Recreation Trail, we support enactment

of this bill.

H.R. 3936 would provide motorized recreation opportunities in northern Utah by

designating 337 miles of existing OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) roads and trails as

the Shoshone National Recreation Trail. From our viewpoint this makes sense. OHV

use is an important and increasing demand on public lands, that when properly

planned and monitored, can be accommodated without significant resource damage.

Established OHV roads and trails meet the demand for this form of recreation while

potentially decreasing unauthorized uses in more sensitive areas.

The Forest Service, along with our Federal, State, and local partners has been

working to establish an OHV trail system. Currently under consideration in the ongoing effort to establish the Shoshone Trail are the 337 miles of existing roads and

trails that now permit OHV use and would be designated the Shoshone National

Recreation Trail under H.R. 3936. Lands involved include 199 miles of National

Forest System roads, all of which currently allow OHV use, Bureau of Land Management roads, State of Utah roads, and private and county roads.

To be fully successful in this endeavor, several issues, including public access to

roads and trails that cross both public and private lands, will need to be explored

in coming months, and support from local communities is critical. The good news

is that many communities are already working to develop motorized recreation opportunities. Examples of on-going planning can be seen in Box Elder County in

Northern Utah, Cache County near Logan, and the Wasatch Front counties of

Weber and Davis.

Challenges for the future include providing access to the trail from local communities. As the population of northern Utah has grown, so has the demand for various

forms of recreation, including OHV opportunities. Many of the foothills and private

lands adjacent to National Forest System lands have been developed, and in many

cases, public lands are not accessible.

The completed trail, as envisioned by H.R. 3936, will require the acquisition of

new rights of way and easements. We cannot do this alone. We must develop partnerships with the State, county, and municipal jurisdictions to ensure that public

access is secured before development occurs, since it often becomes impossible to acquire access after those areas are fully developed.

In addition, successful management of this trail may require state and local jurisdictions to carefully consider the impact of their regulations that govern OHV use.

For example, those communities along the Wasatch Front that become integral portals to the trail system may also permit ATV use on city streets, as currently allowed by the community of Richfield.

Mr. Chairman, we realize that National Forest System lands in northern Utah

play a significant role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities. However, in the

context of all land ownership, the National Forest System is only a part of the

whole. A large percentage of the land is in private ownership and close working relationships with private landowners and local governments would be required to

fully implement the Shoshone National Recreation Trail.

We are pleased to work with Members of this Committee, other Federal agencies

and officials from the State of Utah, as well as local governments to provide varied

recreation opportunities and ensure that natural resources are managed appropriately.

This concludes my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions you may

have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. We will hear from Mr. Smith and open up the

panel for questions.

23

Mr. Smith, welcome and again please keep your testimony to 5

minutes.

STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will submit testimony in

full, and I will summarize from it. Thank you for the opportunity

to present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 1906, a

bill to adjust the boundaries of Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National

Historical Park, and I will defer that pronunciation to the Congresswoman and to you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Patsy, he butchered it.

Mr. SMITH. And I knew I was going to, Mr. Chairman.

The Department supports H.R. 1906, if amended in conformance

with this testimony. The legislation will adjust the authorized

boundary of the national historical park to include the remainder

of Ki’ilae Village and other adjoining lands within the park.

The proposed expansion is located on lands immediately adjacent

to, but outside, the park boundary and would add approximately

805 acres to the 182 acres already within the park. About one-half

of the proposed new acreage, about 413 acres, contains known important physical remains of the Native Hawaiian culture associated

with this national historical park.

The Department previously testified in support of S. 1057, a

similar bill that passed the Senate on October 17, 2001. That bill

would add only 238 acres to the 182 acres already within the park

and would authorize the addition of an additional 165 acres by donation if the lands were ever acquired. In light of the National

Park Service’s interest in protecting the entire Ki’ilae Village and

its archeological resources, we recommend that H.R. 1906 be

amended to incorporate the language of the Senate-passed bill.

The Congresswoman has described the historical significance of

this national historical park, and so I will not repeat that.

In 1992, a boundary study was prepared for the park. Both the

master plan and the boundary study called for adding, quote, ‘‘the

balance of Ki’ilae Village to the park.’’ up until last year, the property was unavailable because its ownership was not clear. The

three heirs to the property have now settled the ownership issue

thereby clearing the way for the Park Service to acquire the land.

