UTAH VVILDERNESS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1500 

A Bill To designate certain Federal lands in the State of Utah 

as wilderness, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 1745 

A Bill To designgate certain public lands in the State of Utah 

as wilderness, and for other purposes. 

93-082CC 

JUNE 23, 1995-CEDAR CITY, UT 

JUNE 24, 199~ALT LAKE CITY, UT 

JUNE 29, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASlflNGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047688-7 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califuntia 

JOHN L. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Califontia 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, Califontia 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Califontia 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Waahington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Califontia 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Tens 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Waahington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Me:lrico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Tens 

OWEN B. PICKETr, Vuginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, Califontia 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Chief of Staff 

David Dye, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerle/Admin.istrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Dem«rotic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMlTl'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORE8l'S AND LANDs 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN JR., Tennessee BILL RICHARDSON, New Me:lrico 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West VJ.rginia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Califontia BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Califontia PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona Samoa 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, MassachUSS~tts 

WES COOLEY, Oregon CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho Rico 

LINDA SMITH, Waahington MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ALLEN FREEMYER , Staff Director I Counsel 

STEvE HODAPP, Pro{usiooal Staff 

Liz BIRNBAUM, Dem«ratic Counsel 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearings held: 

June 23, 1995, Cedar City, UT ....................................................................... . June 24, 1995, Salt Lake City, UT ............................................................... .. June 29, 1995, Washington, DC ..................................................................... . 

Text of: H.R. 1500 .......................................................................................................... . H.R. 1745 .......................................................................................................... . 

Statements of Members: 

Page 

1 

195 

335 

73 

89 

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................. 203, 338 

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa ............... 5, 199 

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah, and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands ...................... 1, .. 195, 335 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah .......................................... 327 

Hinchey, Hon. Maurice, a U.S. Representative from New York .......... 5, .. 200, 337 

Richardson, Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ........................... 348 

Orton, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from Utah .......................... 207, .. 343, 555 

Vento, Hon. Bruce, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .......................... 3, 197 

Waldholtz, Hon. Enid G., a U.S. Representative from Utah ........... 210, .. 331, 346 

Statements of witnesses: Baca, Sylvia, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Manage- ment, D(!partment of the Interior ............................................................... . Bean, Dr. Scott, State Superintendent of Public Instruction ...................... . Berry, Claudia F., Ph.D., J.D. (prepared statement) .................................... . Bimstein, Phillip K., Mayor, Town of Springdale, UT ................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Blackham, Senator Leonard, Majority Whip, Utah Legislature ................. .. Brown, Melvin R., Speaker, Utah House of Representatives ...................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Davidson, Dr. Diane, Committee for Biological Commentary on Utah 

Wilderness Issues ........................................................................................ . 

Ekk~rQ.dH~=:: ur·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Gill, ~Jl~d J~~~ec~~;;··a~~d··~f'·~~~~:··s~h~i· ~~d··i~~ti~ti~~~ Trust Lands Administration ....................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Hancock, Julie, Virgin, UT ............................................................................. . Harja, John, Vice Chair, Board of Trustees .................................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Hirschi, Scott, Director, School and Institution Trust Lands Administra354 

374 

192 

56 

176 

15 

223 

278 

416 

511 

33 

152 

221 

275 

57 

375 

442 

tion, State of Utah .............. ......... .... ....... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .... .... . 10 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 120 

Holland, Roger, Kanab (Utah) City Councilman (prepared statement) ....... 439 

Iverson, Dennis, Washington, UT ................................................................... 40 

Jordan, Alexander H., President, Utah Mining Association ......................... 251 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... · 325 

Judd, Joe C., Kane County Commissioner ..................................................... 372 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 437 

Kimball, Alan, Salt Lake City, UT .................................................................. 241 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 313 

Leavitt, Hon. Michael, Governor, State of Utah ............................................ 341 

Pre_pared statement ................................................................................... 423 

Lewis, Ty, Chairman, San Juan County Commission................................... 225 

(lll) 
IV 

Page 

Statements of witnesse~ntinued 

Lewis, Jerry B., Washington County Commissioner, Utah .......................... 12 

Listo~=ta=!l~ ·c;;~t;··ro~>··c;;~i~;;~~;··chili:··N~ti~~~ 123 

Association of Counties ................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Millenbach, Mathew, Department of the Interior ......................................... . Morgan, Robert L., Utah State engineer, Division of Water Rights, Department of Natural Resources ................................................................... . 

Nick~~?:k~~~~r.~~~~.~.~:: .. ~~.~~~~~~~~.~.~~.~~~~~ .. :::::::: 

13 

128 

354 

249 

59 

179 

Owens, Hon. Wayne, former member of Conggress; Chairman, Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance............................................................................. 418 

Prepared statement ............................................................................... ... . 524 

Parker, James M., former Utah State Director of Bureau of Land Management ........................................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Peacock, Jim, Executive Director, Utah Petroleum Association .................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Peay,.~, Don, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife ................................................ .. .t'l'epared statement .................................................................................. . Petersen, Kent, Emery County Commissioner .............................................. . Prepared statement with attachments .................................................. .. 

386 

461 

38 

167 

389 

467 

370 

429 

Power, Dr. Thomas Michael, professor and chair, Economics Department, 

University of Montana.................................................................................. 414 

Prepared statement ......................................................................... .... ...... 489 

Raunikar, R.P. (prepared statement) .............................................................. 528 

Rigb~~~:~~nY~.~~~~.~~~~~~~~~ .. ~~~ .. ::::::::::::: ~~~ 

S1f::hllilJncl!~~:So3:~ti:~~~.~.~~~ .. ~~.~~~: .. ~~ .. ~~~~.~~ .. ~~~ 410 

Prepared statement ......................................................................... .. .... .... 4 79 

Selman, Fred, President, Harold Selman, Inc. ..................................... ......... 248 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 315 

Shepherd, Karen, former member of Col!~SS .............................................. 242 

Sleight, Ken, Pack Creek Ranch, Moab, UT .................................................. 236 

Prepared statement ..................................................................... .......... .... 287 

Smart, William B., past editor, Deseret News ............................................... 239 

Prepared statement ................................................................... .......... ...... 292 

sns~~ 8~~!~· .~~~~~.~~.~~ .. ~~~~: .. ~.~~~.~~.~ .. ~.~.~~~~~~~: .. ~.~~ 2s2 

Stevenson, Ga~Ie A., Chairman, Davis County Commission .............. .......... 227 

Stewart, Ted, Executive Director, Natural Resources, State of Utah .......... 8, 219 

Ths~~~~l#~ .. ~:: .. ~~~~ .. ~~~.~~~ ~~~~?.: ~~~~s. 219 

Prepared statement ............................................................................. .... .. 163 

Wallentine, Booth C., Executive Vice President, Utah Farm Bureau Federation .......................................................................................................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Williams, Terry Tempest, author ................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Wilson, Ted, Hinckley Institute of Public Policy ......................................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . 

Addition~. material SUfPlied: . Coalition for Utah s Future: Two News StateWide Poll .............................. .. Excerpts from H.R. 96-1126 ............................................................................ . Revis1ons to draft Utah Wilderness legislation ............................................ .. Utah LeRislature: Resolution supporting wilderness designation .............. .. Utah Wilderness Education ProJect: "Utah Wuderness Facts!!!" ............... .. 

Communications submitted: 

Bowns, James E., Ph.D.: Letter of January 2, 1991, to Dennis Iverson 

385 

448 

61 

188 

237 

291 

298 

319 

283 

149 

455 

with enclosures.............................................................................................. 171 

Davis, William: Letter with attachment of May 15, 1995, to Gov. Michael 

Leavitt ............................................................................................................ 271 

Fisher, Irene, and Mike Alder (Coalition for Utah's Future): Letter of 

June 22, 1995, to Hon. James V. Hansen................................................... 294 
v 

Page 

Communications submitted-Continued 

Joint letter from 47 signers of May 1, 1995, to Gov. Mike Leavitt and 

the Utah Congressional Delegation ............................................................. 264 

UTAH WILDERNESS 

FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDs, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Cedar City, UT. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call at 10:30 a.m., in the R. 

Haze Hunter Conference Center, 351 W. Center, Southern Utah 

University, Cedar City, Utah, Hon. James V. Hansen (Chairman of 

the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will come to order. This is a Congressional hearing of the Subcommittee of National Parks, Forests and 

Lands of the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives. I am the Chairman of the Committee, I will be conducting this meeting. 

We are grateful to Southern Utah University for this fine facility, 

we appreciate them allowing us to be with them. 

We are grateful to have members of the Committee with us 

today-Bruce Vento, the gentleman from Minnesota; Eni 

Faleomavaega, the gentleman from American Samoa; and Maurice 

Hinchey, the gentleman from New York. We appreciate these three 

members of the Committee being here. 

I will have an opening statement, turn to my colleagues for opening statements, and then we will go to the panels. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands convenes this field hearing to further the legislative process 

of designating Bureau of Land Management wilderness within the 

state of Utah. This hearing is the first of three legislative hearings 

that this Subcommittee will conduct, two here in Utah and one in 

Washington on June 29th. 

These proceedings are far from the beginning of this process. Indeed, I am hopeful we are commencing the final leg of this long 

journey. I have spent over 15 years working on this issue. I have 

been to virtually every wilderness area, I have talked personally to 

hundreds and hundreds of concerned citizens, and I have spent 

hundreds of hours looking at maps and data. During my tenure in 

Congress, I have worked with Congressmen Marriott, Nielson, 

Monson, Owens, Orton and now Congresswoman Waldholtz. I have 

worked with Governors Matheson, Bangeter and now Governor 

Leavitt on BLM wilderness. This is not a new issue. These are the 

same lands I began looking at 15 years ago. It is time to resolve 

(1) 
2 

this issue, protect what is really wilderness and release the remainder back to multiple use. The BLM began this process in 1978 

and I hope to bring it to a conclusion in 1995. 

In 1978, the Utah State Office of the BLM began an exhaustive 

process to develop a Utah BLM wilderness proposal in complianc•~ 

with Section 603 of FLPMA. BLM professionals scrutinized 22 million acres of Utah's BLM lands for their wilderness characteristics. 

After numerous legal challenges and appeals, the BLM found 3.!~ 

million acres suitable for wilderness designation, but recommended 

1.9 million acres to be designated as wilderness, 1.4 million acres 

of which is known as the paramount recommendation or the most 

pristine areas. The BLM professional spent $10,052,733 between 

1978 and 1992, approximately 2777 work months have been officially charged to this wilderness program. The BLM recommendation is sound, it lives up to the mandates of the 1964 Act and ha.s 

withstood court challenges. Congress should not allow this professional work to go to waste, but we should take very seriously their 

recommendations. 

The 104th Congress provides the people of Utah and Congress a 

unique opportunity to preserve the most pristine BLM lands in 

Utah for today and the future. There are two proposals before th'e 

Subcommittee, H.R. 17 45 introduced by myself and Congresswoman Waldholtz, and H.R. 1500 introduced by my colleague, Mr. 

Hinchey from New York. 

H.R. 17 45 represents the culmination of a process initiated by 

the delegation and the Governor that involved over 45 public meetings, hundreds of personal testimonies, and thousands of written 

comments. The delegation has made every effort to take this issu'e 

to the people of the state of Utah, to hear their concerns and most 

importantly, to hear testimony regarding the land and its wilderness characteristics. 

The delegation established some basic ground rules that would 

guide us through the process. We agreed to live up to the mandates 

of the 1964 Wilderness Act by designating only those areas that are 

truly wilderness, that water protection was vital and release language was equally important. H.R. 1745 accomplishes those goals. 

H.R. 17 45 proposes to designate about 1.8 million acres of lands 

including great places such as Desolation Canyon and the Book 

Cliffs, Escalante Canyons, the Kaiparowits Plateau, the Grand 

Gulch, the San Rafael Swell, the Henry Mountains, and the list 

goes on and on. H.R. 1745 would designate a wide variety of landscapes, ecosystems and habitats. Whether it be slick rock, fluted 

sandstone, desert canyons, the steep and rugged peaks of the West 

Desert, high plateaus, high mountains that shoot from the desert 

or canyons cut by great rivers, this legislation protects some of everything. 

Equally as important is the manner in which H.R. 1745 would 

manage these wilderness areas. The language protects the grazing 

of livestock, fish and wildlife management by the state of Utah, 

Native American uses, military overflights, while prohibiting buffer 

zones, and no Federal reserve water rights and the closure of cherry-stemmed roads. State school trust lands will be traded out for 

better funding of Utah's school children. Lastly, H.R. 17 45· contains 
3 

tough release language that will permit rural Utah to go back to 

work on the lands necessary to sustain our economy. 

H.R. 17 45 is not perfect, nor will it ever be. I do not expect everyone to be happy with this legislation and we have not attempted 

to please every side of this debate. I am sure that this Committee 

will change this bill, possibly several times, and I fully expect 

changes on the floor of the House. I am dedicated to doing what 

is best for Utah and that will involve making positive changes in 

the bill. H.R. 17 45 enjoys the co-sponsorship of every Republican 

member of the Resources Committee. 

I look forward to constructive comments from all sides of this debate and I hope our witnesses will provide the Subcommittee with 

legitimate suggestions that will help improve the legislation. 

Grandstanding or efforts to grab headlines-if people want to do 

that, that is up to them, but it does very little as far as the process 

goes. 

Wilderness designation, like all Congressional efforts, is the art 

of compromise. Every member of the delegation that supports H.R. 

17 45 has made compromises, yet we have produced a product that 

is reasonable, responsible and is good for Utah. Those parties who 

do not come to the table ready to compromise will not be players 

in this process. Thus, I look forward to the debate as we will bring 

this issue to pass. 

I would like to thank the county commissioners who worked very 

hard in making their recommendations. The Governor and his staff 

have been a tremendous help in this process. They have provided 

the mapping service, transportation and many great services. Governor Leavitt has taken a lot of political pressure that should more 

appropriately be shared with the delegation. The State of Utah is 

lucky to have this quality of a person as their Governor. 

Lastly, I want to thank the people of Utah, who have provided 

thousands of comments, which have been important information in 

this process. I look forward to the testimony and I welcome our witnesses and I welcome each one of you being here today. 

My friend from Minnesota, who I have served on this Committee 

for 15 years with is with us. I appreciate that, Bruce, and I will 

turn the time to you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and the 

invitation to come down here. We face today a very important topic. 

Obviously, your lead and chairmanship of the Subcommittee puts 

you in a special position because this is also an issue that has immediate impact in terms of Utah. I am hopeful that we will be proceeding in an even-handed manner through the Committee to try 

and give fair consideration to this important proposal. 

AB you know, Mr. Chairman and members, southern Utah has 

constantly been an area of disagreement with regard to the proper 

policy passed for the conservation of lands. Many in the Congress 

representing areas across the Nation have had designs to in fact 

preserve or conserve the entire southern Utah area, this red rock 

area. Even members of the Utah delegation historically have 

sought to make the entire area a park. Obviously that did not meet 
4 

with approval for many reasons, but I think it epitomizes the qual- ity of the resource and the national importance of this resoume. 

And clearly, as we move forward and as the 1976 law provided for 

a wilderness study area, management controversy has been a constant companion of the consideration of wilderness in this area. Of 

course wilderness is a relatively new land classification, only having been around for about 30 years. So there is an uneasiness and 

an evolution that is taking place concurrently with the wilderness 

designation in land use planning. There is a lot of new information 

that we have to integrate into management of the lands, and that 

is whether they are private or whether they are public lands. Th:is 

is one of the constant challenges that we have-having chaired a 

committee in Congress dealing with land use management for ten 

years, I am well aware of that. 

Anyway, the issue of controversy, the issue of what should have 

been properly studied, I think are issues that all come to the front 

when we move to in fact designate, to put certain laws or classifications on these important lands. 

So I am hopeful that we will be able to consider and to look at 

this, to try to come to a solution that is good, first of all, in terms 

of future generations and their legacy, their opportunity to earn a 

living, their opportunity to have some of the natural areas and the 

special resources that have shaped the people of southern Utah, 

but very much a part of our American culture and of what constitutes being an American in the next century. Utah, in this particular area, is a very important resource. When Wayne Owens introduced the initial wilderness bill which has a significant amount 

of co-sponsors, indicating there is a strong interest, we saw sort of 

this polarization. Our job is to try to pull that together and to come 

to a positive solution so that there can be some answers to these 

land questions which have been the subject of the studies, so that 

we can have appropriate use in Utah to serve the needs here as 

well as to meet the other responsibilities that we have as stewards 

of these important public resources. 

There is much to be discussed here. The legislation that has been 

introduced by my friend and colleague, Chairman Hansen, in essence tends to rewrite some of the provisions of the Wilderness Act 

for the purposes of Utah. That is of concern to me, as the Chairman might guess. Of course, I sympathize and understand a little 

bit more your rewrite of the water laws. I know I am in the west 

when I see that. In spite of the fact we always say we are not going 

to try and do that, we have had to write a custom fit, I think, for 

every state we have dealt with with regards to water, even with 

Mo Udall's beloved Arizona BLM wilderness. 

So I think we have got a lot to do. I know that getting time on 

the floor, trying to work this through and then getting it through 

the President is a big task. I see the uniformity of the Utah delegation in terms of advancing this. Obviously, we did not bring this 

up before because we knew there was not a resolution. I hope we 

can work on it and come to some agreement. I am especially concerned about the hard release language too, Mr. Chairman, because 

that would foreclose down the road, and I know the concern about 

finality that has been here. If we are going to leave it off in terms 

of being determined, then I think we have to be concerned about 
5 

hard release, but we will be pursuing some of these questions I am 

sure during the course of the next two days. I look forward to working with you, with Mo Hinchey and the other members of the Committee. 

I think most issues that are worthwhile to discuss in Congress, 

especially with regard to land use questions and with regard to wilderness, have bipartisan solutions. The idea of overwhelming or 

getting something done today I think just bodes serious problems 

for the future. So hopefully if we can work together and at least 

have a little anxiety on both sides in the end, Mr. Chairman, we 

will have accomplished our task for this session and a big step forward for Utah in the proper use of these important lands for all 

Americans. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 

Our friend from American Samoa, who really is a misplaced 

Utahn. He played football for BYU and I think he has a son at 

BYU, Eni, is that correct? And he knows as much about the state 

of Utah as most of us. So it is a privilege to have you with us and 

we will turn to our friend from American Samoa. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. 

DELEGATE FROM AMERICAN SAMOA 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation 

for the members of the Subcommittee to be here in Utah. You are 

correct, I am a graduate of BYU and I have some familiarity with 

the beautiful mountains and the region here. 

I realize that this is a very sensitive issue here to the Utahns, 

the wilderness. I am having a little problem with the French nuclear testing in the Pacific. They are planning to drop eight more 

nuclear bombs for the next eight months and I am not so sure that 

that is a better option. 

But I do appreciate very much your invitation. Hopefully we will 

have some input from the Native American communities that live 

here in the state of Utah and with the two proposals maybe there 

will be some kind of compromise that will be acceptable to the people of Utah, as well as what is in the interest of the Federal Government. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning and 

again, I really appreciate being here. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. 

Our friend from New York, Maurice Hinchey, a member of the 

Committee, we welcome him to southern Utah, grateful to him for 

being in our state. I turn the time to you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I first 

want to thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting us to 

Utah. It is always a pleasure to come here and I appreciate you 

doing that. 

I also want to express my appreciation to you for including my 

bill on the agenda. I have enjoyed our association, although it has 

only been for the last few years-I am a relatively new member of 
6 

the Congress, but I appreciate getting to know you and to work 

with you as we have over the course of the last two and a half 

years. 

As you know, I am the sponsor of one of the bills on today's agenda, H.R. 1500. My bill is a modified version of legislation which 

was originally introduced in the House in 1989 by Wayne Owens 

of Salt Lake City. After Mr. Owens left Congress, I agreed to introduce H.R. 1500 in the 103rd Congress and again this year. I was 

delighted to have the opportunity to take up that work that he had 

begun on this matter. 

Some of my colleagues on the Committee and no doubt some 

Utahns-perhaps those present today-have wondered why a New 

Yorker like me would be interested in what happens to Utah's 

lands. So I thought I would take this opportunity to discuss that 

with you and to introduce myself to those of you who I have not 

had the opportunity to meet already. 

I was first asked to take up Mr. Owens' legislation by someone 

who is both a Utahn and a New Yorker, a neighbor of mine in my 

small home town of Saugerties, New York. She had lived in south·· 

ern Utah for many years and taught school here, then moved to 

New York for a few years and taught school there. She has since: 

retired and lives in Idaho. 

My neighbor exemplified something important about Americans. 

We wander. Someone who is a Utahn today may be a New Yorker 

tomorrow, and vice versa. It was, after all, a New Yorker who 

brought settlers to Utah in the last century and made it what it 

is today. I would like to be able to say that Brigham Young could 

have been one of my constituents, but the towns that he and Jo-· 

seph Smith came from are just a little bit over the line from the 

district that I represent. So there is a long history of New Yorkers 

taking an interest in Utah, and I have no doubt it will continue .. But my neighbor's concern transcended the facts of her own geo .. graphic mobility. What she was saying to me is that these landS! 

are important to all the people of our country and that they belong 

to all the people of our country. We New Yorkers do not say that 

the Statue of Liberty belongs only to us, it belongs to all Utahns 

as well. The lands we are talking today also belong to all Ameri .. cans. 

And many Americans are deeply interested in those lands. As of 

today, 75 of our colleagues in the House have co-sponsored my biH 

this year. Most of them have co-sponsored it because their constitu .. ents have asked them to do so. I have heard from many more of 

my colleagues about it too, invariably because they have heard 

from people back home who, like my former neighbor, care in .. tensely about what happens to these lands. Some of them, like my 

former neighbor, have lived here in Utah, some have not. Some 

have visited these areas and know them intimately, some have not. 

But even many who have never been here, who have never seen 

the wonders the southern Utah holds, nevertheless are believers as 

well. 

My colleagues on this Committee, Republicans and Democrats 

alike, take pride in trying to serve as stewards of public resources 

wherever they may be. Some of them focus on keeping a close eyE~ 

on the cash in the Federal treasury, and they do not hesitate to 
7 

speak their mind about how Federal money gets spent, whether it 

is in New York or any place else. They should, that is their job. 

Some of us focus on stewardship of Federal properties. I know 

that our distinguished Chairman will not hesitate to say how he 

believes Federal properties in California or New York or anywhere 

else in the country will be managed. And that is appropriate, he 

should do so, that is his job. And we have that same interest in 

how the properties of all Americans in Utah are managed. 

My interest in land management and in wilderness long predates 

my introduction of H.R. 1500. It goes back to my boyhood in New 

York where I grew up on the edge of the Catskill Mountains. I 

liked to spend my time in the woods there, following the streams. 

It is a very different landscape from southern Utah, but a very 

beautiful one, nevertheless. Part of its beauty remains because 

New York State enacted the first wilderness protection legislation 

back in 1885, when it established the Adirondack Park; in 1907, it 

protected the Catskills as well, declaring much of both of these regions to be forever wild. New York took that action for two reasons. 

It realized, first, how special these areas were. And it realized too 

how much it had already lost and how much more it would lose if 

it failed to act. Even so, wilderness protection controversies continue to this day in my state. I took an active part in them during 

the 18 years that I served as a member of the New York State Legislature. 

Because of that service, I am acutely aware that there are very 

few places where we have achieved a consensus on wilderness, or 

perhaps ever will. Some will always want more land protected, 

some will always want less. Some will always put the interests of 

nature first, some will always prefer resource extraction. And people on both sides will always have sincere and legitimate arguments for their position. 

Clearly, my views come down on the side of protection and conservation. That is shaped by my experience, not by special pleadings or public relations efforts. I have seen what we can lose and 

I have seen what we have lost already when we focus on a temporary or short-term gain. I have seen how difficult it is to recover 

what we lose when we lose wild lands. I have seen how many people mourn those losses and I have seen that the mourners are often 

the descendants of those who promoted so-called development. 

So to those who ask why I am here, I say I am here to help protect our nation's common heritage, as I see it. I know that most 

Utahns would be horrified if the Statue of Liberty's Little Island 

in New York Harbor were turned into an amusement park-~wen 

though that could create many jobs and generate income for New 

Yorkers. It is with that same spirit that millions of Americans in 

Utah and elsewhere across the country want to see part of southern Utah, 5. 7 million acres of it, kept forever wild. 

So Mr. Chairman, I once again express my deep appreciation to 

you for your leadership and for bringing us here on this very important subject. [Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. We appreciate you being 

with us and we appreciate your comments. 
8 

We will now start the panel. The first panel is Ted Stewart, the 

Executive Director of Natural Resources Department for the State 

of Utah; Scott Hirschi, Director, School and Institutional Trust 

Lands Administration; Jerry Lewis, Washington County Commissioner; Louise Liston, Garfield County Commissioner; and Senator 

Leonard Blackham, Majority Whip from District 28. 

We told you previously that we will give you each five minutes. 

Your testimony in its entirety will be made part of the record an.d 

we are going to-you will notice in front of you there, there are 

three little lights. When the green light comes on, that means 

start, the yellow light means wind up and the red light means stop. 

If you need extra time, let me know and I will be happy to give 

you a little extra time. 

Mr. Stewart, we are glad to have you with us, we will now tum 

the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF TED STEWART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. STEWART. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee in support of H.R. 1745, the 

Utah BLM Wilderness Bill. 

I want to welcome the members of your Subcommittee to the 

state of Utah and hope that your tripMr. HANSEN. Mr. Stewart, can you hold on for a minute? I do not 

think we have got sound and I am noticing that people in the bac:k 

cannot hear you. Your testimony is very important, as everybody's 

is, and we want to hear from you. We need to just check that out 

real fast. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Reset the clock. Try that one and see if that one 

works. 

Mr. STEWART. Can you hear me now? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. STEWART. I want to welcomelou and I want to welcome the 

members of your Subcommittee an hope your visit here is pleasant as well as informative. 

Governor Leavitt apologizes for not being in attendance today. 

He will, however, be in Washington next week to testify before 

your Subcommittee. 

The State of Utah supports H.R. 1745. This legislation reflects 

the state's commitment to a balanced strategy for protection of the 

public lands. That balance is reflected in the fact that there are 

outspoken critics of this legislation on both sides. As you will hear 

today, many believe this bill protects too few acres and contains too 

many protections for lands not designated. You should also know 

that this legislation is universally perceived by rural county commissioners and legislators as protecting too many acres. 

H.R. 1745 is an honest approach to wilderness. It recognizes th:at 

the definition of wilderness contained in the Wilderness Act of 19{)4 

endures as the standard for determining what lands should be designated wilderness. 

H.R. 17 45 was crafted under the challenging circumstances th:at 

surround all Bureau of Land Management wilderness bills-the 
9 

fact that until very recent times, BLM lands were those lands subject to the whole array of public land laws. 

During the long history of western expansion, lands which were 

deemed valuable for special protection were reserved and protected 

from the application of the public land laws. Such lands include national forests, national parks and monuments and wildlife refuges. 

In contrast, BLM lands were those where you could establish an 

R.S. 2477 right-of-way, locate a mining claim, make a homestead 

or desert land entry, mine for coal, drill for oil and gas, and graze 

your cattle, all with the vigorous support and blessing of Federal 

law and land managers. 

It was the deliberate policy of the United States government that 

BLM lands were to be trammeled or controlled by man; that they 

were lands where man was to go and to stay, not just visit; where 

development was to occur; where man was to improve the land and 

inhabit it, just as fast and as aggressively as possible, all of which 

is the antithesis of wilderness. 

It is truly remarkable, perhaps even a miracle, that any BLM 

lands still qualify for wilderness protection. But fortunately, for 

both the living and the unborn, there are still lands in this state 

which truly meet the definition of wilderness. Those lands are captured in H.R. 17 45. 

H.R. 1745 includes the nationally, if not internationally, recognized crown jewels of Utah's wild areas. In designating 49 areas as 

wilderness, it affords protection for unique areas such as Grand 

Gulch, Desolation Canyon, the San Rafael Swell, Escalante Canyon 

and Westwater Canyon. 

Acknowledging the remarkable array of ecosystems to be found 

in the state of Utah, H.R. 1745 captures the high mountain ranges 

such as the Deep Creeks and the Henry Mountains, river canyons 

such as Muddy Creek, San Rafael, Dirty Devil, Labyrinth Canyon 

and the Escalante. 

It includes vast areas of red rock desert and distinctive areas in 

the west desert, such as Fish Springs, Notch Peak and the Cedar 

Mountains. 

H.R. 1745 includes several large blocks of wild lands. For example, 121,000 acres are protected on Fifty Mile Mountain, 103,000 

acres in the canyons of the Escalante, and 332,000 acres in the 

Desolation Canyon/Book Cliffs complex. 

On the other hand, H.R. 17 45 recognizes the cultural, social and 

economic realities of rural Utah by providing crucial protection of 

water and grazing rights, buffer zone and air quality language, release language and school trust land exchange provisions. 

Some citizens of the state of Utah support H.R. 1500. While acknowledging the efforts of those who put that package together and 

the enthusiasm with which it is presented, we cannot support H.R. 

1500 because we sincerely believe that it would make a travesty of 

the Wilderness Act of 1964, and would forever corrupt the concept 

of wilderness. The intrusions of man in H.R. 1500 lands are massive. In their own literature, supporters of H.R. 1500 acknowledge 

that the lands they want designated as wilderness are laced with 

miles and miles of roads, abandoned reservoirs, railroad tunnels, 

drill pads, landing strips, telephone lines, water lines, fences, 

chainings, mines, cablecar systems, et cetera. Some areas in the 
10 

northwest part of the state lie adjacent to bombing ranges known 

for their low level bombing runs. Such lands, though deserving of 

special protection in many instances, are not wilderness. 

Some have solemnly asserted that passage of H.R. 17 45 will result in the massive and immediate destruction of lands not protected. Such rhetoric cannot go unaddressed. Images of thousands 

of bulldozers lined up to advance on unprotected BLM lands is nonsense. Those who use such images to advance their cause purposely 

ignore the plethora of laws and regulations passed since 1964 

which will provide layer upon layer of protection for those lands. The use of such rhetoric argues eloquently for your support and 

passage of H.R. 1745. The issue of BLM wilderness has been the 

source of far too much vitriol and anger and misinformation on 

both sides for too many years in the state of Utah. Now is the tim1~ 

to put this issue behind us and the State of Utah sincerely believes 

H.R. 1745 is the vehicle to accomplish that. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. Hirschi. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT HIRSCHI, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL AND 

INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. HIRSCHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. Mr. HANSEN. Can you hear Mr. Hirschi? 

VOICES. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. Have you got the right mic there? OK, go ahead. 

Mr. HIRSCHI. I believe so. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to address you today about a very important issue con- cerning school trust lands within the State of Utah, as they relate 

to the proposed wilderness designation of BLM lands. 

As you know, trust lands were offered to the state for the benefit 

of the common schools and other public institutions through an act 

of Congress at the time of statehood. The state accepted these 

lands through the State Constitution, and thereby created a fiduciary contract between the Federal Government and the state. The 

state has an independent agency that manages these lands, known 

as the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, and 

has also set up a Board of Trustees, seven people serve on that 

board and the agency and the board manage the lands to reflect 

an undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries, to optimize the trust 

lands holdings and to prevent misapplication of the trust lands 

themselves. These lands, as you know, are located in a checkerboard location 

throughout the state and are generally surrounded by Federal 

lands. The restrictions on and the complicated procedures for use 

of the Federal lands have frustrated the management of the school 

trust lands in the past and have placed a significant burden on the 

development of the trust lands. 

The Federal courts have ruled that the trust lands have a legal 

right of access across the Federal lands and therefore, the development of these lands is guaranteed from an access standpoint by the 

Federal Government. 
11 

The board and the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration sees an opportunity here for both the Federal wilderness 

and the trust objectives to be accomplished through the proposed exchange of lands. We see H.R. 1745 as correctly recognizing the 

rights, the obligations and importance of trust lands. Specifically, Section 11 provides for a fair and timely exchange of those trust 

lands. 

