U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–446 PDF 2016

ENSURING LOCAL INPUT, LEGAL 

CONSISTENCY AND MULTI-USE 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN ST. 

GEORGE BLM PLANNING 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Friday, January 22, 2016 in St. George, Utah 

Serial No. 114–28 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

NIKI TSONGAS, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, January 22, 2016 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

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

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 8 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

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

of California ................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

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

Utah ............................................................................................................... 9 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Clarke, Kathleen, Director, State of Utah Public Lands Policy 

Coordinating Office, Salt Lake City, Utah .................................................. 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Gardner, Alan, Commissioner, Washington County, Utah ........................... 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Pike, Jon, Mayor, City of St. George, Utah .................................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Van Dam, Paul, Former Executive Director, Citizens for Dixie’s Future; 

Former Attorney General, State of Utah, Ivins, Utah ............................... 19 

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

Whitlock, Jenna, Acting State Director, Utah Office, Bureau of Land 

Management, Salt Lake City, Utah ............................................................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

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

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

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement of ................................ 34 

Utah Wilderness Coalition, prepared statement of ....................................... 45 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ENSURING 

LOCAL INPUT, LEGAL CONSISTENCY AND 

MULTI-USE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN ST. 

GEORGE BLM PLANNING 

Friday, January 22, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

St. George, Utah 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in the 

Entrada Room B/C, Dixie Convention Center, 1835 South 

Convention Center Drive, St. George, Utah, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Bishop, Westerman, 

Hardy, and Lowenthal. 

Also Present: Representatives Stewart and Chaffetz. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The hearing will come to order. The 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands of the House Natural Resources 

Committee meets today to hear testimony on ‘‘Ensuring Local 

Input, Legal Consistency, and Multi-Use Resource Management in 

St. George BLM Planning.’’ 

By way of introduction, I am Congressman Tom McClintock. I 

chair the Subcommittee on Federal Lands and represent the 4th 

District of California. 

Also joining us today is the Chairman of the Natural Resources 

Committee, Congressman Rob Bishop, and also Congressman Alan 

Lowenthal, who will be the acting Democrat for the subcommittee 

today—that is the acting ranking Democrat, he is an actual 

Democrat. 

Also with us are Subcommittee Members Bruce Westerman of 

Arkansas and Congressman Cresent Hardy of Nevada. 

We are joined also today by Congressman Chris Stewart, whose 

district is the subject of today’s hearing, and Congressman Jason 

Chaffetz. 

I would ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to sit with 

the subcommittee and participate in today’s hearing. With no objection, so ordered. 

I will now begin the proceedings with a prayer, the Presentation 

of Colors, and the Pledge of Allegiance. 

To lead us in prayer, the Chair recognizes County Commissioner 

Victor Iverson. 

[Prayer.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chair will now ask the Washington 

County Sheriff’s Office Honor Guard to do the Presentation of 

Colors. All rise. 

[Presentation of Colors.] 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

2 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. You may all be seated. 

We would like to welcome you all here today. The Chair would 

like to begin, as is customary at these field hearings, to recognize 

the Congressman from this district, Chris Stewart, for a few introductory remarks. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to just take this 

opportunity to thank Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, 

Ranking Member Lowenthal, and other Members who have traveled here today. It was a difficult thing for me to ask for your time 

and take you away from your family and your own districts. 

Thank you Congressman Chaffetz, who is with us as well. 

This is an important issue. Again, thank you all for joining us. 

As a representative of the district, we just want you to know that 

the citizens are grateful for your participation, grateful for the opportunity to address these issues, and we look forward to a valuable and, we hope, a fruitful hearing. So, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. 

All of you with signs, why don’t you hold them up right now and 

make as much noise as you want. 

[Audience cheers.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. Now, that’s it. 

I have to remind you that this is a formal hearing of the House 

of Representatives. We are under Congressional Rules. No further 

demonstrations would be appropriate in this hearing, so I would 

ask you to respect that and to respect the solemnity of these hearings. So, all the signs need to go down now. Thank you. 

We will now begin with the 5-minute opening statements of myself; Representative Lowenthal; the Chairman of the Full 

Committee, Mr. Bishop; and Representative Stewart. 

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

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Today the Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

has come to St. George to hold an oversight hearing on the Bureau 

of Land Management’s draft Resource Management Plan pursuant 

to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. We are here 

because Congress is hearing a crescendo of complaints about BLM 

tactics and policies across the country, and St. George seems to be 

a poster child of BLM bad behavior. We are here to get to the bottom of it. 

During this congressional session, the Federal Lands 

Subcommittee has sought to reinstate three fundamental principles 

for our stewardship over the Federal lands. 

First, to restore the public’s right to use and enjoy public lands. 

Preserving our lands for future generations does not mean closing 

them to this generation. 

Second, to restore principles of sound management to the public 

lands. That was Gifford Pinchot’s maxim for the Forest Service, to 

manage the lands for the greatest good for the greatest number in 

the long run. 

Third, to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to 

those communities that are impacted by Federal land ownership. 

3 

That means we do not run roughshod over the wishes of local 

communities. 

We are concerned that a corporate culture has taken root within 

BLM that is antithetical to these principles. 

In 2009, Congress adopted and the President signed the 

Omnibus Public Land package that reflected years of good-faith 

discussions and concessions made by the elected representatives of 

the communities directly impacted by these policies. For many 

years, members of this community, from grazers to recreationists 

to environmentalists, worked together to craft a bill that would 

shape the future management of Federal lands in this county. 

Local officials reluctantly agreed to designate over 100,000 acres of 

new wilderness in exchange for the promise of multiple-use 

activities on the remaining Federal lands, which are the lifeblood 

of this community. 

As a result, the bill was hailed as a unique compromise among 

extremely disparate parties and a successful model for future collaborative agreements. It then fell to BLM to write regulatory 

plans in good faith to carry out this unique compromise. 

Instead, we are informed that the local communities, who trusted 

this process, now believe the BLM was bargaining in bad faith and 

that its current proposal makes a mockery of the promises both implicit and explicit in that law. The overwhelming consensus of 

these local representatives today is that what was painstakingly 

agreed to in the legislation that they negotiated and that Congress 

ratified has since been distorted by unelected BLM bureaucrats to 

fit a narrow ideological agenda. 

What we are hearing, loud and clear, is that these draft plans 

would dramatically restrict the public’s right to the full range of 

uses that they were promised, including a local transportation corridor, motorized recreation, grazing, and other activities. 

We are also hearing that the draft plans are inconsistent with 

the law that includes several provisions specific to the future of 

Federal land management in this county. 

Finally, the subcommittee is very concerned with reports that 

BLM bureaucrats have deliberately ignored these concerns when 

local governments and concerned citizens have repeatedly raised 

them. 

This subcommittee normally does not hold hearings on individual 

land use plans, but it appears that the BLM, which administers 

nearly half of the land area of Washington County, has ignored the 

will of Congress and thumbed its nose at the people whose taxes 

support this government and whose livelihoods and quality of life 

are now directly threatened by it. 

When one of Darth Vader’s victims protests, ‘‘But that’s not our 

agreement,’’ Darth Vader sneers, ‘‘I am altering the agreement; 

pray I do not alter it further.’’ If bad faith and empty promises become the coin of the Federal realm, it is highly unlikely anyone will 

enter into land use negotiations with it again or trust it in the 

future. 

Instead, St. George will be used as a cautionary tale that Ronald 

Reagan was right when he said if you get in bed with the Federal 

Government, you had better be prepared for something more than 

a good night’s sleep. 

4 

We are here because Congress will not allow that to become the 

story of St. George and the BLM, and I would remind the BLM 

that in the original story of St. George and the dragon, St. George 

won. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

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

ON FEDERAL LANDS

Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets in beautiful St. 

George to hold an oversight hearing on the Bureau of Land Management’s draft 

Resource Management Plans for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National 

Conservation Areas and St. George Field Office, which were publicly released in 

July 2015. 

The hearing will cover an all-to-typical problem: the BLM has produced a plan 

that is unnecessarily restrictive, does not adequately reflect concerns raised by 

locals, and represents the latest in myriad Federal land use plans from this 

Administration that favor locking up Federal land over responsible multiple-use. 

Local officials and members of the community are very concerned that these draft 

plans, if implemented, would unduly restrict multiple-uses in the area, including 

motorized recreation, grazing, and other activities. There are also concerns that the 

draft plans are inconsistent with the 2009 Omnibus Public Land package, which included several provisions specific to the future of Federal land management in the 

county. Finally, it appears that BLM did not sufficiently coordinate with and incorporate feedback from local governments and members of the community in the development of the draft plans. 

If we held a hearing on every Federal land use plan in the West, we wouldn’t 

have time to do anything else. But this circumstance is unique. First, BLM administers approximately 629,000 surface acres of Federal lands in Washington County, 

which is nearly half of the entire county. This RMP guides the management of those 

lands, and therefore directly impacts the livelihood of the citizens of St. George and 

across the county. 

Second, for many years members of this community—from grazers to 

recreationists to environmentalists—worked together to craft a bill that would shape 

the future management of Federal lands in the county. In the bill, locals agreed to 

the designation of over hundred thousand acres of new wilderness in exchange for 

the reasonable continuation of the multiple-use activities on Federal lands— 

motorized recreation, grazing, and other activities—which are the lifeblood of this 

community. As a result, the bill was widely regarded as a unique compromise 

among extremely disparate parties and a potential template for other counties or 

regions with large amounts of Federal land. 

After that bill was signed into law in 2009, it was up to BLM to write regulatory 

plans that upheld that unique, hard-sought compromise. Since the release of the 

draft plans last summer, many members of the community have decried them as 

unduly restrictive, particularly with regard to grazing and motorized recreation, inconsistent with the 2009 law, and devoid of many of the most important provisions 

to the community, including a transportation corridor north of St. George. In essence, many felt that BLM didn’t hold up their end of the bargain. 

This public outcry, which has been overwhelming, leads me to believe that additional investigation is needed to understand how we got here and how we can 

assure that BLM writes and implements a plan that it, members of the local community, grazers, recreationists, environmentalists, and others can be proud of. Such 

a plan must comply with the spirit and letter of the Washington County public 

lands law and be designed in tandem with those that will be directly impacted by 

it. 

This hearing should not have been necessary. If BLM had done a better job genuinely addressing concerns from local officials and members of the public on this land 

use plan, I highly doubt we would be sitting before you today. Nonetheless, I hope 

this hearing will compel BLM to recognize and address those concerns in the final 

plans. 

Following the hearing, Congressman Stewart will host a public listening session 

to hear thoughts from members of the public on this and other important issues 

facing southwestern Utah. 

With that, I look forward to hearing testimony from today’s witnesses. I now 

recognize the Ranking Member for his statement. 

Thank you. 

5 

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

opening statement. 

Congressman Lowenthal. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Chairman 

Bishop, Member Stewart. Thank you for hosting us, and I really 

appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am Congressman Alan 

Lowenthal, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and 

Ranking Member on Energy and Mineral Resources. I appreciate 

the opportunity to be able to fill in for Ranking Member Tsongas 

on the Federal Lands Subcommittee. She wanted to attend today’s 

hearing, but a previously scheduled commitment made it impossible for her to make the trip. 

It is not every day that we get to meet outside the confines of 

Washington, DC; so, I would like to thank again Chairman Bishop 

and Representative Stewart for hosting us here in Utah. It is a 

welcome opportunity. It is now beginning to snow there, and I anticipate 30 inches by the time the day is over. 

Our country is blessed to have many special places from coast to 

coast, from Maine to my home state of California. But one place 

that consistently arises on the committee as a topic is Utah, and 

southern Utah specifically. That is because the Red Rock Country 

is a treasure that all Americans are proud of, unique to the world 

and replete with natural archeological and cultural wonders. Many 

of my constituents come to Red Rock Country for hiking, for adventure, for solitude, and, from what I hear, they want this experience 

to be protected for future generations. 

I also hear that there are many here in Utah who are concerned 

about the wild and pristine nature of Utah’s Red Rock Country 

that it is being eroded by short-sighted greed and improper development. That is why I am the sponsor of America’s Red Rock 

Wilderness Act, and that is why I am here to talk about the importance of Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, an area that has 

already gained protection and is enjoyed by tens of thousands of 

Americans every year. 

This land is not only a lifesaver for the desert tortoise, its popularity is an economic driver for Washington County. The Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009 contains several provisions 

related to the management of public lands here in Washington 

County, including the establishment of Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam 

Wash National Conservation Areas. With significant input from the 

Utah delegation at the time, Congress established these National 

Conservation Areas for the purpose of protecting and enhancing 

their scenic and natural resources, including protecting habitat for 

endangered and threatened species, like the desert tortoise. 

BLM management of public lands within these National 

Conservation Areas (NCAs) has to be consistent with this legislative mandate from Congress. BLM’s current planning process underway in Washington County has caused some commotion, and 

while I understand there is some disagreement about the agency’s 

objectives in Washington County, I hope we can have a construcVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:18 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FEDERAL LANDS\01-22-16 FIELD\98446.TXT DARLEN
6 

tive conversation that enables everyone to tell their side of the 

story and opens up a channel for constructive collaboration. Fingerpointing will not get us anywhere. 

Today’s hearing should be an opportunity to listen, to ask questions and clear up confusion, not to spread rumors or to create 

animosity. BLM has put years of work into producing the thousand-plus page planning document for the public lands that are administered by the St. George Field Office. They have received 

hundreds, if not thousands, of comments and, in an open and 

transparent fashion, are making decisions that are consistent with 

the law and reflective of congressional intent. 

I can tell you, after just arriving here, that St. George is a growing community. Putting disagreements aside, we have to recognize 

the complexity of developing a management plan that prioritizes 

conservation, as Congress intended, and satisfies regional development needs. 

In conclusion, I recognize that many people in this community 

see the construction of a highway through Red Cliffs National 

Conservation as a viable transportation solution for the region. 

However, like any community anywhere in the world, there is not 

one set of opinions or visions for the future. That is why we have 

invited Paul Van Dam to be the Democratic witness. Mr. Van Dam 

is a former Utah Attorney General and the former Executive 

Director of Citizens for Dixie’s Future. He is a long-time resident 

of Washington County and is deeply committed to its future. He 

brings a welcome perspective to the panel, and I look forward to 

hearing his testimony. 

This hearing is a great opportunity to discuss the range of different perspectives, and I hope that we can have a constructive and 

meaningful conversation. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

Thank you, Chairman McClintock, it is a pleasure to be here in St. George today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to fill in for Ranking Member Tsongas on the Federal 

Lands Subcommittee today. She really wanted to attend today’s event, but a previously scheduled commitment made it impossible for her to make the trip to 

St. George. 

It’s not every day that we get to meet outside the confines of the Longworth 

House Office Building in Washington, DC, so I would also like to thank Chairman 

Bishop and Representative Stewart for hosting us here in Utah. This is a welcome 

opportunity to get a close-up look at an important set of issues in Washington 

County. 

Our country is blessed to have many special places from coast to coast, from 

Maine to my home state of California; but one place that consistently arises on this 

committee as a topic is Utah, and southern Utah specifically. That’s because the 

Red Rock Country is a treasure that all Americans are proud of, unique to the world 

and replete with natural, archeological and cultural wonders. My constituents flock 

to Red Rock Country for hiking, for adventure, for solitude, and what I hear from 

them is that they want this experience protected for future generations. 

And I hear also from so many Utahns, who are concerned that the wild and pristine nature of Utah’s Red Rock Country is being eroded by short-sighted greed and 

improper development. That is why I am the sponsor of America’s Red Rock 

Wilderness Act, and why I’m here today to talk about the importance of the Red 

Cliffs NCA, an area that has already gained protection and is enjoyed by tens of 

thousands of Americans every year. 

7 

This land is not only a lifesaver for the desert tortoise, its popularity is an 

economic driver for Washington County. 

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 contained several provisions 

related to the management of public lands here in Washington County, including 

the establishment of Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conversation 

Areas. With significant input from the Utah delegation at the time, Congress established these National Conservation Areas for the purposes of protecting and enhancing their scenic and natural resources, including protecting habitat for endangered 

and threatened species like the desert tortoise. BLM management of public land 

within these NCAs has to be consistent with this legislative mandate from 

Congress. 

BLM’s current planning process underway in Washington County has caused a lot 

of commotion, and while I understand that there is some disagreement about the 

agency’s objectives in Washington County, I hope we can have a constructive 

conversation that enables everyone to tell their side of the story and opens up a 

channel for constructive collaboration. 

Finger-pointing will not get us anywhere. Today’s hearing should be an opportunity to listen, ask questions, and clear up confusion, not spread rumors or create 

animosity. 

BLM has put years of work into producing the thousand-plus page planning 

document for the public lands administered by the St. George Field Office. They 

have received hundreds, if not thousands, of comments and, in an open, transparent 

fashion, are making decisions that are consistent with the law and reflective of congressional intent. 

I just arrived here today, but I can tell that St. George is a growing community. 

Putting disagreements aside, we have to recognize the complexity of developing a 

management plan that prioritizes conservation, as Congress intended, and satisfies 

regional development goals. 

I recognize that many people in this community see the construction of a highway 

through Red Cliffs National Conservation Area as a viable transportation solution 

for the region. However, like any community, anywhere in the world, there is not 

one set of opinions or vision for the future. That’s why we have invited Paul Van 

Dam to be the Democratic witness. Mr. Van Dam is a former Utah Attorney General 

and the former Executive Director of Citizens for Dixie’s Future. He is a long-time 

resident of Washington County and is deeply committed to its future. He brings a 

welcome perspective to the panel and I look forward to hearing his testimony. 

Like I said before, this hearing is an opportunity to discuss a range of different 

perspectives and I hope we can have a constructive and meaningful conversation. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Bishop, has asked to 

defer his remarks until the end of the hearing. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would like to say one thing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chairman is recognized. 

Mr. BISHOP. I do want to defer my remarks until the end. I appreciate that. But, I have to re-emphasize the rules of the House. 

Everyone who is here is on a time limit. If you applaud because 

you like something or do any other demonstration because you 

don’t, you cut into their time. Applause is not allowed; so please, 

whether you like it or not, don’t do anything. Those are the rules, 

and we have to do this. So, thank you for being here. 

This is not a town hall meeting. This is a congressional hearing. 

You have to obey the Congressional Rules whether you like it or 

not. So, no applause, no signs, those are the rules. Please abide by 

that, because if you don’t, you cut into the testimony. 

I don’t want to make a statement now, I want to get to the 

testimony. I appreciate that. I will say something later on. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

I’m happy to be in my home state and Representative Stewart’s district to participate in an oversight hearing on the BLM’s draft Resource Management Plans for 

the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas. 

We’re here today to examine what seems to be overly restrictive draft land use 

plans for Washington County and inconsistencies between those plans and the 

Washington County law that passed Congress and became law in 2009. 

BLM has been working on these plans since 2010, shortly after the 2009 Omnibus 

Public Land bill was signed into law. Among other things, that law created 14 new 

Wilderness Areas and 2 National Conservation Areas in the county. 

That bill was signed into law due to the hard work of this community. It took 

a lot compromise to get there; the county agreed to the designation of much more 

wilderness than it was comfortable with in exchange for continued opportunities for 

grazing, motorized recreation, and other multiple-use activities on the lands outside 

of wilderness. Unfortunately, the spirit of that compromise, and the good faith negotiations that went into crafting it, appear to have been at best ignored, and at worst 

forgotten, by BLM. 

As we hear almost daily in front of my committee, good people negotiate in good 

faith with the Federal Government only to find out later that a deal is not a deal. 

I’ve heard from my friend and colleague Rep. Stewart and the local community 

that the draft plan, if implemented, would greatly reduce livestock grazing, dampen 

recreational opportunities, preclude the export of water to local municipalities, and 

even result in the potential introduction of the ESA-listed California Condor in the 

area, which also has grave land-use complications beyond what this community has 

already faced. 

These actions hurt people and the very livelihoods of this community. For 

example, BLM’s preferred alternative does not include a northern transportation 

route—which has been an extremely high priority for this community for years. The 

transportation corridor is necessary to ease cross-town traffic and address projected 

growth in the area, yet it appears that BLM is unwilling to consider a proposed corridor that has been in the works for decades. 

What’s worse, I have learned that BLM did not meaningfully consult with and engage members of this community, including local governments who are recognized 

as official cooperating agencies. NEPA, as well as language in the Washington 

County law, requires BLM to coordinate with local governments and the public as 

it prepares these plans. While BLM held several public listening sessions and meetings, this isn’t reflected in BLM’s draft plans. 