This bill, if amended, would allow the boundary of the park to

be expanded to protect this significant cultural resource. In light of

the President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred

maintenance needs within the National Park System before incurring additional financial burdens, it is encouraging to note the

present owner of the land authorized for acquisition in the Senatepassed bill may consider donating one portion of the property to

the National Park Service; while the other portion would be available for purchase, and that parcel has been appraised.

Funds to purchase this property would be subject to NPS servicewide priorities and the availability of appropriations. Since no development is contemplated within the boundary adjustment area,

no line item construction or significant development costs are anticipated for this historical park, although there would be some

24

one-time costs after acquisition to conduct an inventory of archeological resources and remove non-native vegetation. We do not expect an increase to the park’s base operating budget.

There is strong local support to include these resources within

the national historical park, and it reflects a high level of cooperation, consultation and the strong commitment of local communities

and governments toward the park. The local support for land acquisition and the potential donation of a portion of this land are

important parts of the Department’s decisions to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I look forward

to answering any questions the Committee may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant to the Director, National

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1906

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 1906, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Pu’uhonua o

Honaunau National Historical Park, in the State of Hawaii.

The Department supports H.R. 1906, if amended in conformance with this testimony. The legislation will adjust the authorized boundary of Pu’uhonua o Honaunau

National Historical Park to include the remainder of Ki’ilae Village and other adjoining lands within the park. The proposed expansion is located on lands immediately adjacent to, but outside the park boundary, and would add approximately

805 acres to the 182 acres already within the park. About one-half of the proposed

new acreage contains known important physical remains of the native Hawaiian

culture associated with the Pu’uhonua o Honaunau.

The Department previously testified in support of S. 1057, a similar bill that

passed the Senate on October 17, 2001. That bill would add only 238 acres to the

182 acres already within the park and would authorize the addition of another 165

acres by donation if the lands were ever acquired. In light of the National Park

Service’s interest in protecting the entire Ki’ilae Village and its archaeological

resources, we recommend that H.R. 1906 be amended to incorporate the language

of the Senate-passed bill.

Ki’ilae is an ancient Hawaiian settlement dating back to the late 12th or early

13th centuries. The settlement remained active until the 1930’s, making it one of

the last traditional Hawaiian villages to be abandoned. The proposed boundary adjustment consists of adding lands containing the archaeological remains of this

Hawaiian village. Lands to be added to the park contain more than 800 archaeological sites, structures and features. These include at least 25 caves and 10 heiau

(Hawaiian temples), more than 20 rock platforms, 26 rock wall enclosures, over 40

burial features, residential compounds, a holua (recreational slide used by Hawaiian

royalty), canoe landing sites, a water well, numerous rock walls and a wide range

of agricultural features.

The proposed expansion dates back to a 1957 archaeological survey conducted by

the Bishop Museum. This survey found that the greater part of the ancient village

of Ki’ilae, as well as other significant Hawaiian archaeological resources, were left

outside of the park boundaries established by Congress in 1955. Pu’uhonua o

Honaunau’s 1972 Master Plan identifies Ki’ilae Village as one of the park’s major

resources and the master plan graphics show village remains extending well beyond

the existing park boundaries. In 1992, a boundary study was prepared for the park.

Both the master plan and the boundary study call for adding the ‘‘balance of Ki’ilae

Village’’ to the park. Up until last year, the property was unavailable because its

ownership was not clear. The three heirs to the property have now settled the ownership issue, thereby clearing the way for the Park Service to acquire the land. This

bill, if amended, would allow the boundary of the park to be expanded to protect

this significant cultural resource.

In light of the President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System before incurring additional financial

burdens, it is encouraging to note that the present owner of the land authorized for

acquisition in the Senate-passed bill may consider donating one portion of the property to the National Park Service, while the other portion would be available for

purchase and has been appraised at $4.6 million. Funds to purchase this property

25

would be subject to NPS servicewide priorities and the availability of appropriations. Since no development is contemplated within the boundary adjustment area,

no line item construction or significant development costs are anticipated, although

there would be some one-time costs after acquisition to conduct an inventory of archaeological resources and remove non-native vegetation. We do not expect an increase to the park’s base-operating budget.

There is strong local support to protect and include these resources within the

Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park, and it reflects the high level of

cooperation, consultation, and strong commitment of local communities and governments toward the park. Local support for land acquisition projects is an important

part of the Department’s support for this legislation.

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you

or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I want to thank every member of the

panel, and we will go ahead and open up for questions. Since our

ranking member is not here, Patsy, would you like to do the first

round?