The bill also states that Congress finds that the proposed exchange lands are of approximate equivalent value. The board and 

SITLA concur with this finding for the following reasons: 

Considering the diminishing supply of pristine wild lands in the 

United States, the critical location of these trust lands, which account for over 12 percent of the proposed wilderness areas, are 

vital to the successful management of the wilderness system. The 

United States could never achieve the full purposes and goals of 

the Wilderness Act so long as these trust lands remain surrounded 

or encompassed within the designated wilderness areas. The pro- posed exchange immediately grants the Federal Government full 

rights and opportunity of use of these in-held trust lands for the 

purpose of wilderness protection. 

Secondly, we see the cost to the Federal Government to manage the proposed wilderness lands to be greatly increased with the 

presence of the trust lands amidst the proposed wilderness designated areas. 

Thirdly, trust lands have been offered and leased for mineral 

purposes at one time or the other over the past 15 years. In spite of that, no significant revenues are being generated from the trust 

lands, nor from the targeted Federal lands that are proposed for 

exchange. In fact, the only thing that can be exchanged at this time 

will be the opportunity to develop. The acquired lands must provide 

the trust for a corresponding opportunity for development. It is fair 

to transfer the opportunity to develop and the risk of non-development, including the changing marketplace that exists out there. 

There are encumbrances on the targeted Federal lands and one 

significant one is the local government's right for one-half of the 

royalties created by the Federal Mineral Leasing Act. 

Real estate development within Federal holdings can be of great value. The location and utility of these trust lands within these 

pristine areas increases their net worth. 

There are four components that we would hope the Congress would look at in the valuation of the proposed exchange. One would 

be value, second would be utility, scarcity and finally desire. Wilderness is a very desirable commodity today and it is also scarce. 

We believe this increases the value of the trust lands. 

In conclusion, we believe these trust lands are highly desirable 

because of where they are located. They are unique, there is no 

substitute. We would hope that the Congress would recognize their 

inherent and intrinsic worth to the citizens of the United States, 

as we proceed with the proposed exchange. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hirschi. 

Commissioner Jerry Lewis. 

[The statement of Mr. Hirschi may be found at end of hearing.] 
12 

STATEMENT OF JERRY LEWIS, WASHINGTON COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER 

Mr. LEWIS. Representative Hansen and Committee members, I 

appreciate the opportunity to be here and to make some comments 

on the wilderness issues in regard to affected Utah counties. I commend the Utah delegation for the time and effort it has put forth 

in developing the wilderness bill, and to you, Representative Hansen, thank you for holding hearings in the State of Utah. 

I believe it is important to realize that more work needs to be 

done to have a product that rural Utah can support and that will 

protect for the future the known and unknown mineral resources 

that will be needed now and in the future for the benefit of the nation. Because we do not know all the types of minerals that may 

be discovered, it is important that areas are accessible for use. 

When the counties in Utah were given the opportunity and challenge to carefully review, gain input through public hearings and 

then make recommendations for wilderness designation, we undertook the task with a determination to be objective and to adhere 

to the 1964 Wilderness Act as directed by the delegation and the 

Governor. Our county and other counties spent a great deal of time 

and effort reviewing the Act and other documents in preparation 

for fulfilling the charge of the delegation. 

I believe that we accomplished our task by carefully following the 

1964 Act as further directed by you and the others mentioned. I 

say that because we knew the areas and we received testimony 

from those who are very well acquainted with the land. That process enabled us to evaluate roads, structures and other manmade 

intrusions that were or were not in possible wilderness areas. The 

approximate 1.1 million acres recommended by the counties are the 

total number of acres that we believe qualify under the 1964 Act. 

We believe that the bill, H.R. 17 45 on wilderness for the State 

of Utah does not follow the same strict standard that we did, as 

directed by the delegation and the bill recommended for designation many areas that do not qualify as wilderness, and therefore, 

we respectfully and strongly encourage the Wilderness Bill contain 

the 1.1 million acres, approximately, recommended by the counties. 

If there are areas that meet the requirements of the law and are 

not in the counties' proposals, they should review that with the information that is available through the counties' findings to verify 

or correct the acreage properly. 

We have made an analysis of land use in Washington County 

that may be somewhat representative of land use in other counties. 

And as you can see, there is a chart that lists those in the document. 

Washington County only has 15 percent of its land in private 

ownership. Other counties have even less private lands to support 

services required in their counties. The reserved lands in Washington County will be. approximately 25 percent of the county's total, 

which is a substantial amount. This is representative of Utah's 

rural counties' land uses. 

We hope that other counties that are hurting will have their 

grievances addressed before proceeding with this bill. We appreciate the consideration given to Washington County by the delegation. 
13 

The buffer zone language in this bill should be strengthened. Many of the sections relating to management of these lands, after 

designation, needs to be strengthened. I am attaching to my statement, and would like to submit for the record on behalf of all the 

affected counties and the Utah Association of Counties, a list of 

proposed amendments to this bill which we believe will strengthen and improve it. It is a partial list that I have in my comments. 

The water rights provision of this bill goes far to make it clear 

that no Federal reserved water right will be automatic in wilderness areas in Utah. Without this language in the bill, Washington County would have a difficult time supporting it. Federal reserved 

rights would make life impossible for us in light of our dependence 

on the Virgin River and its tributaries. Our proposed amendments 

will strengthen this position. 

I hope this bill will bring to a conclusion the disruptive public land management practices which have too often caused hardship 

to individuals, which have effectively prevented any natural resource development in southern Utah. To that end, I believe completion of this legislative process is important. And having said 

that, I believe that the bill before us statewide proposes too much 

wilderness and needs further fine-tuning to be able to provide for 

the economic well-being over the long-term in many southern Utah 

communities. 

This legislation may be the most important for the future of 

southern Utah and it may be the most important that any of us 

will consider. I commend the delegation for its efforts and hope you will continue to work with the elected officials in county government to make certain that your final product is one which does 

what I know you want it to dC>-provide wilderness areas as well 

as growth opportunities and stability for the well-being of the Nation and individuals that are here now, and those that will be here 

in the future. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Lewis may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Commissioner Louise Liston. 

STATEMENT OF LOUISE LISTON, GARFIELD COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER 

Ms. LISTON. Can everyone hear me? 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I 

too would like to thank you for holding this field hearing in Utah 

on H.R. 1745, a bill to designate certain lands in the State of Utah 

as wilderness. 

Over 98 percent of my county is state and federally owned. With 

1.3 percent of the county's land base to generate taxes from and a 

population of less than 4000, we are providing the services that 

over two million visitors using those public lands demand. Congressmen and residents in eastern states where Federal ownership seldom exceeds two or three percent cannot begin to comprehend the impact wilderness designation will place upon state and local 

economies in the west. An important factor we urge you to consider 

in the uses of land held in private ownership versus Federal landownership is that privately owned property generates the necessary 
14 

revenues to pay for necessary service~ducation, infrastructure, 

law enforcement, waste disposal, emergency services, fire protection and so on. Rural Utahns have been living with de facto wilderness for over ten years and are experiencing an economic depression in many areas where wilderness studies with their management practices and restrictions have discouraged any activities that 

could help stabilize our economies. 

The Wilderness Act was never meant to impact the changes and 

growth which occurred in our nation. When that Act was passed in 

1964, it was not the intent of Congress to prohibit development of 

our natural resources. It is, however, being used by the environmental community to do exactly that. Economics of public lands are 

limited to leases, natural resource development royalties and tourism. Each of these are severely restricted or prohibited in wilderness. We must keep in mind that minerals and other natural resources are not mobile, they are permanently located. On the other 

hand, opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation can be enjoyed in a variety of places. 

In January of this year, counties with BLM wilderness recommendations within their boundaries were asked by the Governor 

and the Congressional delegation to form broad-based steering committees, hold public hearings and proceed with a suggested process 

that would result in a BLM wilderness bill for Utah. We were 

asked to strictly adhere to the language and criteria of the 1964 

Wilderness Act. It is my opinion that the 14 counties involved, acting in good faith, did exactly that. In all reality, counties are the 

government closest to the people and have to live with the impacts 

of wilderness designation in their areas. We are the people who 

have walked the land and taken care of it for generations. It was 

right that we be involved, and we took the responsibility very seriously. Please be aware that it was not an easy task and many of 

us were targets of substantial criticism in the press. There was intense pressure from many citizens to recommend no wilderness, 

and intense pressure from others to recommend areas regardless of 

whether they qualified under the Wilderness Act criteria. 

The recommendations we proposed were based upon a thorough 

analysis of the facts we gathered, and were evaluated in compliance with the mandate we were given. It was a time-consuming 

and expensive process and counties feel strongly that any changes 

in those recommendations should be justified in the same way 

counties had to justify their proposed acreages. We cannot support 

a wilderness bill that includes lands that do not meet the criteria 

and simply designates wilderness for the sake of acreage. We cannot and will not betray the trust placed in us by those who helped 

in the process and those who must live in the shadow of wilderness 

and whose livelihoods are directly impacted by its designation. 

That would be wrong. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, once again, thank 

you for coming to Utah for this field hearing. It is my hope that 

for the good of this great state and for the good of an even greater 

nation and its people, you will fairly consider all factors and conflicts and strike a balance between primitive recreation and other 

management and uses of the natural resources found on our public 

lands. 
15 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would ask that the attached papers to my oral testimony be entered as part of the record. And they include selected wilderness impacts on Utah, references used in determining Garfield 

County's wilderness recommendation, statistical information, the 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration Board 

Resolution on wilderness, the Utah Public Education Coalition Resolution on Wilderness Designation in Utah, Pine Valley Mountain 

Wilderness 1989 implementation schedule addressing what wilderness is doing to the grazing issue and Wilderness as a Church, 

taken from Utah State University, an interesting concept I felt like, 

and also Wilderness Designation in Utah: Issues and Potential Economic Impacts, a summary of the Utah State University study. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Liston may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Without objection, not only your statement but all the accompanying documents will be included in the 

record for every member of every panel. Thank you for your statement. 

Senator Leonard Blackham. Senator, we will turn the time to 

you for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEONARD BLACKHAM, MAJORITY 

WHIP, DISTRICT 28, STATE OF UTAH 

Senator BLACKHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you being here, and members of the Committee, welcome to Utah as 

well. 

It is a pleasure for me today to be able to represent the position of the Utah State Senate on this very important issue. In February of this year, the Utah State Legislature was in session and passed 

a concurrent resolution on wilderness designation. In the Utah 

Senate, this H.C.R. 12 passed with a unanimous vote of 27 Senators with two being absent. A copy of that resolution is included 

in my comments. One of the most important aspects of that resolution was the input of county government in determining the lands 

appropriate for wilderness designation. We believe in the Utah 

State Senate that government closest to the people is the most per- ceptive and most desirable. 

The county commissioners of Utah held numerous public hearings to formulate their recommendations. They know the areas extremely well, they understand the impact of wilderness at the 

grassroots level. 

Representative Hansen's proposed wilderness resolution, H.R. 

17 45, is in harmony with most of the points of that wilderness resolution passed by the Utah Legislature. I would like to emphasize three points related to that resolution. 

1. The Utah BLM wilderness issue needs to be resolved, and action by the Congress is long overdue. The rural communities have 

lived with this issue unresolved for 15 years and it is only right 

to settle the matter. The present policy is placing a significant 

amount of pressure and hardship on rural communities. The matter has been studied extensively by the BLM, by local governments, by Utah's Congressional delegation, by the land grant university and many private citizens. Not to resolve this issue would clearly 
16 

be an example of poor government and would be simply a government policy by default. This is not what the American public or 

Utah desires. 

2. We have concerns that the number of acres in the proposal is 

on the high side. As recommended by the resolution passed in February, we would desire that the proposal be closer to the county's 

recommendation. However, we do recognize that a few counties did 

not recommend any wilderness in their counties and some condition for additional acres may be warranted. In determining the 

acres to be included, we feel it is absolutely essential that the requirements of the original wilderness law be adhered to. 

3. We feel strongly that the other provisions in the bill are essential to this issue. The provisions related to grazing and buffer 

zones, releases of other lands, state in-holding and water rights are 

absolutely important for the health and well-being of Utah. These 

recommendations will bring a lot of common sense back into the 

wilderness issue. We are extremely sensitive to the water rights 

issue. We feel strongly that the water rights belong to the state of 

Utah and should be determined by Utah Code. 

The lifeblood of these rural counties affected is tied to the wise 

use of the resources on Federal lands. Ranching, mining and the 

lumber industries are the major industries of rural Utah. These assets have made the rural communities sustainable and are very important for their continued healthy future. Some will argue that 

tourism can replace these basic industries. Well, tourism is important in some of these communities, but it is largely related to state 

and national parks where large numbers of people enjoy the beauties of nature. Wilderness lands play a very minor part in the tourism industry. It must be remembered that the low wages of the 

tourism jobs-that the wages in tourism jobs are generally much 

lower and are very seasonal. We are currently having difficulty filling many of these recreation-related jobs due to the limited populations in many of these rural areas. Families cannot survive on 

minimum seasonal wage jobs. If these local communities are damaged even more with the diminishing of the resource-based industries, it will be even harder in the future to find employees for the 

tourism support. . Rural tourism, as has been mentioned earlier, depends upon the 

infrastructure that is provided by the rural areas for safety, sanitation, food and other services. This is only possible when the local 

communities are present and healthy. The position of the extreme 

environmentalists will create rural blight and the basic support 

systems for the enjoyment of these areas will be greatly reduced. 

It is common knowledge that the condition of the Federal lands 

in general is very good. Great improvements have been made in the 

last 50 years as the users of the public lands have worked with the 

Federal agencies and the land grant universities in improvement 

management and enhancement projects. The atmosphere between 

local people and government agencies prior to the last few years 

has been one of mutual cooperation and trust. It is essential that 

common sense be returned to the policy and governance of these 

Federal lands. The public has spoken loudly that they want more 

local control and policies that are flexible to local conditions. There 

is no better place to listen than at the local government level. 
17 

Man has become part of these regions. He has become part of the 

renewal process of nature. The harvesting of renewable resources 

is an essential element and can be of a healthy ecological system of the region. The wise use of these renewable resources has been 

and can continue to be a part of the healthy environment. 

The understanding of the importance of natural resources is becoming apparent. The wise use of these resources is a source of 

wealth, employment and the general standard of living of this 

country. The impact of changes related to these resources can be 

demonstrated by the large increases in housing costs in this country due to the reduced lumber harvesting on public lands. It makes 

little sense to lose the wealth of the natural resources, rural jobs and create rural blight. More than 100 years of use of these lands 

has not destroyed their beauty. We urge that we continue with the 

management practices, clean up policies and the overall understanding of nature that can exist, that can continue to allow rural 

Utah and America to enjoy the resources and the beauty of this 

land. 

We hope you can come to a conclusion on this issue and we ap- preciate the opportunity to address the Committee. 

[The resolution submitted by Senator Blackham may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator, appreciate your testimony. We will now turn to members of the Committee and allow each 

one of them five minutes to question members of the panel. If you need more time, we will go a second round. 

The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stewart, you commented about the availability of lands for 

wilderness and the fact that they have to be in a relatively pristine state. Obviously it does not mean that they were not used by individuals or by man, but that they in essence do not show the effects 

of that. 

But in the legislation that you testified in support of, H.R. 1745, of course, it goes on to provide certain opportunities for the development of water facilities and access roads to maintain water facilities and mechanical means to· deal with paleontological resources. 

Is that not in contradiction to the Wilderness Act. I think most of 

what is anticipated there at least is in conflict with the basic wilderness law, and certainly in conflict with your testimony. Mr. STEWART. Congressman, actually the language--for example, that dealing with potential water development in the wilderness 

areas--eomes from the 1964 Wilderness Act itself, it is word for 

word. The only difference is that this is being designated by Congress and in the 1964 Wilderness Act, the designation is to be done 

by the President. 

The fact is, as I have tried to point out, Congressman, these 

areas have been used, are used. Some of the areas and parts of 

these areas are truly pristine, truly do qualify under the Wilderness Act. Some of those areas that we are proposing in H.R. 17 45 

are on the margin, where there are impacts of man, particularly in 

the area of water, which is so vital to the west. What we have tried 

to do there is minimize the impacts, allowing the designation of 

perhaps additional acreage that we could not otherwise have justi-
18 

fled by saying if there are water developments in regards to grazing or for a municipality and so on, they will be allowed to continue 

access. In reality, I think you will find that most of that language 

dealing with access is quite similar to the 1984 Utah Forest Service 

Wilderness Bill that was passed by Congressman Hansen and 

signed by President Reagan in 1984. It is not a bit of a departure 

in that respect. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think the concern is obviously the President 

exercising the power of putting it in law is a substantial difference. 

I think the record will show that the President has not chosen to 

exercise or to in fact provide much change. But for instance on the 

road issue, on Section (g) of the bill, it talks about high standard 

logging roads and dirt roads used for right-of-way would be given 

so much access. Of course, you have got a whole problem with undocumented types of rights-of-way across public lands in the west, 

as you well know. So, these areas have made a basic imprint in 

terms of these areas that are being designated in the bill. 

Mr. STEWART. Congressman, again, the effort to provide for the 

addition of acreage as wilderness depended upon a certain amount 

of cherry-stemming and that provision you just referred to is to say 

in the event that there is a road that exists and yet we have chosen 

to cherry-stem it and designate wilderness on either side of it, we 

wanted to make it clear what rights there would be to continue to 

maintain that road. Again, if anyone wants to argue against that, 

it is the counties and those who are opposed to wilderness, because 

what it was, was an effort to justify inclusion of areas that have 

roads in them and to provide for the continued existence of those 

roads. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, those boundaries do not follow standard wilderness boundaries, first of all. So, this is another major departure 

from the Wilderness Act. And I think the problem I have to look 

at, Mr. Stewart, is what are we telling the BLM people on the 

ground to do? I mean, if we want them to manage this and you 

have got undocumented roads, you are not following the general 

Wilderness Act in terms of rules with regard to boundaries. You 

are putting in specific language which is custom-made. I mean, 

your testimony is in conflict with regard to that specific issue. I understand that you are doing this to try to bring along the counties 

and to keep some of these areas resolved, but I think you are making major problems and inviting major misunderstandings. You 

know, we know that land managers have a difficult time. I now 

that very often there is a request for Congress to write more specific prescriptions with regard to this, and we all try to do it. But 

when we do it apart from the basic law, we end up with major 

problems. I mean, the fact that this is undocumented, we do not 

know where the roads are, is a major, major problem in terms of 

what the result is in these areas, even though they are limited. Of 

course you point out, and I agree, that we want to get areas that 

are suitable for wilderness in wilderness. There is obviously disagreement today between the Hinchey bill and the Hansen bill 

with regard to what that constitutes. But as I look through this, 

I understand some of it is a repeat of earlier language, but whenever we repeat something, all of a sudden it becomes law and it is 

not at the President's discretion, it makes a lot of difference. 
19 

But I see my time has just elapsed. If Mr. Stewart wanted to respond, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could let him. Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. Mr. STEWART. Congressman Vento, the only thing I would take 

issue with is that this is somehow new. I would again point out 

that in the 1984 bill, which I participated in as a staffer with Congressman Hansen, we crafted boundaries that reflected cherry- stemmed roads then. It is my understanding that of the 100 plus 

or minus wilderness bills that have been passed by the Congress since 1964, that many, if not most of them have relied upon cherry- stemmed roads for the same purposes that we have done in this 

case. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman--

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. Mr. VENTO [continuing]. it is gas pipelines, it is communication 

transmission-sites in wilderness, it just goes on and on and on with 

regards to what are being permitted that are not there now. If we 

are talking about grandfathering something, we have got a moving 

target here, is what it ends up being. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a quick question to Senator Blackham. You indicated in 

your statement you are not totally pleased with the acreage proposed in H.R. 1745. What is your recommendation? 

Senator BLACKHAM. The Utah Senate took the position, and the 

legislature as a whole, that the counties were the ones who ought 

to formulate number. Their recommendation is about 1.1 million. 

I am aware of a few counties that somewhat did not follow the direction that they agreed to somewhat on this proposal and came up with zero acres in their county, which in trying to resolve this, we 

recognize that that may not be possible, because a compromise does 

have to come into play in trying to meet the needs and values of 

different people. So though we would think that the 1.1 is really the acreage that is closer to what it should be, we recognize that 

there is some latitude in that. That would be our preference. We 

have not got involved deeply in determining the acreage, we just feel the local government really should have a major input into 

this-and they have, they have been recognized. And we appreciate the Utah Washington delegation in using that. We just think per- haps the number is just a little on the high side. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to ask Ms. Liston-you have indicate that you have conducted a comprehensive number of county hearings and meetings in the process, and this has taken years 

now. Do you feel that in the process of doing this, that you have 

complied with the requirements or whatever it is under the Federal 

requirements of wilderness, that you feel the designation of 1.1 million acres total is about as accurate as you can get as far as the 

boundaries and making it wilderness? 

Ms. LISTON. I can speak for myself in my county and I think in 

good faith in the other counties. In my county, we held four different workshops where everyone in the county came and were involved in marking intrusions on maps and so on. We held two pub- lic hearings, we got the written testimonies and input from hun-
20 

dreds. And we felt like-and by the way, I included in my testimony a list of references. We studied every mineral record in our 

county, we studied all the water rights, we went through every 

water right record in our county. We did a substantial amount of 

work to justify what we could recommend as wilderness. And many 

of those areas, if I may say so, in the BLM recommendation said 

that, one area specifically that is a major area of contention is the 

north Escalante Canyon. In the BLM EIS, environmental impact 

statement, it actually said that should wilderness not be designated in that area, less than three-tenths of a percent of the land 

would be impacted. And that is because there are already eight 

outstanding natural areas in that WSA that are being protected, 

and many other reasons why. 

And so based on the criteria that we had at hand and how we 

came up with our recommendation, we felt like we did do that. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If my reading is correct, the Bureau of Land 

Management has made a recommendation of 1.9 million acres to be 

considered as wilderness. Do you feel that the BLM is off the mark 

in this? How did they come about with 1.9 million acres? 

Ms. LISTON. Well, that is a good question. And we did not start 

with the BLM acreage when we started our recommendation. We 

just went from zero and went with what the county said. And in 

the BLM recommendation in many areas, we found cabins, fences, 

water tanks, roads. In one area, 28 miles of roads. Of course the 

BLM sometimes called some of those roads ways, we have a disagreement there. But these are the way that our people go to work, 

these roads are what they go to work on. So we consider them 

roads. If they are two lanes, it is still a road to us-1 mean not a 

two lane one, but a two wheel track, we consider that a road. So 

the reason we disagree with BLM is simply because of the intrusions that the people came and marked on the maps where the 

BLM had stated that it fit the criteria. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, I noticed on Mr. Lewis' remarks in his statement, 

that we do not know all the types of minerals that may be discovered I suppose in southern Utah, and I was wondering if the state 

government has ever done a comprehensive geological survey or 

study of what are the potential mineral resources in southern 

Utah. Has this ever been done by the state, or even at the Federal 

level? Has this ever been done by the Federal Government? 

Mr. STEWART. One of the divisions within my department is what 

is known as Utah Geological Survey, and I think that we have a 

pretty good idea, based upon years and years of information gathered not only by the state but also by private interests and also by 

the United States Geological Survey of the natural resources in the 

State of Utah. But we are constantly surprised. I could go in any 

county and I could provide them a map showing the known mineral 

resources within their county and they could probably come back 

and show me mining claims, probably valid mining claims, that 

would evidence the existence of additional mineral resources. We 

have done the best job we can, but it is not easy without a constant 

drilling program. 
21 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just one more second. Was it Brigham Young who said this state is supposed to be one of the richest mineral resource states in the country? Mr. STEWART. I do not know whether he said it, but it is a fact. 

Mr. F ALEOMA V AEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Liston, as a county commissioner, you made the 

argument of how difficult it is to provide services to your constituents, given the fact that you have such a small population and that 

the area you administer covers such a large territory. And I am 

very sympathetic with the difficulty of doing that. However, over 

the years, I have become less sympathetic with that argument, and 

the reason for that is because every study that I have seen, every examination of the subject that I am aware of, indicates that the 

difficulty of providing those services and the level of taxation that 

has to be engaged in to provide services only increases as development increases and as the population goes up. That is true in every examination of it that I am aware of. 

I was just wondering what you thought of that and if the circumstances in your county were so different in Garfield, or is the 

population so thin-or what brings you to that conclusion? 

Ms. LISTON. I think the main thing is that we are limited because of the vast acreage in our county, we have over 5000 square miles that we have to administer law enforcement. We actually are 

collecting waste from 100 miles away from our landfill, that is one 

way. We have to travel 200 miles sometimes to bring garbage to 

our landfill, and we have three national parks, a national recreation area and three state parks that we handle their waste, we 

handle their law enforcement, we handle their search and rescue 

when people get hurt, their emergency services and so on. We do 

that with one sheriff and three deputies, and one garbage disposal 

crew that has three men on it, and we do that on a county budget that is very limited and restricted. And as visitors grow, which 

they do-l am citing the national parks and state parks and that 

is not even counting the visitors to BLM lands and Forest Service 

Lands. We also handle that. We are involved in a court case right 

now where we had to hire four public defenders, stand all of the 

court costs because of a death that occurred on BLM lands. We 

have had that happen in the national parks, that we have to try their cases in our courts. There are a lot of impacts that rural 

counties that are surrounded and rely on public lands for their livelihoods and for their well-being that goes unnoticed, but they are 

services that are demanded and that we have to provide. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Do you receive any financial assistance or any assistance of any kind from the state and Federal Governments? 

Ms. LISTON. We do, we receive payment in lieu of taxes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. From the state? 

Ms. LISTON. From the state and from the Federal Government. 

But if I may say so, Congressman Hinchey, the Federal Government has not been a very good big brother to counties as far as 

PILT is concerned, because you know the issue on PILT I am sure 

that is going on in Congress right now where we have not received 
22 

any payment-we are receiving the same payment in PILT right 

now as we did in 1976 and you know how inflation has taken its 

toll on our country, and we have not received any inflationary 

value in our PILT since that time. So yes, we do receive PILT but 

it does not handle what is happening on our public lands. Use of 

public lands in 1976 cannot be compared to how they are used nowadays. 

Mr. HINCHEY. What payments did you receive in this most recent 

fiscal year? 

Ms. LISTON. $92,000. 

Mr. HINCHEY. $92,000 in--

Ms. LISTON. I am sorry, nine hundred-yes, $92,000, it is not 

$100,000. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Less than $100,000. 

Ms. LISTON. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Payments in lieu of taxes from the Federal Government. 

Ms. LISTON. Yes, we receive less than eight cents an acre. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I very much sympathize with that problem. 

I think that you are being very definitely short-changed in that regard and I think that something should be done about that. 

Ms. LISTON. We appreciate that. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have got the solution. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I know what your solution is, Mr. Chairman, 

but that may not necessarily be the best solution. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. But I think some solution to this problem has to 

be arrived at. This is clearly a problem that cries out for remedy. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, if the gentleman would yield to me-last year 

of course they passed increases, but there is a mineral sharing of 

the receipts, the royalties, a timber receipt sharing. I do not think 

most of the lands we are talking about today have any timber resources on them, but even the park fees that come in get shared 

with the counties or with the state. Whether the state sends the 

money back down is another matter. And even the grazing receipts, 

some of them come back. So whatever is being earned there, it is 

not like they are taking a lot of money out of there without any--

Mr. HINCHEY. No, no, I do not suggest that. I am just suggesting 

that, you know, this is a burden that has to be shared perhaps 

more equitably. And I wonder what kind of assistance you are getting from the state. Is that money being passed through to you? 

Ms. LISTON. The mineral lease money is administered through 

what we call the Community Impact Board and we have to compete 

for that money with other counties. Some of the BLM grazing fees 

do come back for local range improvements, but we have seen very 

little of those as well. And what was the other one that you mentioned-the parks, we have never seen any fee help from the parks. 

We have wanted to put an additional dollar fee on everyone at the 

park, fees, the entrance fees, and they tell us that is not possible, 

Congress has to designate that. 

Mr. VENTO. Forest recreation fees are shared, I might say. 

Ms. LISTON. Yes, and the timber receipts do go to our schools, 

but of course the way timber is being reduced, it is very l,lard to 

justify that. 
23 

And may I point out one thing-and I know I have taken a lot 

of time and I apologize for that-may I point out one thing? And 

that is that if there could be some solution, because right now we 

are receiving more money from transient room tax from tourism 

than our tax base generates and yet that money can only be used 

for marketing more tourism, it cannot be used in our general budget. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Who puts that restriction on you? Mr. HANSEN. You are recognized for one additional question, Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. In addition to the one I just asked? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LISTON. Obviously you and I need to visit afterward, Congressman, and we could--

Mr. HINCHEY. We could spend a long time together. Ms. LISTON. Yes. Mr. HINCHEY. Could I just ask one more? 

Mr. HANSEN. Surely, go ahead. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Hirschi, if I remember correctly, you talked 

about the intrinsic value of wilderness in your testimony, and that 

of course impressed me because I share · that belief with you. And 

you talked about it in a way that leads to the fact that it is intrinsically valuable in and of itself, but it also has value commercially and economically. Did I understand you correctly, and to what extent do you feel that that is true in this particular situation? 

Mr. HIRSCHI. Well, that may be true, Congressman, but my reference was to the fact that these in-held school trust lands do have 

values beyond the intrinsic value or for their pristine nature. An 

example of that is, as I mentioned, all of the lands in question have 

been leased for mineral development some time or other over the 

past 15 years. So there is a significant interest in the minerals 

data-development of the minerals in these lands. In addition to 

that, we have continued demand for real estate development in 

pristine areas, including the proposed wilderness areas under H.R. 

1745. So I was submitting to you that there is existing worth or 

value to these lands as they stand. 

I also believe there is great value to the United States by including these lands within the wilderness areas and being able to man- age them consistent with the Federal lands. Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would hope you would take into consideration 

what you are hearing here today from the panel, what Commissioner Liston talked about. Some of you folks that do not have 

large public lands in your state, I do not know if you realize the 

problem that Garfield County or Washington County or Iron County and Wayne County and all these little counties have. They are 

beautiful, gorgeous counties, no question about it, a lot of people 

want to come. Louise talked about three parks right in that one little county, 98 percent owned by the Federal Government, so it is 

swarmed with people. They come in there, they put their trash 

down, they create problems, they go out and break their leg, they need help, they start fires-and these are the people that do it. 

Now Bruce talks about we get a pittance or two of Federal and 
24 

state money. That is not even close to being adequate, that does 

not even come close to it. 

Now keep in mind that myself and Pat Williams passed a bill 

last time upping the amount that Bruce talked about of payment 

in lieu of taxes, but we are not funding it. We are funding at the 

level of last year, but not giving them the funds that we author·-

ized, we do not have the money. So these people are sitting there 

having this inherent problem, which is a huge problem for these 

rural counties. They are small, small counties. Panguitch I guess 

is the biggest city in her county, you can spit across it. It is a very 

nice little town, but there is not much there. And so if I understand 

the position, there is no money to take care of these people, yet ev .. erybody wants to come in and use their services. 

So when that comes up, I look to my three colleagues here to 

stand up with great gusto and support the appropriation on the 

payment in lieu of taxes. 

And while we are on that, Louise, I do not mean to get on a soap 

box here, the advocates of wilderness are always talking about the 

idea that the economy would be enhanced by wilderness in rural 

areas. You have been there a long time, you are respected, you 

have testified in Congress many times, have been held up as onE! 

of the persons who has more knowledge on this than probably any 

other county commissioner. Would you like to respond to that question, do you or do you not think that wilderness would enhance the 

economy of Garfield County and these other little counties that you 

have represented before the state and Federal Government many 

times. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Do not be led by the question. 