BLM has said that the final plans will reflect public comments, but based on 

BLM’s track record up to this point we need more information, which is why we 

are here today. 

Federal land management agencies must be responsible to the needs of local communities across the United States, but this is even more important in places like 

St. George where the city is nearly surrounded by Federal land and the future of 

the county is so dependent on Federal land management. 

When a local government works so hard on legislation directing Federal land 

management, succinct and clear regulatory interpretation of the law by the Federal 

Government is critical. (After all, it is the law!) 

Unfortunately, prior to this hearing, this draft plan appeared symptomatic of this 

Administration’s view of Federal lands in the West: Let’s lock up as many acres as 

possible and use any means necessary to limit or end grazing, energy development, 

recreational access, and other multiple-uses. I have to stress that word ‘‘multiple’’ 

since I often have to remind the world and my colleagues (those not from the West), 

that Federal law (FLPMA) requires that BLM manage Federal lands under the 

principles of multiple-use and sustained yield. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and hope this hearing brings us 

a step closer to ensuring that BLM writes a plan that complies with both the spirit 

and letter of the Washington County public lands law, truly addresses the concerns 

of members of this community, and recognizes the importance that grazing, recreation and other multiple-use activities play in your economy and way of life. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection, I now recognize 

Congressman Stewart for 5 minutes. 

9 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS STEWART, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. STEWART. I would like to say, Chairman, that I applaud your 

comments. 

And to Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, and Ranking 

Member Lowenthal, again, thank you. Mr. Lowenthal, you said you 

had 30 inches of snow back home. We would invite you to winter 

here in St. George. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. STEWART. But we are afraid that you would stay, and we 

want to keep this a secret. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. No longer a secret. 

Mr. STEWART. No longer a secret, you are exactly right. 

I welcome you all to the jewel of my district. In fact, I would say 

that this is in many ways one of the true jewels of the entire 

United States. My district here is home to Zion National Park, 

Dixie National Forest, Snow Canyon National Park, and many 

other beautiful, beautiful red rock cliffs and sand dunes. 

It is also home to the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area and 

the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area, two conservation areas created by Congress, as has been alluded to earlier, in 

2009 by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. Congress’ intent in passing that legislation and the BLM’s implementation of 

that legislation is why we are here today. 

If I could divert from my comments and make a personal observation, I would say if there are two words that describe the process, I would say those two words are ‘‘broken trust,’’ because we 

had an agreement, and many of us feel as if that agreement has 

been violated. 

If you want to understand why so many people distrust the 

Federal Government, this is a good example of it, when they feel 

like they are not listened to, when they feel like their concerns are 

not addressed, when the process is tilted against them, and when 

they feel like there is no process for re-dress. 

The presumption is that I am a Republican, therefore I hate the 

environment and I want to destroy it. I think that is absurd. There 

is a reason that I choose to live in Utah. It is because I love Utah 

and I want to preserve it for my children, as well. Once again, 

there are so many who look at me and say you are a Republican 

and you want to destroy the land. I think it is nuts to start with 

that point of view. 

Washington County is an extraordinarily beautiful area. It is 

made up of over 1.5 million acres. Almost 84 percent of that is land 

that is in some form or fashion Federal or state owned. Nearly half 

of the county is under a form of restricted management. Compare 

that with the population that at one time was one of the fastestgrowing populations in the entire country, 24 percent growth over 

4 years, and you understand why we have to have a long-term 

planning document. The need for that becomes very clear. 

Because of that, 10 years ago Vision Dixie was created. It was 

a locally-driven project with state and Federal guidance, and it produced a comprehensive planning document for the county. In 2008, 

after 5 years of working and multiple edits, the Washington County 

Growth and Conservation Act became law. 

10 

Now, part of that law required the BLM to develop a comprehensive plan for long-term management of the National Conservation 

Areas, and Congress gave specific instructions as to how that 

should be carried out. The proposals made in BLM’s draft RMP 

constitute a departure from plain and clear language. It was so 

clear this law’s intention, and frankly it is insulting the way this 

is being proposed. 

The law required the BLM to collaborate with state and local 

governments on a number of issues, and as the witnesses will demonstrate today, every one of their suggestions were put aside and 

not considered. As the local government leaders will tell you, every 

one of them were excluded from this process, and here are a few 

of the highlights of that outcome because they were excluded. 

The law prohibits the BLM from creating any new wilderness 

area. Yet, Alternative C calls for an inventory of wilderness, and 

the northern transportation route identified by the BLM in 

Alternative D seems to be written to maximize the impacts to the 

environment, clearing through 25 to 30 miles of the county. The 

county’s preferred alternative, which impacts only 4 miles of the 

NCA, is not even included in any of the draft alternatives. This 

cannot possibly be the BLM’s good-faith effort to present to the 

Secretary of the Interior for approval. 

Alternatives B, C, and D invent a Federal Multiple Species 

Management Area. First, there is no such thing as a Federal MultiSpecies Management Area. Second, there are no known protected 

species in this area. The BLM acknowledges in the draft RMP that 

this area will be to protect critical habitat and migration corridors 

for mule deer, but the BLM has no jurisdiction over this game 

animal. 

And finally, this point: The preferred alternative appears to significantly reduce grazing allotments, despite a clear requirement 

that they must not be changed. As a kid who grew up farming and 

ranching, this one is particularly troubling to me, and I would emphasize that any attempt to encourage ranchers to surrender their 

grazing allotments or any allotments that are retired or withheld 

is in violation of the law. 

These are the things we are considering today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your participation, and for those 

who are here as well. We look forward to a positive meeting. I yield 

back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

That concludes the opening statements. We will now move to our 

testimony. 

We are under the House 5-minute rule. Written testimony will 

appear in full in the hearing record, but we would ask the witnesses to keep their oral statement to 5 minutes, as outlined in 

Committee Rule 4(a). 

We have some helpful timing lights to keep you within those parameters. The yellow light indicates that you have 1 minute remaining; the red light indicates you should stop. Why 5 minutes? 

I think it is because studies have shown that is the maximum 

attention span of an average Member of Congress. But for whatever reason, we would ask you to keep within those parameters. 

11 

With that, I now recognize Ms. Jenna Whitlock, the Acting State 

Director of the Utah Office, Bureau of Land Management, for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JENNA WHITLOCK, ACTING STATE DIRECTOR, 

UTAH OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, SALT LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Good morning, Chairman McClintock, Chairman 

Bishop, members of the subcommittee, and Utah delegation. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the BLM’s planning process for 

the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas, 

and for the St. George Field Office, as called for by the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009, also known as OPLMA. 

The BLM is committed to hearing from the public and engaging 

with cooperating governments and agencies as part of this planning 

process. I greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s efforts to hold this 

hearing in St. George. As a Utahan whose family was among the 

earliest settlers of Sanpete County, just down the road, and having 

lived in the state for six generations, these land management 

issues are of great personal importance to me. 

Washington County, Utah, covers nearly 2,500 square miles and 

has been among the fastest growing counties in the country. This 

population increase has had direct impacts on public lands within 

the county and poses management challenges for a variety of 

reasons. 

For over 20 years, the BLM has worked closely with local, state, 

and Federal stakeholders to manage sensitive resources in a way 

that prevents conflicts and facilitates continued growth within the 

county. 

In passing OPLMA, Congress incorporated a number of public 

land bills, one of which established the Beaver Dam Wash and Red 

Cliffs NCA and included other major provisions affecting future 

land management in Washington County. 

According to the Act, the purpose of the Red Cliffs NCA is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of 

present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific 

resources of the NCA, and to protect each threatened or endangered species located in the area. 

The Act further provides that the Secretary shall only allow uses 

in the NCA that would further the conservation purposes for which 

it was designated. 

My remarks today focus on the portions of OPLMA requiring the 

BLM to complete a comprehensive management plan for the Red 

Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash NCAs, and to consider alternatives 

for a northern transportation corridor in the county. Other provisions of OPLMA are discussed in my written statement. 

As you well know, the BLM is preparing plans for the Beaver 

Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs, and an amendment for the St. 

George Field Office plan. These three draft plans released on July 

17, 2015 outlined a range of alternatives and offer a variety of 

proposed management objectives and actions for the public to review and provide input to the BLM. 

12 

As I previously mentioned, OPLMA requires the BLM, in consultation with Washington County, the city of St. George, and other 

local governments, to identify one or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the county as part of a comprehensive 

travel management plan. The BLM has included an alternative 

that would designate a new utility and transportation corridor 

within the Red Cliffs NCA, accommodating all of the potential 

alignments for a multi-lane road that Washington County provided 

to the BLM for the northern transportation route. 

During public scoping, the BLM received many written comments that suggested possible conflicts associated with the construction of a new multi-lane road through the Red Cliffs NCA. 

Others have urged the BLM to approve or otherwise establish a 

transportation route through the same conservation area. 

The BLM appreciates the input from all stakeholders and is in 

the process of reviewing all comments received. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 

the Red Cliffs, Beaver Dam Wash, and St. George planning process. The BLM looks forward to working with the subcommittee, 

state, tribal, and local partners on these important land management issues. 

As part of the planning process, the BLM is considering a broad 

range of potential resource management scenarios and provisions. 

No final decisions have been made, and the BLM will carefully consider all public comments and engage further with cooperating 

agencies before issuing final plans and amendments. 

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitlock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNA WHITLOCK, ACTING STATE DIRECTOR, UTAH OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM’s) development of Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for the Beaver Dam 

Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas and an RMP Amendment for the 

St. George Field Office, as called for by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 

of 2009. The BLM is committed to hearing from the public and engaging with cooperating governments and agencies as part of this planning process. Consistent 

with this commitment, the BLM has held numerous formal cooperating agency 

meetings and many informal meetings to discuss topics of importance with the state 

of Utah, local counties and municipalities, area tribes, stakeholders, and Federal 

partners, and has sought to maximize opportunities for public input into the plans. 

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BLM has an obligation to consider a broad range of 

potential resource scenarios and management approaches—referred to as 

‘‘alternatives’’—under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, recognizing 

that other provisions of law may set forth specific management requirements. No 

final decisions have been made, and the BLM will engage further with cooperating 

agencies and carefully consider all public comments on the draft plans before 

issuing final plans. 

BACKGROUND

Washington County, Utah, covers nearly 2,500 square miles, and has been among 

the fastest growing counties in the country, with a population increase of 52 percent 

between 2000 and 2010. Population growth has direct impacts on public lands within the county and poses management challenges for a variety of resources. For over 

20 years, the BLM has worked closely with Washington County, the state of Utah, 

area tribes, and Federal agency partners to manage sensitive resources in a way 

that prevents conflicts and facilitates continued growth. As part of this effort, 

Washington County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) undertook a 

collaborative public process, including meetings between private landowners and 

13 

state and Federal land managers, to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 

that allowed for continued growth while ensuring protection of the threatened 

Mojave desert tortoise. This effort mirrored similar conservation efforts across the 

Mojave Desert, including the successful Clark County Multiple Species HCP that 

has facilitated sustainable growth in the Las Vegas Valley. 

The HCP Implementation Agreement, signed by Washington County, the state of 

Utah, the city of Ivins, the BLM, and the USFWS in February 1996, established 

the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, a multi-jurisdictional wildlife reserve of 61,022 acres 

largely composed of Federal and state lands. According to the HCP, uses within the 

Reserve are to be managed in a way that ‘‘will place the desert tortoise as the highest priority,’’ while allowing continued development of desert tortoise habitat outside 

of the Reserve. The HCP and associated Implementation Agreement provide a comprehensive approach to preserving and protecting desert tortoise habitat in 

Washington County, while at the same time allowing controlled growth and development in those areas of the county that are less essential to species recovery. 

OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009

In early 2009, Congress passed H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act (Public Law 111–11, hereafter referred to as ‘‘OPLMA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), which included major provisions affecting future land management in Washington County, 

Utah. The Act established the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas (NCAs) to be managed by the BLM, and designated new wilderness areas 

to be managed by the BLM, Forest Service, and National Park Service. The Act directed the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to develop comprehensive management plans for both of the NCAs, including direction for the Secretary, through the 

BLM, to ‘‘identify areas located in the County where biological conservation is a priority; and undertake activities to conserve and restore plant and animal species and 

natural communities within such areas.’’ 

The congressionally-designated boundary of the Red Cliffs NCA encompasses approximately 44,859 acres of public land managed by the BLM, including about 70 

percent of the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve. The Act states that the purposes of the 

Red Cliffs NCA are ‘‘to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment 

of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources’’ of the NCA and to 

protect each threatened or endangered species located in the NCA. The Act further 

provides that the Secretary shall only allow uses of the NCA that would further the 

purposes for which it was designated. 

The Act also directed the BLM to execute a number of land actions, including the 

transfer of land into trust for the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians and the conveyance of land for a variety of public purposes and uses, both of which the BLM completed in 2010. 

ST. GEORGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Based on the congressional direction in OPLMA, the BLM is preparing RMPs and 

an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required under NEPA for 

the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs. As required by OPLMA, the BLM is 

also preparing an amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP to identify and 

manage priority biological conservation areas and to facilitate the development of 

a comprehensive travel management plan. The BLM is currently under a Federal 

Court order to have final RMPs by June 30, 2016. On January 8, 2016, at the BLM’s 

request, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a motion with the court to extend 

the deadline for the final RMPs to December 31, 2016, to allow for additional time 

to complete further outreach and analysis. As of the date of this testimony, the court 

has not acted on the motion. 

On July 17, 2015, the BLM released the draft plans for a 90-day public review 

and comment period. The BLM later extended the comment period by an additional 

30 days to ensure full public opportunity to comment. As required by statute, the 

draft plans outline a range of alternatives and offer a variety of proposed management objectives and actions. During the planning process, the BLM held nine formal 

cooperating agency meetings and many informal meetings to discuss topics of importance with the state of Utah, local counties, interested tribes, and partnering 

Federal agencies, and has allowed for maximum public input into the plan. 

Section 1977(b)(2) of OPLMA also requires the BLM to identify one or more alternatives for a ‘‘northern transportation route in the County’’ as part of a comprehensive travel management plan and in consultation with Washington County, the city 

of St. George, and other local governments. During the planning process for the 

14 

NCAs and the amendment to the St. George RMP, the BLM received a formal 

request from Washington County to evaluate proposed alignments for a multi-lane 

road through the Red Cliffs NCA that could serve as this northern transportation 

route. Accordingly, the BLM has included an alternative that would designate a new 

utility and transportation corridor within the Red Cliffs NCA, accommodating all of 

the potential alignments that Washington County provided to the BLM for the 

northern transportation route. 

During public scoping, the BLM received many written comments that suggested 

possible conflicts associated with the construction of a new multi-lane road through 

the Red Cliffs NCA, including the risk of undermining the 1996 HCP Implementation Agreement and the possible invalidation of Washington County’s associated incidental take permit, which could negatively affect future growth in the county. In 

light of these potentially significant conflicts, the BLM’s preferred alternative would 

retain existing designated right-of-way corridors along State Route 18 and 

Interstate 15, but would not designate a new utility and transportation corridor 

within the Red Cliffs NCA. This preferred alternative is consistent with the HCP 

and with the direction expressed by Congress in its establishment of the Red Cliffs 

NCA. 

Since release of the draft plan, the BLM has heard from some stakeholders who 

believe that the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act, which was 

passed as part of OPLMA, requires the BLM to approve or otherwise establish a 

transportation route through the Red Cliffs NCA. However, a plain reading of the 

statute (OPLMA section 1977[b][2]) does not direct the BLM to do this. Instead, the 

Act prohibits such a route through the NCA unless it furthers one of the purposes 

for which the NCA was established. 

Comprehensive Travel & Transportation Management Plan 

OPLMA also requires the BLM, in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies 

and state, tribal, and local governments and after opportunity for public comment, 

to develop a comprehensive travel management plan for BLM-administered land in 

Washington County. In addition, the BLM must also ensure that the travel management plan contains a map that depicts the ‘‘High Desert Off-Highway Vehicle Trail’’ 

and must designate a system of areas, roads, and trails for mechanical and motorized use. 

BLM off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations provide the framework within 

which individual route designations are made. The OHV area designations in the 

1999 St. George Field Office RMP are inconsistent with current BLM Travel and 

Transportation Management policy. Each of the proposed alternatives in the draft 

plans (other than the ‘‘no action’’ alternative) would update OHV area designations 

and provide options to facilitate development of the required travel management 

plan. 

Following final approval of the two NCA RMPs and the amendment to the St. 

George Field Office RMP, the BLM will prepare a Washington County Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan and a supporting Environmental 

Assessment in cooperation with the state of Utah and Washington County, and with 

full public participation and review. In addition to addressing OHV use and the 

High Desert OHV Trail, the travel management plan will include consideration of 

a northern transportation route within Washington County, as required by OPLMA. 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM remains subject to the requirement of section 201 of FLPMA to 

‘‘maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource 

and other values.’’ Just as wildlife habitat, visual resources, conventional and renewable energy production, grazing, mining, OHV use, hunting, and myriad other 

land uses and resources are considered in the development of an RMP, lands with 

wilderness characteristics must also be considered during the planning process. In 

order to fulfill our statutory commitments, the BLM has inventoried lands with wilderness characteristics within the planning areas and is analyzing the impact of the 

various alternatives in the EIS on these lands, and one alternative includes proposed prescriptions that would protect lands with wilderness characteristics. Consideration of these alternatives allows the BLM to complete a comprehensive plan 

under section 202 of FLPMA, and to address the interests and concerns of the wide 

array of public land users. 

15 

CONCLUSION

The BLM is committed to working with state, tribal, and local partners as we consider land management plan provisions for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs 

NCAs and our St. George Field Office. As discussed above, the BLM is considering 

a broad range of potential resource management scenarios and provisions. No final 

decisions have been made, and the BLM will carefully consider all public comments 

and engage further with cooperating agencies before issuing final plans and amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, and I am happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Our next witness, Ms. Kathleen Clarke, the Director of the Utah 

Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF 

UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE, SALT 

LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Ms. CLARKE. Chairman McClintock, Chairman Bishop, and members of the subcommittee, thank you. I am honored to be here 

today and appreciate this opportunity. 

I have been involved in public land and natural resource management for about 35 years. Five of those years I had the privilege 

of serving as the Director of the BLM in Washington, DC. One of 

the primary objectives that I pursued was to encourage our BLM 

folks at all levels to engage with their partners, their neighbors, 

and local communities. 

BLM is a checkerboard kind of a landscape, and often you are 

surrounded on four sides by someone who may own that property. 

It is essential that this agency work together with them, and I encourage that because I am a firm believer that that kind of interaction and negotiation brings about rigorous conversations, debate, 

delicate negotiations, and arrives at a balance point that is based 

on trust, not something that everyone is thrilled with, but something that gets the best of what you both want. 

I believe that that is exactly what the Washington County lands 

bill did, and it was an honest effort. 

I was at the BLM when this bill was passed, and I have to tell 

you it was not uncommon that I would get a phone call from someone saying, ‘‘I don’t know what Washington County is doing, they 

are giving everything away.’’ And I said, ‘‘It is not my decision, I 

am not in charge of this action. This is a legislative action being 

driven by the legislature, by our Congressmen, and it will not succeed unless it gets enough votes to pass the entire House, the 

Senate, and gets the President’s signature.’’ And this bill did that. 

That ought to be end of the story. What is a law for if it isn’t 

to be honored, respected, and obeyed? What are agreements for if 

there is no honor behind them and no real commitment behind 

them? 

The provisions in the bill are designed to enhance the quality of 

life in the St. George area. This quality of life emanates from the 

pristine environment, absolutely, but also from the dynamic and 

growing economy, both of which are addressed by provisions in the 

lands bill. 

16 

This bill protected thousands of acres of wilderness in 15 

different wilderness areas. It established two new conservation 

areas, but it committed the remaining BLM land in the county to 

other public uses, and it made sure that planning could move forward for the ever-important northern transportation route. This 

trust, these trade-offs, that is the backbone of this special legislation. 

I want to just speak for a moment about the northern transportation corridor. It was a key part of the compromise that allowed 

this land bill to come into being. The city of St. George, the county, 

and other local interests wanted to plan for a northern transportation corridor, and it is part of the reason why they were willing 

to support the creation of new wilderness areas and new conservation areas, because they felt comfortable that they were going to 

get something in return that they needed. And again, that is what 

the law says. 

To me, at this point the debate should be over. The bill has been 

signed and put into law, and the time for negotiations about so 

much of this has passed. Those were hard-fought negotiations, and 

as I suggested, not everyone got everything they wanted. 