Mrs. MINK. Just a question with respect to my bill. I had understood that one portion had already been purchased by the land

trust and is being held for subsequent purchase by National Park

Service; is that incorrect information that I have?

Mr. SMITH. My understanding is that TPL is in very near negotiations for the acquisition of that one parcel. I do not know the

exact details of that, but I know they are very involved, and if they

haven’t actually done the final—they may be waiting for action

here, but they are in very serious negotiation, and I believe they

have reached agreement on the cost.

I can provide that for the record, Mr. Chairman, if that would

be acceptable.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Any other questions from the panel, Mr. Simpson or Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Smith, I noticed in your oral statement, you

left out something that is in your written statement and that is

that this property was appraised. But in your written statement,

it said appraised for 4.6 million.

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. That is an old habit. I don’t believe

in divulging appraisals. It comes from my time at GSA, and until

somebody signs on the bottom line—it has been appraised at 4.6

million and that was submitted in my formal testimony, but I decided to leave it out of my summary.

Mr. DUNCAN. The Senate bill only authorized 500,000, or has authorized such sums as may be necessary, but somewhere there is

500,000—I guess in the last appropriations bill; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, I do not know the details of what the

Senate bill has actually appropriated. I can find that for the record.

Mr. DUNCAN. There is a big difference between 500,000 and 4.6

million is the only thing I am wondering about.

Mr. SMITH. And I do not have that included in my briefing here.

I did not testify on the Senate bill last year, and I am not aware

of what the appropriators have done on that side of the Congress.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

26

Any other questions of this panel? I do have one question for Ms.

Manning.

Do you believe by directing OHV traffic into, you know, designated or appropriated places, does that help with unauthorized

OHV traffic in areas that are not designated? Does it kind of help

to concentrate it?

Ms. MANNING. Yes. In most of our forests we do have designated

trails, and usually the public abides by it. We have some people,

like always, who won’t; but in most cases, they just want a place

to use their OHV vehicles.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you.

And I want to thank the panel very much for your testimonies.

And we will go ahead now and move on to the last, third panel.

Mr. RADANOVICH. On our third panel, we have Mr. Gene Williams with the Sandhills Resort, Inc., in Saint Anthony, Idaho; Mr.

Dave Morrow, Deputy Director of the Division of Parks and Recreation in the Utah Department of Natural Resources; and Mr. Bryce

Nielson, County Commissioner from Rich County, Utah. Gentlemen, welcome.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Williams, we will start with you. And

again, if you could limit your testimony to 5 minutes, that would

be terrific. We appreciate the fact that you are here today and we

are anxious to hear what you have to say. You may begin.

STATEMENT OF GENE WILLIAMS, SANDHILLS RESORT, INC.,

ST. ANTHONY, IDAHO

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Gene Williams. My wife, Shirley Williams, over here. The reason I mention that is because wives are

always the backbone of a company.

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify

today on H.R. 2818. I am in full support of H.R. 2818 as it enables

me to purchase land that I have already developed into my resort.

I own land adjacent to the Saint Anthony Sand Dunes, which is

called the Sandhills Resort. I purchased this land in 1972. In 1981,

the Bureau of Land Management conducted a wilderness study and

included portions of what I thought was my property. When I purchased the site, the current owner and the original owner of the

land, Freemont Fulmer, who purchased the land in 1955 from the

Department of the Interior, confirmed the property boundaries.

However, in 1992, a new survey was taken and the new property

lines went right through our home and excluded our garage, the

driveway, resort facilities, the improvements to the land, telephone

lines.

The Bureau of Land Management has been able to sell the

acreage—has been trying to sell the acreage in question back to

me. But because of the wilderness study area that surrounds it,

they have not been able to do that. I am unable to sell, refinance

or make improvements to the land because of encroachment and

wilderness study issues.

Here I am, without any of the things I had built for the last 30

years of my life. My title to my property is clouded. I cannot sell,

get a loan on the property or make any improvements, as the

wilderness study area is crowding me in.

27

My family and I have worked all our lives to build this resort.

We have made improvements and beautified the area for

recreationalists. Under the 1992 survey, my land extends into the

middle of the sand dunes, instead of where I have built facilities,

which is entirely useless. It drops off the lava flow and back into

living sand dunes that, during this last windstorm a couple of days

ago, had to have moved at least 8 to 10 feet.

It is imperative to our livelihood and the livelihood of this resort

that I am able to purchase this land that I have worked on, lived

on and improved all my life.