[Laughter and applause.] Ms. LISTON. I think I testified in Congressman Vento's committee 

once before and said something that has been forever charged to 

my legacy that I do notMr. HANSEN. Go ahead and say it again. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LISTON. And that is that often hikers and backpackers come 

into my county wearing a pair of shorts and carrying a $20.00 bill 

and leave without changing either of them. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. LISTON. That is probably exaggerating a bit, but I do want 

to tell you that we strongly disagree with the concept that wilderness will bring in tourism, and let me tell you why. Some of the 

costs to my county-and I will quickly do this-is eco-terrorism in 

those WSAs and in our national parks and national recreation area 

has cost my county hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last ten 

years. And the bird trail controversy, which has come about because it has been bordered on two sides by wilderness, has cost th•~ 

county and state over $4 million in the last eight years that we 

have been involved in that controversy. And historically hikers and 

backpackers do not leave much money in our county and in local 

communities. 

And even the economic study done recently by Utah State University says that wilderness designation will severely impact som•~ 

areas of the state. Those areas of the state are the rural counties. 

In my county in the winter months, unemployment climbs some-
25 

times as high as 18 percent. And it really is hard for us to survive. 

We have been living with de facto wilderness for ten years. If it 

would have helped us, it would have showed signs of helping us by 

now. But instead, it has impacted our economies greatly. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Let me point out in all fairness, environmentalists are not all that kind of people. Some environmentalists are very sound citizens, many of them work very hard to keep things up and do a good job. So we do not want to give the impres- sion that we consider all of them not changing their shorts or the 

$20.00 bill in our county. Ted, why do you not explain to the group what you have under 

your jurisdiction as Director of the Natural Resources in the state 

of Utah. I do not know if the Committee fully understands the 

enormity of your responsibilities. 

Mr. STEWART. My department has seven divisions. It includes 

Parks and Recreation, Wildlife, Water Resources, Water Rights, 

Oil, Gas and Mining, Sovereign Lands and Forestry and the Utah 

Geological Survey, which I mentioned. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am going to recognize myself for five more minutes and then I will go back through the panel for five more minutes, so we are even. Is that all right with everyone? 

Mr. VENTO. That is fine. 

Mr. HANSEN. While you have the mic there, Ted, the bill we are 

introducing, H.R. 1745, has been criticized by some for leaving out 

some areas because of conflicts with valuable natural resources. 

For example, the Kaiparowits Plateau where it is known to be one 

of the greatest reserves of coal in the world. Do you believe this is 

a legitimate complaint on the part of these folks? 

Mr. STEWART. I do not believe it is legitimate, Congressman, for 

this reason-! think the precedent was set on excluding areas with 

known extremely valuable mineral resources as early as 1963, 

when the bill that became the 1964 Wilderness Act was being debated on the floor of the Senate, the floor manager was Senator 

Frank Church of Idaho, perceived by many to be the father of wilderness, and I think rightfully so. And in the course of that debate, 

the issue was raised, what happens if we begin to designate areas 

of wilderness that have known valuable minerals. And Senator 

Church referred to the fact that he was excluding from the 1964 

Wilderness Bill-what became the 1964 Wilderness Bill, which designated over nine million acres as wilderness- roughly half a million acres in the Selway-Bitterroot National Forest because it was 

known to be valuable for minerals. 

I think what we have done with the Kaiparowits Plateau, besides 

the fact that the Kaiparowits Plateau is laced with roads and drill 

sites and former air strips and so on, I do not think it qualifies under that definition, but I think being known as one of the most 

valuable sources of coal in the entire country, if not the world, the 

precedence was set by the father of wilderness himself, Frank 

Church. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Commissioner Lewis, you represent a rather dry county of Washington County, Utah's dixie. As you know, this bill has also been 

criticized because of some of the provisions, for example, water pro-
26 

tection language in it. How important is that water protection to 

you and to Washington County? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think without the water protection language that 

you have in the bill, we would be limited in what we could do, 

probably restricted to the-you could probably buy a house there 

for very little in a number of years because people would have to 

move if they could not use those resources. The aquifer that lies 

under and to the north of St. George, Hurricane and those areas, 

is the Navajo Formation, which has a great deal of water in it, and 

part of that area of course are areas that need to be protected along 

there as well as other areas out of the Beaver Dam Wash Area, 

that water could be brought into the area from the Beaver Dam 

Wash without any pumps or anything else, and that also runs out 

of some of the wilderness areas. 

Mr. HANSEN. You would lose your reluctant support for it, that 

you have now, which I noticed is rather reluctant. 

Mr. LEWIS. Right. 

Mr. HANSEN. With that language out. 

Mr. LEWIS. I still get thirsty and I think others do too. 

Mr. HANSEN. Scott Hirschi, why is it necessary that this legislation conduct the exchange in the bill as opposed to setting up an 

exchange process as we did, as you may recall, for school trust 

lands-in-holding legislation in the 103rd Congress? 

Mr. HIRSCHI. Congressman, as you are aware, the in-holdings 

process continues. Valuation continues to be a problem and we 

have spent in the state literally millions of dollars trying to facilitate the proposed exchange in Public Law 93-103. 

In addition to that, I would like to point out the added value to 

the United States if these state school trust land in-holdings can 

be managed as wilderness at their outset. If there is a mixed management of the in-holdings for a number of years while we go 

through some sort of lengthy and costly process of trying to exchange administratively, the management and the purpose of wilderness designation will be greatly frustrated. The most practical, 

cost-efficient, time-effective approach would be to exchange the 

lands within the bill that designates the wilderness. That satisfies 

the purposes of wilderness and it also allows the beneficiaries, the 

school kids of Utah, to enjoy, to begin to enjoy, some financial support from these lands that have been promised to them for over 100 

years. 

Mr. HANSEN. Senator Blackham, you were born and raised in 

southern Utah, you are leadership in the Senate, you have a great 

understanding of it, you know this state backwards and forwards. 

Why can tourism not become the economy of rural Utah? 

Senator BLACKHAM. Well, I think it comes back to the sustainable economies that we have in rural Utah, and they are not based 

on tourism, and I do not think they can become, because of the seasonal nature. Winter here is extremely harsh and during the winter time the tourism industry drops off dramatically, especially related to wilderness that would be the case because the areas simply 

are not accessible to use. 

We have had some studies done as far as the taxation issue in 

the state of Utah, and the Congressman is right, that homes do not 

carry their whole burden of cost of services. But the basic indus-
27 

tries, they do, and in fact they make up the difference. So the basic 

industries have been the sustainable economy of Utah-agri- culture, mining and timber industries. They do supply the tax 

money to provide the services. And I think it has to be recognized 

that if we destroy the sustainability of these rural communities, 

the tax base is destroyed as well. And I think we have learned a 

lot of lessons in 50 years, 100 years here. We are managing things 

a lot better than we used to. In my little community 50 years ag~and that is where most of 

the sheep industry is based, in Sanpete County-they range on a 

lot of these BLM lands in the winter. In the summer time they go 

up on the Forest lands. Fifty years ago, they said you could sit in 

the valley floor and see every flock of sheep on the mountain because of the dust they would raise as they moved, because we were 

over-grazing the lands. Well, we have learned those lessons. There 

are not the abuses that went on in the past. That came from management and use of the public lands-there is not a conflict now. 

If we want to maintain sustainability of rural Utah, the natural 

resources on the public lands have to be a part of our economies. 

If they are not, we are simply going to dry up. I kid sometimes that 

we ought to just take everything south of Provo and declare it a 

wilderness and sell it to the Federal Government. That is how frustrated we get. Mr. HANSEN. There are a lot of people that would agree with 

that. 

Senator BLACKHAM. Well, that is the frustration level that we 

feel though as we see our natural resources pulled away from those 

base industries. Those base industries is what makes us sustainable. · Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Minnesota recognized for five minutes. Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, in the work I have done for 20 years in terms of land 

use questions, the decisions to be made for designation of wilderness or for a park are not based on economics--that is to say, that 

we are trying to promise that they are going to bring great economic benefit. In fact, very often, I think that that is sometimes 

the local chamber of commerce, they chime in, as in the case of Ely, 

Nevada, when we designated the Great Basin National Park-and 

as I understand it, most people in Utah think that is part of Utah, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I think there is a Commissioner sitting right 

there that gets more benefit out of it than anyone in Ely, if I may 

say so. 

Mr. VENTO. In any case, I think there is that promise. Obviously, 

the wilderness designation is made for many, many reasons, and 

coincidentally we hope that in the process of classifying lands, they 

are done optimally so that they provide for the preservation of 

what is important-the conservation and careful use of lands, and 

finally the remediation of what needs to be corrected. And you 

talked about that with regard to some of the changes in grazing 

practices. We are faced with a lot of new information-! mean one 

of the tasks of Congress is to try to translate new information and 

science. This is really a growing area in terms of trying to under93-582 0 - 95 - 2 
28 

stand these landscapes. And to try then to write new policies that 

are in agreement or in sync with the information that we have. 

That is really very hard because this is an area of very rapidly 

growing information. 

Now as far as the economy of ranches and farms, we see that 

across the west and across the country economies based on resources are not doing well. It is true in my state of Minnesota, it 

is true of many states surrounding Utah. Obviously the Federal 

Government plays a greater role here, but there are general problems. It is not our job to come here and tell you how you ought to 

deal with property tax or how you ought to deal with the bed and 

breakfast tax. If the grazing boards are spending their money on 

other things, Louise, I mean, that is something you ought to tak,e 

up with them. I have tried to take it up with them because we do 

not think they ought to spend it on lobbying Congress or giving it 

back to the permittees, you know. So I have some concerns about 

the direction that they go. 

But I think the other question I could talk about, we have this 

responsibility-well, you apparently accept jurisdiction from the 

Federal Government over what goes on in some of those parks and 

those lands. If you want joint jurisdiction in terms of these agreements, there can be some discussion about that, but I think that 

so often, I have witnessed a sort of an enunciation of a great deal 

of confrontation between the Federal Governments and the states. 

And the fact of the matter is we need to develop or there should 

be, and is I think in many instances, a lot more collaboration. 

Somehow we got into this sort of polarized points of view. 

Here I am, I am a strong environmentalist, have worked with 

these policies for many years and this is what my attitude is. I 

mean, I believe obviously in the public nature and natural interest 

of these lands, but I also try to understand and have tried to understand problems that are taking place at the ground level. But 

we have got a lot of different issues that I have to reconcile. 

One of the issues in this bill is the issue of water rights. Mr. 

Lewis was very concerned about that. We want to, and in every bill 

that we have established recently, try to point out that we take in 

a wilderness area, for setting it aside, a necessary amount of water 

to keep the land in the condition it is. Some of those are directly 

Federal water rights that exist on the public lands already. And 

any new water rights are junior to whatever rights exist and that 

is adjudicated in Mr. Stewart's shop, Mr. Lewis. I do not know 

what the problem is with that or how this bill departs from that, 

but it seems to me to suggest that there is no water rights that 

flow to the wilderness. That would indicate that basically an appropriation that would come about after the designation could in fact 

dewater these areas, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Congressman, most of the bills I presume that you 

have dealt with, have been Forest Service wilderness areas. There, 

the issue of reserved water rights is very different because those 

are the headwaters. And everybody wants a lot of the water flowing out of the forests, right? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, half of these lands even in the Hinchey bill are 

headwater lands-39 of the 84 areas are headwaters. 
29 

Mr. STEWART. We are concerned about those that are not. When 

you have, for example in the Emery County area, communities, 

power plants, ranches and everything else dependent upon the use 

of water above the areas that are being recommended for wilderness. And if there is a reserved water right, which would require the dewatering of them in order to establish a water right for the 

wilderness area, that is something that--

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me-l am getting advice here-! understand the lower areas, but I only point out it would be junior to 

anything that is already appropriated by the state, we would have 

to come to the state to establish that. That is the agreement. Unless there is a reserved water right that existed before that, that 

is prior, which has really nothing to do with the designation necessarily of a wilderness. But you would agree that most of the wilderness use is not the use of the water, it is an in-stream flow type 

use, so in other words, they are putting back and in fact the water 

quality would be improved by virtue of the activities on wilderness. 

At least we hope that is the case. I am thinking of some problems that could develop, but not with the quantity problem. It might be 

that there could be some human quality problems. But you understand what I am saying. So I think this is workable but I think 

your solution is to just bar any type of water right. I think that 

causes me a lot of problems. 

I also have, Mr. Chairman, problems with the conveyance of the 

lands without any appraisal with regard to state and the school 

trust lands. I understand and read what you said, Mr. Hirschi, but 

I mean that is a major, major problem in terms of H.R. 17 45. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, may I respond on the water rights issue? 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa yields to the 

gentleman from Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. VENTO. I think that he will yield to you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Will you yield to me? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. In answer to that question, on page 19 of the bill, 

it says ''The United States may acquire and exercise such water 

right as it deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities on any lands designated as wilderness by this Act pursuant to the sub- stantive and procedural requirements of the State of Utah." So I 

think that responds to that question that you had, Bruce, and I 

think it would take care of it, both for the State of Utah and the 

Federal Government. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I do not agree with going to the state if it is 

not a reserved Federal water right that already exists, going to the 

state and appropriating or acquiring it. With regard to the state I 

think it ought to be treated on an equal basis. That is the concern. 

Mr. Stewart, I think did want to respond I think if the gen- tleman will let him respond. Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa controls the 

time. 

Mr. STEWART. Congressman Hansen referred to the provision 

contained in the bill that I would have referred to. The fact is that 

if you want to create a water right within a wilderness area, what 
30 

we are simply stating by this bill is it cannot be done by the mechanism of a reserved water right which is apart from the state. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, you know, my point is that if the Federal Government already has a reserved water right, that should not be an 

issue here. 

Mr. STEWART. And it would notMr. VENTO. You are silent on that, that if it has it with regard 

to some lands-I do not want to say we have it, now we are going 

to come back to the state and buy back what the national land already owns. 

Mr. STEWART. All this bill says is that there will be no reserved 

water right created by the creation of wilderness by the bill. If 

there is a reserved water right in the forests above it, this does not 

affect that. Mr. VENTO. I think we have to make that clear. 

Mr. HANSEN. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I will yield. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think we have made that clear. What I just read 

to you goes on to say ''Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of eminent domain by the United States to acquire 

water rights for such lands." OK? To take care of both sides of this 

issue, as Ted pointed out, what we are concerned about in this bill 

and what we have seen happening, which we did not see in Forest 

Service wilderness, which we did-remember, we slugged that one 

out for four years-on this one, we are worried about the guy downstream, who has been depending on this for generations and 

has the right to use it. And all of a sudden somebody up above says 

no. So I think we covered it in this language. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that it would be 

a junior right, any new right would be a junior right that is created 

by the wilderness, so he could continue to work on that. I understood when I phrased this issue that it would be a complicated issue, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. It always is, water is a very heavy issue. Mr. VENTO. I thank Mr. Faleomavaega for yielding to me. He 

never worries about water because he is surrounded by it. 

Mr. HANSEN. You know, out here we do worry about water. What 

did Mark Twain say, "Whiskey is for drinking and water is for 

fighting." And I believe they really believe it out in this area. I 

know my first cousin was killed in a water thing in Ephraim, Utah 

years ago. Boy, if you want to see something tense, get into water 

law around this area. We feel very strong about that. 

The gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, the more we go on, Mr. Chairman, I am impressed by how much we have in common-that is New York and 

Utah. Because we are engaged in some pretty heavy battles over 

water right now in New York, and some of the most intense struggles that we have had in the State of New York go back to the 1905 

Water Act which set aside certain reservoirs for New York City. So 

there are a lot of similarities here which are more and more apparent to me, between the kinds of problems that we face in both of 

our states. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, of course. 
31 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would be glad to invite both of you, we 

have 200 inches of water every year. 

[Lau5hter.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. Send about half of that over this way and we 

would all be a little happier. 

I just wanted to underline the point that Mr. Vento was making, 

and of course both Mr. Vento and Mr. Hansen have much more experience with this issue than I do, but the point that I would want 

to make is that in my bill, the water rights that are mentioned 

there are as Mr. Vento indicated, they are junior water rights. That 

means, of course, that they do not affect any existing water rights 

whatsoever. All existing water rights have priority over any water 

rights that would be established for the wilderness areas. 

Furthermore, the water rights in the wilderness areas are nonconsumptive, rights for non-consumptive uses. In other words, the 

water is not used up, it just flows through. So if we are concerned 

about the water rights of downstream people, downstream from 

any wilderness area, the fact is that the quality of that water 

would, as Mr. Vento indicated, be enhanced by flowing through a 

wilderness area rather than flowing through some other area that 

might be engaged in some other activity. So these water rights in 

fact secure the water rights of people downstream, and furthermore 

ensure the value of those water rights of people downstream, while 

they are non-consumptive and they are secondary to any existing 

water right. 

Furthermore, the courts have held that land carries with it the 

rights to water, it is inherent in the land. And that is a pronouncement of the Federal court, it has been appealed and upheld. It has 

not gone to the Supreme Court, as far as I know, but it has been 

upheld at every level that it has been adjudicated at thus far. 

Mr. HANSEN. Did you want Mr. Stewart to respond? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I would invite it, yes. 

Mr. STEWART. If we want to engage in a discussion over water, 

Congressman, we will be here for a long time. I do not disagree 

with what you said about your bill. It is not those downstream 

from the areas that we are concerned about, it is those that are upstream who may lose their water out of a requirement that the 

water through the wilderness area be of a certain nature or quantity. That is what we are worried about. You have the forests, publicly used lands, towns, communities, ranchers, a wilderness area. 

If we have to have a certain amount of water flowing through that 

wilderness area, of some defined amount, defined ultimately perhaps by a court, we then end up running the risk of dewatering 

these people up here. And that is something that we simply could 

not abide by in the state of Utah. There are just too many areas 

that will be impacted by that. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I appreciate that, but I still believe that the 

language of the existing law and the language in this bill would secure the rights of those people that have existing water rights because it stipulates that these rights established here for the wilderness areas would be secondary to those rights already established. 

Mr. STEWART. It is a very complicated area. One thing I would 

point out is that there are people who have water rights that are 

not using them currently, but they may be holding them for the fu-
32 

ture in some instances. There are many nuances to this area of 

water law, Congressman, that again, we could spend the rest of the 

day debating. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I am sure. 

Mr. STEWART. I think we have analyzed this thing very carefully 

and feel quite confident that we have language in H.R. 17 45 that 

will provide a mechanism whereby the United States can, through 

a state water appropriations process, acquire rights if they think 

they need it, but on the other hand, we need to have ultimate protection for the people in the state of Utah in the use of their water. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield to me? Not on water 

rights, but to go back to Mr. Hirschi on the land exchange. The 

Chairman indicates we are going to conclude here in a few minutes-there are a couple of waivers in the bill with regard to defining. One of the concerns is can we not get a stream of revenue 

going in terms of the exchange and still do appraisals and still reconcile the other issues without necessarily stopping the flow of revenue from the school trust lands? 

Mr. HIRSCHI. I am sure that is possible, I am not sure it is desirable. You refer to doing an appraisal on these properties. Let me 

submit to you that if I had a piece of property in downtown Salt 

Lake and you were interested in buying it, we would both be interested in what a professional appraiser would have to say about 

that property, because there is a market, there are comparables, 

property is bought and sold every day in those kinds of settings. 

These are unique lands, very unique, very scarce and many of 

their qualities and their worth are difficult to quantify from a 

standard appraisal basis. If I may, let me relate very quickly a personal experience that I several years ago had in trying to bring together a viable piece of commercial property. It was divided into a 

number of pieces of various uses, both commercial and residential 

in nature. A<?. this property was assembled, we finally got down to 

the last property which was a very small piece located pretty well 

in the center of the larger piece. There was one very small older, 

rundown home , with a single mother with two very young children 

in it. When she was approached, her response was I am really not 

interested in what the appraised value of this property is-which, 

by the way was $15,000-what I am interested in is a place to live. 

I own this home. If you want me to move, I need a home to live 

in. So buy me a home and I will exchange with you. That home 

cost $50,000. The property, the appraiser said was worth 15. The 

fact is there was a certain utility that warranted paying that kind 

of money for that piece of property because of its location, because 

of its unique nature. 

Congressman, I would submit to you that is the case in the trust 

lands. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are some differences here 

in the nature of the lands, but obviously I think there still are appraisal methods that we need to use. I think you put a very tough 

task on the shoulders of your delegation, trying to get them to deal 

with this without some reference point. I can understand the need 

for the revenue flow, but I think that would be a very difficult 

thing to act on, especially given the circumstances surrounding 

this. We worked some pretty complex land exchanges, Mr .. Chair-
33 

man, last year and we worked that out. It was based on appraisals 

and disparate type of lands that were involved. I also want to mention, Mr. Chairman, the issue with regard to 

PILT payments. Of course, Ms. Liston, the concern there was of 

course that some areas get significant amounts of revenues back 

from other sources, so if we lined up the 12 or 15 sources of revenue that come back to the counties and the states for various minerals and so forth, the idea would be to take those counties that 

do not produce those revenues, as in the case of maybe Garfield 

County, and to give them more under PILT and give those that are 

getting back more for mineral receipts less, so that we could deal 

with the types of disparities you talked about. But that good positive note came too late in the process to be positively considered. 

Mr. HANSEN. You may recall though that it did come up and we 

did discuss it and we tried to figure out a formula by which to do 

that. In the state of Utah, we have the same problem in schools. 

When I was Speaker of the Utah House, as the Senator can tell 

you, we have what we call a voted leeway to take care of some of 

those problems. Maybe we will have to think of some way to come 

up with something like that on payment in lieu of taxes, which is 

really still a very important part of it. 

We appreciate the panel-very stimulating, good responses from 

each one of you. We thank you so very much for being here. 

The Committee is going to stand adjourned-not adjourned, but 

in recess for one half hour for a lunch break and we should come 

back about 13 minutes to one and we will start up again. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., a luncheon recess was taken, the 

hearing to resume at 12:47 p.m.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will come to order. 

Our next panel is composed of Ron Thompson, Washington County Water Conservancy District in St. George, Utah; A.C. Ekker, 

Hanksville, Utah; Jim Peacock, Executive Director of the Utah Petroleum Association and Dennis Iverson from Washington, Utah. 

Ron is not here yet, so Mr. Ekker, we will start with you. 

Now the same rules apply; the light will go on and that means 

you have got five minutes. You will see the yellow light telling you 

to wind up and the red light to stop. If you have to go longer than 

that, let me know and I will give you the time. Mr. Ekker, the floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF A.C. EKKER, HANKSVILLE, UTAH 

Mr. EKKER. Thank you. It is an honor to speak to such a prestigious subcommittee regarding H.R. 1745. 

In 1909 my grandfather homesteaded what was to become known 

as the Robbers Roost Ranch in eastern Wayne County, Utah. The 

ranch took its name from the hideout used by the outlaws Butch 

Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I was born and raised on this ranch 

and I still live there today. 

In those days, most of the area was truly wilderness. Today, very 

little of the land conforms to the legal definition of wilderness, but 

yet Horseshoe Canyon South, French Spring-Happy Canyon and 

the Dirty Devil are proposed for wilderness designation. What happened over the years? I remember as a child my mother crying as 
34 

the uranium miners and oil diggers came and built roads, drilled 

dry holes, tunneled in the cliffs and left their trash dumps everywhere as they explored for uranium, oil and gas. We watched helplessly as our beautiful home was scarred forever by bulldozers, drill 

rigs and man's blatant disregard for the delicate landscape. But yet 

today, we call it wilderness. It is reassuring to know that even 

without wilderness designation, the vast devastation of these beautiful areas will never happen again because of legislation enacted 

over the last 40 years. 

I used to be opposed to any wilderness designation. As I have 

read and reread H.R. 17 45, I have changed my mind. I urge you 

to pass it because it will further protect the land that all of us, socalled environmentalists and ranchers alike, love and respect. This 

bill can do it in a balanced way that will preserve the western way 

of life that is so important to our heritage and our local rural 

economies in the west. 

Let me explain briefly how important the balance in the bill is. 

Eighty years ago, my grandparents were granted private title to 

the water rights on our grazing allotment. Our permit is based on 

the fact that we own these rights and we are required by the Bureau of Land Management to maintain these base water rights and 

improvements, or they will cancel our grazing permit. These tiny 

springs provide water for our horses and cattle and they literally 

mean the difference between life and death for deer, antelope, wild 

burros desert bighorn sheep and many smaller species of wildlife. 

Recreationists also use the water from these springs we have developed and maintain. We must have the right to maintain and replace our structures and the trails to them or livestock, wildlife and 

recreationists will suffer. We must also have the right to repair and 

replace when necessary our fences, corrals and other improvements 

to responsibly manage the public range. H.R. 17 45 provides adequate guarantees. I will give specific examples of why it is so important that these guarantees be included in this bill. 

In the winter of 1959 and 1960, a road was built through Goat 

Park to the Red Nubs. It was open to the public and is shown on 

USGS maps. Under Utah as well as Federal law, there is no question that this road qualifies as a county right-of-way under R.S. 

2477. In 1990, the county graded the road and was immediately 

trespassed by the BLM who insisted the county rehabilitate the 

road. The BLM then closed the road and it remains closed today. The BLM continues to deny me access to repair and maintain 

our improvements at Trail Spring, Middle Spring, Outlaw Spring 

and Blue John Spring because they are within a WSA. The BLM 

has repeatedly refused to allow me to repair the coyote drift fence 

and construct an additional fence. These fences, provided for in the 

1968 allotment management plan, will facilitate better control of 

our cattle and improve the range for livestock and wildlife. Their 

refusal is based on a very small portion of the fences being in a 

WSA. 

In 1992, the BLM refused to allow me to construct three small 

rainwater catchment reservoirs outside of a wilderness study area 

because, "They can be seen from the WSA." Here is a clear case 

of a buffer zone being imposed around a WSA, even though BLM's 

own regulations prohibit buffer zones around formally designated 
35 

wilderness, much less WSAs. As I read the interim management 

policy of the BLM, all these things should be permitted. I am willing to go to the trouble and expense to improve the range for my 

cattle and wildlife, but am being prevented from doing so. 

The point I am making is that the guarantees in the bill for access and maintenance of improvements are absolutely essential, 

not only to livestock operations, but also to wildlife and the public. 

Specifically, the guidelines laid out for the Forest Service in 1980, 

which are included by reference in Section (c)(2) of this bill, are 

very good. 

Since it is evident that the grazing is being administered much 

differently in and near WSAs, we must have strong language preventing buffer zones and including the other guarantees in the bill. 

The stability of the livestock industry in the west is continually 

threatened by such actions as rangeland reform 1994, the Endangered Species Act, attempts to raise grazing fees unreasonably, 

vast wilderness designation and many others. This bill, in conjunction with Senate Bill 852, will help provide much needed stability 

by providing a balance of wilderness designation, elimination of 

buffer zones, access guarantees and the return to multiple use, 

lands not designated as wilderness. 

I will be happy to answer your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Ekker may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Ekker, we appreciate your testimony. We will take all the statements and then go to questions. 

Mr. Thompson. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD W. THOMPSON, WASHINGTON 

COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, ST. GEORGE, UTAH 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressmen, I 

apologize for being late. You do run a tight ship. 

I support H.R. 1745 as a consensus proposal. This bill represents 

a balanced proposal for protection of wilderness and to allow productive use of the land to go forward under multiple use management by the BLM on the remainder of the public lands. 

Acreage alone should not be the criteria in this wilderness debate. The criteria should be solitude and outstanding opportunities 

for unconfined outdoor recreation. I believe the areas included for 

wilderness in H.R. 17 45 generally meet this criteria. Extending the 

wilderness beyond the boundaries found suitable by BLM in its wilderness reports, as has been suggested by some, would require the 

use of much lower and invalid standards. 

It is absolutely essential that no reserved Federal water right be 

associated with the designation of wilderness. And in this regard, 

I fully support and endorse Section 4 as now written in the Act. 

As many of you know, Utah is the second driest state in the nation. I happen to come from the county that is the driest county 

within that state. Some say that it is so dry in Washington County 

that even our desert tortoises pack canteens. And water becomes 

critically important as to what happens. We have many million 

visitors a year that come and our concern certainly in the water 

areas is providing a sufficient quality and quantity of water to 

meet the needs of those who live there and those who come to visit. 

And while I support the inclusion of Parunuweap as it is, if I really 
36 

had my way, Parunuweap would not be included within this bill. 

I think that the water resources of the Parunuweap wilderness 

area far outweigh the wilderness benefits proposed in the bill. But 

I think in the spirit of compromise, that we would go along with 

what is in the bill. 

I think there are several areas that there might ought to be some 

minor changes or I would suggest some changes. 

I certainly think that the management plans need to make sure 

as we deal with wilderness areas that they are coordinated with 

other Federal, local and state agencies in the management of these 

lands and surrounding lands. I think that the words ought to be 

added, "the management" dealing with buffer areas around wilderness areas, so it is clear that there is not intended buffer zones. 

I am very concerned about the setback language on page 17, line 

10. I think the current language will simply ultimately lead to conflict and polarization as we attempt to define the specific standards 

that a road is currently meeting, and would suggest a 500 foot setback. I think it is very difficult, if we are really after the wilderness experience, to think you are going to get that within the first 

500 feet. And that would eliminate much of the polarization and 

confrontation we find over roads. 

I also believe that there should be language that prohibits the 

Secretary, by de facto no maintenance, of closing roads. I would 

suggest that as he makes those decisions or there are decisions 

that would affect wilderness and roads that service those wilderness areas, that he has to publish some notice with the reasons for 

it. 

I also believe on page 18, line 18, that we ought to add "for water 

conservation and protection measures" so that section would be 

amended to read, "may be operated, maintained, repaired, modified, replaced as necessary to maintain serviceable conditions and 

for water conservation protection." 

I do not believe also that for ordinary and routine maintenance 

that is customary there should be any requirement for a pennit. I 

am concerned that if we require a permit from the Federal Government, what often happens is that those whcr-many will appeal and 

insert themselves within these issues, seeking influence over decisions where they have no responsibility for the decisions that are 

ultimately made. · Mr. HANSEN. May I interrupt? Where are you referring to the 

pennit part? 

Mr. THOMPSON. The pennit I think ought to be-well, I am just suggesting in Section (3)(h)(3)(i)(2), that we make sure that there 

is not a requirement-that we prohibit the requirement of the Federal pennit. That is page 18, line 18. My concern candidly there is 

that I find even without this language, many of the water compa- nies in our area that are interfacing with Federal agencies in routine and ordinary maintenance and safety changes that are required as we evolve, dealing with safety and public enhancement, 

are requiring significant Federal pennits that not only delay but 

insert in the appeal process many who have no stake in the outcome or responsibility for the outcome. I think those decisions 

ought to be left to the professional managers who have to deal with 
37 

those projects, the professional managers of the land, without the 

requirement of a separate permit. 

I would suggest on pages 23 and 24 that there is also an insertion that "material site borrow areas" would be included within 

that language. 

I think the hard release language that is in the bill, or the release language on page 26, lines 2 and 3 ought to include that 

those lands, because they have been studied for wilderness does not 

automatically make them subject to wild and scenic river designation. 

I also think on page 27, lines 20 through 22, that there should 

be specific language that protects prior valid existing right, particular unrecorded grants for R.S. 24 77 roads and for ditches and canals under the mining law of July 26, 1866. 

And I may not be reading this correctly, but on page 29, dealing 

in Section 11 with the Federal land exchanges, I have a concern 

that this appears to me to be an all or nothing type of land exchange. And I think there needs to be some flexibility built into 

this section, as we look at ll(d)(2) and Section (c)(1) and (2). I 

think we need to leave some flexibility both to the state and to the 

Secretary to make this land exchange work. And maybe the intent 

is not to make that an all or nothing land exchange. I happen to 

read it that way. 