I think as the witnesses testify, they will speak to numerous 

other concerns they have with this bill. But my major one is the 

integrity, and it is of an agency bothering to read the law. I think 

sometimes they default to their handbooks and their policy guidelines or to the way they have already done things. Maybe they 

were just sent to Utah from Virginia and they don’t know anything 

about this law. Maybe they don’t bother to check it out. They just 

know what the wilderness manual says and that is where they are 

going. 

My encouragement is for the agency to dig back in, to take a look 

at the law, and to respect the agreements that were made in that 

law and honor them. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, UTAH PUBLIC LANDS

POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE

INTRODUCTION

Chairman, members of the committee; I am honored to be here and thank you 

for this opportunity. 

In my experience, the best public land conservation always happens at the ground 

level with many stakeholders coming together to identify issues and solve problems. 

Only through a process of inclusion and transparency can resource plans be crafted 

that achieve a true balance between conservation, recreation, and responsible development of natural resources and that produce durable results. 

Subtitle O of the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, also known as the 

Washington County lands bill (hereinafter ‘‘lands bill’’) is a true example of such an 

effort. The lands bill brought people together from across the political spectrum: environmentalists, ranchers, private landowners, developers, recreationists, 

Republicans, and Democrats. Ultimately the compromise won bipartisan support in 

a divided Congress and was signed by President Obama. 

The provisions in the lands bill are designed to enhance the enviable quality of 

life found in the St. George area. This quality of life stems from the pristine environment and the dynamic economy, both of which are enriched by provisions in the 

lands bill. The lands bill protected thousands of acres of wilderness in 15 different 

wilderness areas. It established two National Conservation Areas. It committed the 

remaining BLM land in the county to other public uses. It protected historical uses 

such as grazing in the Beaver Dam Wash. And it made sure that planning for the 

critically important northern transportation route could proceed to the next stage. 

17 

The backbone of special land management legislation such as the lands bill is 

formed through compromise, the negotiation, the balancing and the mutual trust 

that brings such an agreement together. 

When a piece of special legislation is passed by the Congress, it may direct an 

agency to do something outside of the ordinary, something different than what is 

stated in their policies and guidance documents. Examples of this arise in the lands 

bill we are considering at this hearing. 

The Draft Resource Management Plan for Beaver Dam Wash National 

Conservation Area and Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (hereinafter ‘‘Draft 

RMP’’) now under review by the BLM fails to honor key provisions of the lands 

bill—provisions that were foundational to passage of the bill and are crucially important to Washington County today. 

Both the state and the county signed up early to be cooperating agencies and also 

requested full coordination as mandated by law in the development of the Draft 

RMP’s alternatives. Regrettably, they were left out of critical deliberations and were 

not invited to the table to discuss the challenges the BLM wrestled with or the decisions that followed. When the alternatives in the Draft RMP were released, the 

county was stunned, finding that many of the promises in the lands bill had no 

place in Alternative B, the BLM’s ‘‘Preferred Alternative.’’ 

In its official comments, the state sought to have the BLM initiate a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to allow the state and the county to have 

their full rights to participation and partnership with the BLM. Although the BLM 

appears to not be headed in that direction, they did grant an extension of time for 

comments, and more importantly began a series of in-depth meetings with county 

and state officials to consider their many issues and concerns with the Draft RMP. 

These meetings have been productive and thanks are due to Field Office Manager 

Brian Tritle for his hard work in facilitating essential dialog and cooperation between the parties. 

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION ROUTE

Of major concern is the matter of the northern transportation route. The northern 

transportation route is a key part of the compromise that allowed the lands bill to 

exist. The city of St. George, the county, and other local interests wanted to plan 

for a northern transportation route, and were willing to make compromises to get 

there. It’s part of why local interests supported the creation of 15 different wilderness areas and two NCAs. The idea was to balance conservation in some areas so 

that planning for the route could proceed. 

The lands bill clearly states that the BLM must identify one or more potential 

routes for a northern transportation route in the county’s travel management plan. 

The RMP should therefore include a right-of-way corridor within which the BLM 

can identify a specific route in the upcoming travel management plan, because the 

travel management plan will be constrained by the RMP. Unfortunately, there is 

significant disparity between what the lands bill says and what the BLM has 

proposed. 

Alternative B, the ‘‘Preferred Alternative,’’ and Alternative C in the Draft RMP 

do not designate any right-of-way corridors within which a northern transportation 

route could be built. Only Alternative D designates a right-of-way corridor for a 

northern transportation route. 

Notwithstanding, the lands bill states that a route must be identified in the travel 

management plan. If BLM selects Alternative B or Alternative C from the Draft 

RMP, there will not be any right-of-way corridors available for the route in the travel management plan. The Draft RMP should have included a right-of-way corridor 

under every alternative so that planning for the route can proceed as directed by 

law. 

We have heard from the BLM that a travel management plan is not the right 

planning document to identify a route for a highway; that BLM regulations do not 

provide for route identification in travel management planning. We have even heard 

from the BLM that Congress made a mistake by calling for the identification of the 

route in the travel management plan. 

But BLM regulations can and must be adjusted to follow the will of Congress 

because Federal law trumps agency regulations. If route identification does not usually happen during travel management planning, the BLM must make a one-time 

adjustment to their travel management planning process. 

Designating a right-of-way corridor in the RMP will not authorize construction of 

a highway. It will not jeopardize any endangered species. The designation will only 

involve drawing lines on a map so that planning for the northern transportation 

route can proceed to the travel management plan stage. The northern transporVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:18 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FEDERAL LANDS\01-22-16 FIELD\98446.TXT DARLEN
18 

tation route itself will require its own approval process and its own NEPA 

documentation. But at this point BLM is required by law to allow the planning process move to the next level. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

The BLM has also disregarded the express intent of Congress with regard to wilderness study areas. The lands bill, which designated over 250,000 acres of the 

county as wilderness, clearly says that all remaining BLM land in the county has 

been adequately studied for wilderness designation and should be released from wilderness consideration under FLPMA Section 603(c). This was another important 

compromise made by local interest groups in Washington County when agreeing to 

15 new wilderness areas under the lands bill. 

Despite this direct statement in the statute, under Alternative C the BLM 

proposed to manage over 18,000 acres as lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Proposals like this, even when they are only found in one alternative, foster 

distrust in the Federal Government and dismay among local residents. 

INSUFFICIENT RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of a Draft RMP is for the BLM to provide the public and cooperating 

agencies with a range of management alternatives, and to then solicit feedback on 

which alternatives are preferable. However, there are many instances in the Draft 

RMP where there is no range of alternatives; where all three alternatives contain 

identical proposals. This is not how NEPA is supposed to work, and it renders local 

input meaningless if there is only one option presented in a Draft RMP. 

One example is the BLM’s proposal for California Condors. Alternatives B, C, and 

D all proposed to ‘‘authorize the reintroduction, translocation, and supplemental releases of California condors.’’ There is no variety in the alternatives for this very 

significant management action, nothing from which cooperating agencies or BLM 

decisionmakers can make a selection. The Draft RMP should have included three 

distinct proposals for each alternative, with meaningful differences between each. 

Another example is from the water resources section of the Draft RMP. Every alternative states that the BLM will ‘‘not authorize land uses that would export water 

from the NCA.’’ Again the BLM proposes a management action with serious consequences for the public and cooperating agencies, but does not provide any range 

of alternatives. Provisions such as this ignore the role of cooperating agencies, as 

if a decision has already been made. Other examples of proposals without a sufficient range of alternatives are found throughout the Draft RMP. Cooperation with 

state and local government requires real alternatives for each management action 

and substantive discussions between parties over which alternatives are best. 

REMOVAL OF ‘‘COOPERATION AND COORDINATION’’ LANGUAGE

Let me mention briefly an issue I find both troubling and perplexing. The existing 

RMP for the St. George Field Office frequently says that the BLM should cooperate, 

collaborate, or coordinate with local governments. 

This language about has been removed from Alternatives B, C, and D of the Draft 

RMP. Cooperation with state and local government is fundamental to good stewardship and conservation. While laws and regulations directing the BLM to cooperate 

with state and local government will still be valid regardless of the text of the RMP, 

we request that the BLM include language about cooperation, collaboration, and coordination in the new RMP. 

CONCLUSION

I appreciate the efforts of the people of Washington County to work together toward good stewardship of their public lands, and for the efforts of Congress to craft 

balanced and individualized land conservation laws in Utah. I urge continuing cooperation between the BLM and local government officials as the BLM moves to 

finalize these important land management plans. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness, Mr. Paul Van Dam, the former Executive 

Director of Citizens for Dixie’s Future, and a former Utah Attorney 

General from Ivins, Utah, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

19 

STATEMENT OF PAUL VAN DAM, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITIZENS FOR DIXIE’S FUTURE; FORMER ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF UTAH, IVINS, UTAH 

Mr. VAN DAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bishop, it 

is a pleasure to be here today, and it is particularly a pleasure for 

me to look out into this room and see my kind of people. Thank 

you for coming. I know you cannot applaud, but I can hear it. 

I have been involved with Utah my whole life, born here, raised 

here, bought property in this county in the 1970s; I love the state, 

and I love this land. 

But we have a unique situation in Utah that many do not want 

to accept, and that is the majority of it belongs to all Americans, 

not just Utahans. 

I had a unique opportunity as the Attorney General of the state 

to see how government runs on the state level and how it meshes 

with the Federal Government, and there are real discrepancies, 

real differences between the attitudes of Utahans and the attitudes 

of other people in this country. 

This state was born back in the 1840s from people running from 

other people, and other states driving them out. When Congress finally got a nose full of what the Mormons were doing with their 

polygamy, they sent an army out. And what did Utah do? It sent 

a counter group back to waylay that army, and they had to change 

a lot of things. There have been hard feelings among these people 

in the state of Utah and the Federal Government for as long as 

this state has existed, and they have now come forward even more 

today. We have a state that has just spent $14 million to hire a law 

firm to see if they can get their land back, land which never belonged to anybody but all the people of the country. So, when this 

BLM thing came up I thought, well, this is so strange. And when 

I hear the Chairman in his introductory remarks basically dissing 

and being disrespectful of the BLM and believing everything that 

he has heard from one side and not the other side, I want to tell 

you, Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with the BLM for a long time. My 

experiences are positive. 

They have accommodated me. They have met with me. They 

have answered my questions. I have been to many, many of their 

presentations, and I can tell you that they are engaged and they 

have no desire to thwart the people of this county. 

We had a sagebrush rebellion some years ago, and now we are 

doing it again. I see some of those here who are very much involved 

in trying to get Utahans worked up about the fact that we are entitled to the land in our state. 

Well, if those were the facts, I might join them, but they are not. 

Most of this state, 67 percent of it, belongs to everybody in the 

United States, and the BLM has the very difficult job of preserving 

it in a way that is meaningful. 

Having grown up in Salt Lake City, I can tell you that that area, 

when I was born, which was 78 years ago, was pretty pristine. We 

had open foothills. We had trails. We had open ground. And we 

still had an air problem. But everything is now full, and everything 

is now polluted, and I simply do not want to see this county follow 

suit. 

20 

There are those who would simply do that. Businesses would like 

to fill every nook and cranny in this county with a house, with a 

business, with something. I am not against growth, but I think 

smart growth is something that is very important. 

A few years ago we had a process called Vision Dixie, which I 

assume many of you were involved in. Vision Dixie cost the county 

half a million dollars and took a year and a half or more. It came 

out with a plan, and the plan was to grow within the confines of 

our city. The plan was to keep our natural wild places open and 

usable. The plan, Vision Dixie, has kind of gone away, and I am 

sorry. 

Now, we talk about the northern transportation corridor, and I 

have very few seconds left, but I can tell you, having talked to Bill 

Mader, who was the Administrator back in the 1990s and who 

drafted the actual document, says no highway was contemplated or 

allowed. Then it was made into a national area for our tortoises, 

and we want to run a six-lane highway through there that dumps 

out on Red Hills Parkway, the small road that now exists up there. 

To what advantage? So I can get over to Ivins in about 3 minutes 

less time than before, and in the process essentially wipe out what 

is an amazing area and a tortoise reserve? 

My time is up. I have not had time to talk about most of the 

things in detail I would like you to know. But let me just say in 

closing that there is a difficulty in understanding one another, and 

those of you who are here know what I am talking about. I ran for 

County Commission a couple of years ago and I found out I am not 

going to be elected here. I am a Democrat. 

Thank you very much, and hold on to your hats. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Dam follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. PAUL VAN DAM, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF UTAH

As a life-long Utah resident, property owner in and current resident of 

Washington County, Utah, former Utah Attorney General and an American, public 

lands are of great importance to me. I appreciate being able to provide testimony 

at this public hearing convened by the House Natural Resource Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands and be given time to speak on behalf of those in 

our county and others who support our public lands and value their preservation 

now and into the future for generations to come. 

Given my legal career and having served as executive director for Washington 

County’s only local grassroots conservation organization, Citizens for Dixie’s Future 

(CDF), I am familiar with laws dealing with our county’s public land. I was heavily 

involved in the 2006 Washington County Growth and Conservation Bills offered by 

Utah’s Senator Robert Bennett and Congressman Jim Matheson. When I became 

CDF’s executive director in 2008, the effort by Senator Bennett and Congressman 

Matheson had been met with vigorous opposition by local citizens, resulting in the 

formation of CDF and ultimately the initiation of the Vision Dixie process by 

Washington County Commissioners to deal with the unrest created by the legislation. To their surprise, the Vision Dixie process revealed great support in this county for our public lands and reluctance to spin off large portions to Washington 

County or build a Northern Corridor through the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, now 

part of which is an NCA. 

The 2006 bill version was soundly rejected and resulted in a revised version being 

included in the 2009 Omnibus Land Act. In 2008, I was directly involved in conversations with Congressman Matheson’s office leading up to the final version for 

the 2009 legislation. They were unwilling to completely relinquish the idea of their 

preferred Northern Corridor but language was revised in the 2009 legislation to provide leeway in that regard. We now are dealing with the results of that and arguing 

whether the BLM has lived up to the letter of the law described in the 2009 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act (OPLMA), Subtitle O. I believe they have. 

21 

Much of the disagreement pertaining to this contentious road deals with what has 

been on the county and city transportation plans for decades according to county 

leaders. That may be the case, but according to my conversation with Dr. William 

Mader who served as the first administrator of the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve 

(Reserve), established in 1996, and administered the Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP), there was no plan for a road, and it was clear to county and city officials 

involved in the process and BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Utah’s 

Division of Wildlife Resources that was the case. Straightening of Skyline Drive 

(also known as City Creek by some) was discussed to deal with traffic, but certainly 

no road through the heart of the Reserve. There was some early discussion but it 

was made clear that if they wanted the HCP that would allow development to ensue 

in over 300,000 acres of Washington County, there would be no road. Dr. Mader was 

part of all official discussions, meetings and decisions in this regard. If side conversations occurred implying something different, they were not part of the official 

decisionmaking process or record. 

When Dr. Mader and I spoke, I asked him about the Washington Parkway Study 

done in 2012 in which a biologist working with Utah’s Department of Transportation and the Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization, our local transportation 

planning organization, was contracted to review the proposed Northern Corridor 

preferred route, also called the Washington Parkway, and show how, if at all, a road 

could be constructed to help the tortoise population. Dr. Mader, being a trained biologist himself and former head of the Reserve, stated unequivocally that the road 

would not help the situation. The tunnels suggested by UDOT/DixieMPO’s biologist 

would not provide the necessary access needed. The additional traffic, along with 

the noise and pollution that would result, would not be conducive to helping the tortoise population which has declined by around 50 percent since 2005’s summer fire 

season. 

To substantiate Dr. Mader’s concerns, I offer the following from a December 19, 

2012 letter from the Desert Tortoise Council pertaining to the Washington Parkway 

Study (Study) conducted by UDOT and DixieMPO: 

‘‘But for’’ this project, none of the threats listed in the table in the executive 

summary (pages iii and iv of the Study) would affect the Reserve. Therefore, the best way to eliminate the following threats is to prohibit the 

construction of a new highway through the Reserve: Direct mortality, construction activities, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, small reserve/ 

population size, disturbance, spread of exotic and invasive plants, increased 

risk of fire, increased predation, disease, increased access to remote areas, 

and cumulative threats. In Section 7.9 on page 51, the Study fails to indicate that a new roadway through the Reserve would be a new source of 

road-killed animals that would serve to subsidize ravens and coyotes. 

The Council takes exception to the following statement: ‘‘This study illustrates that a comprehensive approach to roadway design and associated 

management can ameliorate many existing threats, contribute to improving 

conditions, and provide future management options for the tortoise on the 

Reserve.’’ First of all, there are no ‘‘improving conditions’’ in a population 

that has declined by almost half since the HCP was implemented and the 

Reserve established. It is extremely misleading to claim that the project 

itself, which is probably immitigable, will somehow benefit tortoise conservation elsewhere; such statements redirect the readers’ attention away 

from the impacts associated with the proposed project by promising conservation elsewhere. Since this conservation is already guaranteed by an 

HCP with its adaptive management contingency plans, there is no need for 

the ‘‘additional’’ conservation proposed by this new project. 

Dr. Mader’s concerns and those of the Desert Tortoise Council are not the only 

reasons for rejecting the Northern Corridor route preferred by our county and city 

leaders. The county’s own 2015 Regional Transportation Plan clearly states that 

roads will not solve this county’s traffic problems. The report also points out that 

the majority of this county’s growth will be in the southern and southeastern areas 

of this county meaning that a Northern Corridor would support a very small population of this county at an expense of around $100 million. The transportation plan 

also shows that we have a deficiency in funding for others roads that are more essential to more populated areas and shows that the road would save a mere 1.7 

minutes from travel time. 

22 

As a resident of Ivins, a town in the northwestern part of Washington County, 

conceivably I could benefit from a Northern Corridor, but to have 1.7 minutes 

shaved from my travel time while turning our backs on an obligation made in good 

faith in the 1990s and challenging to the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve and Red Cliffs 

NCA, an area that citizens and visitors have come to love and cherish, makes no 

sense to me. 

The argument is made that traffic on St. George Boulevard and Red Hills 

Parkway will not be able to handle the coming traffic, but then the transportation 

report shows that congestion will not be eliminated on these roads even with a 

Northern Corridor. And, amazingly, the preferred Northern Corridor (aka 

Washington Parkway) is designed to move traffic onto Red Hills Parkway near the 

Highway 18 intersection, which seems to completely undermine the purpose for a 

road. In fact, even now, if I desire to avoid St. George Boulevard and other midtown traffic, I can take I-15 to Dixie Drive and Dixie Drive to Snow Canyon 

Parkway and home. 

While local leaders attest to the need for a road to move traffic, a 2007 UDOT 

study concerning a proposed Northern Corridor dealt with the county’s preferred 

route (Red Hills Parkway to I-15 at MP 13 in a chapter titled: ‘‘Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration.’’ Here are excerpts from 

that report: 

Under this alternative, traffic conditions would also slightly improve on St. 

George Boulevard but would slightly deteriorate on Bluff Street. 

However, traffic demand along St. George Boulevard would still exceed the 

road’s capacity, so the effect may be minimal. 

The Northern Corridor Alternative would not meet the objective of 

minimizing impacts to the reserve. 

According to a letter from USFWS, ‘‘such a road would compromise the 

commitments on which the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan 

was based, is likely to compromise the biological integrity of the Upper 

Virgin Recovery Unit (already the smallest recovery unit), and may result in 

an adverse modification of designated critical habitat.’’ 

While others may not take heed to what Dr. Mader and biologists from the Desert 

Tortoise Council say about the effects of the proposed, preferred Northern Corridor 

route, or consider the admonitions provided in transportation studies, perhaps this 

official statement by Senator Bob Bennett will carry more weight from the U.S. 

Senate hearing record of April 22, 2008 on S. 2834: 

‘‘Congressman Matheson and I have made significant changes to the 

previous proposal. We have permanently protected large amounts of biologically significant public land in Washington County, including additional 

wilderness and a new National Conservation Area. We have removed the 

corridor designations for the Lake Powell Pipeline Corridor and the 

Northern Corridor that bisected the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve’’ p. 8 

(emphasis added) 

What’s needed is for our transportation planners to go back to the drawing board 

and devise ways to deal with our projected traffic needs without undermining agreements that were made at an earlier time. County-wide coordination of all general 

plan updates and major rezoning approvals would improve transportation planning. 

All signatories to the HCP need to uphold the agreement and do their general plan 

updates and transportation planning with the Northern Corridor off the table. 