This park has been in public use for many years, and due to its

location, proximity—near two rural towns and on the route to Yellowstone and Island Park—it has become a familiar and popular

family vacation area. As you can see from the pictures, I have

maintained and improved the integrity of the park to coincide with

the wilderness surroundings. It is an easily accessible, safe place

for families to come and play on the sand.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify about the purchase of this land. This parcel of 10.23 acres, as it now stands, is

useless as wilderness study area, but full of use for many multipleuse recreationalists, my family and me. It is a win-win situation for

the Bureau of Land Management and the constituents of Idaho.

This land was included in the wilderness study area of 1981 by accident, and should not be held captive for that mistake.

I would like to make one last comment that when Fremont

Fulmer purchased this land—it is an L-shaped piece of property— he purchased it as an ‘‘L’’ shape on purpose, the biggest portion of

the ‘‘L’’ being on top of a flat lava rock cliff. That included the parking area and the area where I now have all my facilities.

Off of the edge of the cliff, he built a swimming pool; that was

a little tail of the L-shaped piece of property. He did that on purpose, rather than buying a square, because it gave him better use

of the top of the flat lava rock, and that is the area that we no

longer have. It is all out in the sand dunes now.

Your time efforts and votes are appreciated, and I would like to

thank you for that matter. And that is the end of my testimony.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. We appreciate your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

Statement of Gene Williams, Owner and Operator of the Sandhills Resort,

St. Anthony, Idaho, on H.R. 2818

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 2818.

I am in full support of H.R. 2818, as it enables me to purchase land that I have

already developed into my resort. I own land adjacent to the Saint Anthony Sand

Dunes, which is called the Sandhills Resort. I purchased this land in 1972. In 1981

the Bureau of Land Management conducted a Wilderness Study and included portions of what I thought was my property.

When I purchased this site, the current owner and the original owner of the land,

Freemont Fulmer, who purchased the land in 1953 from the Department of the Interior, confirmed the property boundaries. However, in 1995 a new survey was taken

and the new property lines went right through our home and excluded our garage,

the driveway, resort facilities, and improvements to the land. The Bureau of Land

Management has been working to sell the acreage in question back to me, but because of the wilderness study area that surrounds it they have not been able to.

I am unable to sell, refinance, or make improvement to the land because of

28

encroachment and wilderness study issues. I am left without any of the things I had

built for the last 20 years. The title to my property is clouded and I cannot sell,

get a loan on the property or make any improvements due to the wilderness study

area crowding me in.

My family and I have worked all our lives to build this resort. We have made improvements and beautified the area for recreationalists. Under the 1995 survey, my

land extends into the middle of the sand dunes instead of where I have built facilities, which is entirely useless. It is imperative to our livelihood and the livelihood

of this resort that I am able to purchase this land that I have worked on, lived on,

and improved all my life.

This park has been in public use for many years and due to its location proximity

near two rural towns and en route to the Island Park—Yellowstone area, it has become a familiar and popular family vacation area. As you can see from the pictures,

I have maintained and improved the integrity of the park to coincide with the wilderness surroundings. It is an easily accessible safe place for families to come and

play on the sand.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify about the purchase of land. This

parcel of 10.23 acres as it now stands is useless as a wilderness study area and full

of use for many multiple use recreationalists, my family, and me. It is a win-win

situation for the Bureau of Land Management and the citizens of Idaho. This land

was included in the Wilderness Study Area of 1981 by accident and should not be

held captive because of that mistake. Your time, effort, and vote on this matter are

appreciated.

[A map attached to Mr. Williams’ statement follows:]

29

30

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Morrow, welcome to the Committee. Please

begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DAVID K. MORROW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, UTAH DEPARTMENT

OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. MORROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here representing the Department of Natural Resources. And it is also nice to get out of Utah where we have about

4 inches on the ground.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Welcome to 90 degrees.

Mr. MORROW. A little warmer here.

It is nice to be here because it has taken a lot of work and a

great cooperative effort between the Federal Government, the State

and the local communities to be at this point in time.

OHV use across the country and in the State of Utah is nothing

new, but it is rapidly expanding. Clear back in 1972, President

Nixon passed an executive order that required the establishment of

policies and procedures to ensure the use of off-road vehicles on

public lands would be controlled, directed so as to protect the natural resources. Thirty years later, now, many of us that are in the

land management business still have not met those goals and objectives.

In the State of Utah alone there are 130 off-highway vehicles,

and that number has increased since 1997 by about 197 percent.