Perhaps in a broader sense, I commend I think the delegation 

and the state and the counties for the process we went through. I 

would say I think generally as I have watched the BLM over a lot 

of years, as they put their own proposal together, I hear some say 

well, they left out a lot of land. And I have personally gone over 

much of that land and I would submit that when they had an opportunity to include versus exclude, they almost every time included. Much of the conflict and debate we had over the past 10 

or 15 years is because there was inclusions of land in wilderness 

study areas that frankly sho'..lld never have been included. To go 

out and say there is another two million plus acres that they did 

not study and bring in, looking at the time and the effort and the 

money, I would say is not correct. And that if anything, the 3.2 million still in the study area has created much of the confrontation 

that has been dealt with today because of the inability at that time 

to look at the resources and the balancing of resources and bringing wilderness areas right into the middle of cities and towns and 

the immediate edge of graded roads, and those kind of conflicts 

have really created the polarization you see here today. Had there 

been the setbacks, had there been the valuation of resources, had 

we not included-for example, we have a city in our area who has 

had to shut down one of their main wells because it is included 

within a wilderness study area. I have a big problem with that. I 

think that we need to be very careful as we are balancing resources. 

While I think wilderness is important, I think there are other resources that are equally as important, one of which is, certainly in 

the west, water. Some of you who come from the lands of thousands of lakes and other places, water may be more of a nuisance 

than it is to those of us here in the west. While I appreciate that, 
38 

I think you need to know that our concern is to strike a reasonable 

balance and I think we believe this bill does that. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson may be found at end of hear·· 

ing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Jim Peacock. 

STATEMENT OF JIM PEACOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH 

PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PEACOCK. Mr. Chairman, honored members of the Commit·· 

tee, I am here in the capacity of representing the extractive indus·· 

tries of the state, primarily oil and gas today. Tomorrow, you will 

hear from the Utah Mining Association and receive their written 

testimony. I am carrying their message because it virtually par·· allels that which I would have to say. 

We, as an industry, an oil and gas industry, have followed this 

debate for the 15 rancorous years that it has been around, and we 

have a significant interest and stake in the deliberations that you. 

and the Congress will now decide. We think it is absolutely impera·· 

tive that you get at the business of resolution, of finalizing this. More debate, more study is not necessary. The science is known,, the investigations have been made. Now it is a political decision. We hope that you will get it done. If I could direct your attention over to the map over on this side,, 

the old adage "you pick the cherries where the cherries is" is cer·· 

tainly true for oil and gas and minerals. They are locatable min·· 

erals. And if you start at the top end of Utah, about where the jog 

for Wyoming and come slightly on a southwesterly line down the 

spine of the Wasatch Mountains, everything lying to the east is 

where all of the oil and gas and virtually all of the coal and much 

of the minerals of this state is found. So therefore, we have sort 

of a collision course, I suppose on the fact that this happens to be 

the same areas being considered for most of the wilderness areas, 

with the exception of the west desert and there are certainly some 

valuable metals and minerals there also. The point being is that we 

believe that there is a way, it does not have to be an either/or situ .. ation. We just simply believe that you can have protected careful. 

extraction without overly damaging or severely impacting lands for 

the future. Minerals and energy sources that are so essential can 

be carefully extracted without environmental impact. 

I have about three points that I would like to make concerning 

the bill. We have measured H.R. 1745 against the criteria, Mr. Chairman, that we presented back when you had the hearings with 

the counties in the various locales. For the most part, we feel that 

H.R. 17 45 is a supportable bill. But we have some notable concerns 

that we would like to bring to you, and I will elucidate on those. The first one is acreage. I believe we have been so caught up in 

this acreage debate that we have lost sight of the true intent of the 

wilderness designation. Each of you gentlemen have talked about 

that and I believe that the rallying cries of a certain number of 

acres have precluded a thorough decisionmaking on that. We be .. lieve that the 1.8 million, while it is in our view excessive from the 

standpoint that it would not qualify all of the acres under the 1964 
39 

Act, it is livable. What is more important-and we can certify and 

testify to you-is the release for multiple use of not only the 3.2 

million acre BLM study, but that which has been nominated in 

Congress, the citizens bills, are also receiving special attention and 

special care. Whether it is de facto wilderness management or not, 

that would be up to an opinion. We believe that land needs to be 

released just as much as the 1.8 million acres, or whatever you compromise on, needs wilderness protection. 

The other area is-Congressman Hinchey, may I just make a little bit of a math statement? Your bill contains 5.7 million recommended acres. Utah has about 54 million acres total, that is fee 

land, government land, state land, school lands, everything. So 

yours is a little over 10 percent of the entire acreage of the state 

of Utah. BLM has about 22 million acres, your bill is about 26 percent of that land. 

Mr. HINCHEY. That is correct. Mr. PEACOCK. So that gives you a little perspective on that. I will 

hurry through. 

The buffer zone language, it has been alluded to on Section 3(e), 

page 16, this language is the identical boiler plate language that 

has been used in literally scores of other wilderness bills, and 

frankly, gentlemen, it has not precluded the establishment of buffer 

zones. We believe that you need to be very, very explicit that the 

management of buffer zones shall not be held as management above that which is held for others. If you keep holding that in for 

a higher level of management, it is a buffer zone in every respect. And if it looks like a rose and smells like a rose, it is going to be 

a rose buffer zone. 

The other is the roads and the right of ways. The gentlemen from 

the counties earlier have said it, we have specific problems with 

these roads. They have been identified by counties as 2477 roads. 

Out near Desolation Canyon we have a natural gas pipeline that 

goes along one of these roads. There are people in the audience 

with a great concern for the natural gas pipeline. The road marking the WSA boundary meanders right along and criss cross the 

right of way for that pipeline. We believe there has to be some very careful protective language. Whether it is 100 foot, whether it is 

grandfathering, as Mr. Vento said, these existing rights and keep- ing them literally sacred so that that can continue, we certainly feel that has to be accounted for. 

We think you are giving the Secretary far too much latitude and 

far too much power, to just by his determination close roads on his 

statement that it is a public safety requirement. We believe you 

should be very specific in the reasons that you give the Secretary of Interior the right to just unilaterally make those closures. 

The release language, if it is enforced the way it is written, 

would be satisfactory. Unfortunately we believe that the history shows that with release language, the intent many times is to-as 

was stated here earlier-designate the 1.8 million acres and then 

to keep the rest of the nominated acreage in a special protective 

management style looking toward a future designation or some 

other future type of protection. We believe that would be wrong. Designate what you want to designate and then release the rest. 
40 

We believe that this delegation, the Utah delegation, the counties, have done a thorough job. We are not overly happy about the 

acreage, but we believe it is far more important that you get this 

job done and stop this rancorous, divisive contention that has been 

going on, and more study and more hearings and more discussion 

will do nothing but to exacerbate that. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Peacock may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Peacock. 

Mr. Dennis Iverson. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS IVERSON, WASHINGTON, UfAH 

Mr. IVERSON Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. 

I have a grazing allotment which includes the Pine Valley Moun- tain Wilderness area on the Dixie National Forest in Washington 

County, Utah. 

Mr. HANSEN. Can you hear Mr. Iverson? 

VOICES. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. Get that as close to your mouth as you can, I would 

appreciate it. 

Mr. IVERSON I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1745. 

I am here representing the Utah Farm Bureau, the Utah Cattlemen and the Utah Woolgrowers. I think that my experience trying 

to graze on a wilderness area will be helpful to you as you draft 

this legislation. 

The Pine Valley Wilderness is about 50,000 acres and was created by the Wilderness Act of 1984. We ran 999 cattle on our allotment until the current gazing season where we have been reduced 

to 786 head. The allotment comprises about 17,000 acres, including 

3000 acres of the wilderness. My family has ran cattle there for 

about 100 years. 

During the wilderness hearings in 1984, I and the other ranchers 

who participate in this allotment were assured that the designation 

of wilderness would have no impact on our ability to use this allotment. The first year following the designation as wilderness, however, 

we were asked or instructed by the Forest Service to only allow 

those cattle that voluntarily drifted into the wilderness area to 

graze that area. In previous years, we had moved the cattle into 

this area to equalize and use the range and make the most efficient 

use of the forage. Clearly this restriction had an adverse impact on 

our operation, as well as on the range, in that portion of the allotment which we were allowed to graze. It received heavier use than 

it would have had we been able to use the allotment according to 

the management plan. 

The next year, which was the second year after wilderness designation, we were instructed to not allow any cattle into the wilderness area. We were a little concerned about this and when we inquired why that needed to be, we were informed that the wilderness area needed to be rested. This did not seem quite right to us 

inasmuch as we had only allowed cattle to drift into there the year 

previous. It was difficult for us to understand why that area in the 

wilderness needed to be rested when it had less use. It was even 
41 

more difficult to understand why if one portion needed rest, the remaining part of the pasture, which had the wilderness in it, which 

was virtually identical could sustain double the utilization rather 

than the wilderness could. 

Let me say here that I and the other ranchers are proud of the 

condition of our allotment. We feel we have done a heck of a job 

of protecting the resource on our allotment. We have had Dr. Jim 

Bowns, a nationally recognized range expert, look at our allotment 

and he agrees. It bothers us to have the Forest Service direct us 

to graze in a way that could hurt the range resource. We felt that 

they were directing us to violate their own range management 

guidelines, or to try to eliminate grazing on the wilderness. 

By the third grazing season, it was apparent to us that we were 

going to have problems grazing on the wilderness, so we contacted 

our representatives who had conducted the hearings previous to 

the wilderness designation. Apparently they had some impact on 

the Forest Service because since then we have not been asked to 

completely withdraw our cattle from that wilderness area, but we 

do continue to have pressure to reduce the grazing that goes on 

there. Our working relationship with the Forest Service has deteriorated considerably and since that time, two of the families, because of the working relationship we have, have sold their grazing 

permits on that allotment. 

In 1990, the Forest Service proposed a 20 percent reduction in 

the number of animals we could graze in our allotment. It was 

clear to us that the range was not deteriorated and was in fact in 

very good condition. So we asked for help from the Utah Department of Agriculture for a Section 8 consultation. The Department 

of Agriculture assigned Dr. Bowns to survey the range and I have 

attached a letter where he says that reduction was not justified on 

the basis of range condition. 

This past grazing season, the Forest Service imposed not a 20 

percent reduction, but a 21.3 percent reduction, which meant an 

additional five animals reduced on my grazing permit over the 

original proposed. The Forest Service was not very cooperative in 

this process and we and outside experts were convinced that the 

reduction was not imposed because of range condition. We can only 

assume, based on their previous attempts to prevent us from grazing the wilderness that this is an attempt to remove us from there. 

Specifically on the bill, I think that the provisions protecting access and maintenance to range improvements is absolutely essential. In preparing this testimony, I was particularly interested to 

actually read the guidelines from the House Report 96-1126, referred to in Section 3(c)(2). This is the first time I have seen them 

even though I note that the Committee report states on page 22 

that "It is the intention of the conferees that the guidelines and 

policies be considered in the overall context of the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 and this Act, and that they be promptly, fully and diligently implemented and made available to Forest Service personnel 

at all levels and to all holders of permits for grazing in National 

Forest Wilderness areas." 

These guidelines are excellent and would have solved some of the 

problems we encountered, if we had known they existed. I would 
42 

urge you to make the language requiring that all permittees be informed of these guidelines absolutely clear. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The attachments to statement of Mr. Iverson may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Iverson. 

The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Iverson, for your testimony. I note 

on the letter attached from the Southern Utah State College that 

the first paragraph points out to you, it says "My general impression has been, and remains the same, that the Pine Valley Mountains are not particularly productive of vegetation." That is to say, 

it is not a tremendously productive-! mean like many of the 

lands--

Mr. IVERSON I can tell you it is not like Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. It is not like Minnesota. Not many places are, but 

in any case, those cows do not walk very well on the water either, 

only in the winter. 

But the point is that these are dry areas, so they are sensitive 

areas. It is possible that the Forest Service tends to have different 

guidelines than the BLM with regard to grazing. I have had the 

opportunity to see a lot of the grazing areas in Utah. Actually my 

friend and colleague here helped me with that project, to get an 

idea of it. Some of them are hot desert areas. In your area, I do 

not know that that is the case. This is a pretty big allotment that 

you have here. 

The point is that as policies change, whether or not they are 

changing policies specifically because it is wilderness or because of 

the sensitivity of the area, I do not know. I suppose that area was 

one of the better parts of your grazing allotment, is that correct? 

Mr. IVERSON The mountain pasture-a good part of our allotment is-it is an area that is grazed after the first of August. We 

do have seedings that are at lower elevations. This is the highest 

elevation of our allotment. 

Mr. VENTO. But that changed the value of your AUM, so your 

cost was reflected in that I assume. 

Mr. IVERSON Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. It was. So nobody was taking anything from you, in 

a sense, but it was key to your business. 

Mr. IVERSON That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. That is your concern. Well, I hear you. 

Mr. Peacock, you mentioned the issue with regard to the roads, 

the 2477 which obviously should be the subject of another venue. 

One of the problems I have with my colleague's bill is that he gets 

into these issues. One of the problems with R.S. 2477 is there has 

not been documentation. So when I said I would like to bring a resolution, one of the things that needs to be done is there has to be 

a documentation of what the claims are before we can begin to resolve that. You understand my problem? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. VENTO. And so I did not want that to say well, you know, 

Vento is for something good here, because the truth of the matter 

is that there is plenty of controversy lying behind that recordation, 

as we call it, of those types of roads. And that in essence is the 
43 

problem. You can look at some of them and they look like they 

have been used a great deal and there is no recordation or ownership of it. And another road looks like there is no road there at all 

and there is a recordation of it. 

You do not know what the case is with this gas pipeline, this 

intermixed gas pipeline on this one road you were talking about, 

whether it has been--

Mr. PEACOCK. I know that road is one of the ones that would be 

in question with a 100 foot setback that you called for upgraded 

logging and other type roads, that language that is in there. Certainly we would want to make sure that roads that are used to 

service a pipeline, for example, in that area was open, was maintained, and was not closed because it bordered a wilderness area. 

The way I understand the language is that it almost leaves out, 

Chairman Hansen, the less used roads-they are not all upgraded 

logging roads. These roads that are bordering wilderness areas are 

roads that are used by many industries and by many people and 

by many recreationists. 

Mr. VENTO. I believe what you are pointing out is the good effort 

he made to try to solve the problem for you in a wilderness, which 

causes me some heartburn to be certain, you know, we have still 

got this recordation issue before us and we are going to have to 

somehow, and I know it is very contentious here, probably because 

of my initiatives in terms of policies, you know, but I think it still 

points out the problem is not resolved. So I wanted to highlight 

that. 

Mr. Thompson, one of the points you are making was with regard 

to the land exchanges, and you suggested that they were not-you 

know, that it left open too many loose ends. And one of the provisions in that section that you quoted pointed out that if a valuation 

was made as to existing rights, valid and existing rights, and if 

there was a determination made that the state had in fact-that 

Federal existing and valid claims were greater, that is to say that 

that would augment or limit the use of the land by the state, that 

the Federal Government would pay in terms of the lands that were 

exchanged. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. This is just one little aspect, but the reverse is not 

true. Do you think the reverse should be true, that if the state 

lands are limited by certain uses, and valid and existing claims are 

greater than what the cost is, that the state should pay? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I have always believed that what is good for the 

goose is good for the gander. 

Mr. VENTO. You believe in parity here with regards to this provision. Well, maybe there is a basis for that. I expect the issue is that 

the state does not have as many loose or undefined types of claims 

made against its lands. Maybe they have been more diligent in extinguishing these 1866 laws and 1873 laws, these 19th century 

laws that are outstanding. But I think these are some of the concerns we have as we go through with regard to the amounts, and 

I paid, Mr. Peacock, special attention to your concerns about 

whether or not we want to do more study. I suppose that one might 

argue that we studied three million but maybe we would like to 

look at some of the others as we review this. Mr. Thompson, I did 
44 

note your comments. My initial opening remarks were to the point that we may not have studied the right lands, that that is an ongo- ing debate. There may be lands we did not study, but the three 

million has been studied and there is a case here for release back 

into the conventional BLM planning process. 

My time has expired, but I wanted to make those observations 

vis-a-vis the testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Peacock, I note in your testimony you indicate that most of 

the proposed wilderness area and the provisions of the bill that 

were not considered in I think Mr. Hinchey's bill, indicate that this 

is where a lot of the potential for mineral resources and would 

have a direct impact on those who are involved with the petroleum, oil and gas industry. Is that a proven fact? Is this a proven-- Mr. PEACOCK. The existing oil fields primarily now are in five 

counties. The largest producer is San Juan County down in the 

very southeast corner. Then you have Duchesne, Uintah, you have 

Summit and you have Grand and Carbon. There are small amounts 

in those latter. Garfield County is a production area. All of them 

lie basically in this south and eastern tier with the exception of the 

very northern end up there. So do the minerals, virtually all of the 

coal. You are, I think, familiar with the Carbon, Emery and certainly the Sevier areas and now the potential for a lot down in Garfield and Kane and the Kaiparowits area. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. I am pleading ignorance here-you do 

drill for oil and gas here in the State of Utah? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, Utah is the tenth ranked state in the produc- tion of oil and gas. While it has been declining, we have about 21 

million barrels of production. We have rather abundant natural gas production. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. 

Mr. Thompson, I know you are an expert on water rights, so I 

wanted to ask you this question. St. George has one of the most 

extensive resort developments there, do they not, golf courses and 

all? 

Mr. THOMPSON. We have several golf courses, that is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many golf courses do you have? 

[Laughter and ap~lause.) 

Mr. THOMPSON. We currently have seven and a couple more 

under construction. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think there is some plan for 50 or more'? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I am not aware of 50, but I should indicate 

that many of those golf courses are using reuse water, the new 

ones are being planned and many are using water that is not pota- ble for any other use. We happen to have some water quality issues 

in our area that are probably unique and that water is being used. 

We are not using water we could drink on our golf courses fortunately. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was just trying to get my thinking straight 

here. Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. 
45 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You feel that the provisions of the bill, H.R. 

1745, the language is sufficient to protect the interests that you have indicated about the water? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. 

I do not have any questions, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. Thompson, I was particularly interested in something I 

thought I heard you say, that the so-called areas to be designated 

as wilderness frequently run right up against cities and right into 

urban areas and conflict with other activities that are going on. Is 

that what you were saying? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. I finnly believe that much of the po- larization that has occurred, occurred back when we designated wilderness study areas. For example, in the town of Hildale, the 

wilderness study area comes right to the edge of the road of Utah 

Avenue, which is the main street of the town of Hildale. Much of 

the conflicts we have has been in the Bert Trail deal with bringing the wilderness study area to the benn of the road, whatever that 

means. And I think you can find that almost universally throughout this, that had there been a 100 or 200 or 300 foot setback from 

these roads or from water areas-for example, again, Hildale has 

the same problem where it drops back down over water facilities, the wilderness study area, many of these conflicts that have polar- ized our communities would not have existed. 

And what happened, in my view, was that in an effort to make 

sure they were inclusive in the wilderness study areas, instead of 

erring on the side of well, there is development of the resources so 

we will leave it out, they made a decision well, we will put it in 

and then through the more complex study, it will come out. And 

that had led to a tremendous amount of conflict and polarization. Mr. HINCHEY. Are these towns built on public lands? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, all the towns are built adjacent or immediately adjacent to public lands and many of our roads and access 

cross public lands. If you look at the map, you will see that the private land is interspersed among vast tracts of public lands. So all 

of the corridors and most of your water development and your interface of infrastructure is occurring between private and public lands. That is where your conflicts are occurring. Mr. HINCHEY. In the case of the designation in either of the two 

bills though, I do not think that the designated areas run into conflict with settled communities. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, that is not necessarily true. For example, this bill does not include, but Cottonwood was a wilderness study 

area. It happens to be--

Mr. HINCHEY. I am talking about not the study areas, but I am 

talking about the areas that would be designated as wilderness. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. Well, for example, the Parunuweap area, which is a concern, is also a red sandstone area that is a very heavy aquifer, both vital to Kane and Washington Counties in 

tenns of long-term development. It also happens, in our view, to be 

interlaced with what we would call roads and BLM calls ways, but 
46 

the current bill tries to realize there are some wilderness characteristics there, but allow some margin of development. My view is 

ultimately that is an area there will be a lot of conflict over, given 

our current language, and I would prefer, frankly to see it out. But 

I think generally, at least in Washington County, I feel like we 

have resolved adequately those resource issues. We have tried to 

make identified boundaries of the wilderness areas that people can 

identify and understand so they know it is not the south 40, a line, 

but it is rather the top of a cliff or the bottom of a cliff or something where people can identify clearly what that area is going to 

be on a map. But in our area, across the board, because of the 

Water Act and the importance of the underground aquifer, there 

has been a lot of concern on how we deal with access to the aquifer 

in the wilderness designation. 

Mr. HINCHEY. You say what we call roads, my examination of 

these leads me to believe that sometimes roads are like beauty, 

they are in the eye of the beholder. People will see what they want 

to see. I looked at a number of places where there are alleged roads 

or alleged airstrips, and frankly it is hard to see any indication of 

anything that would qualify as a road, it certainly is not anything 

that anybody could traverse over in most cases. And what is left 

of what might have been a place where a couple of planes landed 

for a mining purpose at some point some years ago, that is virtually gone and nature has come back and almost completely recaptured that area. So it seems that there is some reaching going on 

here and that areas that are being contested are being contested 

on the grounds that perhaps someone drove over them at one point 

or someone landed a plane there. But when you look at it, there 

is no indication of that activity really taking place. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think there may be a few isolated instances of 

that, but generally I do not think-! think that most of us would 

go out and agree these are roads or they are not roads. There 

would be some on the extremes who would argue both sides of that, 

but I think generally we could come to a consensus. I am not talking about two tracks that go across a wash and you cannot get a 

vehicle across, or someplace where someone landed a plane once or 

twice. Those are not the areas of conflict that have caused the polarization. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, there are areas that have been pointed out 

to me. Maybe not in your experien5!e or you are not contesting 

them, but I think there have been cases where others have. 

Mr. Peacock, your point about the amount of land that is involved here I think is very important. There was a study that was 

commissioned recently by Representative Don Young, who chairs 

this Committee, and it indicated that 23 percent or 115 million 

acres of 459 million acres of public lands nationally are in setasides for conservation purposes. So nationally it is about 23 percent, and what my bill would do, would be in effect, as you indicated, to set aside approximately one-fourth of the public lands in 

the state of Utah, 25.9 percent, 5. 7 million acres, out of 22 million 

acres, leaving nearly 75 percent of the public lands available for 

other multiple uses. So it is not that this is something that is overreaching or outrageous. It is simply setting aside a small percentage, a relatively small percentage, not of all the lands, but a rel-
47 

atively small percentage of all those lands that are held or managed by the BLM for the Federal Government in trust for all the 

people of the country. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Do you want me to respond to that? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Only if you want to. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Again, that is like the roads, that is in the eye of 

the beholder a little bit on how much is too much or is a little too 

little. Certainly the percentages that have been exercised in virtually both of these bills have high graded the lands for recreation 

and desirability in this state. Much of the other land, you may find 

that might lie in the west desert, again, to some might be the very 

epitome of beauty, but the lands that are included in H.R. 1745 

and H.R. 1500 are bills that contain the very choice of the recreation, of the off-road vehicle, as well as the lands that lie, as I described, in tracts and areas that have significant potential. And 

much of that has yet to be inventoried, explored, which can only 

be done through leasing and drilling. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I know that Utahns are justly, rightly, proud 

of the land on which they live. And I was impressed when I came 

into the airport last night that all along the walkway there, there 

are gorgeous paintings and photographs of various places in Utah, 

which extol the wonderful, exquisite natural beauty of various 

parts of the state. But I also was impressed with the fact that a 

number of those pictures, a large number of them, represented 

areas which under other provisions-not mine, but other provisions-would not qualify as wilderness areas, would not be protected, would not be set aside, would be subject to virtually any 

kind of activity under some of the proposals that we have seen. So 

it seems to me that the heritage that Utahns hold so dear, the 

things that they love so much and are so proud of and place in 

their public areas, are among many of the areas that are in jeopardy and unless they are protected, those pictures are going to look 

black indeed at some point in the future. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Let me point out, if I may, that there seems to be a myth floating 

around in this whole debate that has been here as long as this has 

been around, that certain lands, whether they be state or Federal 

lands, are not protected and that they go certain ways. People realize BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, state, everyone has a management plan and they are just not throwing it up and saying go 

do what you want to do on these lands, people have to be subjected 

to those management plans, which sometimes are as stringent or 

even more stringent than wilderness, in many instances. And I 

think we see that every day as horror stories come in to the offices 

of all of us who are Congress people from the western states. 

Mr. Ekker, it disturbed me when you said that you were building 

something contiguous to or in the vicinity of a WSA and were told 

you could not do it because somebody could see it. Did I hear you 

right? 

Mr. EKKER. I proposed--

Mr. HANSEN. Pull the mic up close, please. Mr. EKKER. I proposed to the BLM because it was an area that 

we were very short of water and the antelope and the deer run 

there as well, I proposed that within approximately half a mile of 
48 

a wilderness study area boundary, I proposed to build three small 

300 or 400 feet square reservoirs, and I was told that they would 

not even accept an application to do that simply because it was 

visible-across a county-maintained road, but visible from the wilderness study area. 

Mr. HANSEN. On your property? 

Mr. EKKER. Pardon? 

Mr. HANSEN. On your property? 

Mr. EKKER. No, on Federal land. 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh. 

Mr. EKKER. It was on Federal land. The wilderness boundary 

area was here, a county road was here, I proposed the catchment 

reservoirs across the county road outside by half a mile of the wilderness study area. 

Mr. HANSEN. That was to be used by your cattle and wildlife in 

the area? 

Mr. EKKER. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Iverson, you apparently, prior to the 1984 Forest Service Wilderness Bill that was the Hansen-Garner Bill of 

1984, on Pine Mountain you were running cattle? 

Mr. IVERSON That is right. 

Mr. HANSEN. And did you have any restrictions at that time? 

Mr. IVERSON No. 

Mr. HANSEN. What was the condition of the range at that time? 

Mr. IVERSON The condition of the range was good. We had Jim 

Bowns over there several times and Jim had done studies, some of 

the studies originated in the early 1940's-the condition of the 

range was good. 

Mr. HANSEN. Prior to the 1984 bill, did you have any complaints from the Forest Service about the range on Pine Mountain where 

you were running cattle on your allotments? 

Mr. IVERSON Did not. As a matter of fact, we had the district 

ranger over there at one time and he indicated it had improved to 

the extent that we could not hardly damage it any more because 

the mountain was completed sodded. 

Mr. HANSEN. So you had a very amicable, good relationship with 

the Forest Service prior to that time? 

Mr. IVERSON We did. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, in 1984, we passed the wilderness bill, and you 

say the first year you were told you could only have cattle that 

would stray into the area? 

Mr. IVERSON That would voluntarily drift into the area, could 

graze there, that is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Predicated on what, on the idea they felt there was 

deterioration to the range? 

Mr. IVERSON Cattle learn the range, and of course some of those 

cattle that knew that range would drift into the areas where they 

had grazed the year before. 

Mr. HANSEN. Dr. Jim Bowns is reputed to be one of the foremost 

range experts in the southern Utah-Nevada area. You brought Dr. 

Bowns in and you examined the range. What was his comment? 

Mr. IVERSON His comments were, as I included in the statement, 

that the range was in good condition, the trend was up and there 

was not a reduction necessary. 
49 

Mr. HANSEN. In subsequent years, you were told they could not 

even stray into the area, is that right? 

Mr. IVERSON The second year following, we were told to keep all 

the cattle out of that area. 

Mr. HANSEN. Predicated on the idea that damage to the range on 

Pine Mountain? 

Mr. IVERSON That it had been over-grazed the year before, is 

what they told us, the year that they were only allowed to drift into 

it. 

Mr. HANSEN. Did you bring testimony from Dr. Bowns again to 

their attention? 

Mr. IVERSON That particular year, we did not; however, we did 

study the range for a couple more years and Dr. Bowns came and 

assisted us with those studies. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have before me a copy of the 1964 Wilderness Act 

that says "Within wilderness areas in the National Forest designated by the Act," point (1) I will not go into; point (2) "the graz- ing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this 

Act, shall be permitted to continue," and I guess this is the rub, 

"subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture." So you are assuming that that came, 

i.e., Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture, that is 

where they came up with the right to not let you use the range, is that right? 

Mr. IVERSON That is the assumption we have. But why would 

one part of the range be allowed to carry double the cattle and not 

be able to use the wilderness area? That was what we could not 

understand. 

Mr. HANSEN. What is your appeal on a situation like that where 

you feel the forest rangers are wrong? How do you appeal it? 

Mr. IVERSON We issued a written appeal when the recommendation for reduction in cattle numbers was given to us, but we had 

no appeal on just moving the cattle out of the wilderness area. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HANSEN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Iverson, I was just looking at the letter, I did 

not read all of it, but the November 15, 1994 letter, and what 

Thomas Contreras-this is a letter you have attached, so obviously 

you are familiar with it, but what is says is that they are going 

to do a three-year study on the graze capacity utilization to make 

a determination. So it does not say anything about it being wilderness in this. 

Mr. IVERSON That was the entire allotment. 

Mr. VENTO. That is the entire allotment, I know, but I mean it 

obviously reduced the number of cattle, but I guess there is another 

letter in here somewhere, but I think this gets into some of the spe- cifics of this. With as much detail as we try to work on, I guess 

we never get down to all this, but I just wanted to comment about 

what the BLM is actually, in this correspondence, suggesting. 

Mr. HANSEN. That distresses me somewhat because I was the author of that bill in 1984, the real first wilderness bill that Utah 

ever had and we went through this same exercise, hundreds of 

meetings and the whole thing, and we were assured from the Forest Service, we were assured from the Department of Agriculture, 
50 

that if it was done in a reasonable way and shown by professionals 

that there was no damage to the areas, that you could have your 

allotment. Of course we have to be reasonable, we do not need to 

go in there and desecrate it or hurt it or damage the range. But 

you maintain, and also you have put up a very credible witness, 

that that is not the case. 

Mr. IVERSON That is the reason we requested a Section 8 consultation, but we felt like we were completely ignored as far as the 

Section 8. 

Mr. HANSEN. Did they say why? Did they say that was the criteria, damage to the range? 

Mr. IVERSON That was what they figured with their studies, was 

what the carrying capacity was. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, you have been in the cattle business many, 

many years. You know, most of our cattlemen in the state of Utah 

have as much background as our forest rangers, they all go to Utah 

State University, they get a degree in agronomy, soil science or 

something such as that, they seem to know a lot about it. What do 

you think, you are an expert. 

Mr. IVERSON We absolutely did not feel like a reduction was ne,cessary. That is the reason we took this avenue, to get some help 

from the state Department of Agriculture, and bring some other 

unaffected parties in to consult with. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson, Mr. Peacock, you have both given us a rather dt~­

tailed litany of suggestions to the bill. Have you taken the time to 

write those up, that we can pour over them and digest them and 

think about them and debate them with you? 

Mr. PEACOCK. No, sir, it is easier to be a critic than it is to write. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, that is true, we are very familiar with that. 

Mr. PEACOCK. We would be happy to try to do that section by 

section. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would really appreciate it. Ron, you have pretty 

well done that though, have you not? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I have. 

Mr. HANSEN. I tried to keep up with you going through the bill. 

We would just like to take those and look at them. It does not 

mean we will accept them, of course, but we would like to take 

them and have the opportunity to look at them. 

The question you brought up about the petroleum right of way, 

I find kind of disturbing also. 

Mr. PEACOCK. We have them coming to you and to the Committee from the specific company that knows the area, knows the exact 

location and the scenario, will write to you with some suggested 

language that adds some language into the bill that includes pipt~­

line rights of way. It is out in the Grand Canyon area of the Desolation Canyon. It is an actual gas pipeline. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, Ron, did you want to comment? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I have included, I think, in my written comments 

specific language, the section numbers, I have the page and line 

numbers if you would like them. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would appreciate that. Of course, we throw that 

out to everybody. You know we get people that stand up and sing 

songs and yell, that does not tell us anything, but when you g«~t 
51 

down to chapter and verse and tell us where the problem is, that 

is when it means something. So if you would do that, that would 

be very helpful. 

I see my time has expired. The gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. I am not going to take the full time, but I just wanted to mention, Mr. A.C. Ekker, I did not ask you any questions but 

I was fascinated by your allotment, it is 205,250 acres? 