Although the proposed Northern Corridor (aka Washington Parkway) is a major 

sticking point in the BLM’s 2015 RMP, other issues are pertinent to this discussion 

and bear mentioning. Of critical concern by our leaders at all government levels is 

their contention that the BLM has failed to live up to the actions designated in the 

2009 OPLMA. Given my reading of the OPLMA language and my legal career, I disagree. The following is the direction given to the BLM—representatives for the 

Secretary of Interior—by the OPLMA: 

(2) USES.—The Secretary shall only allow uses of the National Conservation Area 

that the Secretary determines would further a purpose described in subsection (a), 

which provides: 

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

(1) to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and 

future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, 

natural, educational, and scientific resources of the National Conservation Area; and 

23 

(2) to protect each species that is— 

(A) located in the National Conservation Area; and 

(B) listed as a threatened or endangered species on the list of threatened species 

or the list of endangered species published under section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)). 

Pertaining to the Northern Corridor issue the 2009 bill states: 

(A) in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, state, tribal, and local governmental entities (including the County and St. George City, Utah), and the public, 

identify one or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the County. 

The BLM has identified four options for a road in their Alternative D of the RMP. 

What they have not done is support Alternative D as their preferred alternative because it conflicts with the directive of protecting the species within the NCA. 

OPLMA does not direct them to ‘‘prefer’’ an alternative; it only directs that they 

‘‘identify’’ alternatives. 

For leaders such as Utah’s Senator Orrin Hatch to assert that the BLM has gone 

against the ‘‘intent’’ of OPLMA is without merit given what Senator Bob Bennett’s 

2008 official comments show. If we are to legislate by back room deals and not by 

what is in official testimony and in legislation itself, we will surely be arguing over 

this forever. 

My personal experience with the BLM has shown them to be open and willing 

to work with citizens at all levels, if those citizens take the time and make the effort 

to approach them in a collaborative manner. I am not here to assert that BLM does 

everything perfectly or that some review of their systems is not warranted. But I 

believe they have lived up to OPLMA’s requirements perhaps as well as is humanly 

possible. They have been asked to include the HCP and other relevant laws and 

agreements in their decisions, laws and agreements that often don’t sit well with 

political leaders. 

Given the requirements of the HCP to protect the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve’s 

flora and fauna while they’ve had pressure for a road that would go against that 

has placed them in a very difficult position. Also, the requirements of FLPMA have 

presented challenges, and yet, these are laws and agreements that have been enacted and agreed to by previous congressional actions and local leaders. Are we to 

completely upend the apple cart and challenge all decisions made by those who 

came before us? 

Local leaders, county and city, assert they have not been included in the decisionmaking process leading up to the RMP and yet they have known, or should have 

known, since 2009 that this plan was in progress. They have had every opportunity 

to be involved, and in fact, I believe they have been involved but simply have not 

achieved what they want; hence this hearing has been convened to help force their 

issues. 

Washington County leaders have complained that the RMP was too extensive for 

proper review. However, the BLM initiated their planning process by publicizing a 

Notice of Intent in 2010, which began a 60-day scoping period for the public to assist 

BLM, and that included local officials, too. Meeting dates, times and locations for 

four public meetings were announced and details for public comments provided. The 

information was also published in newspapers in the planning area at the same 

time. This gave the public, which includes local leaders, time to participate and communicate their needs to the BLM. If local leaders feel they should have been paid 

deference and been given special attention, that is not borne out in the OPLMA. 

The RMP was issued for the initial 90-day comment period in July 2015, and the 

BLM held open house meetings to answer citizens’ questions. Additionally, the 

regional BLM office is always open to receive citizens and interested persons, including the mayors if they are truly interested in getting information and having 

a two-way conversation. 

Had local leaders truly wanted to be involved in the RMP planning process, they 

had plenty of opportunity. They had access to OPLMA details and what issues the 

BLM would address. Had officials been concerned, they could have begun reviewing 

those needs and identified areas that would be particularly problematic for their 

citizens and started developing preferred plans to communicate to the BLM. 

Additionally, city and county leaders have monthly access to Federal agency representatives through the Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee (HCAC) that 

oversees the Reserve/NCA. Two mayors sit on the committee, St. George city manager is on the committee, which also includes representatives from the BLM, 

USFWS and Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources, and Washington County 

Commissioner Alan Gardner attends monthly meetings which are preceded by lunch 

for committee members and any citizens who might want to participate. There are 

24 

also ad hoc work meetings and field trips during which leaders and Federal/state 

agency representative interact. 

So, where does the public stand in this process? How do they feel about our public 

lands and the efforts underway to wrest control from the Federal Government and 

place under state control where leaders such as those who are challenging the 

BLM’s RMP can have their way? A nationwide poll done by the CREDO wireless 

network challenging Senator Hatch’s S. 1783 that would force the preferred 

Northern Corridor through Red Cliffs NCA has garnered over 126,000 signatures by 

those across America who challenge the idea of politicians making decisions that 

should be left to those with more biological background. Even informal local online 

polls have shown that 64 percent of participating Washington County residents oppose the idea of this controversial road. 

On a more general level regarding America’s public lands, a recent poll by the 

Colorado College State of the Rockies Project ‘‘Conservation in the West Poll’’ 

showed support for keeping America’s public land under Federal control rather than 

relinquishing to the states. The college’s Web site states: 

Despite an uptick in anti-public lands rhetoric from militant extremists, 

Colorado College’s recently released State of the Rockies Project Conservation in the West Poll shows strong public support for efforts to protect and 

maintain national public lands. 

https://www.coloradocollege.edu/newsevents/newsroom/2016-conservationpoll-finds-support-for-public-lands#.Vp_OtZorLGg 

From the college’s January 2016 press release about the poll, key findings from 

the poll include: 

• Ahead of the 2016 elections, 75 percent of respondents say issues involving 

public lands, waters, and wildlife are an important factor in deciding whether 

to support an elected public official, compared to other issues like health care 

and education. 

• 83 percent of respondents believe the drought is a serious issue and in 

Colorado River Basin states (CO, NV, NM & UT) strong majorities favor 

using the current water supply more wisely over diverting more water from 

rivers in less populated areas. 

• 75 percent of respondents support the renewal of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

• 80 percent of respondents believe the U.S. Forest Service should be allowed 

to treat the largest and most expensive wildfires as natural disasters in order 

to have access to emergency disaster funding. 

• 72 percent of respondents say national public lands, such as national forests, 

national monuments, or wildlife refuges help their state economy. 

Many of our local county and city leaders assert that growth will be hampered 

by BLM’s RMP decisions. Few details have been presented to uphold this assertion. 

The BLM’s St. George Field Office and the county, through the Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee (HCAC), have been managing these lands for many years. 

The HCP administered by the HCAC is currently up for renewal after its 20-year 

life. Washington County was considered the fastest growing county in the Nation 

leading up to the Great Recession in spite of these public lands. In fact, these public 

lands draw visitors from around the world to enjoy this area and provide recreational opportunities to residents. To assert that decisions by the BLM regarding 

introduction of the California Condor, restrictions on some grazing and OHV opportunities, along with the myriad other concerns will challenge this area’s growth 

seems foolish. 

Although some citizens and leaders believe they know a great deal about public 

lands, the BLM and forest service inspect them, evaluate them, report on them and 

are in a position to have a fully developed factual base for their opinions. These activities are accomplished by trained, qualified personnel. Much of my testimony has 

concentrated on the Red Cliffs NCA and the proposed road through the Reserve and 

NCA because of the challenges that area faces. Tortoise population presence and decline is well documented. As noted in the RMP, the animals have been studied since 

the 1930 as confirmed by the RMP’s reference on page 399 pertaining to the Beaver 

Dam Wash NCA: 

Woodbury and Hardy (1948, 187) described their study area between 1930 

and 1935 as consisting of 1,200 acres that represented the ‘‘home area of 

a semi-isolated colony of approximately 300 tortoises.’’ From these data, 

they concluded there were 2,000 or more tortoises in the estimated 70 

25 

square mile area of the Slope, and described the area as being potentially 

good habitat but for the impacts to the native vegetation communities as 

a direct result of overgrazing by sheep and other livestock. 

So, populations in the Red Cliffs NCA, Reserve and Beaver Dam Wash NCA are 

and have been at risk for some time. Social trails through the Red Cliffs NCA have 

increased as our population has increased. Providing additional access via a road 

will not help this situation. So far the Mojave desert tortoise’s listing has not been 

elevated from threatened to endangered. However, with the decline in population 

any other efforts to undermine those numbers could be seen as reason to elevate 

that listing, there providing additional demands on management, which I’m sure 

our local leaders would not want. 

There is much more that can be addressed given the extensive nature of the 

BLM’s RMP and the many obligations they have regarding management. I’ve hit on 

what I consider the high points that have resulted in this hearing being called. I 

appreciate having the opportunity to participate and share my thoughts and information on this important topic not only to our area but nationally, as well. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

We will now hear from our next witness, the Mayor of 

St. George, Utah, Mr. Jon Pike, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JON PIKE, MAYOR, CITY OF 

ST. GEORGE, UTAH 

Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman and other Members of Congress, thank 

you for being here. 

I wish to explain four major problems with the draft 

management plans. 

First, the city of St. George was not invited to participate in the 

planning process. 

Second, the northern transportation route that Congress provided for in the Public Lands Management Act is being excluded 

from any serious consideration in the current plan. 

Third, language in the current draft calls for the BLM to obtain 

water rights and restrict the exportation of water from the 

National Conservation Areas. 

Fourth, utility development protocols that were crafted for the 

desert tortoise habitat conservation plan are not being included in 

the NCA management in the current draft. 

Please let me elaborate on these points one at a time so I can 

explain why these four points are so concerning to me as the mayor 

of the largest city in Washington County. 

I not only represent my city today, but I believe I also represent 

the mayors and city councils of other municipalities in the county 

who would be affected by these RMPs. 

First, the planning process. BLM’s local office spent 6 years right 

here in St. George drafting a Resource Management Plan that will 

affect the resources of St. George City and other local municipalities that we will depend on in the future, without consulting the 

governments of these local municipalities. 

During that planning process, the city government was never invited to help form alternatives or to comment on the alternatives 

that were being drafted until they were released for public comment. 

Second, water rights. The easiest problem on this list to fix 

would have been the water rights language. Any threat to water 

rights is a huge problem for St. George. Thirty-seven percent of the 

26 

city’s water is either directly or indirectly affected by these two 

National Conservation Areas. A simple conversation could have resulted in a better understanding of the status of water in the 

NCAs, but BLM proposes in their current draft that they, first, 

pursue acquisition of ground and surface water rights; second, do 

not authorize uses that would export water from the NCAs; and 

third, ensure that the BLM obtains water rights on all inventory 

point water sources. 

All three of these goals are troublesome when water is a scarce 

resource, and all three are probably contrary to Utah water law. 

All water in the area is allocated, so obtaining water rights on inventory point sources would require a purchase of water rights 

from an existing user. Water rights include the right to access 

water. So, BLM cannot refuse to authorize the export of water from 

the NCAs by those who legally hold rights to the water. 

The BLM cannot hold water rights without putting them to beneficial use, as defined by Utah water law. A few conversations could 

have prevented water goals that are unwise and illegal. 

Next, utility development protocols (UDPs). Importing the UDPs 

would also be simple. The UDPs were developed cooperatively between Federal and local governments, as well as utility companies. 

During the planning for the desert tortoise management, a balance 

was struck between the need to protect the species and the need 

to provide basic utilities for residents. When Congress included language in the Land Act that existing protocols were not prohibited 

in the NCAs, the BLM should have imported the UDPs directly 

into the Resource Management Plans. Instead, they made a declaration in Chapter 1 that the UDPs were inadequate and created 

an immediate conflict between managing the NCAs and survival of 

the local economy. 

Last, the BLM did not take seriously the directive from Congress 

to study one or more alternatives for a northern transportation 

route. St. George needs a northern route to move cars from east to 

west without forcing all traffic onto city surface streets that are not 

designed for the volume and that would be crippled by the year 

2040. The city and the county have been planning for a route for 

decades. A route through the NCA would serve 3,000 driving hours 

in the city and carry 32,000 cars per day, and could be built in an 

environmentally sensitive way. 

Congress recognized the need for a northern route in the Land 

Act. Rather than faithfully execute the Land Act as it was passed 

by Congress and signed by the President, the BLM tried to get 

around studying a route. Several possible routes that had been 

studied by local governments were considered in Alternative D, not 

the preferred alternative. 

Alternative D studied the impacts of the routes in aggregate, not 

individually, which greatly exaggerated the possible impacts of a 

road. Since Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study 

one or more routes in the travel management plan, all alternatives 

in the RMPs should have contained a corridor for a northern route. 

No honest effort was made to study realistic routes. 

For these reasons, I feel that the BLM has failed in its duty to 

faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress. Instead, the BLM 

has placed ideology above responsibility to work with local governVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:18 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FEDERAL LANDS\01-22-16 FIELD\98446.TXT DARLEN
27 

1OPLMA Sec 1977 (2). 

2See HCP management plan and incidental take permit. 

3Page 54 DOI–BLM–UT–C030–2015–1–EIS. 

ment and the will of Congress. Local governments cannot plan for 

the future if they are unable to rely on Federal land managers to 

be good partners. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pike follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR JON PIKE, CITY OF ST. GEORGE, UTAH

From the perspective of the city of St. George, the draft Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) the BLM released for public comment in 2015 were unacceptable for 

several reasons that all boil down to a lack of concern for the local economy and 

local residents. Had the writers of the document made a good faith effort to coordinate with local governments, the draft RMPs could have been planning tools that 

helped guide resource management in the county. As they were written, without any 

local input, they are horribly faulty and pose a possible threat to the local economy. 

Being the mayor of the largest city in Washington County, I would like to have 

a friendly working relationship with the local Federal land managers. Had I been 

invited to give input before the draft was released to the general public, I could have 

explained why some of the decisions in the draft RMPs would kill the growth of my 

city. Instead, I am left to fight to change the draft that is the product of 6 years 

of work. For 6 years, BLM planners worked on this draft in an office in St. George 

without ever talking to me or the previous mayor about the management of the 

National Conservation Area (NCA) that borders my city. 

The laundry list of complaints is long, but the major problems from the city’s 

perspective are: 

1. The city of St George was excluded (along with all other municipalities in the 

county) from participating in the formulation of alternatives in the RMPs. 

2. The northern transportation route that was provided for in the Omnibus 

Public Lands Management Act of 2009 1 (OPLMA) is obviously being handled 

in a way that ensures it will not be built. St. George and surrounding areas 

need the transportation route for future growth, and the route was specifically bargained for in the negotiations that led to OPLMA. 

3. Utility Development Protocols that were worked out for the desert tortoise 

habitat conservation plan (HCP) that would allow the tortoise and the economy to thrive side-by-side were left out of the RMP.2 St. George utilities need 

to be allowed to run through the NCA and maintenance on existing utilities 

has to be allowed because of the topography of the area. 

4. The water rights language in the RMPs threatens growth and development 

in two ways. First it calls for the BLM obtaining water rights, and second it 

says the BLM will not authorize land uses that transfer water from the 

NCAs.3 All of the water in the area is allocated. BLM cannot obtain water 

rights without getting them from someone who currently holds them. 

St. George has major water supplies under the Red Cliffs NCA and plans to 

move water across NCA land to supply parts of the city that need additional 

water. 

1. Cooperation 

When the desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species, St. George worked 

with the county, other municipalities, and Federal partners to find solutions that 

would allow the economy to continue to grow while the tortoise also continued to 

thrive in the area. As a result of that process, the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve was 

created, the HCP adopted by the interested parties, and eventually, the Red Cliffs 

NCA was designated. In light of the history of mutual respect and cooperation that 

went in to the management of the reserve before the creation of the reserve, the 

city of St. George expected to be treated like a full partner in the creation of the 

management plan. It came as a shock when the RMPs were released for public comment and seemed to take a stance that was adversarial to the best interests of the 

local economy. After all of the negotiation and buy-in from stakeholders that led to 

OPLMA, the city was operating under the assumption that the law would be followed in a way that reflected the intent of Congress in passing OPLMA: to settle 

land use questions in a cooperative way. 

28 

4OPLMA Sec 1977 (2). 

5Pages 278–285 DOI–BLM–UT–C030–2015–1–EIS. 

6OPLMA Sec 1977 (2). 

Had the city, or any of the other municipalities, been invited to participate in the 

planning process, certain misunderstandings could have been avoided. For example, 

city attorneys could have helped BLM see that the water rights language included 

in the RMPs was contrary to Utah water law. As another example, if the language 

from the RMPs proposing introduction of California Condors under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act had been shown to the city during the planning 

process, the BLM could have been informed that an existing agreement between the 

USFWS and the local governments would prevent any such introduction. Undoubtedly, several other objectionable points could have been sorted out through communication and inclusion prior to finishing the draft. As it is, the city is left to 

comment with the public on issues that Congress already spoke to in OPLMA. 

2. Northern Corridor 

The northern transportation route was specifically called for in OPLMA. Congress 

said: ‘‘In developing the travel management plan, the secretary shall[,] in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, state, tribal and local governmental entities 

(including the County and City of St. George City, Utah), and the public, identify 

one or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the county.’’ 4 Not 

only was St. George City not consulted, as required by law, but the northern transportation route was only allowed for in Alternative D of the RMP.5

Alternative B, the preferred alternative had no allowance for a northern transportation route of any kind. Alternative D, the only alternative with any consideration 

of a route, was written in such a way that in exaggerated the impact of the route 

and made selecting that alternative virtually impossible. Impacts of a route were 

analyzed as if six different routes would all be built simultaneously and as if all 

six routes would be multi-lane highways with amenities. Furthermore, the route impacts were combined with possible utility corridors which added to the exaggeration 

of the potential impacts. Alternative formulation made it clear that BLM was not 

trying to be true to Congress’ directive to study route for a northern corridor. Instead, BLM was trying to kill the idea of a route through tortoise habitat. 

St. George is geographically bound by the spectacular rock formations that make 

the area attractive to visitors and by the rivers that helped shape the landscape. 

Transportation planning in St. George requires creatively finding routes that serve 

the needs of the public within the confines of the geography that makes it such a 

wonderful place to live. Current surface streets will be inadequate to keep up with 

future population growth. A northern route is needed to move traffic between the 

municipalities east and west of St. George. Without a northern route, all traffic will 

be forced to drive through the city of St. George on downtown streets that were not 

designed to be parkways. Not only would the traffic be too heavy for the existing 

streets, but it would require more idling of vehicles and more pollution-causing 

congestion. 

As a solution to the traffic problems the city will face in the future, the northern 

route has been in the planning stages for more than 20 years. During the HCP process, the city was clear that even if the area that is now the Red Cliffs NCA became 

a reserve, the city would still need a route from east to west. The NCA is currently 

bisected form north to south by a fenced road. The county is willing to decommission 

the north/south road to mitigate the impacts of an east/west northern route. The existing road is old and was not designed to be tortoise friendly. The northern route 

could be designed to allow tortoises to cross underneath it and keep tortoises off the 

pavement. The northern route would also have a shorter span through the NCA 

than the current road has. Biologically it would be a net gain for tortoises. 

Although St. George and county partners have been willing to meet, plan, and negotiate with Federal land managers and wildlife officials, the draft RMP was written without any input from the city. In light of the cooperation that led to the HCP 

and the clear mandate from Congress to work with the city of St. George, both the 

lack of cooperation that went into the draft and the slanted alternatives in the draft 

were an unpleasant to city officials. If an alternative is selected in the final RMP 

and the subsequent record of decision that does not allow for a northern route, then 

in a year when the local BLM office is working on a travel management plan, they 

will be in violation of OPLMA. Congress stated in OPLMA that the Secretary of 

Interior was to consider one or more routes for a northern corridor at the travel 

management stage.6

29 

7 According to the Utah Division of Water Rights Web site, area 81, which covers nearly all 

of Washington County is considered fully allocated. 8Page 54 DOI–BLM–UT–C030–2015–1–EIS. 

So far, the local BLM office has held fast to their refusal to soften their stance 

on the northern corridor. As an explanation for their refusal to include a corridor, 

the local BLM office keeps telling the city, county, and state that a plan that includes a corridor will get a negative biological opinion from the USFWS. The 

USFWS is under the same obligation from Congress to find one or more alternatives 

for a northern route. Congress didn’t direct the BLM to study a route, Congress directed the Secretary of Interior to study one or more route. The USFWS is also 

under the Secretary of Interior. By pointing fingers at each other, they are both 

avoiding following through on the statute that Congress passed and the President 

signed. No amount of finger pointing will change the plain language of the law that 

requires the Secretary of Interior to study one or more route. 