Nationwide, they are increasing at 27 to 30 percent annually. With

the growth of OHV users, they are seeking more and more opportunities to ride. And in the State of Utah, which is approximately

two-thirds publicly owned, those areas that OHV users are seeking

are the public lands.

In an attempt to find a proactive solution to the growing number

of OHV users, the Department of Natural Resources, the Forest

Service and local communities looked at establishing a trail riding

system in the northern part of the State. That system is what we

are hearing today before the Committee.

The system is comprised of about 337 miles of trails already open

and designated for motorized use in both BLM and the Forest

Service travel plans. There is an option for another 172 miles of

trails that could be added in the future, that are now on existing

roads, but not currently open to OHV travel and use.

The Shoshone National Recreation Trail, as proposed, is a wellthought-out effort, and it has involved, as I indicated, a strong degree of cooperation between Federal, State and local agencies. We

have received the endorsement of all four counties that surround

the trail system and nearly 16 communities that would be affected

by the development of this trail opportunity.

The proposed trail system is, as I mentioned, located on existing

roads already designated as motorized. We would ask the

Committee to strongly consider a favorable ruling on this bill. It is

a proactive measure to take to create both riding opportunities and

better organize existing motorized use on a log area of the Cache

National Forest.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of

the Department of Natural Resources and ask the Committee to

31

consider a favorable vote on this bill. And that concludes my testimony. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Morrow.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrow follows:]

Statement of David K. Morrow, Deputy Director of Operations,

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and

Recreation, Salt Lake City, Utah

Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, I thank you for the opportunity to address

you today.

The Shoshone National Recreational Trail System, a 337-mile proposed trail system in Northern Utah, provides an excellent opportunity to balance the needs of the

area’s rapidly expanding number of off highway vehicles (OHV–ATV’s and motorcycles) while at the same time protecting the natural resources of the lands affected.

Past land use activities such as ranching, mining, and timber harvesting left thousands of miles of old roads and trails that are being discovered by OHV enthusiasts.

Some of this use is appropriate and some is not.

This proposal will effectively identify, designate, sign and map a trail system. It

will provide outstanding riding experiences on routes that can be managed and

maintained while simultaneously provide protection for the area’s outstanding

resources.

It is estimated that there is a total of 130,000 OHV’s, both registered and unregistered, for the state. Over 50 percent of registered machines are from counties north

of Salt Lake City. The number of registered OHV’s have risen 197% in Utah just

since 1997. OHV sales have increased nationally at 27–30 percent per year for the

last five years. The increase in OHV sales is increasing much faster than the identification of appropriate riding areas.

With this growth, OHV users are seeking more opportunities. Since approximately

two-thirds of all Utah lands are publicly managed, the riding public naturally turns

to us. Results from a user survey conducted by Utah State University for the Division Parks and Recreation in 2001 captured these concerns:

1) Of the more important issues affecting OHV use in Utah was ‘‘having

enough places to ride,’’ followed by ‘‘closing off too many areas.’’

2) The average one-way distance traveled to get to an appropriate place to

ride an OHV is about 100 miles.

3) The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should, ‘‘Recognize that trails and roads are an important aspect of recreation and

should be given a high priority for inventory, signing, development of

loop trails, and improving trail access.’’

4) Remote ATV trails make special places available to many types of individuals including children and should receive more emphasis by Federal

and state land managers.

5) Unregulated use leads to resource degradation, user conflicts and reduces

the quality of the recreational experience.

6) Riding on established roads and trails is the most popular with OHV

owners.

In an attempt to find proactive solutions to these issues, the Utah Department

of Natural Resources was asked to identify motorized riding opportunities in the

northern part of the state, similar to the opportunities that are provided by the Paiute Trail. The Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, a division of the Department

of Natural Resources, is responsible for the administration of the state’s off-highway

vehicle program and enforcement of state laws regarding use of these vehicles, and

as such the division was asked to take the lead role.

The Paiute Trail is a motorized trail system that was developed in central Utah

in the late 1980s. The system, now recognized nationally as a model for proactive

OHV management on public lands, has 587 miles of designated trails that link 12

communities, two state parks, the Great Western Trail and many other points of

interest. In addition there are sixteen participating communities that are connected

to the trail system. The Paiute Trail became the model for the proposed Shoshone

National Recreation Trail System.