Mr. EKKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. How many AUMs on that allotment? 

Mr. EKKER. 5,288 AUMs. 

Mr. VENTO. 5,288. It is a big one. 

Mr. EKKER. It is a single pasture and that is why we need these 

fences, so that we can move cattle and isolate one pasture so that 

our grasses and brush can grow up and go to seed, and then once 

the plant has gone to seed, then we move the cattle back in, they 

trample the seeds into the ground, and then we can of course create more desirableMr. VENTO. Is this BLM and Forest Service areas, or is it all--

Mr. EKKER. BLM and state land. 

Mr. VENTO. BLM and state. So it is both from the state and the 

BLM. How much of it is BLM land? 

Mr. EKKER. All but 5000 acres, so about 200,000 acres are BLM 

and about 5000 acres is state. 

Mr. VENTO. What is your base property size? 

Mr. EKKER. We are an unusual outfit because we are what is 

called a water base. In 1909 when my grandad moved in there, he 

gained title from the State of Utah of all of the waters, the prominent waters, there are 12 of them. So when the BLM Taylor Grazing Act came in in 1934, instead of us moving off to private land 

or to Forest land someplace, our permit is written so that our cattle 

stay there year-around and our base qualification is actually the 

ownership of those water rights that I spoke about. So it is an unusual type of ranch. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it is an important concept that is a way of life, 

obviously your family has been involved in it for a long time. I was 

just impressed by the size of it and your sincerity and your interest 

in this issue. 

Mr. EKKER. May I make one more comment? As you spoke about 

the roads, something that happened in our particular area, and I 

have included in my supporting written testimony, of course that 

you will have copies of, is when the Bureau of Land Management 

was directed to do the inventory within these proposed wilderness 

study areas and go in and then say OK, this is what we recommend, in our particular area, they did not come to the local people. It seems to me that they looked at the USGS maps and then 

just kind of said well, this looks like a way and this looks like a 

road, because they included many areas that I feel they lacked 

doing a complete inventory. Our water rights were not addressed 

in the draft proposal, nor in their recommendation. Our water 

rights were not even studied. Our range improvements, or corrals, 

our roads, our trails, our fences, were not included in their original 

inventory. That is why we have this polarization of what should be 

and what should not be. And it would have solved the question 

about this road and the pipeline had the proper inventory been 
52 

done with the people on the ground at that time, we would not 

have this confusion about what is a range improvement, what is a 

road. Those issues should have been done during the inventory period. 

Mr. VENTO. We kind of get to answer all the questions for the 

BLM today, but I think one of the problems during the 1980's has 

been a reduction in the number of personnel that BLM has had. 

Insofar as we have a breakdown in communication of a lot of new 

information, it really translates into less understanding at a time 

when we are trying to really do a lot more. It is a problem and I 

think this sort of situation epitomizes it. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I did not realize that Utah is the second driest state in the country. I assume Nevada is the first? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Being the second driest state-dry meaning 

water--

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I said that as a pun. The second driest state 

in the country, with 70 percent of the land owned by the Federal 

Government, do I sense a real feeling of utter frustration in dealing 

with the Federal Government, gentlemen? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I think that certainly dealing with the Federal Government raises the cost of doing business in terms of putting your infrastructure in. Where if you are dealing with private 

property, you negotiate an easement with the private property 

owner, you compensate him and you go on. With the Federal Government, if you cross-you might have a $100 million project and 

you cross 1000 feet of Federal land and you are going to do a two 

million dollar EIS in order to do your project, for land that might 

be worth in the private sector, might be worth $1000. So it does 

raise a level of cost to local governments in these public land states 

that people who do not have public lands would not have an appr,eciation for. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was surprised to hear from Mr. Iverson 

about how the Forest Service dealt with his needs. That does not 

seem to be very complimentary, in my opinion. 

Mr. IVERSON I appreciate your comments there. Under the 

Homestead Act, as you are aware, we were able to homestead-the 

early settlers were able to homestead 640 acres. You could not 

hardly make a living off 640 acres in this arid area and that is the 

reason these grazing permits are attached to these small sections. 

And it gives us a vast area which we can make a living off of, when 

we can use the public lands as such. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I do not have any questions particularly except the 

continuing disagreement with regard to the human impact on certain areas. I am very little familiar with the Dirty Devil, I have 

seen it to some extent and I have some photographs of some of the 

areas there t:Q.at allege human impact, some of the so-called landing strips an'd roads, and it is quite clear from these photographs, 

and in some cases from my own experience and first-hand observa-
53 

tion, that any real impact, human impact, has been obliterated, virtually obliterated long ago. And although it is contended that these 

are roads, it is quite clear that no one has ever traveled over these 

roads in a long, long time, if they ever did. So I think that that 

controversy continues and I think that there has to be some reasonableness about what is a road and what is a landing strip and 

what is human impact and how long ago this occurred and has it 

in fact really been wiped out. And I think, in my experience, these 

photographs bear that out, that human impact occurred there a 

long time ago and any real indication of it is long gone. 

Mr. EKKER. I would like to respond to that, Mr. Hinchey. Two 

things that I think are very important-extremely important here, 

points that I alluded to and needed to talk further about. One is 

that there has been tremendous man-made impact-drill rigs, oil 

well roads, bulldozers, all kinds of things. Now the country has 

healed and now we are calling it wilderness, are we not? OK, so 

that means two things. First of all, the impacts have already occurred and now they are not quite so visible, so does that mean 

that they never existed? And the second point is this-if we are 

going to call these areas wilderness, should we not also balance the 

cost of administering the wilderness with our national interest? We 

are not just talking about Wayne County and we are not just talking about the Dirty Devil wilderness, for instance, but should we 

not also look at the fact that it is going to cost us much more to 

administer a wilderness area than it will ever produce? And therefore, we are in effect, as taxpayers, in New York and California, we 

are subsidizing a very limited amount of recreationists that have 

the ability and the desire to backpack into a wilderness area. To 

me, it is very similar to say OK, we are going to lock up these wilderness areas so that we will have a place to go and wilderness 

recreate. Well, that is OK, we are willing to give some to that, but 

should we also lock up vast areas that could be productive, that 

could keep jobs in the United States that are going to have to go, 

you know, outside the United States for oil and gas and coal production? Should we lock up those? It is kind of to me like saying 

OK, the Statue of Liberty belongs to all people of the United 

States, but if you want to see it, you have to swim over there, we 

are tired of you leaving your trash around. And so it is a similar 

thing to me. We lock up these wilderness areas, you know, people 

in wheelchairs cannot see them, people only can walk and see 

them. OK? So yeah, they belong to all of us, but should we not also 

be careful not to lock up enough so that we send our jobs and our 

resource production across the pond someplace, across the ocean? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I think you are right, Mr. Ekker. Everything 

in life is a matter of balance, I think that is unquestionably true. 

We need to take into consideration every aspect of our needs. And 

I think that some of the points you make are very interesting. The 

fact is that these lands have been here a long time. And if for what 

amounts to in that length of time, virtually the blink of an eye, 

someone traversed a bulldozer over a piece of property does not 

mean that that now becomes a road. Or if someone landed an airplane on a flat piece of ground, that that becomes an airport forever after. So I think that those things are important and they 

have to be looked at in their context. 
54 

And the value of wilderness is an important point. And the cost 

of administering it, I suppose there is some cost to administering it, and that has to be taken into consideration, along with the cost 

of everything else. The cost of administering the grazing program far exceeds the value that might come out of it, in some people's 

eyes. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. So all of this is a matter of balance and I think 

that this is what we are trying to do here, to construct a situation 

where as best as can be done, everyone's point of view is considered 

and we achieve something that will inure not only to the benefit 

of those of us who are alive and breathing at this moment, but that 

we do something which is even much more important than that, we 

leave something for future generations, the likes of which we have 

had the ability to appreciate. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your time. 

Let me just ask this question-well, let me make this comment, 

a lot of things have been said about the amount of land in the 

State of Utah and what percent they get-my good friend Ted Wilson always compares it to a tithe that should be put in there. Actually if you look over at that map and realize what the State of Utah 

really has, you look into the national parks, you look into the wilderness we have already done, you look into other areas, we are 

closer to 50 percent we have already done, if you add it up, as 

Allen has been doing here right now, you find out that there is a 

lot more that we put in than a lot of people realize. 

My friend from New York brings up the idea about roads. That 

is a relative thing, in a way. As a past pilot, I used to enjoy flying 

over the State of Utah, and I have gone back and read the 1964 

work on roads, what constitutes roads. The Senate said two tracks, 

the House does not say that. Some of them go away, some of them 

stay there. Take Turtle Canyon, for example, somebody just overlooked the idea that there is roads there with stop signs and grades and culverts and other areas. King Top Mountain out in Millard 

County, for example, that Commissioner Moon can tell you about. 

I mean, there are just roads all over the place, there are mining shafts. Sure, nature can reclaim those things, but it is something 

we have to look at on a retail basis. We cannot talk in wholesale 

terms, we have to say what about this area, what about this sec- tion of the bill, what about subheading 3, line 4, what does that 

say. That is easy when we are talking generalities, that is simple. It is the specifics that are hard. And that falls on this Committee 

to do that at some time. 

You get into the relative question of below cost grazing, below 

cost timber, below cost mining. George Miller loves to get into this, 

this is his favorite subject. Other people come up that are experts and say no, that is not true. I have had Steve Hodapp, who I think 

is a real expert in this area, who has been working on a bill-do 

you know where the biggest below cost is in the entire public lands 

of America? Me. The below cost recreator. I probably backpack 

more than most people in the state and I spend time fishing and 

hunting and all those things-! am the below cost one. Do you know how much we subsidize from the Federal Government people who recreate on public ground? $1.3 billion a year. We do not get 
55 

anything, I do not get $1.84 a head for me and my three boys to 

go out, we do not get anything for what we burn, we do not pay 

you a lick except our taxes. So you have got to look at it, maybe 

we have got to take another look at that, maybe people who are 

going to enjoy this land have to pay something for it. You know, 

we make you pay for cows, we make the guy pay for timber, we 

make the guy pay for mining. Whether it is right or wrong is a debatable point. Economists on both sides argue it, but one that is 

agreed on is that those of us who use the ground just like we own 

it and yet we do not pay a dime for it. So that is something maybe 

we are going to have to look into also. I hope people will take that 

into consideration. We get a good deal. It is like the parks-best deal in America, I do not know a better deal than our national 

parks. That is almost a give-away, what we do for those. I am talking about western parks now. Bruce and I argue this all the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. You have walk-in parks, I will agree with you on 

that one. 

Mr. VENTO. We have a few western parks in Minnesota, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Anyway, I do appreciate what you said. I just want 

to ask one quick question here, I have still got a minute. Mr. Peacock, you brought up some things that kind of worry me a little bit. 

Does H.R. 17 45 propose to designate any lands where there are discoverable and economically feasible oil or natural gas deposits? If 

so, can you identify those areas for us? We do not have to go through it now, but if you have those, could you give us a paper 

on it? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Unfortunately, Mr. Hansen, they are not always known. We certainly know those that are now presently drilled and 

producing and those that have potential. Two years ago in Carbon 

County, we did not know a major gas field existed and yet there 

is one of the major gas fields in a coal bed methane, and you have 

a whole tract that runs the full length of the Kaiparowits Plateau 

that has similar coal and similar geology that has never even been 

expressed for a gas production area. It has only been for coal. So 

it is largely unknown until we have an opportunity to inventory it 

through exploration. 

Mr. HANSEN. I remember arguing that with Congressman Marriott back in 1981, he said before we do any wilderness bill, we 

have got to inventory the whole state. I said how could you do it? 

For one, a few years ago, we did not know about uranium, I mean 

back before the 1950's. There are other things we were not aware 

of. It would be extremely difficult to do and I agree with that. So 

I am merely asking if you know of anything, I would like to know 

it. I am not saying we would exclude it or either way, I just want 

to know if you do know of something, it would be helpful for us. Mr. Thompson, did you have anything you wanted to add? It 

seems to me you had something you brought up that we cut you off on. Have you got anything you want to add? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the only thing I would add is if we were 

to include 5.7 million acres of land in the wilderness bill, at least 

in our county, that impact to the water resource and to the communities, not only resources that are developed in there, but imme-
56 

diately adjacent in terms of the water aquifer, will be absolutely 

devastating. You know, I would hope that if that was going to happen, there would be a very serious look at some of the areas of your 

5.7 that extend into the Navajo aquifers because it would have a 

serious impact in several of our communities. 

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate the panel. Thank you so very much 

for coming, it was very informative and very interesting and intriguing to talk to you. 

The Committee is going to stand in recess for ten minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order. 

Our third panel is Phillip Bimstein, Mayor of Springdale; Julie 

Hancock from Virgin, Utah; George Nickas from the Utah Wilderness Association and Terry Tempest Williams, an author. 

Mayor, nice to have you with us and we will turn the time to 

you. You know the rules; the green light goes on, you have got five 

minutes; the yellow light, wind up; the red light stop. If you go over 

a little bit, that is fine, but do not go over too far. 

STATE1\1ENT OF PHILLIP BIMSTEIN, MAYOR OF SPRINGDALB, 

UTAH 

Mr. BIMSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, I am 

grateful for the opportunity to testify. As the Mayor of Springdale, 

the gateway to Zion National Park, I speak for a community which 

stands on the edge of the wilderness. We also stand on the edge 

of this issue because from our perspective, wilderness has tremendous value, and I can only wonder why anyone would want to drive 

a stake into the heart of this incomparable land. 

Throughout this process, Springdale has asked the delegation to 

be conservative and responsible and protect Utah's wilderness. If 

we were heard, the bill they have put together does not reflect it. 

Today, I speak in opposition to our delegation's bill, which ignores 

the will of the people and injures the State of Utah. Instead, I urge 

support of H.R. 1500, which, for the benefit of our citizens, proteets 

5. 7 million acres of our most precious natural resource. 

Springdale supports wilderness because wilderness supports us. 

Three million tourists come here annually for the unspoiled scenery, the wildlife, the clean air and water. Each year, back country 

hiking and primitive recreational activities increase. And with all 

due respect to Commissioner Liston, ·these hikers and backpackers 

change a lot of $20.00 bills, $50.00 bills and $100.00 travelers 

checks. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BIMSTEIN. My little town has 250 hotel rooms, soon to become 500 and then 600. We have a giant screen Cinemax theat1er, 

a wildlife museum, galleries, bookstores and gift shops expanding 

each year, and restaurants filled to overflowing-all this in a little 

town at the edge of the wilderness, on the edge of this issue. 

Wilderness is the goose which gives us these golden eggs. Harm 

that wilderness, kill that goose, and we lose forever our golden 

eggs. 

From our perspective, this is not the wilderness of the 19th cemtury, something to be cut down in order to survive in a limited 

local economy. This is the wilderness of the 21st century, of a glob-
57 

al economy, and as Utah rushes down the information highway, we 

will need quiet places to rest, and to breathe. 

So will the rest of the world, and they will come here to do so. 

Utah will begin the 21st century with flags unfurled....:._the 2002 

Olympics. The eyes of the world will be upon us. What image will 

they see? Transmission lines, dried up river beds and scarred hills? 

Like the photographs Congressman Hinchey saw at Salt Lake City Airport, the effect of that image begins now and will continue for 

years after the Olympic snows have melted. We will attract more 

tourism and recruit more high tech companies with our unique red 

rock wilderness than with gas pipelines and gray slabs of concrete. 

But valuable as it is, the color of money pales before the importance of our community values, our quality of life, our families. I 

am concerned about the effect of H.R. 17 45 on those values. How 

can we teach our children respect for our cultural heritage if we do 

not preserve the archeological sites of our predecessors? How can 

we teach them to respect each other unless we respect the sensitive 

species living on critical habitat now managed as wilderness? How 

can we even expect them to clean their own rooms if we do not 

keep clean our own environment? 

I believe there are three tests for these bills: 

1. Are they good for Utah? H.R. 1745 diminishes the very quali- ties that make Utah a great state, while H.R. 1500 strengthens our 

quality of life, our economy, our image and our community values. 

2. Are these bills in the national interest? How does it benefit 

American taxpayers to pave, dam or drown their own pristine land? 

H.R. 1745 impairs the interests of American citizens while H.R. 

1500 ensures their public trust. 

And finally, do these bills have popular support? H.R. 1745 clearly does not. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Utahns support wilderness. In the Deseret News' latest poll, the largest block, 36 

percent, as well as two-thirds of the comments received by the Governor's office, support 5. 7 million acres. This groundswell of popu- lar and passionate opinion has been ignored. Certainly a majority of Americans will also oppose the trampling of their rights and 

their land and will favor protection of Utah's national treasures. 

Our delegation's bill fails all three tests. So why support this bill 

which takes a chainsaw to public values as loudly as it bulldozes 

public lands. Please do the right, responsible and prudent thing for 

Utah, for America, for this valuable and vulnerable land, and pass the only true wilderness bill before you, the citizens' proposal, H.R. 

1500, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The statement of Mr. Bimstein may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. Julie Hancock. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE HANCOCK, VIRGIN, UTAH 

Ms. HANcocK. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank 

you for letting me voice my opinion. I am a native Utahn--

Mr. HANSEN. A little closer to the mic, we would all like to hear 

you. 

Ms. HANcocK. I am a native Utahn, my grandfather was a big cattle rancher in northern Utah and my father was a farmer. I 
58 

come from Mormon pioneer stock. I have spent most of the last 21 

years in southern Utah and now live in Virgin, a town in Washington County. I am currently teaching environmental education to 

children of all ages and enjoy doing outreach programs in public elementary schools. I am president of the PTA at Hurricane High School and a mother of two teenagers, who are here today. They 

wanted to see how some of their future is being decided. 

After reading H.R. 17 45, I am unable to understand how specific 

areas could be protected without also protecting the water which 

sustains them. Your bill would allow construction of dams in 

Parunuweap, Red Mountain, Cougar Canyon and Canaan Mountain Wilderness areas. Free-flowing streams and watersheds are 

among the critical elements to be included into our wilderness 

plan. Water should obviously be as much a factor as space and food 

in any attempt to protect and preserve wildlife and habitat. Hope- fully each of us knows how important it is to conserve water. Unfortunately, Washington County does not. They have one of the 

highest rates of consumption per capita of any western county. It 

will take commitment, education and personal commitment by everyone if we expect to maintain a clean healthy supply of it. Each 

life form in our wilderness area also requires a natural supply. Their ability to conserve water through design and instinct should 

be a lesson to all of us. If we interfere with water flows through these unique areas, we jeopardize their well-being and ultimately their future. And if we do not take stronger measures to use less 

water in our own lives, we jeopardize our future. 

Although desert wildlife has adapted to the harsh and dry environment, many must still depend on the riparian zones for survival. These would include migratory birds, aquatic animals, as 

well as all the mammals. Already we have greatly disturbed so 

much of southwestern Utah and diverted so many of the natural 

stream flows, that a number of species are near extinction. It is 

time to set aside what is left. Wilderness is important for protect- ing our wildlife and us. Without a healthy and sustainable environment, we cannot survive as humans either. 

When teaching environmental education, I take the children outside so that they will understand the natural world, how they fit 

into that world and how to walk upon it softly. I have seen firsthand the result of our young people losing a connection with the 

planet. With so many electronic diversions, they spend less time in 

the out of doors. Our 1990's kids can destroy and blow up just 

about anything, all from the tips of their fingers. This carries over 

into the real world, where I see a tendency toward violence and a 

lack of respect for other living things. Future generations are headed for trouble if we lose the wild places and its inhabitants. 

I want my children to have the same opportunities to experience the quality of life that I have had; to feel the spirituality that 

comes with pristine places; to hear the quiet. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. [Applause.] 

Ms. HANCOCK. I am not done yet. 

Ms. HANCOCK. Sorry. I apologize. 

Ms. HANCOCK. That is OK. 
59 

For our children's children and their children, please protect all 

of the land within the Utah citizens' proposal to protect 5. 7 million 

acres of Utah wilderness. This land belongs to all Americans and 

all future Americans. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. George Nickas. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE NICKAS, UTAH WILDERNESS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. NICKAS. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I ap- preciate the chance to testify today. 

Mr. HANSEN. George, could you get that mic a little closer to you, please? 

Mr. NICKAS. My name is George Nickas, and I am the Assistant 

Coordinator of the Utah Wilderness Association, a statewide environmental organization. I am also a native Utahn and have been 

involved in BLM wilderness issues for 17 years. 

The Utah Wilderness Association was born with the BLM wilderness review. We organized and filed the first major BLM wilderness appeal before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, which increased the amount of wilderness study areas in Utah from 2.6 to 

3.2 million acres. 

Our efforts have always been to seek meaningful, ecologically based solutions, recognizing the diverse social, political system in 

which we live. Thus, we have developed in the context of this legis- lative effort a three million acre critical list consisting of 34 large intact wilderness recommendations. We are obviously proud that 

Utah's largest newspaper, the Salt Lake Tribune, has strongly editorialized supporting this proposal. We feel this is an indication of 

the proposal's broad-based value and appeal. 

We are troubled that we must pass on to you our profound disappointment and opposition to H.R. 17 45 as it has been written. 

The combination of special language, including release language, and omissions of numerous undeniable wilderness areas leaves this 

legislation empty. Let me highlight a few of our concerns. 

Notably missing from this legislation are Fish Creek Canyon and 

Road Canyon on the Grand Gulch Plateau. Like the world renown 

Grand Gulch, these two areas are unsurpassed in archeological value and dominated by wild, deep canyons providing some of the 

most beautiful canyon country on the Colorado Plateau. There are 

no identified resource conflicts, according to ELM's final environmental impact statement. 

The Grand Gulch has been severely fragmented by the canyonsonly boundary proposed in the bill. Between these canyons are unusually dense pinyon pine and juniper forests where the soils are 

blanketed by a rich but fragile cryptobiotic crust that literally holds 

the soil in place. 

The mesas are rich in Anasazi ruins and their inclusion in the 

wilderness will buffer the treasures in the canyons from easy access by vandals and thieves. 

The Desolation Canyon/Book Cliffs ecological complex is Utah's 

largest BLM wilderness region. Notably missing in the legislation 

are significant parts of the complex; for example, Turtle Canyon 
60 

and the Bighorn Benches. Turtle Canyon, with elevations ranging 

from 5000 feet to over 9000 feet, is home to Rocky Mountain big·· 

horn sheep, cougar, elk and black bear. The minor coal conflict, if 

it exists at all, that has kept this area out of the legislation, can 

be dealt with, with exceptionally minor boundary adjustments. 

Immediately adjacent to Turtle Canyon lies the Bighorn Benches, 

the centerpiece of BLM's recently established Gray Canyon 

Wildland Management Area, which was established because of the 

area's special value to wildlife. Instead of protecting a robust and 

rich wilderness that begins above 9000 feet on the Tavaputs Plateau and descends nearly a dozen life zones before reaching thEl 

Green River 15 miles to the east and nearly one mile below, thiB 

legislation protects a ribbon of wilderness that in many places ill 

less than half a mile wide. 

There are similar problems in the Kaiparowits, Mojave Desert, 

Henry Mountains, San Rafael Swell and other regions which are 

addressed in our written comments. 

We are equally troubled by the special language that dictates the 

management of non-wilderness lands and in many cases assures 

that even the designated wildernesses will not truly be managed as 

wilderness. 

Section 10, Wilderness Release, is an example of presupposing 

and precluding professional land management. Having gone 

through this with the 1984 Wilderness Act only to see it come back 

now is a frustrating and sad statement. We believe these released 

lands should be returned to the normal BLM planning process as 

defined in Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. 

If they harbor wilderness values or values associated with 

biodiversity, endangered species or non-wilderness development op- tions, the BLM, in the context of its public planning process, should 

proffer a management decision, not Congress 3000 miles away and 

with no comprehensive or specific knowledge of the land allocation 

issues. 

Section 3 provisions, declaring that cherry-stemmed roads and 

boundary roads must remain open irrespective of potential resource 

concerns flies in the face of professional land management. 

Provisions dealing with access, cultural and paleontological resources, military overflights, communications sites and facilities 

and the use of water craft take a giant departure from 30 years of 

history with respect to non-conforming uses and structures within 

designated wilderness. The test for these kinds of activities has always been one of need or necessity, and the appropriate place for 

those decisions is the wilderness management planning process. By 

relying on historical and customary access, the legislation suggests 

almost any kind of access would be allowed within designated wilderness without any rational test to determine what should or 

should not be allowed. 

The disclaimers in Section 9 literally strip wilderness protection 

from several areas designated by the bill. Approval is given for wilderness destroying dams, pipelines, roads, communication towers 

and other facilities not allowed by the Wilderness Act. If the 

projects described in Section 9(1) are approved, then it is a mockery 

to designate those areas as wilderness. 
61 

By not protecting waterflows, the legislation assures the Utah 

wildernesses will never achieve the objective of preserving wilderness and its related biological, ecological and recreational values. 

UW A believes that a quantity of water sufficient to protect wilderness values should be provided for in the legislation, subject to existing rights and the state appropriation process.---- . In short, we would suggest that all of the special language be 

omitted and replaced by the provisions of the Wilderness Act or the 

Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, of which Congressman Hansen was 

an author and co-sponsor. That language has served Utah and our 

wildernesses well. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The statement of Mr. Nickas may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, I appreciate your comments. 

Terry Tempest Williams, the floor is yours for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY TEMPEST WILLIAMS, AUTHOR 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Representative Hansen, Rep- resentatives Hinchey, Vento, Faleomavaega. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to testify before you today as a Utah native, and a citizen 

of this country, regarding the preservation of wilderness. 

Mr. HANSEN. Can you folks hear her? 

VOICE. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. They cannot hear you. Can you get a little closer, 

we would like to hear your testimony. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. OK. I do not take this privilege for granted, and 

honor the time you have committed to hearing us. I also want to 

thank you, Chairman Hansen and Mr. Freemyer, for scheduling 

comments on H.R. 1500 alongside H.R. 1745. 

I bring you the collective statements of hundreds of citizens 

whose voices ask to be included in the Congressional Record regarding H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500. Last night a citizens' hearing 

was held on the two bills before us. From 7:30 p.m. until the early hours of this morning, informed, impassioned and concerned individuals spoke on behalf of wildness. Hundreds of citizens sat respectfully in the audience of the Indian Walk-In Center in Salt 

Lake City supporting them and thousands of other citizens in the 

State of Utah and around this country joining them-us-in solidarity. 

It was a gathering of citizens who believe in the value and vision 

of wilderness. 

It was a gathering of citizens who believe in the value and vision 

of democracy, that these public lands under wilderness consideration belong literally to all Americans. 

It was a gathering of citizens who understand the correspondence 

between wilderness and economy, that the health of one ensures 

the health of the other. 

Virginia Hoyt from Washington State presented 1500 signatures from Lewis County, a county that is suffering from the demise of 

their natural resources. It is a timber community that has been 

overcut. At one time, 80 percent of the county was forest. 

''We should be rich," she said. "Now we are poor. No nation is 

able to survive the collapse of their natural resources." 
62 

She drew the possibility of future parallels between her rural 

county in the Pacific northwest and the rural counties of southern 

Utah. "If the land breaks down," she says, "the economy shatters." 

And then Fred Swanson, a citizen from Utah, supported her comments saying, "Our task, then, is to show that Utahns' best interests, our self-interest, will be served by protecting the wild country· 

that is left. We must demonstrate that our dignity as a people will 

be in part determined by how we treat our last undeveloped open 

spaces." He went on to say, ''The only solution is to protect all of 

the wild land that is left and simultaneously search for real economic possibilities for rural Utah residents." 

Seventeen year old Angie Edward stood and said simply, "I speak 

for future ~enerations who cannot speak for themselves. We need 

wilderness. ' 

Professor Tom Lyon from Utah State University said, "We stand 

in a fork in the road. One road offers full protection of the 

wildlands we love. The other road gives us what the Congressional 

delegation did not want anyway. The real bottom line is the diversity and health of the world before us." 

And then perhaps most importantly, William Newmark, research 

curator at the Utah Museum of Natural History and internationally recognized conservation biologist, addressed the issue of ecological health and well-being by outlining the serious flaws of H.R 

1745 in preserving Utah's biodiversity. 

Chairman Hansen, he made five points: (1) that it does not protect large contiguous areas for mammals that need expansive tracts 

of land; (2) that it does a poor job in enlarging existing areas of 

wild country such as national parks and monuments; (3) that it reduces the likelihood to re-establish biotic communities for survival; 

(4) that it does not connect existing wHd areas with corridors for 

the safe passage of animals; and (5) that the ratio to edge and interior habitat is higher in H.R. 1500, hence your bill favors the intrusion of exotic species at the peril of native flora and fauna. 

Ilse Porter, 72 years old, then walked up to the microphone and 

told a story about her grandson who is in the Navy. He told her 

that his white hat is a reservoir for air should he be faced in an 

emergency. She then faced the audience and said, "H.R. 1500 is a 

hatful of fresh air." 

Wilderness and democracy, the voice of the people. I bring you 

their stories, their sincerity and their courage. Representative Hansen, we ask you to reconsider the bill that you have placed on the 

floor of Congress. We do not believe that it honors the health of the 

land and the long-term health of the people in rural communities 

or in this state. We do not believe that it honors or secures the values and vision of the Wilderness Act of 1964 by its provisions to 

allow oil and gas development, access road, the building of dams, 

the installment of communication towers, its disregard for water 

flows and clean air, among other intrusions. 

We do not believe it reflects the wisdom of good biology suggested 

by the Committee of Biological Commentary on Utah Wilderness. 

And we would like to know how their expertise was sought and utilized in your bill. 

We believe the integrity of Utah's wilderness is being threatened 

and in the process ·so is our sense of democracy. I understand that 
63 

you have listened to us and I understand that you disagree. But 

I guess I want you to know that as a writer and as a woman who 

has devoted her life to language and landscape, as a woman with 

deep roots in and affection toward Utah, both its people and its wilderness, I have never felt more inadequate in the expression of my feelings. And I really wonder if there is anything that I can say to 

you that could reopen this dialog or open your mind in reconsideration of your bill. I think that is what we are wanting. These lands desperately need protection-! am almost through- much more than you have allowed in your Utah Public Lands Management Act, especially the hard release language that renders a 

lack of respect for the preservation of possibility. It is not acceptable to us. Do we really know enough to take 1.4 million acres out 

of wilderness consideration forever? And why must we always look 

at the land through demands of capitalism? Where is our restraint, 

where is our humility? Please hear us once again and show us, 

your constituents, that democracy can shape and change and that 

you will be yielding to other points of view. 

In closing, I just want to thank Representative Hinchey for offering us an alternative bill, for seeking out the citizens' proposal and 

standing by us as the citizens of Utah. And Representative Vento, 

we thank you for your questions and the perception of your intellect in making sure that we can do something brave, bold and necessary in a conservative approach to wilderness. 

This is the deep reverence for life that we are seeking. [Applause.] 

[The statement of Ms. Williams may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I thank the witnesses for 

their testimony. 

Mr. Nickas, do you have any ideas about how we should deal 

with the lack of recordation on roads in some of these areas that 

might be designated? 

You had better use the microphone. 

Mr. NICKAS. Well, when BLM did its wilderness inventory and 

made their final decision on wilderness study areas in 1980, it 

made a determination at that point on the R.S. 24 77 issue as it related to the wilderness study areas, and simply proclaimed that 

since they are roadless by definition, that that was not an issue on 

those lands. 

That is a somewhat difficult question because I feel like the 

areas that we are talking about for wilderness-and though there 

are people who perhaps disagree, I am certain there are people who 

disagree-! do not think there are any R.S. 2477 roads within any of these areas, and therefore, in that sense I do not think it is an 

issue. 

Mr. VENTO. Are there-do you foresee--

Mr. NICKAS. Let me follow up though also. I do not really know 

how to deal with it in legislation, assuming that there was such a 

route out there, except I think that the regulations that have been 

put forth by the Department of Interior are good regulations for determining whether or not the claimed R.S. 2477s out there are 

valid or not. 
64 

Mr. VENTO. I think the concern is, of course, that we put it into 

regulation, that it is designated that all valid existing rights are 

protected and some of those may be R.S. 2477, it may be claims 

under the Mining Act that are not patented. So we have to deal 

with it, but I think it is an unusual problem. I think the roads especially represent a more unusual problem. What we do with 

claims or patented claims is that if they are there and we do not 

want them to proceed with the activity, mining in wilderness, mining in parks, we have to buy it out, that is what we have to do. 