3. Water Rights 

Any attempt by a Federal agency to obtain water rights in a basin that is fully 

allocated 7 looks like a Federal over-reach to locals. In this arid region, water is our 

lifeblood and the limiting factor to growth and development. Water planning is serious business in southern Utah. When language in the BLM draft RMPs suggests 

that they will be filing on all point sources within the NCA boundaries, buying up 

water rights, and disallowing land uses that export water from the NCAs, the city 

of St. George sits up and takes notice.8 Water rights and the allocation of water are 

the purview of the state of Utah. Federal land management agencies should have 

no part in determining how water is allocated or in obtaining an already scarce 

resource. 

Under the Red Cliffs NCA is a Navajo sandstone aquifer that provides about 10 

percent of the city of St. George’s municipal water supply. If that water is not allowed to leave to the NCA, the city will be seriously short of water. Existing water 

lines that cross the NCAs will need to be maintained over the life of the NCA. Additionally, the city owns water rights north of the NCA that require water to be piped 

across the NCA to supply residents with clean drinking water. If activities that 

move water across the NCAs to get them from point of diversion to point of use are 

disallowed, as much as 37 percent of the city’s water supply will be affected. The 

Washington County Water Conservancy District partners with municipalities to 

supply water, and Federal land has to be part of that system. We are surrounded 

and inundated with Federal land. State law requires access to water rights. The 

only way for the residents of St. George to adequately access municipal water is to 

include public land in the process. In the past, St. George has been able to work 

with BLM to ensure a stable water supply for our residents. We would like to see 

that relationship continue and improve. 

The local office has stated that the intention of the language in the draft RMP 

was never to make a big water grab. If this is true, it is another argument for bringing the cities and other local governments into the planning process early, as required by Federal law. If those who depend so heavily on the water supply had been 

asked to offer opinions on the water language before the draft came out, the BLM 

would have known how upsetting the water language was. Local governments and 

the Washington County Water Conservancy District could have advised BLM on the 

conflicts between their plan and state water law. The problem could have been 

solved before it was released to the public. 

4. Utility Development Protocols 

Similarly to the water and transportation issues, utility corridors are limited by 

the geography of the area, but utilities are necessary for the growth and economy 

of the city. Because those involved in creating the HCP understood that, utility development protocols (UDPs) were worked out and included in the HCP agreement. 

The agreed upon protocols were intended to be included in the NCAs. Without the 

ability to maintain existing utilities and to get new ones to the city, growth will be 

stunted and the economy will suffer. 

Protecting tortoise habitat does not have to stifle the local economy. Balance can 

be found between the need to protect species and the need to bring utilities in to 

the residents of St. George. The UDPs in the HCP strike that balance. During the 

process of drafting OPLMA, locals asked for the UDPs to be included in the law, 

so language was inserted that allowed for UDPs to be imported into NCA management. The draft RMPs dismiss the UDPs because they don’t adequately address 

30 

9Page 32 DOI–BLM–UT–C030–2015–1–EIS. 

mitigation of impacts to other values in the NCAs besides desert tortoises.9 With 

one paragraph, the RMPs dismiss the work that went into making plans for 

protecting both the tortoises and the local residents. 

St. George City would like to see the local BLM office comply with: (1) Federal 

laws requiring consistency with local plans, (2) OPLMAs directive to cooperate with 

the city in finding a northern transportation route, and (3) OPLMAs spirit of cooperative management. From the city’s perspective, Congress’ intent was largely ignored 

in favor of a conservation ideology that disfavors population growth and economy. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. 

Our next witness, the Chairman of the Washington County 

Commission, Mr. Alan Gardner, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN GARDNER, COMMISSIONER, 

WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Alan 

Gardner. I am in my 20th year as a Washington County 

Commissioner and a fifth-generation resident of Washington 

County. 

Today I want to focus on one key issue, the breakdown of the 

RMP process. Because of flaws in the process, Washington County 

has invested considerable time and resources into fixing a problem 

that never should have occurred. Washington County was held up 

by the Department of the Interior as the poster child for cooperating with Federal agencies and special interest groups because of 

our work on the 2009 Lands Bill. Secretary Salazar even flew to 

Washington County to celebrate our success. 

I personally participated in meetings and negotiations between 

local governments and special interest groups, including SUWA, 

the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club, to determine how we 

could live together and manage our resources cooperatively. 

In exchange for reassurances that certain activities would be continued, we agreed to twice the amount of wilderness that BLM recommended, and that much area again in NCAs, over 165 miles of 

wild and scenic rivers, and we gave up a critical reservoir site. 

That is why I was surprised when the draft came out and did 

not honor those negotiations. Even though we signed an MOU to 

be a cooperating agency, we were invited only three times to help 

write a plan that BLM worked on for 6 years. In that same 6-year 

period, we were updated a handful of times but never allowed to 

really participate, despite our repeated requests. 

Our comments on the administrative draft were ignored. Once 

the current draft was released, we realized our comments would 

not guide the plans. So, we started using whatever resources we 

had to try to change the alternatives. During that period, we spent 

hundreds of hours reading and analyzing the 1,100-page draft. We 

strategized with the County Attorney’s office. We met with the 

mayors, county departments, and the Water Conservancy District. 

We involved the Governor’s Public Lands Office. We solicited substantive comments from the municipalities. We appealed to the 

public to comment through a form on the county’s Web site. We 

held a press conference. We met with BLM Director Neil Kornze. 

31 

We contacted our congressional delegation, and we started meeting 

regularly with local BLM staff to hash out concerns. 

The resources the county has spent on this process are costly in 

both time and money. Luckily, Washington County had the resources to use; most counties do not. Counties should not have to 

go through the time and expense we went through just to get a 

Federal agency to follow the laws passed by Congress. 

The substantive problems with the draft RMPs appear to be a result of an ideology within BLM that includes these six attitudes: 

Error one, Congress should have read BLM’s manual before 

drafting legislation; 

Error two, conservation lands should be treated like national 

parks; 

Error three, BLM knows better than locals how resources 

should be managed; 

Error four, state resources like water and wildlife can better be 

managed by BLM; 

Error five, the purpose of the NCA—to conserve, protect, and 

enhance habitat—outweighs all other language from the same 

statute; 

And last, Error six, fear of lawsuits from special interest 

groups outweighs the will and plain language of Congress. 

Somewhere between the passage of the Lands Bill and the draft 

RMPs, the BLM forgot why Secretary Salazar praised our cooperative efforts. When local governments, special interest groups, and 

Federal partners come together to solve resource problems and 

then Congress embodies those agreements in statute, Federal agencies should faithfully enact those agreements. 

Through our recent regular meetings with the local BLM office, 

they have signaled a willingness to work with the county to solve 

most major issues, except the northern transportation corridor. In 

the future, Washington County would like to see more counties 

work out resource problems without having to fight to get them implemented. Cooperation makes more sense than costly litigation, 

but it only works if all parties honor that bargain. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ALAN GARDNER, WASHINGTON

COUNTY, UTAH

The current draft RMP for the National Conservation Areas (NCAs) in 

Washington County doesn’t live up to the expectations set by the Washington 

County portion of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (OPLMA or 

lands bill). From my perspective as a Washington County Commissioner of 20 years, 

the process of drafting the RMP was deeply flawed. Secretary of Interior Salazar 

came to St. George to celebrate the fact that Washington County helped set a precedent for cooperation in the process that led to the passage of OPLMA. It is disappointing that the BLM didn’t continue in the spirit of cooperation when drafting 

the alternative management plans necessary due to the bill. Washington County 

signed an MOU as a cooperating agency with the BLM but was only given three 

opportunities to meet in planning and a handful of updates over the course of the 

6-year planning effort—even though the county requested involvement in formulating alternatives several times. More importantly, I am not aware of any impact 

that county input had on the BLM’s preferred alternative plan—our concerns were 

simply ignored in drafting the alternative plans. Through months of effort and a 

huge investment of county resources since the draft was released, most of the flaws 

in the draft RMP are likely to be fixed, but the process should have been much different for a cooperating agency. 

32 

1. History of Cooperation 

I have been involved in the planning and compromise that resulted in the lands 

bill for years, and I have a deep working knowledge of the intent of the compromises. When the desert tortoise was listed and it became obvious that growth 

in the county would be impacted, the county started working on an agreement to 

manage tortoise habitat in a way that allowed the area to grow. I attended all of 

the desert tortoise habitat conservation plan (HCP) committee meetings as an interested citizen before I was sworn in as a commissioner around the time the implementation agreement was signed. I was also the lead commissioner on OPLMA. In 

a spirit of cooperation, Washington County brought together a diverse committee of 

19 entities, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), the 

Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club. The Vision Dixie planning process (a local 

effort to plan future development) was completed, which took an additional 2 years. 

More than 5 years of cooperation and compromise were spent preparing the bill that 

became law in 2009. OPLMA was intended to balance the interests of all the entities who wanted to participate. 

In light of all of that background of cooperation and with a legally enacted lands 

bill, the county fully expected the RMPs to reflect the spirit of that effort and the 

will of Congress in passing OPLMA. I was disappointed when the administrative 

draft was released to us in 2014 to see so many differences between the RMPs and 

the intent of the lands bill. The county submitted written comments stating its concerns, but received no response from the BLM. In fact, some of the things the county 

objected to were made even more prominent in the current draft while some new, 

objectionable ideas were added. With the public release of the draft RMP, it became 

clear that BLM was not going to cooperate with the county to make the RMPs 

reflect the spirit of cooperation that led to the creation of the NCAs. 

2. Examples of Problematic Ideas 

To illustrate the tone of the RMPs, here are a few examples: 

• The lands bill specifically states that the public land in the County administered by the BLM has been adequately studied for Wilderness designation 

and is no longer subject to section 603, but the draft RMP called for inventory 

of wilderness. OPLMA created more wilderness than the BLM originally 

identified. (88,501 acres of WSAs with 66,178 acres of that proposed for designation resulted in 131,932 acres of designated wilderness on BLM land and 

additional Wilderness in Zion National Park.) The establishment of 

Wilderness was balanced with the agreement that no more wilderness would 

be created. 

• The HCP contains a utility management plan that includes corridors for existing electric power lines to be maintained and protocol for new lines to be 

built. It creates similar protocols for existing water wells and water lines to 

be maintained and for new development. We were told that these plans 

couldn’t be adopted directly by the bill because there had to be a planning 

process. However special language was added in the bill so that these plans 

could be adopted as part of that process. Sec 1974 d3 ‘‘the Secretary may incorporate any provision of—(A) the habitat conservation plan: (B) the 

Resource Management Plan; and (C) the public use plan.’’ Despite that language from Congress, the draft RMP dismissed the protocols with one line on 

page 32 that says they are inadequate for species habitat. 

• Washington County’s position, when negotiating the lands bill, was that if 

there was to be any consideration of reducing grazing, the Lands Bill would 

not be introduced because the grazers already took a 10 week loss of grazing 

time to protect tortoises. We were told that the language used in the bill was 

the standard language and would allow grazing to continue at current levels: 

‘‘Sec 1975 (4) The grazing of livestock in the National Conservation Area established before the date of enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue—(A) subject to—(i) such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices 

as the; Secretary considers necessary . . .’’ Contrary to the negotiations the 

County understood to be embodied in the lands bill, every alternative in the 

draft RMP cuts grazing and provides for retirement of grazing permits. 

• The Northern Corridor has been on Washington County’s master plan for well 

over 20 years and was identified as necessary by a large majority of the public in the Vision Dixie planning effort. Because of the growing number of people in Washington County and the rugged geography of Washington County, 

i.e., river and hill locations, the Northern Corridor is essential for traffic 

movement in the next decade. With the realization that the exact route of the 

33 

Northern Corridor would have to be studied in great detail, we agreed to 

OPLMA stating in Sec 1977 b2A that the Secretary of Interior was to, ‘‘in 

consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, state, tribal and local governmental entities (including the County and St George City, Utah) and the public, identify one (1) or more alternatives for a northern transportation route 

in the County.’’ The draft RMP only has a corridor in one alternative, and 

it is analyzed in a way that makes that alternative highly unlikely to be 

selected. 

• The RMP proposes the introduction of the California Condor under the full 

protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This violates an agreement 

between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the county regarding an experimental condor population in southern Utah. Additionally, the introduction 

would have an adverse impact on hunting, agriculture and general use of the 

area if adopted. The last thing we need is a ‘‘tortoise with wings.’’ 

• The draft RMP proposed an 80,000 acre multi-species management area to 

manage mule deer habitat. In the administrative draft, the management area 

was proposed in Alternative C only, and the county objected to it. In the current draft, it is in Alternatives B, C, and D. BLM says it is required by a 

line in OPLMA requiring the secretary to identify areas of biological priority. 

Surely the intent of Congress in a land designation bill was not hint to BLM 

to make a huge land designation, bigger than either NCA designated by 

Congress through OPLMA—especially a land designation to manage habitat 

for a state game species. Nobody has ever heard of a multi-species management area. It is a made up designation that infringes on state jurisdiction 

over wildlife. 

• Throughout all the objectionable sections in the draft RMPs, language that 

calls for coordination and cooperation with state, county, and local governments has been eliminated (in alternatives B, C, and D). Cooperation and 

coordination are required by FLPMA and by BLM policy, and should be included in the plan. Cooperation should be especially important because 

Washington County signed an agreement with the BLM to be a cooperating 

agency on the RMPs. Washington County has worked long and hard to remain a reasonable partner. We expect to be treated with the same reasonableness by the BLM. These draft plans and the process by which they have come 

about do not live up to those expectations. 

Counties shouldn’t have to hire new attorneys, start public campaigns, and write 

to Congress just to get an RMP that reflects the tone of a duly enacted lands bill. 

Most counties in Utah don’t have the resources to pull off the effort we have expended in this process. In the months since the release of the draft RMPs, the BLM 

has started cooperating with the county through regular meetings in which we discuss the flaws in the RMPs and possible solutions. I deeply appreciate the efforts 

that have been made by the local office to fix the plans. What concerns me is the 

effort we had to go to just to get the plans to reflect the compromises that we 

worked on for years. Those compromises were made law by Congress and the 

President, but the local BLM office did not defer to them when making decisions. 

3. Current Status of Cooperation and Problematic Ideas 

Even when we started meeting regularly with BLM to discuss the problems with 

the plan, the attitude we regularly encountered was that one line from OPLMA was 

being used to outweigh all of the other carefully crafted compromises. In the lands 

bill, the purpose of the NCAs is ‘‘to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historic, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the 

National Conservation Area; and to protect each species that is located in the 

National Conservation Area; and listed as a threatened or endangered species . . .’’ 

That language, ‘‘conserve, protect, and enhance,’’ was used to justify not integrating 

the utility development protocols from the HCP into the plans, resisting the northern corridor, and reducing cattle grazing. Even though the same act of Congress 

that created the NCAs and defined their purpose called for implementation of the 

protocols, cooperatively identifying alternatives for a northern transportation route, 

and a continuation of grazing, BLM interpreted one clause as an excuse to ignore 

other sections. Early in the process of our weekly meetings, we were regularly told 

that conservation lands are different than other BLM lands and should be managed 

more like national parks than multiple-use lands. 

Another troubling attitude that we kept running into when we started talking to 

the local BLM office about what was in the draft RMPs was that Congress should 

have read BLM manuals before passing the lands bill. Manuals were repeatedly 

34 

cited as justification for not following the spirit of the lands bill. In one meeting between the state, county, St. George City, and the local BLM office, BLM employees 

said they could not follow through on studying routes for a northern corridor because ‘‘Congress screwed up’’ when calling for routes to be studied during BLM’s 

travel planning process. When the BLM was pushed as to why the draft RMPs call 

for wilderness inventory when Congress released all undesignated acres in 

Washington County from wilderness study, local employees cited BLM manuals that 

say a release by Congress will be given ‘‘strong consideration.’’ BLM policy appears 

to be that BLM will decide whether Congress makes the right decision by passing 

a lands bill and then manage accordingly. 

Yet another troubling aspect of our otherwise beneficial meetings with the BLM 

has been the explanations offered for why the range of alternatives are so skewed. 

The only difference between resources with alternatives and those without a range 

of alternatives appears to be the threat of special interest lawsuits. On issues like 

grazing, where Congress said that grazing was to continue, the range of alternatives 

offered all reduced grazing. When questioned about the departure from the intent 

of the lands bill, the local planners told the county that without a range of grazing 

alternatives, including a no grazing alternative, the BLM would get sued by special 

interest groups. The threat of suit by special interest groups was more persuasive 

to the BLM planners that the language Congress passed. On the other hand, when 

asked why no range existed on other issues the county objected to, such as water 

rights language, condor introduction, and the proposed multi-species management 

unit, the planners said they felt like they were on solid ground with those decisions. 

4. Conclusion 

In summary, Washington County would like to work cooperatively with BLM to 

manage resources like we have in the past, but the current draft RMP undermines 

that effort. Most of the objectionable sections of the current draft RMPs appear to 

be a result of either ignorance on the part of the BLM planners that could easily 

have been avoided through early and frequent communication with the local governments or an attitude on the part of the BLM staff that they know better than 

Congress and local governments, including cooperating agency local governments, 

how land should be managed. Washington County would like to fix the attitudes 

and misunderstandings and move forward with implementing the lands bill. In 

counties, like Washington County, with high percentages of public land, land management agencies and local governments are most effective when we manage resources together. 

Washington County is truly grateful for the effort that is currently being put forth 

by local BLM to work with county officials to fix flaws in the draft RMPs and even 

hopeful that it will be successful. If that process continues to satisfactorily address 

the concerns of the county, then Washington County can once again lead the way 

in displaying how cooperation with Federal land managers can be successful. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

That concludes our oral testimony. 

The Chair would ask unanimous consent that a statement by the 

Utah Farm Bureau be entered in the Committee Record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement submitted for the record by the Utah 

Farm Bureau follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDY N. PARKER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ON BEHALF

OF THE UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation, representing more than 28,000 member families located in each of Utah’s 29 counties, appreciates the opportunity to submit 

comments to the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands regarding local input, legal 

consistency, multiple use and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource 

Management Plan (RPM) as relates to proposed amendments to the St. George 

RMP. According to the BLM, the proposed revisions in planning plans and amendments layout a range of alternatives and offer a variety of proposed management 

objectives and actions, ‘‘providing a reasonable range of alternatives.’’ 

As Utah’s largest general farm and ranch organization, we represent a significant 

number of livestock producers who use public lands for grazing sheep and cattle, 

35 

including in Washington County, Utah. Livestock ranching is an important part of 

the history, culture and economic fabric of the state of Utah and is a major contributor to the state’s economy. 

Utah food and agriculture contributes to the state’s economic health and provides 

jobs to thousands of our citizens. Utah farm gate sales in 2014 exceeded $2.4 billion 

according to the just released 2016 Economic Report to the Governor. Utah State 

University analyzed the forward and backward linkages to industries like transportation, processing, packaging and determined food and agriculture are the catalyst 

for $17.5 billion in economic activity, or about 14 percent of the state GDP, and provides employment for nearly 80,000 Utahns with a payroll of more than $2.7 billion. 

During the multi-year negotiations and discussions that pre-dated the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009, including the Washington County Lands Bill, 

a number of difficult issues were hammered out through often contentious discussions and negotiations. The bi-partisan measure was brought forward by Senator 

Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT). It contained a number of provisions that elected Washington County Commissioners, elected 

Washington County Farm Bureau leaders and the Utah Farm Bureau were concerned about. But as the ‘‘compromise’’ moved forward, our understanding was it 

settled a number of long-standing conflicts and land issues including continued 

grazing, water development and wilderness. 

As the debate and negotiations concluded, Utah Farm Bureau appreciated that 

the process recognized the social and economic contributions livestock ranching 

makes in Washington County. We supported local efforts to provide grazing regulations and agency structure that embraced historic grazing rights and economic contributions important to Utah’s rural communities, while balancing the resource 

needs. Through prudent application of multiple-use principles, renewable and abundant resources can be wisely used while protecting the many unique and sensitive 

parts of Utah. The Taylor Grazing Act establishes a congressional commitment to 

preference grazing rights that protects the historic rights of these Utah family 

ranchers, ultimately the foundation for economic stability in many of our rural 

communities. 

The St. George Draft RMP appears to be an attempt to unravel this historic local 

agreement contained in the Washington County Lands Bill as well as ignoring other 

state laws and congressional mandates. The renewed efforts to adversely impact 

family ranches, re-establishing a wilderness inventory processes and proposing to 

acquire Federal water rights in arid Washington County is in clear violation of state 

water law and is at the expense of Washington County’s future. This is of concern 

to the Utah Farm Bureau. 