The Paiute Trail grew from very humble beginnings out of the very small central

Utah community of Circleville in 1988. Two friends; one an employee of the Forest

Service the other a Paiute County commissioner, sat on the tailgate of a pickup

truck talking about the latest access challenges to their favorite hunting spots as

the Forest Service was going to close down a major access road to ATV use. The

two, not to be denied access, devised a plan to develop an alternative to closure.

32

Their plan was endorsed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and

later the Utah Division of Parks & Recreation. The Paiute Trail has grown in popularity now serving over 60,000 riders annually. The annual Paiute Trail Jamboree

attracts approximately 800 participants, 60 percent from out-of state. There are

many positive things attributed to the trail, but perhaps the most important is its

role in providing a proactive solution to the mis-use of public lands yet provides

riding opportunities for a growing segment of recreational users.

Representatives from the Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Forest

Service, Bureau of Land Management, OHV enthusiasts met over a 2–3 month period to identify trail riding opportunities, similar to those experienced on the Paiute

Trail. The group was also encouraged to identify existing trails and roads, ones used

but perhaps not properly maintained for OHV use. The group focused its attention

on an area of the state that was within easy driving distance from the majority of

registered users in northern Utah and was already being utilized as a winter snowmobile trail system.

The first conceptual plan was very promising: the group identified 337 miles of

existing and open roads and trail, 172 miles of existing routes not designated open

but possibly available by agreement, and found that only 12 miles to trail that

would need to be constructed. The majority of the proposed trail system was located

on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management administered land, accessible to four counties and almost sixteen communities. The Federal agencies responsible for administering the area previously identified the proposed routes in their

travel plans and were in support of this conceptual plan. A few modifications were

made, both additions and a few deletions that enabled the group to achieve the

needed approval from land management agencies.

A series of community meetings were scheduled in each of the four counties adjacent to the trail: Rich, Cache, Box Elder and Weber. The meetings allowed community leaders and interest groups to review the conceptual plan, provide input, and

voice their support. Representation at the meetings included, county commissioners,

mayors, city council members, motorized and non-motorized trail users, environmental groups and other state and Federal land managers. The proposal met with

unanimous support. Even those who were against OHV use, viewed the proposed

trail system as being positive. One participant commented, ‘‘Perhaps more developed

trail riding opportunities would decrease the impact on more sensitive areas.’’ A

non-motorized trail user commented, ‘‘perhaps more motorized trail opportunities

would reduce conflicts with non-motorized trail users.’’ In each meeting the majority of participants viewed the creation of the trail as

a proactive way to address the growing demand for motorized riding opportunities.

The rural communities praised the plan for its potential economic benefit, citing the

rural communities located near the Paiute Trail as positive examples of what could

be achieved. It was noted, that Marysvale, a small central Utah town, had benefited

significantly from the creation of the Paiute Trail. In the late 1980’s Marysvale had

only two businesses, now with the addition of the trail, boasts of over 20 businesses.

The Marysvale Chamber of Commerce states that, ‘‘Because of the Paiute ATV

Trail, we have become a destination community.’’ The Sevier County Travel Council

boasts, ‘‘The Paiute ATV Trail has become the most important tourist attraction in

our County. The trail not only brings thousands of ATV riders to our area, it also

provides access to some of the most beautiful recreation areas in the state...and well

over $4 million is injected into the County annually.’’

In the two weeks prior to presenting this testimony in favor of creating the Shoshone National Recreational Trail, the Department of Natural Resources received

letters of endorsement for its establishment from each of the four counties that are

adjacent to the proposed trail. A letter of support from the Utah State Institutional

Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), committing the use of roads and trails that

cross lands under their jurisdiction was also provided. (see attachments provided)

The Shoshone National Recreation Trail provides a rare opportunity to satisfy a

growing segment of recreational users in a way that assists land management agencies to better protect our natural resources. There is no major opposition in part due

to the thoughtful and prudent manner in which the trails were identified. The majority of the proposed routes are open to OHV use and are already identified in

Forest Service and BLM access plans. Lands identified as desired routes but not yet

approved can be added at a future date in accordance with the National Trail System Act. If the desired additions involve private property, the additions can only be

made with the approval of the owner of the land upon which the trail is to be located.

The Shoshone National Recreation Trail bill is one we enthusiastically ask you

to recommend favorably. Executive Order 11644 made by then President Nixon, requires the establishment of policies and procedures that would ensure that the use

33

of off-road vehicles on public lands would be controlled and directed so as to protect

the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands and

to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands (Nixon, 1972). Thirty

years later, public land managers have yet to fully address OHV use on public lands

through these measures. The National Trails System Act is an option that is consistent with the objectives to more effectively manage OHV use. More importantly,

it is a widely supported opportunity to meet the demands on an increasingly popular

recreational activity while protecting (our) valuable resource base.