That is one of the most difficult aspects. I was listening to some 

of the discussions earlier in terms of the exercise of rights and the 

irony is that we permit the free exercise of these rights and then 

we have to go in and basically buy out, we have to buy back that 

which the American people own, in order to preserve the resource. 

And we do that all the time with regard to the rights to put in 

dams and to do other activities, and sometimes I suspect that the 

result is not so much that they are interested in building a dam 

or exercising the responsibility as they are interested in a check 

coming to them vis-a-vis the Federal Government, for not doing something. I mean we put ourselves in that unbelievable position in many, many respects. 

When the last panel was here, Mr. Chairman, I was thinking, if 

it were the legitimate type of pipeline, the legitimate type of road 

that is actually being used, but so often others are out exercising and establishing these rights not because it is of practical use but 

because there is a check in it. And you know, that is a problem for 

those of us that want to approach this and deal with legitimate 

types of needs because indeed we understand that this does represent a culture and a way of life, whether it is grazing, whether 

it's the mineral discovery and so forth, that goes on. 

With regard to the Chairman's comments concerning a recreational use of the lands, I mean I think that when you establish 

a park or when you establish a wilderness, clearly the use of that, 

the "leave no trace" concept is something that is not intended, I do 

not think, to be paid for by those that happen to be visiting the 

Grand Canyon or visiting a Capitol Reef or visiting one of the other 

great treasures that we have in the west. So, you know, the sugges- tion obviously that there be a reasonable fee, that you ought to pay 

as much as you do for a film ticket, is reasonable to me, but I think 

on the other hand we pay an awful lot through general revenue 

taxes and through general taxes, that we should be able to get 

some benefit. But I think we want to look to see if there is a better 

way or a way that we can augment the budget of parks and wilderness. Back when we tried to put specific money into wilderness 

management in the Forest Service, we found that the money did 

not get down to the wilderness. It got taken up by other types of 

programs. In the Forest Service, you remember that study, Mr. Chairman. And so I think that we want to explore that. There is 

a real resistance to that because they claim, of course, that there 

are multiple uses involved very often, when of course, there are 

not. 

But the panel here obviously is speaking to the values and to a 

lot of other things. I understand most of these concerns. As the 

Chairman said, we have to have specifics in terms of amending the 
65 

bill and solving the problems, and I know that there are different 

views, but if there are practical problems, like I think the issue of 

building the dams, there is a reason for that in here. I talked to 

Mr. Thompson in the last instance, I did not understand what he 

meant by the Navajo aquifer problems and his concern. I think it 

has been pointed out here too that there has been an excess use 

of water by this particular Washington County. Is that the same 

county where all the golf courses are? I guess so. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen says that is right. But I think the issue 

was that you have to get on top of that aquifer, drill for the water; 

if it is wilderness, you could not put that type of facility on top of 

it to do the drilling. I think that that is a problem that could be 

or should be resolvable. But it is not just a matter of solving the 

water problem, I think there are problems or concerns beyond that. 

That type of issue may be or should be resolvable. 

Mr. HANSEN. If I may add to the gentleman's comments, Julie 

Hancock brought up the idea that the bill permits reservoirs-they 

are existing rights, that is the law. If they are there, there is nothing we can do about that. 1500 would have to do that. That is there 

if you write it in or not, that just happens to be the law. If you 

want to take existing rights out, I guess we would have to change 

the law all the way around. 

Mr. VENTO. You would have to have the money to buy it. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yeah, you would have to buy it. So that is just 

there. So I just think there is a total misunderstanding of how that 

works. 

Mr. VENTO. Well this is the 19th century policies in the 20th century that have not been addressed where we permit this to happen 

and in essence it constitutes a problem. If it is for a bona fide legitimate purpose, then I think I would feel differently. Obviously 

we are dealing with this on a legal basis, not only on a practical 

basis. 

Mr. HANSEN. We can take it out but we will go to court. One or 

the other, we will end up paying it. That is just the honesty of the 

whole thing. 

Are you through? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might say, Mr. Chairman, just a slight observation, we are at the eve of the 21st century. 

I would like to ask Mr. Nickas, since you have indicated some 17 

years or more of experience in dealing with this issue, I am having 

a very difficult time reconciling these figures, and perhaps you 

could help us. The BLM suggested 1.9 million acres; H.R. 17 45, 1.8 

million acres; the counties of Utah suggest 1.1 million; Mr. 

Hinchey's bill suggests 5.7. So there is a slight difference of almost 

four million acres that we are talking about, this is no trivial matter, I am sure, but obviously there is a difference of methodology 

and how we go about declaring what is considered wilderness and 

what is not. And I would like to ask for your opinion. Can you help 

us to reconcile these figures? Why is there such a vast disparity in 

that, in understanding what is wilderness and what should not be? 
66 

Mr. NICKAS. Well, it is a lot longer answer than anybody wants 

today, I am sure, but when BLM initiated their inventory back in 

the late 1970's-you know, wilderness is to a degree in the eye of 

the beholder-there were certain regulations that legally define 

what wilderness is and they were implemented differently. BLM at 

the time made a tremendous number of errors in their wilderness 

review. Conservationists in the late 1970's and early 1980's joined 

together and challenged that review and challenged roughly-the 

first time around when BLM proposed about 2.6 million acres of 

wilderness study areas, we challenged about 900,000 acres of that, 

of lands they had dropped from their inventory, and were successful in 90 percent of the appeals that we filed before the Interi01r 

Board of Land Appeals, which told BLM to go back and do it again. 

BLM went back and did it again and recommended several of those 

areas for wilderness study areas and dumped several of them out 

again. And so appeals were filed again and this time the InterioJr 

Board of Land Appeals went ahead and made the decision itself as 

to which ones would be wilderness study areas and which ones 

were not. That is where we got the 3.2 million acres. 

Many environmentalists-our organization was not one of the organizations-that were part of the Wilderness Coalition went out 

and conducted their own inventory, applying the criteria the way 

they interpret the Act and therefore, they came up with a very different result than BLM did. 

And you know, it is a very difficult call to make because there 

are people-one of the previous panelists who spent a lot of time 

in this country, or my father who spent a lot of time runnin1~ 

around southern Utah looking for uranium back in the 1950's and 

their idea of what is wilderness and my view of what is wilderness 

are different. People just apply that differently and conservationists just think there is a lot more wilderness than what BLM identified and that is really where the different figures come from. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you feel that part of the problem is lack 

of direction from the Congress itself for not defining those issues 

that could make it more clear as to what should be considered as 

wilderness, and how you define it, how you look at it? 

Mr. NICKAS. Well, I think it would be hard for Congress to be 

more explicit frankly than what they were. And the problems that 

occurred in the wilderness inventory did not occur in a lot of other 

states the way they did here in Utah. So I do not know that it was 

a lack of direction from Congress as much as it may have been just 

a problem that was more directed here in Utah as to the way that 

it was interpreted and the way that the law was applied. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As the Chairman said earlier, certainly w•~ 

should not look at the polls to determine whether or not legislation 

is acceptable or not, but as a matter of principle-! would like to 

ask Ms. Williams, in your best opinion, the majority of the citizens 

or the residents or the people of Utah does support Mr. Hinchey's 

alternative bill, legislation? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Congressman, I definitely feel that the majority 

of Utahns sponsor H.R. 1500, Representative Hinchey's bill; and 

certainly more wilderness than we see in Representative Hansen's 

bill. I am five, six generation Mormon, my family is in pipeline construction. For what it is worth, I wish this was a bipartisan issue~, 
67 

my family are deep Republicans and my father testified on behalf 

of H.R. 1500 saying you cannot put a price on these lands, it is why 

we live in Utah, it is how we define home. And I think we are looking at it as a truly conservative issue for our future. And that is, 

I think, the frustration that we are feeling as citizens in the state, 

that the process by which we have been engaged, the feelings that 

we have conveyed very forcefully and strongly have not been rep- resented in the Utah Public Lands Management Act before us now. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York. Mr. HINCHEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the panel and the others who appeared here today for their testimony. I 

think it has been very interesting, and I want to particularly thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, for bringing us to 

Utah, and specifically for including H.R. 1500 on the docket for this 

hearing. You did not have to do that and I appreciate your doing 

so. 

There is a lot of controversy here today, a lot of different kinds 

of opinions on this subject, and it is our job to try to sort it out 

to some extent. One of the things that we heard by the previous panel was that the designation of wilderness land is inappropriate because it encroaches right up onto settled areas, runs up against cities and is too close to roads, right to the berm of roads. We have 

heard that it is going to make it difficult for future water use in 

certain instances, and we have also heard that it is going to have 

an impact negatively on future economic growth in Utah. 

I just wonder if you could comment on those. If there is anything specific that was said by any of the previous panelists along those 

lines that struck any of you, that you would like to comment on? 

Mr. BIMSTEIN. Well, were you just addressing this to all of us? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Mr. BIMSTEIN. As far as it coming right up to the edge of our 

town, Springdale is literally surrounded on all four sides by wilderness, and we find that that enhances everything about living in 

Springdale, the economy, the quality of life. We have absolutely no 

objection. 

And another comment. Commissioner Liston said that she lives 

in the shadow of wilderness. I found that interesting. We live inI would prefer to think the glare of the sunlight, or maybe not the 

glare, the glow of the sunlight of wilderness. And I just wonder 

how much of this just comes down to an attitude about it. If we 

took a more creative approach-Senator Blackham also referred to 

the fact that our winters are harsh, about our tourism. Well come 

on now, the winters in southern Utah are mild and I hope that his 

words do not get too far outside of Utah. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BIMSTEIN. There is tremendous capability to promote uses of 

wilderness that can be good for the economy that I think some of 

these folks just have not been focusing on. And I think that if they would build some services and some things like we have in Spring- dale, the people will come. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. NICKAS. If I could address that just a second, Congressman. I did not grow up in Salt Lake, I grew up in southeastern Utah, 
68 

but I live in Salt Lake now. And every morning when I get up, 

what I see out my window are three designated wilderness areas 

that come right up against basically the city limits of Salt Lake 

and its suburbs. When I was going to school in Logan-at that 

school that trains all these foresters and cowboys in Utah-we had 

wilderness on both sides of the valley there in Logan. And in fact, 

the Mount Naomi Wilderness came down to the golf course, so that 

would probably be a good idea for Washington County, perhaps. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NICKAS. But aside from that, I think realistically what we 

are talking about is there are probably legitimate concerns and le~­

gitimate conflicts, but those can be addressed. There are not millions of acres of those kinds of concerns and conflicts. And sometimes statements like that are used in a carte blanche sort of fashion to say wilderness is bad because in this instance it is going to 

intrude on a pipeline or it is going to intrude on something. And 

I think we can deal with those kinds of situations in a rational way 

through the boundaries that we draw in wilderness areas. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well thank you. I think someone said a few moments ago that as we leave this century and get on into the next, 

there will be a lot of things that are changing. We live in fact in 

revolutionary times. One of the things that we are going to learn 

to appreciate more are the open areas, the wilderness areas, the 

unique landscapes that exist in certain parts of the world, and 

uniquely here in this state, in Utah. And I think frankly that they 

are among your greatest economic assets. And I hope that you will 

have the wisdom to protect them and preserve them in the appropriate way, because I think not just the aesthetic future and the 

environmental future of Utah is at stake, but I think the economic 

future of Utah is at stake as well. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate the gentleman's comments. 

As we bring this to a close, I would just like to make a couple 

of comments, ask a couple of questions, if I may. 

You know, the gentleman from American Samoa asked a very 

tantalizing question with Mr. Nickas, what is the difference, why 

we have such a disparity. It is kind of like the court, you know, 

as we look at the Supreme Court, we wonder what kind of judge 

a certain person is going to make. One is a strict constructionist, 

he interprets the Constitution as close as he can and does not try 

to do what is called social jurisprudence. In other words, put in his 

own theory of what it says and not so much what the Constitution 

really says. You have the same thing in this. I am not faulting either side of it. You have some folks who believe quite liberally on 

something-Turtle Canyon has come up, King Top Mountain comes 

up. I will take you and show it to you. They are maintained by 

counties, there are roads, sidewalks-not sidewalk~ulverts, 

there are traffic things up there. Some people would put that in, 

and a strict constructionist would not. There is no argument on it, 

I am just saying you have got to look at who interprets it and how 

they interpret it. That is fme, I have no problem with that, but 

that is what we see here, as we can see both sides come down, fe•~l 
69 

very strongly about it, both sides can write an opinion that they 

feel strongly about and it just depends where you come from. 

However, I think the makeup of the 104th session of Congress 

is going to be more on the idea of living by the law than it has been 

in the past. I think you will see that not only in this area, but in 

a number of other areas. 

This idea of polls keeps coming up. We are not playing a poll 

game to see what we have got. I have got nine polls here that we 

have looked at, they go-you name it, I can give it to you. You can 

get what you want out of a poll. We did a poll ourselves. The biggest poll of any of them, we did, our office did, 1500 sample. This 

one in the Deseret News the other day that people have been referred to was a 200 sample. Enid Waldholtz did one with the same 

pollster, a 600 sample, and got exactly the opposite. We are not in 

a poll game here. The 1500 sample we did, which we had a very 

fine outfit go through it in detail, came up entirely different than 

this. So I am not going to get in this poll game. You can get anything you want in a poll. 

Polls are easy. If I ask the people here "Every day you drive 

down 1-15, what do you think, should we expand it to four lanes 

or three lanes?" We will get some real opinions there. But now let 

us call up and ask a question, "How much wilderness should you 

have?" In the first place, we cannot find one out of 10,000 that even 

knows the legal definition of the term wilderness. We were talking 

to a person the other day and he said "Oh, I like my wilderness 

area,' he has got two cabins on it and all those things. 

In 1984, as you know, I was the author of the only wilderness 

bill that has passed this place. And right after it passed, we got 

all kinds of calls and people saying "I want to take my four-wheeler 

into that wilderness area, I am really looking forward to it." So 

people basically do not even know the answer. It is a hard thing 

to poll. So we are not going to get caught up in the poll game, it 

means nothing. But if you want to play the poll game, the biggest 

poll around, only 19 percent-or 19 percent of the people want less 

than two million and that is the biggest poll we have done. I am 

not going to play that game because it is a meaningless poll, does 

not mean much. 

Let me just ask you, George, if I may, while we have got you 

here-1 really appreciated your comments on the areas that you 

criticized the bill, perfectly fair. Would you give us some written 

chapter and verse, legal terminology on those things? We would 

like to see that, if we could, if you would give that to us, that would 

be very much appreciated. 

Mr. NICKAS. I have provided your office with about a 60 or 70 

page statement. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have not seen that. 

Mr. NICKAS. It was just mailed last week and I understand it 

was received. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, we got tied up in a little issue called base closings. 

Mr. NICKAS. Yes, I understand that. 

Mr. HANSEN. And we won big yesterday. 

Anyway, let me say one other thing-river runners, we exclude 

river runners in this. Should we? 
70 

Mr. NICKAS. What do you mean by excluding? 

Mr. HANSEN. River runners going down the Green River, should 

they be excluded from wilderness? They are boats, some people say it is a mechanical device. 

Mr. NICKAS. I would support_ tll~ langqag~ in the Wilderness Act 

that says subject tO the-where it has existed prior to designation and subject to the determination of the Secretary, motorized craft 

would continue to be allowed to be used. 

Mr. HANSEN. You know, the thing that disturbs me most about 

this bill and other bills we have worked on is the bicycle people 

down around Moab, they sign all these petitions for 5.7, but then 

they write us and say "but exclude us, we still want to ride our 

bikes down the Slick Rock Trail and all those things." The boat 

people, they say, hey, we all-you know, two or three river runners 

got up and made their testimony about how strong they felt about 

5. 7, but then they walked up to me afterwards and said "but exclude me." What do you think on those two, should bicycles be excluded and should river runners be excluded? 

Mr. NICKAS. Bicycles should be excluded, yes, and I think--

Mr. HANSEN. Bicycles should be able to go in the wilderness 

area? 

Mr. NICKAS. No, they should be excluded-well, they should be 

excluded from wilderness. 

Mr. HANSEN. They should not go in the wilderness. 

Mr. NICKAS. That is right. 

Mr. HANSEN. What about boats? 

Mr. NICKAS. Boats, as I said, I think where they have gone in 

the past. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is a pre-existing condition, you think they should 

have the right to continue. 

Mr. NICKAS. Sure, as it has always been in wilderness areas. 

Mr. HANSEN. What do the rest of you think? 

Ms. Williams, I am having a very difficult time hearing you, I am 

sorry. Ms. WILLIAMS. That is all right. The question I have is tangential 

to this, but I think it circles around the same question. We have 

not heard-! know as the naturalist-in-residence at the Utah Museum of Natural History-what your opinion is regarding how biol- ogy was used in making your decision and what your response was 

or is your response to the Committee on Biological Commentary? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. You do not understand the question? It is about 

ecological health. We have these reports from Dr. Newmark, Dinah 

Davidson, and the 31 biologists in the State of Utah who have said 

that this bill falls short of ecological integrity-what is the science 

backing your bill? 

Mr. VENTO. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I can-one of the issues of 

course here is that in doing the review, the study, the BLM in the 

areas that were studied only constituted three million acres, so insofar as they are looking at a broader range, the fact is I think that 

the Chairman and most of us have to rely upon the information, 

insofar as we receive it with regards to wilderness, right from BLM 

or from other sources. I think the Chairman's statement is that he 
71 

is looking at that three million acres and taking the lands out of 

it. 

Mr. HANSEN. We are basically following the study of the BLM 

where they came up with 3.2 as the very maximum that they felt 

that they could look at as wilderness. But even they came down 

with 1.9. And so it is very interesting to me how similar BLM and 

the study and the bill that I have introduced are similar, they almost track one another. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. But will you be looking at the concerns that the 

biologists and conservation ecologists have raised? 

Mr. HANSEN. We are going to have to talk later because the decibels in my ears do not pick up your comments, I missed it, I am 

sorry. 

Is there any other comments anyone would like to make? Julie 

Hancock. 

Ms. HANcocK. Yes, I did not understand your question about 

boats. Mr. HANSEN. The question is that mechanical devices are not allowed in wilderness areas. 

Ms. HANCOCK. And? So you are saying river running should 

be--

Mr. HANSEN. There was one exception that me and my good friend disagreed on a little bit, it is called wheelchairs. But anyway, this bill will put areas into-rivers into wilderness. 

Ms. HANcOCK. Right. Mr. HANSEN. Should boats then, should river runners have the 

right to go through it? 

Ms. HANcocK. Are you talking about motorized boats, rowboats-any boats, just a boat? 

Mr. HANSEN. A boat. I determine that is a mechanical device. 

Ms. HANCOCK. Even a rowboat. Mr. VENTO. If the Chairman would yield, I think the issue here 

is motor boats and motorized use is not permitted in wilderness 

generally unless exceptions are made. Of course, even mechanical 

human powered bicycles are not permitted-we are talking about 

the mountain bikes. Mr. HANSEN. Sure, we have argued also about these things deer 

hunters have, you know, where they-it looks like a bicycle, one 

man gets on one end, one man gets on the other, you put a deer 

on it. The Forest Service has told me that is a mechanical device. 

I am just asking the question of the panel because that is the 

thing that really kind of disturbs me. I have all these people stand 

up and give this great testimony and they get a lot of applause and 

yelling and all that kind of nonsense; then they come up afterwards 

and say "oh, but exclude me." 

Ms. HANCOCK. Do you really think it is nonsense? 

Mr. HANSEN. I wonder about that. 

Mr. VENTO. Is there an ulterior motive here? Do some of you 

want to ride your motorcycle, motorboat in the wilderness? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yeah. 

Mr. VENTO. Motorboats. 

Mr. HANSEN. I just assume that everyone here is agreeing, from 

the environmental community, you do not want boats, you do not 

want bicycles, let us do the strict construction, is that right? 
72 

VOICES. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I can see we are going to go further than we 

want to here. 

Anything here from the Committee? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I want to be recorded as being against motorboats. I fought my first battle in Congress on the boundary waters 

canoe area in northern Minnesota, and it was all on the basis of 

motorized use of the lakes. Mr. HANSEN. There is another Democrat by the name of Jim 

Oberstar that does not quite agree with him. 

Mr. VENTO. That is right. And after 20 years, we are still fight- ing over it. Mr. HANSEN. Any other questions from the panel? 

Ms. HANcocK. I have one. Do you really think--

Mr. VENTO. From the panel, no, we ask the questions. 

Mr. HANSEN. No, we ask the questions. If there are no more comments, we will cut this off. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I have one more comment. 

Mr. HANSEN. Just a moment. The gentleman from American 

Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted to express my appreciation again to you and for the invitation that has been extended to us 

to have this hearing here in southern Utah; thank the members of 

the panel and for the members of the community here in Cedar 

City for the hospitality that has been shown us. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, you are very gracious. We will end this 

now. If you want to talk to us afterwards, I am sure some of us 

will be available. 

This ends this hearing. We will have another hearing tomorrow 

in Salt Lake City starting at 9:30 at the auditorium behind the 

Cap_it;ol. [Whereupon, at 3:10p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
73 

104TH 1ST CONGRESS SESSION H R 1500 

• • 

To designate eertain Federal lands in the State of Utah as wilderness, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 7, 1995 

I 

Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. BERMAN, 

Mr. B011;1oR, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. CoNYERS, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILJ\"ER, Mr. FR.A.l\'K 

of Massachusetts, Ms. FuRSE, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, 

Mr. KLuG, Mr. LAJ\'TOS, Mr. LEwis of Georgia, Ms. LoFGREN, Mrs. 

LoWEY, Mr. MARTTh"EZ, Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MTh'ETA, 

Mrs. MTh'K of Hawaii, Mr. MORAN, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. 

NADLER, Mr. OwENS, Mr. PAY11.'E of New Jersey, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. RoYBAL-.Al..LARD, Mr. S.umERS, Mrs. ScHROEDER, Mr. 

SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. 

SPRATT, Mr. STARK, Mr. TORRES, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. 

WAXMAN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. SKAGGS) 

introdueed the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resourees 

A BILL 

To designate certain Federal lands in the State of Utah 

as wilderness, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

74 

2 

2 This Act may be cited as the "America's ROO Rock 

3 Wilderness Act of 1995". 

4 SEC. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

5 (a) NAME.-Each wilderness area named in a table 

6 contained in title I shall be--

7 (1) the area referenced in the table, as gen8 erally depicted on the map entitled "Utah BLM Wil9 derness Proposed by H.R. 1500, 102d Congress"; 

10 and 

11 (2) known by the name given to it in that table. 

12 (b) MAP AND DESCRIPTION.-As soon as practicable 

13 after enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map 

14 and a legal description of each wilderness area designated 

15 under this Act with the Committee on Natural Resources 

16 of the House of Representatives and with the Committee 

17 on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. Each 

18 such map and description shall have the same force and 

19 effect as if included in this Act, except that correction of 

20 clerical and typographical errors in such legal description 

21 and map may be made. Each such map and legal descrip22 tion shall be on file and available for public inspection in 

23 the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Manage24 ment, Department of the Interior. 

25 (c) SECRETARY.-For the purposes of this Act, the 

26 term "Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. 

•HR 11100 m 
75 

3 

1 TITLE I-DESIGNATION OF 

2 ~DERNESS 

3 SEC. 101. GREAT BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that the Great 

5 Basin region of western Utah is comprised of starkly beau6 tiful mountain ranges which rise as islands from the desert 

7 floor. Some, like Wah Wah Mountains, are arid ·and aus8 tere, with massive cliff faces and leathery slopes speckled 

9 with pinyon and juniper. Others, like the Deep Creek and 

10 Stansbury Mountains, are high enough to draw moisture 

11 from passing clouds and support ecosystems found no12 where else on earth. From bristlecone pine, the world's 

13 oldest living thing, to newly flowered mountain meadows, 

14 these islands of nature support remarkable biological di15 versity and provide opportunities to experience the colossal 

16 silence of the Great Basin. 

17 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

18 so as to preserve the natural conditions of the Great Basin 

19 wilderness areas in western U tab and in furtherance of 

20 the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et 

21 seq.), the following lands in the State of Utah are hereby 

22 designated as wilderness and therefore as components of 

23 the National Wilderness Preservation System: 

Name of Wilderness Area 

Cedar Mountains Wilderness ........................................... . 

Conger Mountain Wilderness ........................................... . 

Deep Creek Mountains Wilderness .................................. . 

•HR 11100 IH 

Approximate 

Acreage 

62,100 

20,400 

90,200 
76 

4 

Dugway Mountains Wilderness ........................................ . 

Fish Spring!~ Range Wilderness ....................................... . 

Granite Peak Wilderness ................................................. . 

House Range Wilderness ................................................ .. 

King Top Wilderness ....................................................... . 

Little Gooee Creek Wilderness ......................................... . 

Newfoundland Mountains Wilderness .............................. . 

RoekweU Wdderness ......................................................... . 

Silver Island Mountains Wilderness ................................ . 

Stansbury Mountains Wilderness .................................... . 

Wah Wah Mountains Wilderness ..................................... . 

White Rock: Range Wilderness ......................................... . 

23,100 

55,200 

16,000 

139,400 

78,800 

1,300 

23,300 

13,400 

27,200 

22,500 

109,700 

3,900 

1 SEC. 102. ZION AND MOJAVE DESERT WILDERNESS AREAS. 

2 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that Zion Na3 tional Park's renowned landscape of soaring cliff walls, 

4 forested plateaus, and deep narrow gorges extends beyond 

5 the boundaries of the park onto surrounding public lands 

6 managed by the Secretary through the Bureau of Land 

7 Management. From the pink sand dunes of Moquith 

8 Mountain to the golden pools of Beaver Dam Wash, the 

9 Zion and Mojave Desert wilderness areas encompass three· 

10 major provinces of the Southwest: the sculpted canyon 

11 country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert, and 

12 portions of the Great Basin-a rich mosaic of biological, 

13 archeological, and scenic diversity. One of the last remairi14 ing populations of endangered desert tortoise is found 

15 within this wilderness. 

16 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

17 so as to preserve the natural conditions of the Zion and 

18 Mojave Desert wilderness areas of Utah and in further19 ance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 

20 1131 et seq.), the following lands in the State of Utah 

•BB 11100 m 
77 

5 

1 . are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as com2 ponents of the National Wilderness Preservation System: 

Name of Wilderness Area -d Unit 

Beaver Dam Slopes Wtldemess: 

Beaver Dam Wash ................................................... . 

Joshua Tree ............................................................. . 

Cottonwood Canyon Wtldemess ............................... . 

Cougar Creek-Docs Pass Wtldemess ....................... . 

Upper Kanab Creek Wtldemess ............................... . 

Moquith Mountain Wilderness ................................. . 

Red Mountain Wtldemess ........................................ . 

Zion Wtldemess: 

Beartrap Canyon ...................................................... . 

Black Ridge .............................................................. . 

Canaan Mountain ..................................................... . 

Deep Creek································································ 

Goose Creek .............................................................. . 

La Verkin Creek ........................................................ . 

Orderville Canyon ..................................................... . 

North Fork Vu-gin River .......................................... . 

Parunuweap Canyon ................................................ . 

Red Butte ................................................................. . 

Spring Canyon .......................................................... . 

Taylor Creek Canyon ............................................... . 

The Watehman ......................................................... . 

Appro:dmate 

Acreage 

24,900 

13,500 

11,500 

29,400 

42,200 

26,500 

18,500 

40 

21,800 

52,100 

7,100 

89 

567 

6,500 

1,040 

37,700 

804 

4,400 

35 

600 

3 SEC. 103. GRAND STAIRCASE AND KAIPAROWITS PLATEAU 

4 WILDERNESS AREAS. 

5 (a) GRAND STAIRCASE.-

6 (1) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that the 

7 area known as the Grand Staircase rises more than 

8 6,000 feet in a series of great cliffs and plateaus 

9 from the depths of the Grand Canyon to the forested 

10 rim of Bryce Canyon. It spans six major life zones, 

11 from the lower Sonoran Desert to alpine forest, and 

12 encompasses geologic formations which display 

13 3,000,000,000 years of earth history. Wildlands, 

14 managed by the Secretary through the Bureau of 

oRR 11100 m 
78 

6 

1 Land Management, line the intricate canyon system 

2 of the Paria River and form a vital wilderness cor3 ridor connection to the deserts and forests of these 

4 national parks. 

5 (2) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and 

6 manage so as to preserve the natural conditions of 

7 the wilderness area known as the Great Staircase 

8 and in furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness 

9 Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following lands in 

10 the State of Utah are hereby designated as wilder11 ness and therefore as components of the National 

12 Wilderness Preservation System: 

Name of Wllderne88 Area and Unit 

Grand Staircase Wilderness: 

Box Canyon .................................................. . 

Cockscomb ................................................... .. 

East of Bryce ................................................ . 

Mud Spring Canyon ..................................... .. 

Paria-HackbeJTy ........................................... . 

Squaw and Willis Creek ................................ . 

The Blues-Table Cliff .................................. .. 

13 (b) KAIPAROWITS PLATEAU.-

Approximate 

Acreage 

2,300 

10,300 

900 

55,100 

158,700 

22,300 

18,700 

14 (1) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that east 

15 of the Paria River lies the Kaiparowitz Plateau, one 

16 of the most rugged and isolated wilderness regions 

17 in the United States, a lonely, windswept land of 

18 harsh beauty, distant vistas, and a remarkable vari19 ety of plant and animal species. Ancient forests, 

20 abundant big game animals, and 22 species of 

•BR 11100 m 
79 

7 

1 raptors thrive undisturbed on its grassland mesa 

2 tops. 

3 (2) DESIGNATION.-ln order to protect and 

4 manage so as to preserve the Kaiparowitz Plateau 

5 and in furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness 

6 Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following lands in 

7 the State of Utah are hereby designated as wilder8 ness and therefore as components of the National 

9 Wilderness Preservation System: 

Name of Wilderness Area and Unit 

Kaiparowits Wilderness: 

Burning Hills ................................................ . 

Carcass Canyon ......................................... ... . 

Cave Point .................................................... . 

Fiftymile Bench ............................................ . 

Fiftymile Mountain ....................................... . 

Horse Spring Canyon .................................. .. 

Nipple Bench ............................................... .. 

Squaw Canyon .......................... ................... .. 

Wahweap-Paradise Canyon .......................... . 

Wann Creek .................................................. . 

Approximate 

Acreage 

68,400 

72,600 

4,800 

11,100 

173,900 

27,900 

31,600 

11,200 

228,000 

21,000 

10 SEC. 104. ESCALANTE CANYONS WILDERNESS AREAS. 

11 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that enchanting 

12 glens and coves carved in massive sandstone cliffs, spring13 watered hanging gardens, and the silence of ancient 

14 Anasazi ruins are exemplary of the unique features that 

15 entice hikers, campers, and sightseers from around the 

16 world to Escalante Canyon. This wilderness links the 

17 spruce fir forests of the 11,000 foot Aquarius Plateau with 

18 winding slickrock canyons that flow into Lake Powell. It 

19 protects critical habitat for deer, elk, and wild bighorn 

•DR 11100 m 
80 

8 

1 sheep, as well as the scenic integrity of one of Utah's most 

2 popular natural areas. 

3 (b) DESIGNATION.-ln order to protect and manage 

4 so as to preserve Escalante Canyon wilderness areas and 

5 in furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act ( 16 

6 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following lands in the State of 

7 Utah are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore 

8 as components of the National Wilderness Preservation 

9 System: 

Name of WUderne88 Area 

Colt Mesa ......................................................................... . 

Dogwater Creek ............................................................... . 

Fortymile Gulch ............................................................. .. . 

Fremont Gorge ................................................................ .. 