THE AMERICAN WEST

Family Ranching—An American Subculture 

When Federal and state agencies make decisions about historic public lands grazing rights, ranching should be considered a cultural resource and not just an economic activity. Family ranching in the American West, including Washington 

County, Utah, should be considered an American subculture with a unique cultural 

heritage that is increasingly threatened—including by adverse Federal agency actions. Less than 2 percent of U.S. citizens belong to this family farming and ranching class with a growing set of challenges headlined by Federal regulations and 

agency actions. 

Rather than looking at family ranches as only stakeholders with an economic interest, land management agencies should consider them as environmental and cultural resources. Our western ranching heritage is part of an integrated system that 

ensures knowledge is passed on from generation to generation. This is vastly different from the government employees who are assigned for a short time to an area 

and quickly moved from place to place—often due to management philosophies or 

conflicts detrimental to local relationships and local residents. 

So long as this family ranching system remains intact, families will continue to 

contribute to the local environmental needs, economy and culture. If they face too 

many challenges, including those manufactured through the politics of the day and 

Federal land management agency changing philosophies. These multi-generational 

ranching families will ultimately fail. This is a threat to the entire Washington 

County system and its environmental landscape, history, culture and economy. 

36 

LIVESTOCK

Public Land Grazing 

Farm Bureau believed that in the Washington County Lands Bill, one of the preconditions agreed to by the parties, was that livestock grazing would not be reduced. 

This agreement underscored the importance of historic and productive family ranching and livestock grazing as a major contributor to the history, culture and economy 

of Washington County. Ranchers, in this harsh environment, have taken pride in 

being good stewards. Federal land managers have historically recognized their 

knowledge, good stewardship practices and valued understanding of the lands and 

grazing resources. 

St. George Draft RMP 

Table 2–11: Livestock Grazing/Page 84 

References to livestock grazing in the draft are troubling, based on the prior understanding the Washington County Commissioners and Farm Bureau had 

contained in the Washington County Lands Bill. 

Alternative A: ‘‘No action’’ is the only alternative that will not be adverse to the 

future of family livestock ranching in Washington County. However, Alternative A 

provides a limitation on the kinds of livestock that will be allowed and that conversion from cattle to sheep ‘‘will not be allowed’’ in consideration of existing herds of 

desert big horn sheep, which may jeopardize the health or viability of the herds. It 

should be pointed out there is no definitive, independent scientific research that attributes pneumonia in big horns to domestic sheep grazing. The science does note 

pneumonia in big horn herds is more likely due to stress. In addition, it should be 

noted that wildlife, including big horn sheep, fall under the legal purview of the 

state of Utah and is not a Federal responsibility. 

Alternative B: Establish grazing utilization levels at 40 percent of current year’s 

growth on allotments in designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. The 

40 percent utilization means either a reduction in animal numbers on the allotment 

or a reduction in the days spent on the allotment. The 40 percent utilization rate 

would require leaving forage that was harvested under prior year’s conditions, allowing more dead and decadent forage, increasing the probability for wildfire obviously detrimental to the tortoise. It should be noted, the Beaver Dam Allotment is 

used for winter grazing. The forage has already matured and dried. Livestock will 

harvest the dried out forage allowing for more vibrant, new growth to occur. Wildlife 

biologists recognize new, tender plant growth is preferred by elk and other species, 

including the desert tortoise. 

Voluntary relinquishment and the BLM retiring livestock grazing rights violates 

Federal law (Taylor Grazing Act) and should be removed from the list of potential 

grazing actions under Alternative B. Under the law, if a rancher voluntarily relinquishes or abandons livestock grazing rights, after 3 years of non-use, the agency 

is required to reissue the grazing permits. 

Alternative C: The ‘‘no use’’ grazing scenario should be immediately removed from 

consideration due to agreement in the Washington County Lands Bill. Its adverse 

impact on the environment including the increased potential for catastrophic 

wildfires and assault on family ranching that is an important part of the history, 

culture and economy of Washington County has to be recognized. 

Alternative D: Alternative D and the 45 percent utilization follows the same logic 

and associated grazing cuts and impacts as Alternative B, but at an increased adverse consequence. 

Utah Farm Bureau Position of Grazing Alternatives 

Utah Farm Bureau supports Alternative A, the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative which allows ranching to continue to be a viable part of the local economy recognizing this 

unique western subculture and its valuable resource knowledge base. 

Utah Farm Bureau opposes the actions outlined in Alternatives B, C and D based 

on the adverse impacts on family ranches; adverse ecological impacts; and the commitments and agreements made in the Washington County Lands Bill. 

Economics 

Livestock production is the backbone of Utah’s agriculture industry, contributing 

more than 70 percent of our state’s $2.4 billion in farm gate sales. With a $17 billion 

dollar contribution to the state’s economy and more than 80,000 jobs, it is without 

debate this impact it is of greater significance to rural communities. 

37 

Congressionally mandated multiple-use of the public lands is critical to the economic well-being of rural Utah, including Washington County. The mix of private 

and public lands ranching for generations has created new wealth through the harvest of annually renewable forage that drives our rural economies. In addition, livestock grazing on the public lands provides a benefit to all Americans, not just those 

physically and financially able to visit the public lands states. Access to public 

lands, including the Beaver Dam Slope, is critical to the culture and economy of 

Washington County! 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation delegates reaffirmed support of ‘‘multiple use concepts in management of natural resources on public lands by local, state and 

Federal land management agencies’’ as mandated by Congress. 

In addition, policy adopted by the delegates at the 2016 annual convention of the 

American Farm Bureau recognized the ‘‘public benefits provided by science-based 

grazing management including thriving, sustainable rangelands; quality watersheds; productive wildlife habitat; viable rural economies; reduction of wildfire hazards; and tax base support for critical public services’’ coming from the multiple use 

of the federally-managed public lands. 

Nearly 6 million American Farm Bureau members and leaders located in all 50 

states across America continue their long standing policy supporting ‘‘livestock grazing as an integral part of multiple-use and management of the natural resources 

on the public lands.’’ Policy further stated that ‘‘grazing should be continued by legitimate ranching interests with permits being awarded to livestock owners with 

base property and water rights.’’ 

The Taylor Grazing Act provides for the allocation of grazing resources to livestock and recognizes the economic contribution it makes to rural communities in the 

American West. Grazing rights should not be transferred. retired or abandoned by 

agency actions hurting ranching families and curtailing grazing activities. 

The existing Management Framework Plans (MFPs) identify grazing allotments 

as being open for livestock grazing and within the authority of the 1934 Taylor 

Grazing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Grazing 

Administration regulations under Title 43 CFR 4100. This is the same historic reference used in many EAs completed by BLM Field Offices across Utah, which 

applies to the St. George Draft RMP. As such, the Secretary of the Interior has determined these allotments, including in the St. George Draft RMP, to be ‘‘chiefly valuable for grazing.’’ 

From a macro-economic standpoint, legitimate, locally based ranching interests 

are critical to Utah’s rural communities and infrastructure. The agriculture and food 

processing sectors, coupled with related industries, contribute $17 billion to the 

Utah economy, are the catalyst for more than 80,000 Utah jobs and provide $2.7 

billion in wages according to the 2016 Economic Report to the Governor. 

From a micro-economic standpoint and significant to Washington County, it is important to recognize the impact of displacing even one single average-sized cattle 

ranching operation. Consider the following: 

• Utah is a cow-calf cattle production state with cattle and calves contributing 

more than one-third of the state’s agricultural commodity sales. According to 

the Salina Livestock Auction, feeder cattle arriving from Washington County 

in recent months for auction generally averaged between 500–600 pounds and 

were valued at about $1.85 per pound or $1,000 average per head. An average 

cow-calf ranching operation with 500 mother cows and a 95-percent calf survival rate adds nearly $500,000 in direct cattle sales to the local economy. 

Based on the economic ripple effect as those dollars are spent in the local 

economy, that single family ranching business is the catalyst for more than 

three-quarters of million dollars in the Washington County economy! 

• According to the 2014 Annual Utah Agriculture Statistics Report, there are 

currently approximately 6,500 beef cows in Washington County. With only 18 

percent of Washington County privately held, it must be assumed nearly all 

mother cows and their calves spend time grazing on public lands. 

• The current price for feeder steers averaging 500–600 pounds coming off Utah 

rangelands for sale at the Salina Market is around $1.85–$1.95 per pound. 

Assuming 6,000 feeder calves averaging 550 pounds per head are marketed 

from cattle grazing Washington County public lands, local cattle ranchers 

produce and market approximately 3.5 million pounds of beef on the hoof with 

a farm gate sales value of nearly $6,000,000. In addition, economists estimate 

the cattle industry’s ripple effect on the economy for fuel, equipment, vehicles, 

38 

trucking and so on is 1.5 to 2 times sales in the local economy. Beef cattle 

raised utilizing the annually renewing forage on public lands in 

Washington County generates between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000. 

And this contribution is reoccurring in the Washington County 

economy every year! 

This is an annual economic contribution to the local, state and national economy 

that provides meat protein to feed Americans. As these livestock generated dollars 

ripple through the local economy, they are paying taxes for roads, hospitals, law enforcement and search and rescue—of growing importance to those who recreate 

across the landscape of southern Utah. 

REDEFINING ‘‘MULTIPLE USE’’ 

Federal land management agencies seem to be working to redefine the multiple 

use concept as intended by Congress. Adverse agency actions, including but not limited to, dramatic cuts in Utah livestock grazing AUMs, restrictions in access including closures of historic RS 2477 roads critical to sustaining ranching operations, 

claims of ownership of water rights on Federal lands challenging state sovereignty 

and private property seizures without due process and just compensation creating 

uncertainty for hard working ranching families. 

A Systematic Dismantling of Livestock Ranching 

An analysis of Federal management and dramatic cuts in livestock grazing has 

had major adverse impacts on the ranching industry, families and rural communities on Utah. Historically, grazing AUMs in Utah hit a high point in the late 

1940s at more than 5.5 million administered by the BLM and Forest Service. An 

AUM is the amount of forage required to feed one cow and calf or five sheep grazing 

on rangeland for 30 days. There were 3,467 ranching families grazing sheep and cattle on Utah BLM administered public lands in 1949 supporting businesses and their 

rural communities. At its peak, Utah rangelands supported more than 3 million 

sheep. Today there are only about 295,000 sheep and lambs—a 90 percent drop! 

The FS reports in 2012, approximately 840,000 active AUMs, of which 225,000 are 

in non-use status. BLM reports in 2012, around 1,190,000 active AUMs with 

340,000 in suspended use (non-use) status. Of the more than 5.5 million AUMs 

originally managed by Federal agencies, only 2,028,000 AUMs remain today. However, it is important to note there are more than 550,000 of those so-called ‘‘active’’ 

AUMs that are in non-use or suspended use status in Utah. 

Utah livestock ranching families have seen a whopping 3.5 million AUMs cut 

across the landscape—or a shocking 74 percent cut! These actions, cuts and suspended use, are solely at discretion of the Federal land managers including actions 

like proposed in current St. George Draft RMP Alternatives B, C and D. 

The livestock grazing industry has been heavily impacted by BLM AUM cuts. In 

1949 there were 3,467 ranching families grazing livestock on BLM managed lands. 

Of the 3,467 ranching families in 1949, only 1,445 ranching families remain 

today producing beef and lamb and harvesting the forage that renews each year 

on the public lands. That means more than 2,000 ranching families have given up 

or have been forced from (58 percent) Utah’s vast rangelands. Last year alone, even 

with beef prices at historic highs, Utah ranchers cut 30,000 head of cattle from the 

Utah cattle herd—with Federal regulatory actions and associated uncertainty a 

major cause of the liquidation. 

The loss of 30,000 beef cattle in Utah and the corresponding smaller Utah cattle 

herd means that rural communities had an economic loss exceeding $70 million— 

a loss every year until we rebuild the Utah cattle herd. 

Costs to Consumers and the Environment 

The outcome of these dramatic Federal grazing cuts hits every American in the 

pocketbook through higher beef and lamb prices. As for the western landscape, reduced grazing has ushered in an era of expanding acreages of noxious weeds and 

unharvested grass, decadent and dying forage and unmanaged landscapes leading 

to a growing number of catastrophic wildfires. 

WATER RIGHTS

Livestock Water Rights 

Water was developed historically for the production of food and fiber to meet 

man’s most basic need. According to water rights experts, farmers, ranchers and agriculture interests currently own and control as much as 81 percent of Utah’s water 

rights. 

39 

Scarcity of water in the Great Basin and much of the western United States led 

to the development of a system of water allocation and water rights that is very different from how water is allocated in regions graced with abundant moisture. Rights 

to water are based on actual use of the water and its continued use for beneficial 

purposes as determined by state laws. Water rights across the West are treated 

similar to property rights, even though the water is the property of the citizens of 

the states. Water rights can be, and often are, used as collateral on mortgages as 

well as improvements to land and infrastructure. 

The principles of western water law are very different from an eastern riparian 

interest in water. Western water law determines water rights based on the Doctrine 

of Prior Appropriation (first in time, first in right) and beneficial use, not a property 

relationship with the waterway. However, under either style of appropriation if the 

Federal land management agency asserts control of private water rights, it violates 

constitutional protections against government takings without due process and just 

compensation. 

Livestock water rights are critical to the success and well-being of ranchers across 

the western public lands states. Water for livestock has been developed across the 

vast western rangelands since pioneer settlement and before the establishment of 

the BLM or the FS. 

Growth and opportunity in the public lands states continues to be adversely impacted by Federal control of the lands coupled with the aggressive actions of Federal 

agencies on the region’s water resources. Legal actions and Federal water claims 

create uncertainty and imperil historic state water laws and private property rights. 

Doctrine of Prior Appropriation 

The Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, or ‘‘first-in-time, first-in-right,’’ establishes 

that water rights are obtained by diverting water for ‘‘beneficial use’’ as determined 

by state law. Those uses include irrigation, livestock watering (including water developed and used for livestock watering on the federally-owned land), domestic use, 

municipal use, manufacturing, mining, oil and gas development, power generation 

and in some cases fish, wildlife and recreation based on state law. The amount of 

the water right is the amount of water diverted and put to beneficial use. Western 

states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation and beneficial use to manage the 

development and to make sure of the judicious use of the state’s precious waters. 

St. George Draft RMP 

Table 2–37: Water Resource/Page 178–179 

Alternative A: The ‘‘No Action’’ alternative recognizes ‘‘Federalism’’ and the longstanding state/local partnership in Washington County protecting the water resources, community water sheds and culinary water, improve water quality, ensure 

availability and meet essential community needs. 

Alternatives B, C and D: Collectively the B, C, and D Alternatives offer an openended assault on Washington County’s future and more specifically on livestock 

water rights and the state’s water sovereignty. As stated, the collective Alternatives 

provide for a broadly-defined mechanism establishing Federal control over 

Washington County water resources through UFBF-St. George Draft RMP Page 8 

language stating; ‘‘fulfill the purposes of the NCA and sustain ecosystem resiliency 

under changing climatic conditions.’’ 

As Draft RMP guidance to this set of common Alternatives, management actions 

would include pursuing ‘‘the acquisition of non-Federal lands from willing sellers in 

the NCA.’’ This action violates Utah Law mandating ‘‘no net loss of private lands.’’ 

Included in Alternative B, C and D, Farm Bureau is concerned with guidance to 

pursue the ‘‘acquisition of surface and groundwater rights from willing sellers to 

benefit the conservation and protection of wild life and aquatic habitats and riparian resources.’’ In Utah, and more specifically in Washington County, water is the 

limiting factor to population growth, economic opportunity and historic farming and 

ranching. The Federal Government should not be in competition with the priorities 

and policies of Washington County and local governments. 

In addition, the ‘‘Do not authorize land uses that would export water from the 

NCA’’ action contained in the common Alternative is an egregious Federal overreach that would put Washington County’s future in jeopardy. Access to the state’s 

sovereign water rights, both surface and underground, is a historic right granted by 

the United States Congress. 

40 

Finally, contained within the common Alternative is a guidance stating ‘‘BLM will 

work with the state of Utah to ensure that BLM obtains rights on all inventories 

point sources (springs, seeps, wells, reservoirs, etc.) for authorized beneficial uses 

within the NCA, including wildlife, recreation, domestic use within visitor facilities, 

and the improvement of habitats and riparian resources.’’ 

Much of what the BLM identifies (springs, seeps, wells, etc.) as targeted point 

water sources are already established livestock water rights belonging to ranching 

families. Utah Law (The Livestock Water Rights Act) defines who can hold livestock 

water rights as they exist across the Utah landscape. Livestock water is specifically 

defined as a beneficial use of the state’s sovereign waters. Also explicitly defined in 

the Act, is language that expressly prohibits ownership of livestock water rights by 

the Federal Government. 

As defined, the Federal Government cannot put Utah livestock water rights to 

beneficial use, therefore cannot hold livestock water rights. All other water rights 

the BLM or other Federal agencies would seek, would have to be applied for like 

any other water user to the State Engineer based on the state’s definition of beneficial us. Utah water law recognizes and provides: 

‘‘A livestock water right is appurtenant to the allotment on which the 

livestock is watered.’’ 

Joyce Livestock Company vs United States (2007) 

In Joyce Livestock Company vs. United States, the Owyhee County based cattle 

operation had ownership dating back to 1898 including in-stream stock water rights. 

The United States over-filed on the Joyce water rights based on a priority date of 

June 24, 1934—the date of passage of the Taylor Grazing Act. The United States 

could not show that Joyce or any of its predecessors were acting as its agents when 

they claimed to have acquired the water rights. In 2007 the Idaho Supreme Court 

denied the United States claim and defined the standard of beneficial use. 

The Idaho Supreme Court found: 

‘‘The District Court held that such conduct did not constitute application of 

the water to beneficial use under the constitutional method of appropriation, 

and denied the claimed rights. The Idaho Supreme Court concurred holding 

that because the United States did not actually apply the water to a 

beneficial use the District Court did not err in denying its claimed water 

rights.’’ 

Hage vs. United States (2012) 

In Hage vs. United States the courts recognized that Federal land management 

agencies cannot gain de facto water rights through denial of access to Federal lands 

or through reductions in grazing AUMs. Following protracted legal battles, Nevada 

Chief Federal Judge Robert Jones and the U.S. Appeals Court for Washington, DC 

provided an important legal ruling, agreeing that livestock ranchers with recognized 

state livestock water rights have ‘‘a right of access’’ to put their state sanctioned 

livestock water rights to beneficial use on Federal lands. According to Chief Judge 

Jones, access to beneficially use livestock water includes a forage right on Federal 

lands. 

CONGRESS GRANTS WATER TO THE STATES

To effectively and efficiently deal with water issues, settlers in the arid West developed their own customs, laws and judicial determinations to deal with mining, 

agriculture, domestic and other competing uses recognizing the Doctrine of Prior 

Appropriation or first in time, first in right. Out of this grew a fairly uniform body 

of laws and rights across the western states. The Federal Government was the original sovereign and owner of the land and water. Congressional actions ultimately 

granted water ownership to the sovereign states and acquiesced to the states on all 

matters of adjudication. Congress was clear on who controlled, managed and 

allocated water through a series of actions recognizing local laws, customs and 

judicial decisions. 

41 

Act of July 26, 1866 

The U.S. Congress passed the Act of July 26, 1866 [subsequently referred to as 

the Mining Act or Ditch Act of 1866] that became the foundation for what today 

is referred to as ‘‘Western Water Law.’’ The Act recognized the common-law 

practices that were already in place as settlers made their way to the western territories including Utah. Congress declared: 

‘‘Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, 

agriculture, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and 

the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws and 

decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be 

maintained and protected’’ (43 USC Section 661) 

This Act of Congress obligated the Federal Government to recognize the rights of 

the individual possessors of water. But as important, the Act recognized ‘‘local 

customs, laws and the decisions of the state courts.’’ 

The Desert Land Act of 1877 

‘‘All surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use . . . 

shall remain and be held free for appropriation and use of the public for 

irrigation, mining and manufacturing . . .’’ 

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 

‘‘nothing in this Act shall be construed or administered in a way to diminish 

or impair any right to the possession and use of water for mining, 

agriculture, manufacturing and other purposes . . .’’ 

The McCarran Amendment of 1952 

Congress established a unified method to allocate the use of water between 

Federal and non-Federal users in the McCarran Amendment. (43 USC Section 666) 

The McCarran Amendment waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for 

adjudications for all rights to use water. 

‘‘waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for adjudications for 

all rights to use water.’’ 

The 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act 

‘‘All actions by the Secretary concerned under this act shall be subject to 

valid existing rights.’’ 