[Attachments to Mr. Morrow’s statement follow:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Nielson, welcome; and please begin your

testimony.

STATEMENT OF BRYCE R. NIELSON, COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

RICH COUNTY, UTAH

Mr. NIELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to travel from a small snow-covered community in

northern Utah to this wonderful Washington, D.C., to address you

today.

I have been involved in local politics as a mayor and county commissioner for the last 16 years. As a native of Utah, lands and natural resources are part of my heritage and I love them dearly. In

our county Federal and State lands are integral to agriculture,

economy, recreation and our lifestyles.

Over my lifetime, I have seen changes in uses, attitudes and values of these lands, and I struggle with what their future will be.

When the Division of Parks and Recreation approached our county

to consider a proposal to create the Shoshone National Trail System, our support was immediate.

Recreation is a significant factor in Rich County. In the winter,

thousand of snowmobiles visit groomed trails and the surrounding

playgrounds. In the summer, boats and personal watercraft utilize

Bear Lake. But unfortunately the owners of off-highway vehicles

have no opportunity to ride them in a safe, well-designated trail

system.

Most OHV enthusiasts respect the environment and private

property and pay thousands of dollars in registration fees and property taxes, but cannot use public roads. Consequently, they end up

in the wrong place at the wrong time without a trail system, frequently impacting and damaging watersheds, harassing wildlife

and livestock, negatively affecting the recreational experience of

others. This has created a host of present and potential problems

that we, as community leaders, have not had the ability or the

funding to address.

You have been provided with an excellent overview of the proposal and the existing OHV status, so I won’t dwell on these facts

and figures. What I will focus on: As a county commissioner, I have

had the opportunity to speak to many individuals, both elected officials and citizens, about this proposal. You have before you letters

of support from the four counties involved in the Shoshone Trail,

and I know they are excited about the development of this system.

The Rich County Commission, after reviewing the proposed trail

map, supports the concept.

We have been assured there will be no taking of private land

without compensation. We are aware that some of the roads may

cross private property, but the county commissioners consider them

right-of-use roads and as part of the trail system.

Grazing on Federal and State lands is critical to our livestock industry, and with proper planning and construction of fence crossings, the OHV riders can stay on the trail with little impact. Improvements of the existing roads should minimize accidents and

provide for safer travel opportunities through these lands. Increased signage and law enforcement will impact individuals who

41

have no regard for the environment or other living things and

hopefully they will be convinced to change their ways.

The recreational economy of Rich County is presently located on

the shores of Bear Lake, but this trail system would provide some

excellent opportunities for economic development in small rural

communities that now only see traffic passing by on their way to

somewhere else.

Finally, with the approval of this proposal, we look forward to involving all public interest in this planning and development.

I sincerely hope that this Committee will provide favorable recommendation for the Shoshone National Trail bill. It will provide

the opportunity to develop relationships between the stewards of

these lands, the resources and the entities that are responsible for

their management and protection, and our citizens that use and

cherish them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this

bill.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Nielson. We appreciate your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nielson follows:]

Statement of Bryce R. Nielson, Chairman, Rich County Commissioner,

Rich County, Utah

Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, I appreciate the opportunity to travel from

a small, snow covered county in Northern Utah to Washington D.C. to address you

today.

I have been involved in local politics as the Mayor of Garden City and as a Commissioner in Rich County, Utah for the last sixteen years. As a native of Utah, our

lands and natural resources are part of my heritage and I love them dearly. In our

county, the Federal and State lands are integral to our agriculture, economy, recreation and lifestyle. Over my lifetime I have seen the changes in the uses, attitudes

and values of these lands and I struggle with what their future will be.

When the Division of Parks and Recreation approached our county to consider a

proposal to create the Shoshone National Trail System, support was immediate.

Recreation is a significant factor in Rich County. In the winter, thousands of snowmobiles visit groomed trails and surrounding playgrounds. In the summer, boats

and PWC’s utilize beautiful Bear Lake. But unfortunately, the use of OHV’s, which

is increasing dramatically with the influx of visitors, have little opportunity to ride

them in a safe, well designated trail system. Most OHV enthusiasts respect the environment and private property and they do pay thousands of dollars in registration

fees and property taxes but cannot travel public roads. Consequently, they end up

in the wrong place at the wrong time without a trail system, frequently impacting

and damaging watersheds, harassing livestock and wildlife, and negatively affecting

the recreational experiences of others. This has created a host of present and potential problems that we, as community leaders, have not had the ability or the funding

to address.