Hurricane Wash ............................................................... . 

Long Canyon ................................................................... .. 

North Escalante Canyons ................ .................... ............ . 

Notom Bench .......................... ......................................... . 

Phipps-Death Hollow ...................................................... .. 

Scorpion ........................................................................... . 

Steep Creek ...................................................................... . 

Studhorse Peaks .............................................................. . 

Appro:dmate 

Acreage 

23,500 

3,500 

640 

19,400 

4,300 

16,400 

144,000 

8,400 

43,500 

38,100 

34,400 

9,500 

10 SEC. 106. HENRY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS AREAS. 

11 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that the last 

12 mountain range to be discovered and named by early ex13 plorers in the contiguous United States, the Henry Moun14 tains, still retains its wild and mysterious character. 

15 Fluted badlands adorn the flanks of 11,000 foot Mount 

16 Ellen and Mount P~nnell, containing islands of critical 

17 habitat for mule deer and the largest herd of free-roaming 

18 buffalo in the Nation. Despite their relative accessibility, 

•DR u1oo m 
81 

9 

1 the Henry Mountains remain one of the wildest, least2 known ranges in the United States. 

3 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

4 so as to preserve the Henry Mountains and in furtherance 

5 of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 

6 et seq.), the following lands in the State of Utah are here7 by designated as wilderness and therefore as components 

8 of the National Wilderness Preservation System: 

Nllllle of WUdern- Area -d Unit 

Henry Mountains Wilderness: 

Bull Mountain .......................................................... . 

Bullfrog Creek .......................................................... . 

Mount Ellen-Blue Hills ............................................ . 

Mount Hillers ........................................................... . 

Mount Pennell ........................ .................................. . 

Ragged Mountain ..................................................... . 

Appro:dmate 

Aerelaee 

12,400 

36,900 

116,900 

18,600 

141,200 

23,300 

9 SEC. 108. DIRTY DEVIL RIVER WILDERNESS AREAS. 

10 (a) FINDINGS.- :The Congress finds that the Dirty 

11 Devil River, once the fortress hideout of outlaw Butch 

12 Cassidy's Wild Bunch, has sculpted a maze of slickrock 

13 canyons through an imposing landscape of monoliths and 

14 inaccessible mesas. This isolated and remote area, long a 

15 barrier to civilization and would-be colonists, now beckons 

16 a different type of explorer, the modern recreationist, who 

17 seeks to experience solitude and isolation amid spectacular 

18 beauty. 

19 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

20 so as to preserve the Dirty Devil River wilderness areas 

21 in southeast Utah and in furtherance of the purposes of 

•HB 1100 m 
82 

10 

1 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following 

2 lands in the State of Utah are hereby designated as wilder3 ness and therefore as components of the National Wilder4 ness Preservation System: 

Approlrimate 

Name of Wllderneu Area and Unit Acreage 

Dirty Devil Wilderness: 

Dirty Devil-French Springs ...................................... 175,300 

Fiddler Butte .. ....... ...... .... ......................... ....... ......... 88,200 

5 SEC. 107. CEDAR MESA WILDERNESS AREAS. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that over a thou7 sand years ago, the Anasazi Indian culture flourished in 

8 the slickrock canyons and on the pinyon-covered mesas of 

9 southeastern Utah. Evidence of their ancient presence per1 0 vades the Cedar Mesa area where haunting cliff dwellings, 

11 rock art, and ceremonial kivas embellish sandstone over12 hangs and isolated benchlands. This area cries out for pro13 tection from the vandalism and theft of these unique cul14 tural resources. These wilderness areas are drawn to pro15 teet both the Nation's archaeological heritage and extraor16 dinary wilderness scenic and ecological values. 

17 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

18 so as to preserve the Cedar Mesa wilderness areas and 

19 in furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 

20 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following lands in the State of 

21 Utah are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore 

22 as components of the National Wilderness Preservation 

23 System: 

•HR 11100 m 
83 

11 

Name of WUderneu Area and Unit 

White Canyon Wilderness: 

Gravel and Long Canyon ......................................... . 

Cheeaebox Canyon .................................................... . 

Harmony Flat .......................................................... . 

Fortlmoeker Canyon ................................................. . 

San Jnan-Anasazi Wilderness: 

Arch and Mule Canyon ............................................ . 

Comb Ridge .............................................................. . 

Fish and Owl Creek ................................................. . 

Grand Gulch ............................................................. . 

Nokai dome .............................................................. . 

Road Canyon ............................................................ . 

San Jnan River ........................................................ . 

Squaw and Cross Canyons Wilderness: 

Squaw and Papoose Canyons ................................... . 

Cross Canyon ........................................................... . 

Dart Canyon Wilderness: 

Dark Canyon ............................................................ . 

Sheep Canyon ........................................................... . 

Glen Canyon Wilderness: 

Mancos Mesa ............................................................ . 

Little Rockies ........................................................... . 

1 SEC. 108. CANYONLANDS WILDERNESS AREAS. 

Appro:dmate 

Aereap 

35,000 

28,500 

9,100 

12,400 

15,300 

15,000 

59,000 

139,800 

93,400 

60,100 

13,200 

6,580 

1,000 

126,500 

3,700 

108,700 

60,000 

2 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that Arches and 

3 Canyonlands National Parks safeguard only a small por4 tion ?f the extraordinary red-hued, cliff-walled canyonland 

5 region of the Colorado Plateau. Canyons with rushing pe6 rennial streams, natural arches, bridges, and towers, and 

7 the gorges of the Green, Colorado, and Dolores Rivers lie 

8 on adjacent wildlands managed by the Secretary through 

9 the Bureau of Land Management. Designation of this will 0 derness achieves a wholeness of protection for this 

11 erosional masterpiece of nature and the rich pockets of 

12 wildlife found within its expanded boundaries. 

13 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

14 so as to preserve the canyonland wilderness areas near 

•DB 1100 m 
84 

12 

1 Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and in further2 ance of the purposes of the Wtlderness Act (16 U.S.C. 

3 1131 et seq.), the following lands in the State of Utah 

4 are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as com5 ponents of the National Wilderness Preservation System: 

Name of Wilderneee Ana and UDit 

Canyonlands Basin Wilderness: 

Bridger Jack Mesa ................................................... . 

Butler Wash ............................................................. . 

Goose Neck ............................................................... . 

Harts Point .............................................................. . 

Indian Creek ............................................................. . 

Shafer Canyon .......................................................... . 

Labyrinth Wllderne88: 

Labyrinth Canyon .................................................... . 

Horseshoe Canyon .................................................... . 

Arches-Lost Spring Wilderness ................................ . 

La Sal Canyons Wilderness: 

Beaver Creek ............................................................ . 

Fisher Towers .......................................................... . 

Granite Creek ........................................................... . 

Mary Jane Canyon ................................................... . 

Mill Creek ................................................................. . 

Negro Bill Canyon .................................................... . 

Seweump Mesa ......................................................... . 

Behind-The-Rocks Wilderness: 

Hunter Canyon ......................................................... . 

Goldbar Canyon ........................................................ . 

Hatch Wash .......................... ... . : .............................. . 

Behind-The•Rocks .................................................... . 

Westwater Wilderness: 

Black Ridge .............................................................. . 

Westwater Canyon .................................................... . 

Apprommate 

~e 

32,700 

28,300 

8,300 

62,800 

27,000 

3,000 

120,000 

51,700 

16,900 

28,200 

15,100 

5,100 

24,200 

15,700 

20,600 

600 

4,000 

12,500 

14,300 

20,300 

5,100 

32,500 

6 SEC. 109. SAN RAFAEL SWELL WILDERNESS AREAS. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that the San 

8 Rafael Swell towers above the desert like a wilderness cas9 tie, ringed by thousand-foot ramparts of Navajo SandI 0 stone. Its highlands have been fractured by uplift and 

11 scooped hollow by erosion over countless millennia, leaving 

12 a tremendous basin punctuated by mesas, buttes, and can-

•BR 1100 m 
85 

13 

1 yons and traversed by sediment-laden desert streams. 

2 Among other places, the San Rafael wilderness offers ex3 ceptional back country opportunities in the colorful Wll.d 

4 Horse Badlands, the monoliths of North Caineville Mesa, 

5 the rock towers of Cliff Wash, and the dark volcanic 

6 mountains bordering Capitol Roof National Park. The 

7 mountains within this wilderness are among Utah's most 

8 productive habitat for Desert Bighorn Sheep. 

9 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

10 so as to preserve the San Rafael Swell wilderness areas 

11 and in furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act 

12 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following lands in the State 

13 of Utah are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore 

14 as components of the National Wilderness Preservation 

15 System: 

NIUile of WBclenae. Area and Unit 

San Rafael W"ddemess: 

Cedar Mountain ... ooooooooooooooo•oo•ooooooooo•ooooo•oo•ooooooooooooooooo••oo•o 

Del .US Can,yon 000000 oooooooooooo•oo • oo o 000 000 0 000 00000000 oo• 00 000 o 00 00 000 0000 0000 

Hondu Country oooooooooooooooooooo o,oooooo• oo•oo•oo•ooooooooooooooooo•oooooo••· 

Jones Bench oooooooooo•oooooo•oooooooooooooooooooooooooo•oo•oo•ooooooooooooo•oo•oo 

Limestone Clitrs 0000 o 000000000 000 oo• 00 0 o 000 000 000000 000 00000000 000 0000 o 00 0 000000 

Mexican Mountain ooo o oooooooooooooooooo o ooo oooooooooooooo•oooooooooooooooooooo 

Muddy Creek ooooooooOOoooooo•ooooo•oo• oooooo oooooooooooo••oooooo····•oooooooooooo 

MU88elltuehit Badlands .. oooo•oo•ooooooooo•oo•••oo•oo••••ooooo•oo oooooooo• oo 

Red Deaert OOOOOOoooooooOOooooOOoOOoOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o oooooooooo 

San Rafael Reef oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoooooooooooooo oOOOO oo 

Bids Mountain oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•oo•oooo•oooooooooooooooooooo 

Upper Muddy Creek oooooo oooooooooo oooooooooooooooo oooo oooooooooooooooooooooo 

Wild Horae Mesa oooooooo•oooo••oo•••oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•••oo•oo 

•BB 1100 m 

Approdma&e 

Aereap 

14,500 

21,500 

18,900 

2,800 

21,300 

102,600 

246,300 

23,000 

36,800 

95,000 

95,800 

17,000 

57,400 
86 

14 

1 SEC. 110. BOOK CLIFFS AND UINTA BASIN WILDERNESS 

2 AREAS. 

3 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that the Book 

4 Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas offer a unique 

5 quality of wilderness big game hunting opportunities in 

6 verdant high-plateau forests, multi-day float trips down 

7 the Green River in Desolation Canyon, and opportunity 

8 for calm water canoe weekends on the White River. The 

9 long rampart of the Book Cliffs bounds the area on the 

10 south, while seldom-visited uplands, dissected by the rivers 

11 and streams, slope away to the north into the Uinta Basin. 

12 Bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, bear, and cougar all flour13 ish in the back country of the Book Cliffs. 

14 (b) DESIGNATION.-In order to protect and manage 

15 so as to preserve the Book Cliffs area and in furtherance 

16 of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 

17 et seq.), the following lands in the State of Utah are here18 by designated as wilderness and therefore as components 

19 of the National Wilderness Preservation System: 

Name of WUderne1111 Area and Unit 

Desolation Canyon Wilderness: 

Eastern Book Cliffs .................................................. . 

Desolation Canyon ................................................... . 

Turtle Canyon ............... ........................................... . 

White River WJidemess ..................... .................. ..... . 

Greater Dinosaur Wilderness: 

Bull Canyon .............................................................. . 

Diamond Breaks ...................................................... . 

Daniels Canyon ........................................................ . 

Moonshine Draw ...................................................... . 

Cold Springs Mountain ............................................ . 

Wlld Mountain .......................................................... . 

•HR 11100 m 

Approximate 

Acreage 

154,600 

527,100 

36,900 

9,700 

500 

7,800 

5,300 

3,500 

3,400 

600 
87 

15 

1 TITLE II-ADMINISTRATIVE 

2 PROVISIONS 

3 SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATION. 

4 Subject to valid existing rights, the wilderness areas 

5 designated under this Act shall be administered by the 

6 Secretary in accordance with section 603 of the Federal 

7 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

8 1782) and the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing 

9 areas designated by that Act as wilderness. 

10 SEC. 202. WATER. 

11 (a) RESERVATION.-(!) With respect to each wilder12 ness area designated by this Act, Congress hereby reserves 

13 a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of this 

14 Act. The priority date of such reserved rights shall be the 

15 date of enactment of this Act. 

16 (2) The Secretary and all other officers of the United 

17 States shall take all steps necessary to protect the rights 

18 reserved by paragraph (1), including the filing by the Sec19 retary of a claim for the quantification of such rights in 

20 any present or future appropriate stream adjudication in 

21 the courts of the State of Utah in which the United States 

22 is or may be joined and which is conducted in accordance 

23 with section 208 of the Act of July 10, 1952 (66 Stat. 

24 56; 44 U.S.C. 666, commonly referred to as the 

25 "McCarran Act"). 

•DR 11100 m 
88 

16 

1 (b) PRIOR RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED.-Nothing in this 

2 Act shall be construed as a relinquishment or reduction 

3 of any water rights reserved or appropriated by the United 

4 States in the State of Utah on or before the date of enact5 ment of this Act. 

6 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-The Federal water 

7 rights reserved by this Act are specific to the wilderness 

8 areas located in the State of Utah designated by this Act. 

9 Nothing in this Act related to reserved Federal water shall 

10 be construed as establishing a precedent with regard to 

11 any future designations, nor shall it constitute an interpre12 tation of any other Act or any designation made pursuant 

13 thereto. 

0 

•HR 11100 IH 
89 

104TH CONGRESS H R 174' .5 1ST SESSION • • 

To designate certain public lands in the State of Utah as wilderness, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 1995 

Mr. HANSEN (for himself and Mrs. WALDHOLTZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To designate certain public lands in the State of Utah as 

wilderness, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Utah Public Lands 

5 Management Act of 1995". 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS. 

7 (a) DESIGNATION.-In furtherance of the purposes of 

8 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following 

9 lands in the State of Utah are hereby designated as wilder-
90 

2 

1 ness and therefore as components of the National Wilder2 ness Preservation System: 

3 (1) Certain lands in the Desolation Canyon Wil4 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

5 254,478 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti6 tled "Desolation Canyon Wilderness-Propos~d" 

7 and dated , and which shall be known as 

8 the Desolation Canyon Wilderness. 

9 (2) Certain lands in the San Rafael Reef Will 0 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

11 47,786 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti12 tied "San Rafael Reef Wilderness-Proposed" and 

13 dated , and which shall be known as the 

14 San Rafael Reef Wilderness. 

15 (3) Certain lands in the Horseshoe Canyon Wil16 derness Study Area (North) comprised of approxi17 mately 22,943 acres, as generally depicted on a map 

18 entitled "Horseshoe/Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness19 Proposed" and dated , and which shall be 

20 known as the Horseshoe/Labyrinth Canyon Wilder21 ness. 

22 ( 4) Certain lands in the Crack Canyon Wilder23 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 20,322 

24 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

25 "Crack Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

•HR 17411 m 
91 

3 

1 , and which shall be k:p.own as the Crack 

2 Canyon Wilderness. 

3 (5) Certain lands in the Muddy Creek Wilder4 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 37,244 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

6 "Muddy Creek Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 , and which shall be known as the Muddy 

8 Creek Wilderness. 

9 (6) Certain lands in the Sids Mountain Wilder10 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 41,154 

11 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Sids 

12 Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

13 and which shall be known as the Sids 

14 Mountain Wilderness. 

15 (7) Certain lands in the Mexican Mountain Wil16 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

17 34,107 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti18 tied "Mexican Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" and 

19 dated , and which shall be known as the 

20 Mexican Mountain Wilderness. 

21 (8) Certain lands in the Phipps-Death Hollow 

22 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

23 42,437 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti24 tied "Phipps-Death Hollow Wilderness-Proposed" 

•RR 17411 m 
92 

4 

1 and dated , and which shall be known as 

2 the Phipps-Death Hollow Wilderness. 

3 ( 9) Certain lands in the Steep Creek Wilderness 

4 Study Area comprised of approximately 21,277 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

6 "Steep Creek Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 , and which shall be known as the Steep 

8 Creek Wilderness. 

9 (10) Certain lands in the North Escalante CantO yons/The Gulch Wilderness Study Area comprised of 

11 approximately 103,324 acres, as generally depicted 

12 on a map entitled "North Escalante Canyons/The 

13 Gulch Wilderness-Proposed" and dated ___ _ 

14 and which shall be known as the North Escalante 

15 Canyons/The Gulch Creek Wilderness. 

16 (11) Certain lands in the Scorpion Wilderness 

17 Study Area comprised of approximately 16,692 

18 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Scor19 pion Wilderness-Proposed" and dated ___ _ 

20 and which shall be known as the Scorpion Wilder21 ness. 

22 (12) Certain lands in the Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills 

23 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

24 62,663 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti25 tied "Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills Wilderness-Proposed" 

•HR 17411 m 
93 

5 

1 and dated , and which shall be known as 

2 the Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills Wilderness. 

3 (13) Certain lands in the Bull Mountain Wil4 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

5 11,424 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti6 tied "Bull Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" and 

7 dated , and which shall be known as the 

8 Bull Mountain Wilderness. 

9 (14) Certain lands in the Fiddler Butte Wilder10 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 22,180 

11 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Fid12 dler Butte Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

13 , and which shall be known as the Fiddler 

14 Butte Mountain Wilderness. 

15 (15) Certain lands in the Mt. Pennell Wilder16 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 18,620 

17 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Mt. 

18 Pennell Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

19 and which shall be known as the Mt. 

20 Pennell Wilderness. 

21 (16) Certain lands m the Mt. Hillers Wilder22 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 14,7 46 

23 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Mt. 

24 Hillers Wilderness-Proposed" and dated ___ _ 

•BR 17411 m 
94 

6 

1 and which shall be known as the Mt. Hillers Wilder2 ness. 

3 ( 17) Certain lands in the Little Rockies Wilder4 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 48,928 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Lit6 tle Rockies Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 , and which shall be known as the Little 

8 Rockies Wilderness. 

9 (18) Certain lands m the Mill Creek Canyon 

10 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

11 7,838 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

12 "Mill Creek Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and 

13 dated , and which shall be known as the 

14 Mill Creek Canyon Wilderness. 

15 (19) Certain lands in the Negro Bill Canyon 

16 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

17 7,432 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

18 "Negro Bill Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and 

19 dated , and which shall be known as the 

20 Negro Bill Canyon Wilderness. 

21 (20) Certain lands in the Floy Canyon Wilder22 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 28,290 

23 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Floy 

24 Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

•HR 1'1'41 m 
95 

7 

1 and which shall be known as the Floy 

2 Canyon Wilderness. 

3 (21) Certain lands in the Coal Canyon Wilder4 ness Study Area and the Spruce Canyon Wilderness 

5 Study Area comprised of approximately 46,669 

6 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "CoaV 

7 Spruce Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

8 , and which shall be known as the CoaV 

9 Spruce Canyon Wilderness. 

10 (22) Certain lands in the Flume Canyon Wil11 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

12 31,568 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti13 tled "Flume Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and 

14 dated , and which shall be known as the 

15 Flume Canyon Wilderness. 

16 (23) Certain lands in the Westwater Canyon 

17 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

18 25,383 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti19 tied "Westwater Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" 

20 and dated , and which shall be known as 

21 the Westwater Canyon Wilderness. 

22 (24) Certain lands in the Beaver Creek Wilder23 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 24,531 

24 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Bea25 ver Creek Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

•HB 1746 m 
96 

8 

1 , and which shall be known as the Beaver 

2 Creek Wilderness. 

3 (25) Certain lands in the Fish Springs Wilder4 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 36,142 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Fish 

6 Springs Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 and which shall be known as the Fish 

8 Springs Wilderness. 

9 (26) Certain lands in the Swasey Mountain Will 0 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

11 34,803 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti12 tled "Swasey Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" and 

13 dated , and which shall be known as the 

14 Swasey Mountain Wilderness. 

15 (27) Certain lands in the Parunuweap Canyon 

16 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

17 19,122 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti18 tied "Parunuweap Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" 

19 and dated , and which shall be known as 

20 the Parunuweap Wilderness. 

21 (28) Certain lands in the Canaan Mountain 

22 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

23 30,864 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti24 tled "Canaan Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" and 

•HR 1745 IH 
97 

9 

1 dated __ _ and which shall be known as the 

2 Canaan Mountain Wilderness. 

3 (29) Certain lands in the Paria-Hackberry Wil4 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

5 57,641 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti6 tied "Paria-Hackberry Wilderness-Proposed" and 

7 dated , and which shall be known as the 

8 Paria-Hackberry Wilderness. 

9 (30) Certain lands in the Escalante Canyon 

10 Tract 5 Wilderness Study Area comprised of ap11 proximately 756 acres, as generally depicted on a 

12 map entitled "Escalante Canyon Tract 5 Wilder13 ness-Proposed" and dated , and which 

14 shall be known as the Escalante Canyon Tract 5 

15 Wilderness. 

16 (31) Certain lands in the Fifty Mile Mountain 

17 Wilderness Sturly Area comprised of approximately 

18 121,434 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti19 tied "Fifty Mile Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" 

20 and dated , and which shall be known as 

21 the Fifty Mile Mountain Wilderness. 

22 (32) Certain lands in the Howell Peak Wilder23 ness comprised of approximately 14,518 acres, as 

24 generally depicted on a map entitled "Howell Peak 

25 Wilderness-Proposed" and dated ____ ,and 

HR 1745 IH-2 
98 

10 

1 which shall be known as the Howell Peak Wilder2 ness. 

3 (33) Certain lands in the Notch Peak Wilder4 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 28,778 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

6 "Notch Peak Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 , and which shall be known as the Notch 

8 Peak Wilderness. 

9 (34) Certain lands in the Wah Wah Mountains 

10 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

11 41,311 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti12 tied "Wah Wah Mountains Wilderness-Proposed" 

13 and dated , and which shall be known as 

14 the Wah Wah Wilderness. 

15 (35) Certain lands in the Mancos Mesa Wilder16 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 48,269 

17 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

18 "Mancos Mesa Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

19 , and which shall be known as the Mancos 

20 Mesa Wilderness. 

21 (36) Certain lands in the Grand Gulch Wilder22 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 51,110 

23 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

24 "Grand Gulch Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

•HR 1745 m 
99 

11 

1 , and which shall be known as the Grand 

2 Gulch Wilderness. 

3 (37) Certain lands in the Dark Canyon Wilder4 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 67,099 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Dark 

6 Canyon Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 and which shall be known as the Dark 

8 Canyon Wilderness. 

9 (38) Certain lands in the Butler Wash Wilder10 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 25,400 

11 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "But12 ler Wash Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

13 , and which shall be known as the Butler 

14 Wash Wilderness. 

15 (39) Certain lands in the Indian Creek Wilder16 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 6,769 

17 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "ln18 dian Creek Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

19 , and which shall be known as the Indian 

20 Creek Wilderness. 

21 ( 40) Certain lands in the Behind the Rocks 

22 Wilderness Study Area comprised of approximately 

23 13,728 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti24 tled "Behind the Rocks Wilderness-Proposed" and 

•DR 17411 m 
100 

12 

1 dated , and which shall be known as the 

2 Behind the Rocks Wilderness. 

3 ( 41) Certain lands in the Cedar Mountains Wil4 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

5 25,645 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti6 tied "Cedar Mountains Wilderness-Proposed" and 

7 dated , and which shall be known as the 

8 Cedar Mountains Wilderness. 

9 ( 42) Certain lands in the Deep Creek Moun10 tains Wilderness Study Area comprised of approxi11 mately 71,024 acres, as generally depicted on a map 

12 entitled "Deep Creek Mountains Wilderness-Pro13 posed" and dated , and which shall be 

14 known as the Deep Creek Mountains Wilderness. 

15 (43) Certain lands in the Nutters Hole Wilder16 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 3,647 

17 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Nut18 ters Hole Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

19 , and which shall be k:riown as the Nutters 

20 Hole Wilderness. 

21 (44) Certain lands in the Cougar Canyon Wil22 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

23 6,408 acres, including those lands located in the 

24 State of Nevada, as generally depicted on a map en25 titled "Cougar Canyon Wilderness--Proposed" and 

•BR 1741 m 
101 

13 

1 dated __ _ and which shall be known as the 

2 Cougar Canyon Wilderness. 

3 ( 45) Certain lands in the Red Mountain Wilder4 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 9,216 

5 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Red 

6 Mountain Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

7 and which shall be known as the Red 

8 Mountains Wilderness. 

9 ( 46) Certain lands in the Deep Creek Wilder10 ness Study Area comprised of approximately 3,063 

11 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Deep 

12 Creek Wilderness-Proposed" and dated ___ _ 

13 and which shall be known as the Deep Creek Wilder14 ness. 

15 (47) Certain lands within the Dirty Devil Wil16 derness Study Area comprised of approximately 

17 75,854 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti18 tled "Dirty Devil Wilderness-Proposed" and dated 

19 , and which shall be known as the Dirty 

20 Devil Wilderness. 

21 (48) Certain lands within the Horseshoe Can22 yon South Wilderness Study Area comprised of ap23 proximately 11,392 acres, as generally depicted on a 

24 map entitled "Horseshoe Canyon South Wilder25 ness-Proposed" and dated ____ , and which 

•BR 17411 m 
102 

14 

1 shall be known as the Horseshoe Canyon South Wil2 derness. 

3 (49) Certain lands in the French Spring-Happy 

4 Canyon Wilderness Study Area comprised of ap5 proximately 12,343 acres, as generally depicted on a 

6 map entitled "French Spring-Happy Canyon Wilder7 ness-Proposed" and dated , and which 

8 shall be known as the French Spring-Happy Canyon 

9 Wilderness. 

10 (b) MAP AND DESCRIPTION.-As soon as practicable 

11 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

12 the Interior (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Sec13 retary") shall file a map and a legal description of each 

14 area designated as wilderness by subsection (a) with the 

15 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 

16 and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 

17 the Senate. Each such map and description shall have the 

18 same force and effect as if included in this Act, except 

19 that corrections of clerical and typographical errors in 

20 each such map and legal description may be made. Ea~h 

21 such map and legal description shall be on file and avail22 able for public inspection in the office of the Director of 

23 the Bureau of Land Management, and the office of the 

24 State Director of the Bureau of Land Management in the 

25 State of Utah, Department of the Interior. 

•BR 17411 JH 
103 

15 

1 SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

3 each area designated by this Act as wilderness shall be 

4 administered by the Secretary in accordance with this Act, 

5 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and section 

6 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

7 1976. Any lands or interest in lands within the boundaries 

8 of an area designated as wilderness by this Act that is 

9 acquired by the United States after the date of enactment 

10 of this Act shall be added to and administered as part 

11 of the wilderness area within which such lands or interests 

12 in lands are located. 

13 (b) MANAGEMENT PLANs.-The Secretary shall, as 

14 soon as possible, prepare plans to manage · the areas des15 ignated by this Act as wilderness. 

16 (c) LIVESTOCK.-Grazing of livestock in areas des17 ignated as wilderness by this Act, where established prior 

18 to the date of the enactment of this Act, shall19 (1) continue and not be curtailed, phased out or 

20 rendered economically infeasible due to wilderness 

21 designation or management; and 

22 (2) be administered in accordance with section 

23 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 

24 1133(d)(4)) and the guidelines set forth in House 

25 Report 96-1126. 

•BR 17411 m· 
104 

16 

1 (d) STATE FisH AND WILDLIFE.-In accordance 

2 with section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 

3 1131(d)(7)), nothing in this Act shall be construed as af4 fecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State of 

5 Utah with respect to fish and wildlife management activi6 ties, including water development, predator control, trans7 planting animals, stocking fish, hunting, fishing and trapS ping. 

9 (e) PRoHIBITION OF BUFFER ZONES.-The ContO gress does not intend that designation of an area as wil11 derness by this Act lead to the creation of protective pe12 rimeters or buffer zones around the area. The fact that 

13 nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen, heard, or 

14 smelled from areas within a wilderness shall not preclude 

15 such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilder16 ness area. 

17 (f) OIL SHALE RESERVE NUMBER Two.-The area 

18 known as "Oil Shale Reserve Number Two" within Deso19 lation Canyon Wilderness (as designated by section 

20 2(a)(l)), locat;e(J in Carbon County, Utah, shall not be re21 served for oil shale purposes after the date of the enact22 ment of this Act and shall be under the sole jurisdiction 

23 of and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

24 (g) RoADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY AS BOUNDARIES.-

25 Unless depicted otherwise on a map referred to by this 

•DR 1'741 m 
105 

17 

1 Act, where roads form the boundaries of the areas des2 ignated as wilderness by this Act, the wi.lderness boundary 

3 shall be set back from the center line of the road as fol4 lows: 300 feet for high standard roads such as paved highS ways; and 100 feet for roads equivalent to high standard 

6 logging roads and dirt roads used for right-of-way mainte7 nance. 

8 (h) CHERRY-STEMMED RoADS.-(1) Except as pro9 vided by paragraph (2), the Secretary may not close or 

10 limit access to any road that is within (in whole or in 

11 part), or that is a boundary (as described in subsection 

12 (g)) of, an area designated as wilderness by this Act. 

13 (2) If the Secretary determines that public safety re14 quires the closure to public use of any road subject to 

15 paragraph (1), the Secretary may take such action as the 

16 Secretary determines necessary or desirable to effect and 

17 maintain such closure. Any such closure shall be limited 

18 to the minimum period which the Secretary determines is 

19 necessary to carry out this paragraph. Before and during 

20 any closure under this subsection, the Secretary shall take 

21 appropriate steps to notify the public concerning such clo22 sures. 

23 (3) Any road described in paragraph (1) that is main24 tained by an entity other than the United States may con25 tinue to be maintained and repaired by any such entity. 

•HR 17411 m . 
106 

18 

1 (i) ACCESS.-(1) Reasonable access shall be allowed 

2 to water diversion, carriage, storage arid ancillary facilities 

3 in existence as of the date of enactment of this Act which 

4 are within areas designated as wilderness by this Act, in5 eluding motOrized access where necessary or customarily 

6 or historically employro on existing routes. The diversion, 

7 carriage and storage capacity as of such date of such existS ing water facilities, and the condition of existing access 

9 routes as of such date, may be operated, maintained, reI 0 paired, modified, and replaced as necessary to maintain 

11 serviceable conditions. 

12 (2) Reasonable access shall be allowed to any non13 Federal lands that may remain within the areas des14 ignated as wilderness by this Act and to valid existing 

15 rights on Federal lands, including (but not limited to) ex16 isting water diversion, carriage, storage and ancillary fa17 cilities and livestock grazing improvements and structures. 

18 (3) Facilities, structures and related access routes ex19 isting as of the date of enactment of this Act in areas 

20 designated as wilderness by this Act may be operated, 

21 maintained, repaired, and replaced as necessary to main22 tain serviceable conditions. 

23 ( 4) For the purposes of this subsection, reasonable 

24 access includes motorized access where necessary and cus25 tomarily or historically employed on routes in existence as 

•DR 1'7411 m 
107 

19 

1 of the date of enactment of this Act and where necessary 

2 to meet the reasonable purposes for development and use 

3 of in-held lands or valid existing rights. 

4 (j) LAND ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OR PUR5 CHASE.-The Secretary shall offer to acquire from non6 governmental entities lands and interests in lands located 

7 within or adjacent to areas designated as wilderness by 

8 this Act. Lands may be acquired under this subsection 

9 only by exchange or purchase from willing sellers. 