Congress has granted and continues to recognize the sovereign rights of the states 

to regulate, manage and adjudicate its waters and is explicit in the limits it places 

land management agencies. 

United States Supreme Court 

In Tarrant Regional Water District vs. Hermann (2013) the U.S. Supreme Court 

(SCOTUS) concurred with Congress on the matter water and the sovereign rights 

of the states. SCOTUS said: 

‘‘The power to control public uses of water is an essential attribute of [state] 

authority.’’ 

Utah Farm Bureau Position on Water Resources Alternatives 

Utah Farm Bureau supports Alternative A, the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative, providing 

a framework for continued collaboration with Washington County and its future 

needs, meeting the needs of the ecosystem, recognizing state and Federal law and 

protecting current existing privately held water rights. 

Utah Farm Bureau opposes the common alternative as identified in Alternatives 

B, C and D due to the impact on Washington County, its future, encroachment on 

private property rights, violation of Federal and state laws and lack of authority 

under the congressionally mandated Omnibus Public Land Management Act containing the Washington County Lands Bill. 

42 

CONCLUSION

Washington County and Farm Bureau ultimately supported the Washington 

County Lands Bill based on assurances related to livestock grazing rights being 

honored and that the wilderness inventory and review process was complete. The 

Draft RMP provides alternatives that likely will undermine this historic collaboration and agreement and future efforts in Utah and across the West. Of major concern is the open attack on the state’s sovereign waters and recognized property 

rights as prescribed by Congress and the courts. Utah Farm Bureau supports the 

‘‘No Action’’ alternatives for both livestock grazing and water resources fundamental 

to federalism, state law and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We will now proceed to the panel of questions, 

which are also governed by the 5-minute rule. I will begin. 

Commissioner Gardner, let me pick up on your last point. This 

was supposed to be a model for collaborative agreements, where all 

sides could sit down to work out their differences and settle on a 

compromise that all sides could live with. You just discussed in 

great detail the lengths you went to during those discussions and 

the major concessions that were made in anticipation that this was 

an agreement that would be honored. 

What would you advise other communities that are invited to 

participate in such give-and-take negotiations in the future? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I think you need strong language in the bill 

to start with. But as you go into the process, I think it is very important that BLM honor the cooperating agency—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If I could interrupt right there, was there 

strong language in the legislation, and has the BLM honored the 

agreement? 

Mr. GARDNER. Some of it was a little bit squishy. But, no, they 

have not honored the agreement to be a cooperating agency. As I 

mentioned, we had three different opportunities given to us to meet 

with the BLM when they were actually working on the materials 

for that. Two of those opportunities, we were there. The other one, 

we were not able to be there at that time. We had five or six opportunities where they kind of came in and gave us an update. But 

a lot of these surprises that we saw in the draft were never 

mentioned. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. There is a disagreement over the northern corridor road, which seems to be clearly spelled out in the law. ‘‘The 

Secretary of the Interior shall identify a route.’’ It does not say 

‘‘study’’ or ‘‘consider,’’ and it does not say ‘‘may.’’ It says ‘‘shall 

identify a route.’’ 

What was the nature of the discussions at that time? 

Mr. GARDNER. It also specifically said that Washington County 

and St. George City were to be involved in those discussions. We 

had some limited discussions on that. The county did give a potential spot for a road where we would like to see it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Was it the consensus at the time that a northern corridor road would be identified as part of this agreement and 

would be constructed? 

Mr. GARDNER. That was the consensus, that this road would be 

identified. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mayor Pike, was that your understanding as 

well? 

43 

Mr. PIKE. Yes, although I was not there at the time. From the 

records that we have, yes, it was absolutely identified. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me ask you this. There also seems to be 

a disagreement on who represents the people of this community. 

Mr. Van Dam admits that by election he does not represent the 

people of this community. He says the northern route is not needed. The BLM has obviously come down on that side by preferring 

an alternative without the promised route. 

So, let me ask Commissioner Gardner or Mayor Pike, who is 

responsible for meeting the transportation needs of the local 

community? 

Mr. GARDNER. The county and the city. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So not a self-appointed pressure group, and 

not unelected bureaucrats, but the elected representatives of the 

city and county whose people pay the taxes and whose livelihoods 

and quality of life depend upon these projects? 

Mr. GARDNER. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mayor Pike, one pattern I have seen in my 

own district that seems to be repeated here is that Federal land 

agencies identify very narrow special-interest ideological groups of 

like mind to what these agencies want to do. They coordinate closely with them, and then they claim to have consulted the community’s representatives. The problem is the only actual bona fide 

representatives of the community are the representatives the community has elected. Everyone else is self-appointed, and the elected 

representatives are either ignored or marginalized in the process. 

That was reflected in Mr. Van Dam’s testimony. ‘‘Well, the BLM 

is doing a great job; they listened to me.’’ Well, Mr. Van Dam does 

not speak for the community. The elected officials of the community speak for it, and I would like you to comment on what extent 

you were involved in the process compared with these pressure 

groups. 

Mr. PIKE. Again, I have been the mayor of the city for a little 

over 2 years, and on the City Council for 6 years prior. Neither the 

former mayor, nor I, the City Council, city manager, water, energy, 

or public infrastructure departments, were consulted at any time 

regarding these plans. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me just get one final yes or no answer. If 

a community, say, in my district were invited to participate in this 

process, to make concessions, with the expectation that they would 

be ratified into law and carried out, would you advise the people 

of my community to participate in such a process as you have been 

through? Just yes or no. 

Mr. GARDNER. No. 

Mr. PIKE. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

My first question is for Ms. Whitlock. We have just heard in the 

previous questions much about the northern transportation corridor or the lack thereof of BLM addressing it. Did BLM address 

this issue in the preferred alternative in the RMP planning process 

for the Red Cliffs National Conservation Act? 

44 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Yes. The Act, OPLMA, requires the BLM to identify one or more alternatives in the county as part of our travel 

management plan. Now, these draft EISs that were issued last 

year in July were not those travel management plans. But we will 

consider a northern transportation route in Washington County, as 

required by OPLMA. And Alternative D of our draft EIS accommodates all of the alignments that the county provided to BLM, including their preferred alternative. So, Alternative D. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. You are familiar with the portion of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act that deals with the 

corridor, yes? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Yes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And as you pointed out, does it require your 

agency to designate the corridor in the travel plan? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. No. It directs us to identify one or more 

alternatives for a northern transportation route in our travel management plan. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Could you give us an overview of 

why the agency-preferred alternative is one without the corridor? 

Why did they do this? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. OPLMA includes some very specific management 

criteria for the Red Cliffs NCA. It requires that we only permit 

uses in the NCA that further the purposes of the NCA, which are 

to conserve, protect, and enhance resources; and second, to protect 

any listed species, any threatened or endangered species. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I have before me Senator Bennet’s written testimony to his Senate colleagues about the Washington County 

Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, which became the part of 

the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act that we are talking about. I would like to read this one part of Senator Bennet’s 

testimony. 

‘‘Congressman Matheson and I have made significant changes to 

the previous proposal. We have permanently protected large 

amounts of biologically significant public land in Washington 

County, including additional wilderness and a new National 

Conservation Area. We have removed the corridor designations for 

the Lake Powell Pipeline Corridor and the Northern Corridor that 

bisected the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve.’’ 

So, there is certainly an intention of not requiring the northern 

transportation corridor to be there from the Senator’s own testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and 

Forests. 

A question now for Mr. Van Dam. Mr. Van Dam, as a St. George 

resident, tell me why you live in this area. Is it because of the 

beautiful protected lands? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Of course, that is a huge part of it, because you 

can go anywhere in this county and appreciate the qualities that 

have existed for so long and continue to exist because we protect 

them. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. What would the impact of this highway corridor 

be on the integrity of those protected species? 

Mr. VAN DAM. We have gotten statements from those who really 

know about this, including Dr. Mader and the Desert Tortoise 

Association in California, who say that putting a road like this 

45 

1 America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, S. 1375, H.R. 2430, 114th Cong. (2015). 

through the heart of this NCA would not only be detrimental but 

impossible to coordinate for protection of these tortoises; it just 

simply cannot be done. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. You live in one of the towns that is purported 

to benefit by this highway. Do you know how much time would be 

shaved off your drive if it was built? 

Mr. VAN DAM. There have been a couple of different studies 

made, but for my purposes, living in Ivins, it says that I am going 

to conserve 1.7 minutes. That does not seem like much to me. But 

even if it is more than that, if it is 5 minutes, the problem with 

this road, Representative, is that it is going to bring a tremendous 

amount of traffic, and then it comes back into the road that already 

exists, the Red Hills Parkway, at about a mile and a half from the 

time it hooks up to Highway 18, completely negating the effect that 

you might have for the movement of traffic, which I don’t 

understand. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Natural 

Resources Committee. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. May I just enter one thing into the record? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I have the written testimony of Mr. Neal Clark, 

the Supervising Field Attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness 

Alliance, on behalf of the Utah Wilderness Coalition. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement submitted for the record by the Utah 

Wilderness Coalition follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NEAL CLARK, SUPERVISING FIELD ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN

UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE ON BEHALF OF THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for providing the Utah 

Wilderness Coalition with the opportunity to present our views on the National 

Conservation Area (NCA) Resource Management Plan (RMP) process currently underway in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) St. George Field Office. 

The Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC) is a coalition of conservation organizations 

committed to protecting wilderness-quality lands in Utah as wilderness. Since 1989, 

UWC has advocated for the passage of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, legislation that would protect approximately 9.4 million acres of BLM-managed public 

lands in Utah as designated wilderness.1 The UWC includes the Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. 

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a Utah-based non-profit 

organization dedicated to the preservation of the outstanding wilderness at the 

heart of the Colorado Plateau, and the management of these lands in their natural 

state for the benefit of all Americans. Since 1983, SUWA has promoted local and 

national recognition of the region’s unique character through research and public 

education; has supported both administrative and legislative initiatives to permanently protect the Colorado Plateau’s wild places within the National Park and 

National Wilderness Preservation Systems, or by other protective designations 

where appropriate; has built support for such initiatives on both the local and national level; and has provided leadership within the conservation community 

through uncompromising advocacy for wilderness preservation. 

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international non-profit 

environmental organization with more than 2 million members and online activists. 

46 

2Omnibus Public Land Management Act (OPLMA), Public Law 111–11, Title I, Subtitle O— 

Washington County, Utah (2009). 3OPLMA, Section 1974–1975. 

4Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. § 1701–1785. 

5 Id. at § 1711. 6OPLMA, Section 1975(a). 

7See The Spectrum, The truth: A highway wasn’t part of the plan (January 18, 2016) (a statement by the first administrator of the Washington County HCP that ‘‘[t]he HCP was signed by 

the Washington County Commission on the clear basis that there would be no highway through 

it,’’ and that ‘‘[t]he HCP was based on a fundamentally simple premise that development would 

Since 1970, NRDC’s lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have 

worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. 

The mission of the Sierra Club is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places 

of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems 

and resources; and, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment. The Sierra Club has over 2 million 

members and supporters across the United States. Since 1892, the Sierra Club has 

worked to protect wilderness-quality lands across the United States. In 1985, the 

Sierra Club was one of the founding members of the UWC whose goal is the permanent protection of all BLM wilderness-quality lands in Utah as wilderness. 

The UWC submits this testimony in order to clarify the historical record surrounding the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act (hereafter ‘‘Washington 

County lands bill’’) that, in part, designated the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs 

NCAs, and to counter recent misinformation regarding the public process that led 

to ultimate passage of the 2009 legislation.2 In doing so, we fully support the 

ongoing efforts of the St. George BLM in developing a conservation-focused management plan for the two designated NCAs, as required by the 2009 legislation. 

In 2004, the UWC began discussions with then-Utah Governor Olene Walker regarding a public lands bill in Washington County, Utah. These initial conversations 

led to a 5-year process, promoted by then-Utah Senator Bob Bennett, which included myriad field tours and meetings between the congressional delegation and 

a variety of stakeholders. Although imperfect, the process led to the creation and 

ultimate passage of the 2009 legislation, which was introduced by Senator Bennett 

and supported by the entire Utah congressional delegation and Washington County 

Commission. 

The 2009 Washington County lands bill—which designated the 63,478-acre 

Beaver Dam Wash NCA and the 44,859-acre Red Cliffs NCA—required the BLM to 

‘‘develop a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the National 

Conservation Area[s].’’ 3 On July 17, 2015, BLM released its draft RMP for the 

Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs. The draft RMP is the result of a 6-year 

planning process by the St. George BLM. The process has been consistent with the 

legislative language in the 2009 Washington County lands bill, while also ensuring 

compliance with the BLM’s ongoing obligations under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA).4

Since public release of the draft RMP, those opposed to the plan have attempted 

to revise the historical record regarding the development and passage of the 

Washington County lands bill. Most concerning are efforts to mandate a northern 

transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs NCA and to prohibit the BLM from 

meeting its obligation under FLPMA to maintain an inventory of wilderness-quality 

lands.5

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

The Red Cliffs NCA was established ‘‘[t]o conserve, protect and enhance for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, 

wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources’’ of the protected lands.6 The Red Cliffs NCA includes the Red Cliffs Desert 

Reserve, a reserve established in 1995 as part of the Washington County Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) for the purpose of protecting and aiding in the recovery 

of the Mojave desert tortoise, a threatened species under the Endangered Species 

Act. The 1995 HCP, developed between Washington County and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), allowed USFWS to issue an incidental take permit to 

Washington County for the incidental take of approximately 1,169 desert tortoises. 

The ITP, issued in 1996, allowed Washington County to develop 12,264 acres of nonFederal land within critical Mojave desert tortoise habitat, resulting in the incidental mortality of 1,169 threatened tortoises. Notably, the 1995 HCP intentionally 

did not include plans to develop a transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs 

Desert Reserve.7

47 

be allowed in tortoise habitat outside the reserve (now NCA) in exchange for no development— 

including a highway—inside the reserve.’’) (emphasis in original). 8OPLMA, Section 1977(b)(2)(A). 

9S. Hrg. 110–493 (April 22, 2008). 

10See, e.g., Deseret News, Wilds bill may please many (April 10, 2008) (stating that the highlights of the bill include that ‘‘a northern transportation corridor are not included’’); Salt Lake 

Tribune, Washington County land bill is pushed hard in D.C. (November 16, 2006) (stating that 

‘‘[i]n a statement Tuesday, Bennett explained that . . . the so-called northern corridor highway 

could pass through tortoise habitat areas only after study and approval by the Secretary of 

Interior’’); Salt Lake Tribune, A bad plan: Bennett’s bill would encourage St. George sprawl (July 

13, 2006) (stating that the bill ‘‘postpones a transportation artery through a preserve for protected desert tortoises’’); KSL News, Bennett Matheson Revise Washington County Lands Bill 

(July 12, 2006) (stating that the revised bill postpones ‘‘for further study the designation of a 

specific highway route through a protected reserve for desert tortoises’’). 11Draft NCA RMP, 790. 12 Id. 

The current controversy stems from a belief that the Washington County lands 

bill obligated the BLM to approve a transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs 

NCA. A review of the plain text of the 2009 legislation, supported by ample legislative history and public record, clearly indicates that the final Washington County 

lands bill purposefully omitted any requirement that BLM approve a northern 

transportation corridor. Furthermore, based on previous analyses conducted by both 

the USFWS and the BLM, the northern transportation corridor is incompatible with 

the purpose of the Red Cliffs NCA, the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, and the 

Washington County HCP. 

On its face, the Washington County lands bill does not require that the BLM designate a northern transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs NCA. With regard 

to the proposed corridor, the legislation states only that in developing a travel management plan for the NCA, the BLM must ‘‘identify one or more alternatives for a 

northern transportation route in the county.’’ 8 The legislation expressly omits any 

requirement or mandate that the BLM designate such a corridor (the BLM must 

only ‘‘identify’’ an alternative), and further does not limit BLM’s identification of an 

alternative route to one that is located within the Red Cliffs NCA (BLM must only 

consider a route ‘‘in the county’’). The legislative history and public record fully supports the plain text of the legislation. 

Early versions of the legislation included mandatory language for the northern 

transportation corridor but, in response to public opposition, Senator Bennett and 

then-Utah Congressman Jim Matheson removed this requirement from the legislation in 2008. As stated by Senator Bennett in a 2008 Senate hearing on the legislation, ‘‘Congressman Matheson and I have made significant changes to the previous 

proposal. . . . We have removed the corridor designations for . . . the Northern 

Corridor.’’ 9 Furthermore, the public record evidences the fact that this change to the 

legislative language was widely known.10

Senator Bennett’s removal of mandatory language for a northern transportation 

corridor is also consistent with the BLM’s own determination that the corridor is 

inconsistent with the purpose of the Red Cliffs NCA, Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, and 

the Washington County HCP. As the BLM clearly stated in its analysis, a northern 

transportation corridor ‘‘would not meet the Congressional mandate that the BLM 

‘conserve, protect, and enhance’ the resource values of the NCA, and in particular, 

all species listed under the protection of the ESA that occur in the NCA.’’ 11 Furthermore, developing Washington County’s proposed northern transportation corridor 

would ‘‘potentially jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Mojave 

desert tortoise . . . and reduce populations and habitats for other at-risk species.’’ 12

The text and intent of the legislation is clear—the BLM is under no obligation 

to develop a northern transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs NCA and, in 

fact, cannot do so if it intends to protect the fundamental conservation purpose of 

the NCA. Importantly, the lands within the Red Cliffs NCA were protected as a preserve for the threatened Mojave desert tortoise in exchange for allowing Washington 

County to develop land in critical tortoise habitat and, in turn, cause the mortality 

of 1,169 threatened tortoises. To date, Washington County has received its benefit 

under the HCP, yet it no longer wants to hold up its end of the bargain. 

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

In developing the draft NCA RMP, the BLM properly inventoried public lands in 

the planning area for the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics. Under 

Section 201 of FLPMA, the BLM is required to maintain an inventory of all public 

48 

13FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1711. 14 Id. 

land resources, including areas that possess wilderness characteristics.13 The BLM’s 

wilderness characteristics inventory, undertaken as part of the NCA RMP process, 

was required as part of the agency’s ongoing obligations under FLPMA. 

An argument has been forwarded that the Washington County lands bill removed 

the BLM’s authority to inventory for lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

therefore the BLM’s recent inventory is invalid. This argument stems from a 

misreading of Section 1972(c)(2)(A) of the 2009 legislation, which states that Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) not designated wilderness under the legislation are no 

longer to be managed as WSAs under Section 603(c) of FLPMA. The provision also 

prohibits the BLM from identifying or recommending new WSAs in Washington 

County. Section 1972, though, only pertains to WSAs and does not relieve BLM of 

its obligation under FLPMA Section 201 to maintain an inventory of other non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics.14 Section 1972 is limited to releasing the 

BLM from identifying, recommending, and managing WSAs under Section 603(c) of 

FLPMA and has no effect on the BLM’s ongoing inventory mandate under FLPMA 

Section 201. 

It is important to note that, although much is being made of the BLM’s wilderness characteristics inventory, BLM’s preferred alternative in the draft NCA RMP 

merely identifies public lands in Washington County that possess wilderness characteristics. Much to the UWC’s displeasure, the BLM’s proposed alternative does not 

manage any of the identified wilderness-quality lands for protection of those wilderness characteristics. Although the UWC opposes the BLM’s preferred alternative as 

it relates to management of identified wilderness characteristic lands, we fully support the BLM in upholding its mandate under FLPMA Section 201 to keep an updated inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics that it manages. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the BLM’s NCA RMP planning process. We encourage the committee to take a hard look at the language, intent, and context of the Washington County lands bill, as was explicitly understood 

by all stakeholders at the time of passage, and to support the BLM’s 6-year process 

to develop a conservation-focused management plan for the Beaver Dam Wash and 

Red Cliffs NCAs. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Chairman Bishop defers to the end of the 

panel, so the Chair is pleased to recognize Congressman Bruce 

Westerman of Arkansas. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 

be here today. It takes a while to get here from Arkansas, but 

these issues are not only important to Utah, they are important to 

the whole country. We do not have BLM lands in Arkansas, but we 

do have a lot of Federal lands. As a matter of fact, if you take out 

the states that have only one Congressman, my district has more 

Federal lands than any other congressional district in the country. 

I also wanted to come out and see the Dixie National Forest, 

which should probably be in my district with a name like that. 

There are some unique similarities to what is going on here and 

what I think is happening across the country. My district actually 

has the first national scenic river. One hundred and thirty-five 

miles of the Buffalo National River is located partially in my district, and I notice that there are 19 miles of national and scenic rivers that would be designated in this project. 