You have been provided with an excellent overview of the proposal and the existing OHV recreational status, so I will not dwell on those facts and figures. What

I will focus on is that as a County Commissioner, I have had the opportunity to

speak to many individuals, both elected officials and citizens about this proposal.

Commissioners that live within the area covered by the Piaute Trail are happy to

have it there and state that cooperative efforts between Federal, State and local governments and the public have resulted in positive recreational and economic opportunities. You have before you letter of support from the four counties involved with

the Shoshone Trail. I cannot speak for them personally, but I know they are excited

about the Shoshone Trail.

Rich County, after reviewing the current proposed trail map, is solidly behind the

proposal. There were a few things we needed to be assured of before we committed.

There will be no ‘‘taking’’ of private land without compensation to develop this system. Some roads my cross private property but the County considers them right of

use (RS2477) roads which we will support as part of the trail system. Grazing on

Federal and State lands is critical to our livestock industry and with proper

42

planning and construction of fence crossings, OHV riders and can stay where they

are supposed to be. We see improvements of existing roads that will minimize accidents and provide for safer travel opportunities through these lands. We expect increased signage and funding for law enforcement, so that individuals, who have no

regard for the environment or the other living things using it, will be convinced to

change their ways. The recreational economy in Rich County is presently concentrated in Garden City on the shores of Bear Lake, but this trail system would

provide some excellent opportunities for other rural communities that now only see

traffic passing through on the way to somewhere else. Finally, with the approval

of this proposal, we look forward to involving all the public interests in its planning

and development.

I sincerely hope that this committee will provide a favorable recommendation for

the Shoshone National Trail bill. It would provide us the opportunity to develop relationships between the stewards of these lands and their resources, the entities

that are responsible for their management and protection and our citizens that use

and cherish them.

Mr. RADANOVICH. We will now open up the panel for any questions, and I will defer to Mr. Udall, if you have any.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. I am OK.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mike, did you have some questions?

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me first apologize for my phone going off. I forgot to put it on vibrate.

Mr. Williams, thank you for being here today. Hopefully, we can

get this resolved after many, many years. And I understand, as the

BLM testified, they are supportive. And welcome to Washington

and I appreciate your testimony.

Mr. Nielson, let me ask you just a question that came up as I

was looking at the maps of these proposed trails and so forth—well,

three or four of the proposed trails kind of end at the Idaho border.

Mr. NIELSON. Uh-huh.

Mr. SIMPSON. Has there been any work with the State of Idaho

to continue those throughout?

Mr. NIELSON. When we were approached by Dave’s group, this

was brought out because we do a lot of cooperative stuff with trail

grooming and everything into Bear Lake County; however, I don’t

believe at this point in time—and Dave can help me on this,

whether or not there has been any official contact with Idaho on

this.

Mr. MORROW. There has not. The intention was to go ahead and

create the Shoshone Recreation Trail, that we would work in cooperation with Idaho to extend it in the future. The Commissioner

mentioned that we have a very positive relationship in the winter

months on a snowmobile trail, and we would hope to extend the

summer trail in the same manner.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.

Any other questions of the panel?

I do have two quick questions of Mr. Morrow. Has there been a

lot of input from elected leaders, local elected leaders that are

affected—let us start this over again.

Has there been any input from elected leaders from the affected

areas of this designation?

Mr. MORROW. There has. We held community meetings in each

of the four counties that are adjacent to the trail system, and in

those meetings, we had city councilmen, county commissioners,

users and representatives from the community. And in all of those

43

meetings we received unanimous support for the proposed trail system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It is safe to say there is extensive local support

for the project?

Mr. MORROW. There is.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Nielson, of this designation, are all the

local counties supportive of it as well?

Mr. NIELSON. I met with all of the county commissioners from

the four counties, and they all support it and are really quite excited about it. I think it provides some opportunities for these counties to get some connectivity that will help the area; and the local

mayors are excited about it, and I hope to be able to see it to fruition.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to welcome the people that have just

come here, but we are about ready to adjourn the meeting. Forgive

us, but it did go rather smoothly today.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your testimony and there

being no further questions, this hearing is closed.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

A statement from The Wilderness Society et al., submitted for

the record by The Honorable George Radanovich follows:]

44

45

Æ