That happened in 1972, over 40 years ago, and there were a lot 

of negotiations, a lot of hard feelings; but the project was put in 

place, and it is a treasure that we have there in the state, and my 

family and I personally enjoy spending time on that river. 

Thousands of visitors come to it. 

49 

Still, there are agreements that were put in place that may not 

have made everybody happy at the time, but they are still in place 

and they are adhered to. That is one of the things that intrigued 

me about this, the rule of law and community involvement. 

When I, from 1,000 miles away, read about this situation in 

newspaper reports and documents from the committee, it appears 

to me that the law is being ignored, a law passed by Congress. This 

seems to be a pattern with the BLM. I know we have had committee hearings where down in Louisiana there is a dispute over 

surveys that were part of the Louisiana Purchase, land that had 

been in families for over 100 years and now BLM is saying they 

do not have clear title to the land. It is creating hassle for the taxpayers and the citizens of our country. 

We actually have a pretty good relationship with the Federal 

agencies in my district, with the Park Service, with the Forest 

Service, with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, but I see there are a lot of 

issues, especially with BLM, across the country, and it is creating 

a bad environment for what a non-personal observer like me sees 

from a long way away. 

My question to Ms. Whitlock is, do you as a BLM employee recognize that you are creating some very bad publicity for BLM 

across the country? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. I guess to that I would say that I think some of 

what is going on in other parts of the West is, in my experience, 

isolated. The BLM works closely with our stakeholders, our public 

land users, our neighbors, and I think for the most part it is very 

well supported in the West. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. This law was passed under a Democratic 

Congress and a Democratic President, but it had been worked on 

with bipartisan support over the years, and this law is not being 

enforced. That causes me great concern, because that is much bigger than any one project that is being taken on. Dwight 

Eisenhower said, ‘‘The clearest way to show what the rule of law 

means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when 

there is no rule of law.’’ 

Whether we like what is in it or dislike what is in it, or have 

our own interpretation, I think it is important that we have to 

abide by the law. 

The second issue is local input. This law was developed with 

local input, and it is almost like the Charlie Brown and Lucy 

scenario where the football gets pulled away. At some point in 

time, we will not tolerate or we will not have the trust anymore 

that we need. But I have always believed, from serving on a school 

board and in my state legislature, that government is most effective when it is closest to the people. But it appears that that has 

been bypassed in this process. 

Mayor Pike, you talked about this a little bit, but do you believe 

there has been sufficient public input? Do you believe the public 

here in St. George has bought into this plan and feel like they have 

been a part of what BLM put together? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And this would need to be a yes or no answer. 

Mr. PIKE. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

50 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize Congressman Cresent 

Hardy of Nevada. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Whitlock, as a Member of Congress, we constantly hear from 

our constituents that they are not sufficiently being heard, that 

BLM is not coordinating with their public agencies and the individuals involved, that most of the time the response is we have already had these listening sessions, we have had these meetings, as 

though it is a check-off-the-list type of situation. 

When you hear that the state and the county were stunned to 

find that many of the promises in the land bill were left out of alternatives in the draft RMP, what goes through your mind? 

Director Clarke is here today and says that, ‘‘they were left out of 

critical deliberations and were not invited to the table.’’ Is she 

incorrect? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. We really feel like we have a good record of meeting with not only our cooperating agencies and stakeholders but 

members of the public. 

Mr. HARDY. Is she incorrect? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. The state of Utah is a cooperating agency with 

us on this RMP, and we have met with them. 

Mr. HARDY. Is she incorrect or not? Yes or no? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. We believe we have made a very good-faith effort 

to listen to not only—— 

Mr. HARDY. So you are basically calling her a liar. 

Commissioner Gardner says that the county submitted a written 

comment outlining concerns but received no response from the 

BLM. Is it standard practice to not respond to comments from the 

cooperating agencies? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. No, that is not standard. We are carefully considering the 14,000 comments that we received from the public, and 

the feedback that we have gotten from our cooperating agencies, as 

well as other government entities. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

According to Director Clarke, the BLM stated that the travel 

management plan is not the right planning document to identify a 

route and a highway, and the Congress made a mistake by calling 

the identification of the route the travel management plan. 

Commissioner Gardner also stated that the local BLM office has 

asserted that Congress should have read the BLM manuals before 

passing the land bill, and that Congress screwed up. They also 

stated that the local employees cited BLM manuals with respect to 

the releasing of wilderness study areas, saying a release by 

Congress will give a strong consideration. 

Strong consideration? Where does BLM get off by saying that the 

Congress is right or wrong? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. I, and the 900-some employees that work for me, 

come to work every day to do one thing, and that is to carry out 

the law. We are very committed to sincerely engaging with stakeholders and our cooperating agencies. We think we have a very 

good track record of implementing these public land bills in the 

West, and we believe in them and are doing our best to implement 

the law. 

51 

Mr. HARDY. I would just like to emphasize one strong issue, that 

in our National Archives in our national capital, you will not find 

BLM manuals proudly displayed, and the last time I checked 

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution vests all legislative powers 

in Congress of the United States. The last time I checked Article 

1, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to make laws with 

Congress of the United States, and nowhere in the Constitution is 

there any mention of the Bureau of Land Management, let alone 

any authority to rule on what Congress can or cannot do. The 

Federal agencies get their limited authority that they currently 

have from Congress. And according to Article 2, Section 3, faithfully execute the laws passed down, to the word and punctuation, 

not selectively interpret them. 

I believe that through this process, that there was an omnibus 

that was written, it was passed by Congress. We should make sure 

we follow all of them. Mr. Gardner has stated there are six violations. I want to make sure that we continue to follow that omnibus 

as it was written and work with the local entities, because they are 

the ones that represent the people in this area. 

Mr. Stewart represents his constituents of this area, and he is 

the one voted here to work with his constituents. I believe you 

should also be involving Congressman Stewart in these discussions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the Chairman of the 

House Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Rob Bishop, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to thank everyone who has come here today, 

especially my friends from the committee. We have two 

Californians who have come up here; nicer weather here. We have 

Cresent, who came from Nevada; not much of a trip for you. And 

our good friend from Arkansas; this was a trip for you. It is snowing back where you are, and even though you are in Utah’s Dixie, 

you at least brought the right accent for it. So, thank you. 

And also to my two colleagues from Utah, you obviously had to 

be here. 

I just want you to know that Congresswoman Love would have 

liked to have joined us here, but she is covering for us back up in 

Salt Lake right now. Otherwise, she would have joined us at the 

same time. 

Ms. Clarke, can I start off with you? In Alternative B and C, 

there is no mention of the corridor, the transportation route. If B 

or C were to go forward, do you believe there is any reasonable 

right-of-way corridor that would be available in any subsequent 

travel management plan? 

Ms. CLARKE. Not by my understanding. I think that precludes 

them. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, if it is not going to be in the management plan, 

it is kind of disingenuous to say we will do it later? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. If it is not in the management plan, there is no way 

it is going to be in the transportation plan. 

52 

Mayor, can I ask you a question? It has been alluded to that 

there is no way to actually make this kind of road, it is impossible 

to do it. Have there been studies on the potential of doing a road? 

Mr. PIKE. Yes, there have been. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is it viable? 

Mr. PIKE. We believe it is, through the local transportation committee that is formed here in the county. We have studied viable 

alternatives. 

Mr. BISHOP. Commissioner Gardner, I have to admit, the language in the 2009 bill that we are talking about here is pretty 

squishy on grazing. It is pretty lousy language. I think BLM can 

probably get away with what they are trying to do there. But can 

I ask you what would happen if you actually did reduce the grazing 

to 40 percent? What would be the impact on grazing here in the 

county? 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, grazing has already been reduced out there 

to start with, because of the desert tortoise when it was listed 20 

years ago or more. So, we are already managing it for the tortoise. 

And the winter grazing is a critical part of an individual’s permit. 

If he loses his winter grazing rights, that often cuts into what he 

is allowed in the summertime as well. So, it is an important part 

to make a year-round operation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Let me make one observation here. Ms. Whitlock, the testimony 

that was given by BLM I noticed does not come from you. It has 

to be vetted back in Washington, go through all the hoops. Consequently, the testimony we usually get from BLM is pretty weak. 

And I was frustrated with the testimony that was written, not your 

oral testimony, but the written that was sent here, because it was 

picking and choosing laws, which law from which bill you wish to 

look at. There are some references to the 2009 law, some to one in 

the 1990s, some in the 1970s. The 2009 law actually supersedes the 

rest of the law. If you are going back, FLPMA is not an organic 

law. It is not part of the Constitution. If it is modified in 2009, that 

becomes the ruling document. 

In that document, it said that there would be one or more transportation plans. That means that, I’m sorry, having four alternatives out there with one of them having a transportation plan 

does not meet either the spirit or the letter of that law. That means 

there has to be a transportation alternative in every one going forward. One or more does not mean zero. Having A, B, and C with 

zero options, that violates not just the intent, but the clear language of the 2009 law. I am sorry, you did it wrong. 

That law also says that local governments have to be the 

coordinating and cooperating agencies. You have not done that. 

I am sorry, but if there is any element of integrity right here, 

what BLM needs to do is throw all four plans out—D comes closest 

to obeying the law, and that is a crappy plan. Start over again. 

This time, do it the way the law says to do it. First of all, involve 

local government as a coordinating agency, as the law told you to 

do, and have a transportation plan in each of the alternatives, as 

the law clearly expected you to do. 

Doing wilderness inventories in areas the law told you not to do, 

wilderness inventories that were taken off the list of potential 

53 

wilderness, is once again a violation of the 2009 law. Those laws 

have to be respected in some particular way. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We will give you a 30-second credit. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the Congressman for this 

district, the Honorable Chris Stewart, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman. 

I had a list of questions prepared based on the witnesses’ provided testimony, and I want to get to that. But, Mr. Van Dam, 

some of the things you have said, I just feel like I have to pursue. 

You gave us a brief history of Utah and Mormon persecution. I 

have to ask if you think the distrust of the Federal Government, 

or in this case the distrust of citizens of the BLM, is unique to 

Utah. 

Mr. VAN DAM. No, I do not think it is unique to Utah. 

Mr. STEWART. It is clearly not unique to Utah, is it? 

Mr. VAN DAM. I am not here to represent the BLM, but I am 

here to tell you that they have certainly served me well. That is 

my personal experience. 

Mr. STEWART. I appreciate that. We understand that some people 

may have different experiences, but your opening testimony would 

seem to indicate that this is something that is a problem in Utah, 

and it is very clearly not. 

Mr. VAN DAM. It is a bigger problem in Utah than anywhere else 

in this country. 

Mr. STEWART. I don’t think that is true at all, sir. We could take 

you to other states and they would absolutely disagree with that. 

But I want to get to my question. 

Mr. VAN DAM. Sure. 

Mr. STEWART. We have evidence of that here by the fact that we 

have representatives from as far away as Arkansas who understand that this is a problem. This is not unique to Utah at all. I 

would argue it has very little to do with Utah history, with 

Mormon pioneers, or our distrust of the Federal Government. 

So, I want to ask you, and I sincerely want to understand if you 

appreciate this, can you articulate why we distrust the Federal 

Government? Do you understand that? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Well, I understand my feelings about the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. STEWART. No. I am asking if you can understand why there 

are a lot of people in this room and a lot of people in this county 

who do not trust the Federal Government. 

Mr. VAN DAM. Certainly to some degree I do, but not to the 

extent that I experience it in this city and in this county. 

Mr. STEWART. Then why don’t we trust the Federal Government? 

Can you tell us why we don’t? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Well, sometimes they do not speak our language. 

That is true. 

Mr. STEWART. What do you mean by that, ‘‘they do not speak our 

language’’ ? We are all speaking English. This is not our people and 

their people, by the way, coming back to your opening comment as 

well. We are all Americans. We all speak the same language. 

Mr. VAN DAM. Technically we do, but you get a lot of different 

attitudes in different parts of the country, and I can tell you that 

54 

Utah has its own particular attitude, particularly about the government, and it manifests in a much more powerful way than in other 

states. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, again, I completely disagree with that. 

Mr. VAN DAM. You are entitled to. 

Mr. STEWART. I don’t know if you spend enough time in other 

states because, very clearly, they have as much emotion on this as 

we do. 

One other comment, and I won’t ask you to address this; I want 

to come to my more prepared statements with our elected officials. 

That is, you indicated you lived in Salt Lake City, and that there 

was dirty air up there, and you said that there are people here who 

want to have dirty air here in our county. I think that is a good 

indication of my opening comment about the presumption that people are ill-willed in this, because they are not. Show me someone, 

show me anyone who genuinely wants dirty air. I don’t think such 

a person exists. 

There are differences of opinion on how we can proceed, but we 

all want the same outcome. We want to protect this place. We want 

this place to be as beautiful for our grandchildren as it was for our 

grandfathers. But there are differences of opinion sincerely held, 

genuine differences of opinion, on what is the right answer on 

these issues, and they are controversial, I understand that. But to 

start from the position that someone wants dirty air I think is an 

unfair characterization of someone’s position. 

Mayor Pike, if I could, one of the problems that we have in this 

is that many of us are willing to accept an outcome if we feel like 

the process was fair, the rules were followed, and the law was followed. Many of us feel, again, the frustration that that was not the 

case here. 

If you could go back and change one thing in the process and improve that—and, Commissioner Gardner, I would ask you the same 

question—what would be the one thing you would change to make 

citizens feel like the process was more open to their concerns? 

Mr. PIKE. Again, as I stated in my testimony, I would have expected, under the language of the 2009 law, to have had many discussions with the BLM about all of these issues that have been 

raised today, and in particular: water rights, power, and water distribution through and across these areas, that would have been 

huge. The transportation corridor would have been huge. It would 

have been really nice to talk with Alternative D, that does include 

a northern corridor, having the different alternatives for the corridor in aggregate and saying that is too bad, we cannot accept 

that. I think that was disingenuous. I would have liked to have had 

those conversations before the plan was released. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. My time has expired. I believe I can 

see the clock. I believe it has 4 seconds. 

Commissioner Gardner? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes or no. 

Mr. GARDNER. As I stated in my testimony, I think the biggest 

thing, if Washington County could have been a full cooperating 

agency, like the agreement we signed with BLM with the MOU, 

the majority of these issues could have been resolved. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

55 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Finally, the Chair is pleased to recognize the Chairman of the 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the distinguished Representative from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman, and I thank those who 

have come a long way to participate with us today. I appreciate 

those of you who traveled throughout the state and the region to 

be here as well. 

Ms. Whitlock, how many BLM employees do you have in the 

state of Utah? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Somewhere between 900 and 1,000 employees 

throughout the state. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Wow. That has to change. That is ridiculous. 

How many worked on this plan? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Gosh, I would be speculating. Maybe a dozen 

BLM employees. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. A dozen employees. When did they start? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Scoping was kicked off in 2010. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When in 2010? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. I believe it was in the fall of 2010. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. These dozen employees, can you provide the 

names of those employees that worked on this plan? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Not today. I would be happy to follow up. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When can you provide us the names of the 

employees who worked on that plan? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Following this hearing I would be happy to. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. That started in 2010. When is the 

first time you invited the city of St. George to participate? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. I’m sorry, I don’t know what the date would be. 

I am happy to follow up with that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mayor, do you happen to know? 

Mr. PIKE. There was no invitation. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many meetings did you have internally to 

create and develop this plan, Ms. Whitlock? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many times were you involved? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. I have been briefed on it a number of times, and 

also traveled here to St. George. I met with the County 

Commission in one of our meetings. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many outside groups did you meet with? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Again, I apologize. I believe it is in the draft EIS, 

those that were involved in the development and with whom we 

scoped. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can you provide that to us as well? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Yes, we would be happy to. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mayor, let’s go back to you. Explain to me what 

the process should have been, what your expectations should have 

been, to make sure that you were included, as required by the law. 

Mr. PIKE. We would have liked to have had the opportunity to 

have elected officials, as well as our key department managers affected by this—water, power, and infrastructure such as transportation—at a table where we could sit around and discuss the key 

56 

issues. Again, we cannot have the disruption of potentially 

37 percent of our water, as is currently outlined in the draft 

management plan. So, we would have liked to have had a process 

not just one time, but multiple times, where we could have sat 

down as cities, as well as the county, to discuss all the relevant 

issues. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And, Commissioner, what should have happened? 

What was the reality, and what should have happened? 

Mr. GARDNER. We started off on the right process. We had a 

signed agreement with the BLM that Washington County would be 

a cooperating agency in the development of our plan. We continually asked the area manager that was here at the time to be involved. He said, ‘‘Well, we are just working on it in bits and pieces. 

It is going to be really hard to schedule to get you in.’’ We had 

three times that the BLM has in their records that we were invited 

to participate in an actual meeting developing the plan. Two of 

those times we were there. The third time we were not able to attend. We were brought in again five or six times to kind of give 

us an update, but we were never advised of the surprises that we 

got. 

If we had been fully involved as a cooperating agency, I don’t 

think we would be having this hearing here today. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Ms. Whitlock, this does not sound like it is in accordance with the law. Does it sound like the spirit of cooperation 

was in place? Is this the way it should operate? Are you proud of 

the way this has moved forward, or is this a model of something 

gone awry and askew of the law? 

Ms. WHITLOCK. Not that it is an account, but we have met with, 

either formally or informally, cooperating agencies and other government entities probably 20 times over the course of the planning 

effort. Since we issued the draft in July, it has been more like a 

couple of times a month. 

I completely get that coordination is in the eye of the beholder. 

We felt like we made a good-faith effort to coordinate with our 

partners. Alan, I think you would agree our current field office 

manager, Brian Tritle, is very sincere in his efforts to reach out to 

the county, and we are doubling our efforts to meet their needs. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

That concludes the committee’s oral questions. 

Pursuant to an earlier action of the committee, the Chair is now 

pleased to recognize the Chairman of the Natural Resources 

Committee for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I just want to make one final statement as we end 

this particular hearing. 

Ms. Whitlock, I appreciate what you are doing as the manager 

of this. There are a couple of things of which I am critical, though, 

and therefore I have to hold you responsible for that. 

We had invited some of the local BLM officials to be here to answer questions. They were asked not to be here, not even to be in 

the building. I find that sad and improper. That is why you are on 

the hot seat here. You are going to be held responsible for all the 

things that we have to come up with in this process. 

As we have gone through this, this process has violated the written law of 2009. But I think there are two shining, bright linings 

57 

to the dark cloud over this process that I hope lead us in the 

future. 

One is that we are going to insist they actually have hearings in 

Washington. The Washington bill had a lot of hearings here, but 

they did not have any hearings in the House, and it was actually 

dropped into an omnibus bill with over 100 other bills that no one 

actually talked about. No one had a hearing. There was never a 

markup on anything. That process has to go forward. So, as we do 

bills in the future, at least in our committee, we are going to have 

hearings and we are going to have markups to do it the proper 

way. 

I think you can see that there is some loose language in here. 

As we go forward with other bills in the future, I am dedicated to 

making sure that that loose language is now eliminated. Some of 

it simply says, ‘‘Well, the Department of the Interior shall do whatever they think is the right thing to do.’’ We can see right now that 

does not work. 

What we are doing from now on is when Congress passes a law, 

I am going to make sure that the law simply says this is what will 

happen, and we are going to hold the Administration accountable 

to actually obeying the law. In any bill that we actually produce 

that comes from our committee, we are going to be looking at the 

verbiage very carefully so there will not be that kind of loose 

language. 

And, I’m sorry, there is loose language in this bill, but there is 

also some specific direct language in there that BLM has not actually followed through on. So, we want you to look at the most recent language and obey the language, and I am going to tell you 

once again, I think you need to start this process over. You have 

four alternatives, none of which, none of which meet the letter of 

the law, and you need to do that one more time and do it the right 

way. 

With that, I appreciate my colleagues once again having been 

here. I appreciate all of you for being here. When we said no 

applause, you all did it. Thank you. Thank you for being part of 

keeping the process going here. We appreciate your attendance 

here. 

Mr. Chairman, I will let you send us away. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Very well. Thank you. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony, and 

joining the Chairman’s thanks to the audience. The decorum you 

have displayed here has been exemplary of a democracy in action, 

despite very passionate views on both sides. This is the best of our 

country, and I do thank you very much for your participation 

today. 

Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for 

witnesses. We would ask that they respond in writing, and the 

hearing record will be kept open for 10 business days to receive 

those responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the 

subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

58 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society 

—Comments submitted for the record from attendees at the 

field hearing 

Æ