10 SEC. 4. WATER RIGHTS. 

11 (a) No FEDERAL RESERVATION.-Nothing in this 

12 Act or any other Act of Congress shall constitute or be 

13 construed to constitute either an express or implied Fed14 eral reservation of water or water rights for any purpose 

15 arising from the designation of areas as wilderness by this 

16 Act. 

17 (b) ACQUISITION AND EXERCISE OF WATER RIGHTS 

18 UNDER UTAH LAw.-The United States may acquire and 

19 exercise such water rights as it deems necessary to carry 

20 out its responsibilities on any lands designated as wilder21 ness by this Act pursuant to the substantive and proce22 dural requirements of the State of Utah. Nothing in this 

23 Act shall be construed to authorize the use of eminent do24 main by the United States to acquire water rights for such 

25 lands. Within areas designated as wilderness by this Act, 

•HR 1745 m 
108 

20 

1 all rights to water granted under the laws of the State 

2 of Utah may be exercised in accordance with the sub3 stantive and procedural requirements of the State of Utah. 

4 (c) EXERCISE OF WATER RIGHTS GENERALLY 

5 UNDER UTAH LA.ws.-Nothing in this Act shall be con6 strued to limit the exercise of water rights as provided 

7 under Utah State laws. 

8 (d) CERTAIN FACILITIES NOT AFFECTJ\:D,.--Nothing 

9 m this Act shall affect irrigation, ·pumping and trans1 0 mission facilities and municipal, agricultural, livestock, or 

11 wildlife water facilities in existence within the boundaries 

12 of areas designated as wilderness by this Act, nor shall /~ 

13 anything in this Act be construed tg.limit operation, main14 tenance, repair, modification, or replacement of such exist-

' 

15 ing facilities, as provided in section 3(i). 

16 (e) WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS.~Nothing in this 

17 Act shall be construed to limit or to be a consideration 

18 in Federal approvals or denials for access to or use of the 

19 Federal lands for development and operation of water re20 source projects, including (but not limited to) reservoir 

21 projects, which are located outside and upstream of areas 

22 designated as wilderness by this Act. 

23 SEC. 5. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 

24 The Secretary shall allow for the discovery of, shall 

25 protect, and may interpret, cultural or paleontological re-

•HR 1745 m 
109 

21 

1 sources located within areas designated as wilderness by 

2 this Act, including through mechanical means where nec3 essary notwithstanding section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)). 

5 SEC. 8. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS 

6 USES. 

7 In recognition of the past use of portions of the areas 

8 designated as wilderness by this Act by Native Americans 

9 for traditional cultural and religious purposes, the Sec1 0 retary shall assure nonexclusive access from time to time 

11 to those sites by Native Americans for such purposes, in12 eluding (but not limited to) wood gathering for personal 

13 . use or collecting plants or herbs for religious or medicinal 

14 purposes. Such access shall be consistent with the purpose 

15 and intent of the Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996; 

16 commonly referred to as the "American Indian Religious 

17 Freedom Act"). 

18 SEC. 7. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS. 

19 (a) Low-LEVEL OVERFLIGHTS NOT PRECLUDED.-

20 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or pre21 elude low-level overflights over the areas designated as wil22 derness by this Act, including military overflights that can 

23 be seen or heard within such areas. Nothing in this Act 

24 shall be construed to restrict or preclude the designation 

•BR 17415 m 
110 

22 

1 of new units of special airspace or the establishment of 

2 military flight training routes over such areas. 

3 (b) COMMUNICATIONS OR TRACKING SYSTEMS.-

4 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the re5 moval of existing communication or electronic tracking 

6 systems from areas designated as wilderness by this Act 

7 or to prevent the installation of portable electronic commu8 nication or tracking systems in support of military flights 

9 so long as installation, maintenance, and removal of such 

10 systems does not require construction of temporary or perIl manent roads. 

12 SEC. 8. AIR QUALITY. 

13 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Congress does not intend 

14 that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Utah 

15 by this Act lead to reclassification of any airshed to a more 

16 stringent Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

17 classification. 

18 (b) RoLE OF STATE.-Air quality reclassification for 

19 the wilderness areas established by this Act shall be the 

20 prerogative of the State of Utah. All areas designated as 

21 wilderness by this Act are and shall continue to be man22 aged as PSD Class II under the Clean Air Act unless they 

23 are reclassified by the State of Utah in accordance with 

24 the Clean Air Act. 

•BR 17411 m 
111 

23 

(c) INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES;-Nothing in this Act 

2 shall be construed to restrict or preclude construction, op3 eration, or expansion of industrial facilities outside of the 

4 areas designated as wilderness by this Act, including (but 

5 not limited to) the Hunter Power Plant, the Huntington 

6 Power Plant, the Intermountain Power Project, the Bo7 nanza Power Plant, the Continental Lime Plant, and the 

8 Brush Wellman Plant. Such projects and facilities shall 

9 be permitted according to appropriate laws and regula1 0 tions including (but not limited to) the Clean Air Act. 

11 SEC. 9. DISCLAIMERS. 

12 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to---

13 (1) prohibit the establish,ment and maintenance 

14 of reservoirs, water-conservation works, transmission 

15 lines, and other facilities needed in the public inter16 est, including the road construction and maintenance 

17 essential to development and use thereof in18 (A) Cougar Canyon Wilderness designated 

19 by section 2(a)(44); 

20 (B) Red Mountain Wilderness designated 

21 by section 2(a)(45); 

22 (C) Parunuweap Canyon Wilderness des23 ignated by section 2(a)(27); and 

24 (D) Canaan Mountain Wilderness des25 ignated by section 2(a)(28); 

•BR 1746 m 
112 

24 

1 (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

2 prevent the maintenance, repair, or expansion of 

3 communication sites and facilities or to require re4 moval of existing communication sites and facilities 

5 m6 (A) Swasey Mountain Wilderness des7 ignated by section 2(a)(26); 

8 (B) Fifty Mile Mountain Wilderness des9 ignated by section 2(a)(31); 

10 (C) Mt. Ellen Wilderness designated by 

11 section 2(a)(12); and 

12 (D) Deep Creek Mountains Wilderness 

13 designated by section 2(a)(42). 

14 (3) prevent the construction of a pipeline for 

15 transport of natural gas through the Right Hand of 

16 Tusher Canyon in and adjacent to the Desolation 

17 Canyon Wilderness designated by section 2 (a)( 1); 

18 ( 4) as establishing a precedent with regard to 

19 any future wilderness designation, nor shall it con20 stitute an interpretation of any other Act or any wil21 derness designation made pursuant thereto; and 

22 ( 5) to prevent the use of any mechanically pro23 pelled water craft on navigable streams that lie with24 in or adjacent to an area designated as wilderness 

25 by this Act. 

•BR 17411 m 
113 

25 

1 SEC. 10. WILDERNESS RELEASE. 

2 (a) FINDING.-The Congress finds and directs that 

3 all public lands in the State of Utah administered by the 

4 Bureau of Land Management have been adequately stud5 ied for wilderness designation pursuant to sections 202 

6 and 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

7 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712 and 1782). 

8 (b) RELEASE.-Except as provided in subsection (c), 

9 any public lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

10 Management in the State of Utah not designated wilder11 ness by this Act shall not be subject to section 603(c) of 

12 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

13 (43 U.S.C. 1783(c)) but shall be managed for the full 

14 range of nonwilderness multiple uses in accordance with 

15 land management plans adopted pursuant to section 202 

16 of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1712). Such lands shall not be 

17 managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for 

18 wilderness designation or their wilderness character and 

19 shall remain available for nonwilderness multiple uses, 

20 subject to the requirements of other Federal laws. 

21 (c) CONTINUING WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS STA22 TUS.-The following wilderness study areas which are 

23 under study status by States adjacent to the State of Utah 

24 shall continue to be subject to section 603(c) of the Fed25 eral Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

26 1782(c)): 

•DR 17411 m 
114 

26 

1 (1) Bull Canyon; UT-080-419/C0-010-001. 

2 (2) Wrigley Mesa/Jones Canyon/Black Ridge 

3 Canyon West; UT-060- 116/117/C0-070-113A. 

4 (3) Squaw/Papoose Canyon; UT-060-227/C0-

5 030-265A. 

6 (4) Cross Canyon; UT-060-229/C0-030-265. 

7 SEC. 11. EXCHANGE RELATING TO SCHOOL AND INSTITU8 TIONAL TRUST LANDS. 

9 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that10 (1) approximately 142,041 acres of school and 

11 institutional trust lands are located within or adja12 cent to areas designated as wilderness by this Act; 

13 (2) such lands were originally granted to the 

14 State of Utah for the purpose of generating support 

15 for the public schools through the development of 

16 natural resources and other methods; 

17 (3) it is in the interest of the State of Utah for 

18 such lands to be exchanged for interests in Federal 

19 lands located outside of wilderness areas to accom20 plish this purpose; and 

21 ( 4) the Federal lands described in subsection 

22 (c)(2) are of approximate equivalent value to such 

23 school and institutional trust lands. 

24 (b) EXCHANGE.-lf, not later than two years after 

25 the date of the enactment of this Act and in accordance 

•HR 17411 m 
115 

27 

1 with this section, the State of Utah offers to transfer all 

2 its right, title, and interest in and to the school and insti3 tutional trust lands described in subsection (c)(l) to the 

4 United States, the Secretary shall accept the offer and 

5 transfer (within two years after the date of such accept6 ance) to the State of Utah in exchange for such lands all 

7 right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 

8 the Federal lands described in subsection (c)(2) and, if 

9 necessary, lands identified pursuant to subsection (d). The 

10 exchange of lands under this section shall be subject to 

11 valid existing rights. 

12 (c) STATE AND FEDERAL EXCHANGE LANDS DE13 SCRIBED.-

14 (1) SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST 

15 LANDS.-The school and institutional trust lands re16 ferred to in this section are those lands generally de17 picted as "Utah School Lands" on the map entitled 

18 "In-Held School Trust Land Exchange-Proposed" 

19 and dated which20 (A) are located within or adjacent to areas 

21 designated by this Act as wilderness; and 

22 (B) were granted by the United States in 

23 the Utah Enabling Act to the State of Utah in 

24 trust and other lands which under State law 

25 must be managed for the benefit of the public 

•HR 1745 m 
116 

28 

1 school system or the institutions of the State 

2 which are designated by the Utah Enabling Act. 

3 (2) FEDERAL LANDS.-The Federal lands re4 ferred to in this section are the lands located in the 

5 State of Utah which are generally depicted as "Fed6 eral Exchange Lands" on the map referred to in 

7 paragraph ( 1). 

8 (d) ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE FEDERAL LANDS TO 

9 REMEDY IMBALANCES DUE TO ENCUMBRANCES.-

10 (1) LIST OF ENCUMBRANCES.-Not later than 

11 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

12 the Secretary shall prepare a list of all encum13 brances of record (in the records of the Bureau of 

14 Land Management or otherwise known to the Bu15 reau of Land Management) of the Federal lands de16 scribed in subsection (c)(2) and transmit the list to 

17 the State of Utah. Likewise," the State shall prepare 

18 a list of all encumbrances of record or otherwise 

19 known to the State to the State lands described in 

20 subsection (c)(l) and transmit the list to the Sec21 retary. 

22 (2) REMEDY.-In the event that the encum23 brances identified pursuant to paragraph (1) result 

24 in an imbalance in the exchange under this section 

25 such that the value of the lands transferred by the 

•HR 17411 m 
117 

29 

1 State is greater than the value of the Federal lands 

2 received, the Secretary shall transfer to the State 

3 such additional Federal lands as may be necessary 

4 to remedy the imbalance. 

5 (e) DUTIES OF THE PARTIES AND OTHER PROVI6 SIONS RELATING TO THE EXCHANGE.-

7 (1) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.-The State 

8 of Utah and the Secretary shall each provide to the 

9 other legal descriptions of the lands under their reI 0 spective jurisdictions which are to be exchanged 

11 under this section. The map referred to in sub12 section (c)(l) and the legal descriptions provided 

13 under this subsection shall be on file and available 

14 for public inspection in the office of the Director of 

15 the Bureau of Land Management, and the office of 

16 the State Director of the Bureau of Land Manage17 ment in the State of Utah, Department of the Inte18 rior. 

19 (2) HAzARDOUS MATERIALS.-The Secretary 

20 and, as a condition of the exchange under this sec21 tion, the State of Utah shall make available for re22 view and inspection all pertinent records relating to 

23 hazardous materials (if any) on lands to be ex24 changed under this section. The responsibility for 

25 costs of remedial action related to such materials 

oRR 1746 m 
118 

30 

1 shall be borne by those entities responsible under ex2 isting law. 

3 (3) PROVISIONS RELATING TO FEDERAL 

4 LANDS.-(A) The enactment of this section Act shall 

5 be construed as satisfying the provisions of section 

6 206(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

7 Act of 1976 requiring that exchanges of lands be in 

8 the public interest. 

9 (B) The transfer of lands and related activities 

10 required of the Secretary under this section shall not 

11 be subject to National Environmental Policy Act of 

12 1969. 

13 (C) The value of Federal lands transferred to 

14 the State under this section shall be adjusted to re15 fleet the right of the State of Utah to share in reve16 nue from such Federal lands. 

17 (D) Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal 

18 lands described in subsection (c)(2) are hereby with19 drawn from d_isposition under the public land laws 

20 and from location, entry, and patent under the min21 ing laws of the United States, from the operation of 

22 the mineral leasing laws of the United States, from 

23 operation of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, and 

24 from the operation of the Act of July 31, 1947, com-

·-1'141 m 
119 

31 

1 monly known as the Materials Act of 1947 (30 

2 U.S.C. 601 and following). 

3 (f) ADMINISTRATION OF LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE 

4 UNITED STATES.-The lands and interests in lands aF5 quired by the United States under this section shall be 

_.// 

6 added to and administered as part of areas of the public 

7 lands, as indicated on the maps referred to in this section 

8 or in section 2, as applicable. 

0 
1~ 

Testimony of Scott Hirschi 

Director, School and Institution Trust Lands Administration 

State of Utah 

H. R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

June 24, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to address you today concerning the issue of 

school trust lands and proposed wilderness designation for Bureau 

of Land Management lands, pursuant to either H.R. 1745 or H.R. 

1500. 

The School and Institutional Trust Lands were offered to tr..e 

state for the benefit of the common schools in the Act of 

Congress which enabled the territory of Utah to become a state. 

The lands were accepted by the state for those purposes in the 

state constitution . In exchange, the state gave up the right teo 

tax the federal lands. Pursuant to its sovereign powers as a 

state, Utah manages this fiduciary contract and the associated 

trust lands through an independent state agency, the School and 

Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and a seven 

member policy setting Board of Trustees (Board) . State law 

requires the Board, as trustees, to set policies that, among 

other things, reflect undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries (the 

public schools, universities and other named institutions), 

optimize trust land holdings, and prevent the misapplication of 

its lands. · 

The Board, SITLA and their predecessors have been concerned 

for a long time about de facto restrictions on the utilization of 

the trust lands caused by federal land management.· The trust 

lands are scattered checkerboard style throughout the federal 

land in Utah, with the federal land surrounding the smaller 

parcels of trust land . Restrictions on, and complicated 

procedures for, the use of the federal lands have become a real 

and significant burden on the development of the trust lands. 

The Board and SITLA are greatly concerned about proposals 

for the designation of wilderness because federal reservations 

created solely for the purposes of preservation, such as national 

parks and wilderness, can be directly at odds with the purpose e>f 

the trust. For example, the trust has the legal right to 

reasonable access to the trust lands in order to accomplish its 
121 

responsibilities. Land surrounded by protected pristine areas 

can be very attractive on the real estate market. Real estate development, however, would severely detract from the wilderness 

setting the Congress envisions for these areas. SITLA believes 

that H.R. 1745 properly identifies the interdependence of trust 

lands as they relate to and contribute to the wilderness areas. 

Tfie Board and SITLA see the opportunity for both the federal 

wilderness and trust objectives to be accomplished through the 

proposed exchange of lands. H.R. 1745 correctly recognizes the 

rights, importance and obligations of trust lands and SITLA. 

Specifically, Section 11 provides for a fair and timely exchange 

of trust lands. We note that H.R. 1500 fails to address this 

important issue. 

The lands to be exchanged are identified on the map entitled 

"In-held School Trust Land Exchange- Proposed, June 6, 1995." 

The State offers its title to trust lands within or bisected by 

wilderness boundaries in exchange for fee simple title to the 

federal lands shown. 

H.R. 1745 states that Congress finds that the proposed 

exchange lands are of "approximate equivalent value." The Board 

and SITLA concur with this finding for the following reasons: 

+ Considering the diminishing supply of pristine wild 

lands in the United States, the critical location of trust 

lands (over 12% of the proposed wilderness areas) is vital 

to the successful management of the wilderness ecosystems. 

The United States can never achieve the full purposes and 

goals of the wilderness act so long as trust lands remain in 

their midst. The proposed exchange immediately grants the 

federal government the full utility of the in-held trust 

lands for wilderness purposes. 

+ The cost to the federal government to manage the 

proposed wilderness areas will be greatly increased if the 

in-held trust lands are not exchanged at the outset of the 

designation. 

+ The trust lands offered have been leased for mineral 

development at one time or another within the last fifteen 

years. No significant revenues are being generated from the 

trust or federal lands at this time, therefore, only the 

possibility to develop can be transferred. The acquired 

lands must provide the trust with a corresponding 

opportunity. It is fair to transfer the opportunity to 

develop and the risk of non-development and changing markets 

from trust lands to the targeted federal lands. 

+ Among other encumbrances, the targeted federal lands are encumbered by local government's right to one-half of 

2 
122 

the royalties covered by the federal Mineral Leasing Act. 

+ As stated earlier, real estate development within 

federal holdings can be of high value. The location and 

utility of the trust lands within the proposed wilderness 

areas increases the ir net worth . 

+ The trust is unwilling to consider the worth of its 

lands in this exchange by only looking at today's 

conditions. The trust lands must be examined with due 

consideration to the relevant components of value; utility, 

scarcity and desire, and the four basic forces which 

influence these components; social, economic, governmental 

(legal) and environmental (physical). Wilderness is a very 

desirable commodity today, due to societal recognition of 

its scarcity. The worth of wilderness has increased over 

time, due to increasing scarcity, and is currently in much 

demand. These values will be immediately realized by the 

federal government but the values transferred to the trust 

will be dependent on market conditions and the Board and 

SITLA's ability to capitalize on future opportunities . 

In conclusion, the trust lands are highly desirable because 

they are located within wilderness areas and because wilderness 

1s unique. It has no substitute. By designating these lands as 

wilderness, the Congress is recognizing their inherent and 

intrinsic worth to the citizens of the United States. That 

recognition should be reflected in the federal lands transferred 

to the trust. 

3 
123 

TESTIMONY OF JERRY B. LEWIS, 

W ASIUNGTON COUNTY COMMISSIOI\'ER 

WILDERNESS HEARINGS 

CEDAR CITY, UTAH * JUNE 23, 1995 

Representative H:msen and committee members, I appreciate the opportunity 

to make some comments on the Utah wilderness issues at this hearing. I commend 

the Utah delegation for the time and effort it has put into developing the wilderness 

billand to you, Representative Hansen, thank you for holding hearings in the State 

of Utah. 

I believe it is important to realize that more work needs to be done to have 

a product that rural Utah can live with and that will protect for the future the 

known and unknown mineral resources that will be needed now and in the future 

for the benefit of the nation. Because we do not know of all the types of minerals 

that may be discovered, it is important that areas are accessible for use. For 

example: In our county there was an old gold mine that had been abandoned until 

a few years ago when it was reopened because of a mineral that could be used in 

ma!;ing computer chips. This use was unheard of not too long ago. 

When the counties in Utah were given the opportunity and challenge to 

carefully review, h:!Ve input through public hearings, and make recommendations 

for wilderness designations, we undertook the task with a determination to be 

objective and to adhere to the 1964 Wilderness Act as directed by the delegation. 

Our county and others spent a great deal of time and effort reviewing the Act, the 

Congressional hearings and their intent, etc., in preparation of fulfilling the charge 

of the delegation. 

I believe that we accomplished our task by carefully following the 1964 Act 

and making the correct wilderness designations. I say that because we knew the 

areas and had testimony given by those who were very well acquainted with the 

land that enabled us to evaluate roads, structures, and other man-made intrusions 

that were or were not in possible wilderness areas. The 1,094,705 acres 

recommended by the counties are the total number of acres that qualify under the 

1964 Act. 

We feel that the bill on wilderness for the State of Utah presented in the 

House on June 6 , 1995, designates many areas that do not qualify as wilderness 
124 

and therefore, we respectfully and strongly encourage that the wilderness bill 

contain the 1,094,705 acres recommended by the counties. If there are areas that 

meet the requirements of the law and are not in the counties' proposals, they 

should review that with the information that is available through the counties' 

findings to verify or correct acreage qualifications according to law. 

We have made an analysis of land use in Washington County that may be 

somewhat representative of land use in other counties. The following figures are 

rounded to an approximate acreage for illustrative purposes. 

WASHINGTON COUJ\"TY LAND ANALYSIS 

I. Bureau of Land Management 700,000 acres 45% 

2. National Forest 390,000 acres 25% 

3. National Park Service 125,000 acres 8% 

A Indian Resen•:ttion 27,000 acres 2% ... 

5. State of Utah 75,000 acres 5% 

6. Private Land 236,000 acres 15% 

TOTAL: 1,553,000 acres 100% 

2 
125 

RESERVED LANDS 

I. Bureau of Land Management 195,943 acres 28% 

2. National Forest 50,000 acres 13% 

3. National Park Service 120,620 acres 96% 

4. Indian Reservation 27,000 acres 100% 

TOTAL: 393,553 acres 

RESERVED LA!\'DS AS A PERCENT OF COUNTY TOTAL: 25% 

As the figures indicate, Washington County only has 15% of its land in 

priv:lte ownership. Other counties have even less private lands to support services 

required in their counties. The reserved lands in Washington County will be 

approxim:.l!ely 25 % or the county total, which is substantial. This is representative 

of Ut ah's rural coumies' land uses. 

We hope that other counties that are hurting will have their grievances 

addressed before proceeding with this bill. We appreciate the consideration given 

to Washington County by the delegation. 

The bill provides for blocking-up school trust lands, which will greatly assist 

schools and relieve tax burdens on taxpayers because of the revenues which actual 

development of these lands will provide. Specifically, the development of coal 

tields in Kane County on school trust lands will provide 500 long-term jobs and 

economic and social stability in Southern Utah. 

This is the first major natural resource-based economic development project 

in thirty years in Southern Utah. Even though there are some transportation 

problems still to be worked out, this project is good for Southern Utah 

communities and is especially good in light of the problems that were created 

caused by the closing down of the timber industry and the damage caused to 

hundreds of families in Southern Utah. Rural Utah must be allowed an economy 
126 

based on stable natural resource development, not just low-wage seasonal tourism. 

The buffer zone language in the bill makes it clear that responsible 

development outside designate.d wilderness areas can and should take place. 

The water rights provision of the bill makes it clear that no federal reserved 

water right will be allowed in wilderness areas in Utah. Without this language in 

the bill, Washington County cannot support it. Federal reserved rights would 

make life impossible given that we are dependent on the Virgin River and its 

tributaries. 

The air quality provisions of the bill make it clear that the airshed in rural 

Utah will continue to be protected while providing for critical natural resources 

development projects to take place where necessary. 

The bill also provides for the construction and maintenance of reservoirs, 

water conservation works, transmission lines and other facilities which benefit the 

public interest. 

The release language in the bill, while not hard release, seems to be a 

reasonable approach that allows for multiple use management once again on those 

lands which have been in de-facto wilderness status for the past twenty years. The 

language leaves it up to future Congresses to make any adjustments in wilderness 

boundaries, which is as it should be. 

I believe this bill brings to a conclusion the disruptive public land 

management practices ·which have too often caused hardship to individuals and 

which have effectively prevented any natural resource development in rural 

Southern Utah. To that degree, I believe completion of this legislative process is 

important. Having said that, I believe the bill before us, statewide, proposes too 

much wilderness and needs further fine-tuning to be able to provide for the 

economic well-being over the long-term in many Southern Utah communities. I 

believe the initiative of the delegation to promote development by blocking-up 

school trust lands is very positive, especially in the coal fields in Kane County. 

This legislation may be the most important, for the future of Southern Utah, 

of any we will consider. I commend the delegation for its efforts and hope you 

will continue to work with your elected peers in county governments to make 

certain that your final product is one which does what I know you want it do; 

4 
127 

provide wilderness areas as well as growth opportunities and stability for the wellbeing of the nation and individuals that are here now and those that will be here 

in the future. 

Thank you. 

5 
Cclultt Conmiaionlrs 

Louise UsiDn 

D.~Dcdds 

ClnM.Rn;ay 

Cnila A.l.tlcre. 

Clerk/AudiiOI 

128 

GARFIELD COUNTY 

55 South Main Slrlel. P.O. Box n • Pa/lglilch.Uiah 84759 

Pit 801-676-8826 • Fax 80Hi76-8239 

Tern Sin*ins, ,_ 

.lldy Henrie, TI'88SII'er 

Than Cooper, Sheriff 

Wlla A. lei. Altimly 

A. l.elllalier, Reccrdar 

John W. Ylldley, 

Justice ollle Peace 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

FIELD HEARING 

ON 

H.R. 1745 

A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE STATE OF UTAH 

AS WILDERNESS 

. CEDAR CITY, UTAH 

JUNE 23, 1995 

TESTIMONY GIVEN BY 

LOUISE LISTON 

GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONER 

CHAIR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

COMMUNITY STABILITY SUB-COMMITTEE 

THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN 

CHAIRMAN 
1~ 

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I 

WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS FIELD HEARING ON H.R.l745, 

A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE STATE OF UTAH AS WILDERNESS 

MY NAME IS LOUISE LISTON. I AM A RANCHER'S WIFE AND COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER FROM GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH, LOCATED IN THE SCENIC 

SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE. OVER 98% OF MY COUNTY IS STATE AND 

FEDERALLY OWNED. THREE NATIONAL PARKS, A NATIONAL RECREATIONAL 

AREA AND THREE STATE PARKS ARE LOCATED IN MY COUNTY. WITH 1.3% 

OF THE COUNTY'S LAND BASE TO GENERATE TAXES FROM AND A POPULATION 

OF LESS THAN 4,000 WE ARE PROVIDING THE SERVICES THAT OVER TWO 

MILLION VISITORS USING THOSE PUBLIC LANDS DEMAND. CONGRESSMEN 

AND RESIDENTS IN EASTERN STATES WHERE FEDERAL OWNERSHIP SELDOM 

EXCEEDS 2 OR 3% CANNOT BEGIN TO COMPREHEND THE IMPACTS WILDERNESS 

DESIGNATION WILL PLACE UPON STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIES IN THE WEST. 

AN IMPORTANT FACTOR WE URGE YOU TO CONSIDER IN THE USES OF LAND 

HELD IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP VS. FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP IS THAT 

PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY GENERATES THE NECESSARY REVENUES TO PAY 

FOR NECESSARY SERVICES--EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, 

WASTE DISPOSAL, EMERGENCY SERVICES, FIRE PROTECTION, ETC. RURAL 

UTAHNS HAVE BEEN LIVING WITH DEFACTO WILDERNESS FOR OVER TEN YEARS 

AND ARE EXPERIENCING AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION IN MANY AREAS WHERE 

WILDERNESS STUDIES WITH THEIR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND RESTRICTIONS 

HAVE DISCOURAGED ANY ACTIVITIES THAT COULD HELP STABILIZE OUR ECONOMIES. 

THE WILDERNESS ACT WAS NEVER MEANT TO IMPACT THE CHANGES AND 

GROWTH WHICH OCCUR IN OUR NATION. WHEN THAT ACT WAS PASSED IN 1964, 
130 

IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF OUR 

NATURAL RESOURCES. IT IS, HOWEVER, BEING USED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

COMMUNITY TO DO EXACTLY THAT. ECONOMICS OF PUBLIC LANDS ARE LIMITED 

TO LEASES, NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ROYALTIES, AND TOURISM. 

EACH OF THESE ARE SEVERELY RESTRICTED OR PROHiqiTED :N WtLQERN!SS. 

WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THAT MINERALS AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES 

ARE NOT MOBILE; THEY ARE PERMANENTLY LOCATED. ON THE OTHER HAND, 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE AND PRIMITIVE RECREATION CAN BE ENJOYED 

IN A VARIETY OF PLACES. 

A RECENT STUDY DONE BY UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY ON POTENTIAL 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WILDERNESS DESIGNATION IN UTAH CONCLUDED THAT, 

"WILDERNESS DESIGNATION COULD SERIOUSLY IMPEDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

IN SOME AREAS OF THE STATE." THOSE AREAS ARE FOUND IN RURAL UTAH 

WHERE UNEMPLOYMENT OFTEN CLIMBS TO 18% IN THE WINTER MONTHS . THE 

TRUTH IS, MASSIVE FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF LANDS IN UTAH AND THE WEST 

WITH ITS ACCOMPANYING LAWS , REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES, IS DESTROYING 

THE CUSTOM, CULTURE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OF RURAL AMERICA . WILDERNESS IS PERCEIVED AS YET ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN. 

IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR COUNTIES WITH BLH W1LDERNESS RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES WERE ASKED BY THE GOVERNOR AND 

THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO FORM BROAD-BASED STEERING COMMITTEES, 

HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND PROCEED WITH A SUGGESTED PROCESS THAT WOULD 

RESULT IN A BLM WILDERNESS BILL FOR UTAH. WE WERE ASKED TO STRICTLY 

ADHERE TO THE LANGUAGE AND CRITERIA OF THE 1964 WILDERNESS ACT. IT 

IS MY OPINION THAT THE FOURTEEN COUNTIES INVOLVED ACTED IN GOOD FAITH 

AND DID EXACTLY THAT. IN ALL REALITY COUNTIES ARE THE GOVERNMENT 

CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE AND HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE IMPACTS OF WILDERNESS 

DESIGNATION IN OUR AREAS. WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WALKED THE LAND 
131 

AND TAKEN CARE OF IT FOR GENERATIONS. IT WAS RIGHT THAT WE BE 

INVOLVED, AND WE TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY VERY SERIOUSLY. PLEASE 

BE AWARE THAT IT WAS NOT AN EASY TASK AND MANY OF US WERE TARGETS 

OF SUBSTANTIAL CRITICISM IN THE PRESS. THERE WAS INTENSE PRESSURE 

FROM MANY CITIZENS TO RECOMMEND NO WILDERNESS AND INTENSE PRESSURE 

FROM OTHERS TO RECOMMEND AREAS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY QUALIFIED UNDER THE WILDERNESS ACT CRITERIA. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE 

PROPOSED WERE BASED UPON A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS WE GATHERED, 

AND WERE EVALUATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE WE WERE GIVEN. 

I HAVE INCLUDED WITH MY TESTIMONY A LIST OF REFERNECES MY COUNTY 

USED TO HELP DETERMINE THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE PROPOSED. IT WAS 

A TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS, AND COUNTIES FEEL STRONGLY 

THAT ANY CHANGES IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN 

THE SAME WAY COUNTIES HAD TO JUSTIFY THEIR PROPOSED ACREAGES. WE 

CANNOT SUPPORT A WILDERNESS BILL THAT INCLUDES LANDS THAT DO NOT 

MEET THE CRITERIA AND SIMPLY DESIGNATES WILDERNESS FOR THE SAKE OF 

ACREAGE. WE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BETRAY THE TRUST PLACED IN US BY 

THOSE WHO HELPED IN THE PROCESS AND THOSE WHO MUST LIVE IN THE SHADOW 

OF WILDERNESS AND WROSE ' LIVELIROODS ' ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY ITS 

DESIGNATION. THAT WOULD BE WRONG. 

IN CONCLUSION MAY I ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS CAPTURED BY DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS. A COMPACT 

BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE HONORED. TRUST LANDS 

ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE BENEFITS FOR THE SCHOOL CHILDREN AND OTHER 

BENEFICIARIES AND SHOULD NOT BE MADE USELESS THROUGH THAT DESIGNATION. 

ANY SUCH LANDS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED FOR A FAIR VALUE, AND I'M NOT SO 

SURE IT HAS TO BE MONETARY. IS THE EDUCATION OF A CHILD AS IMPORTANT AS A FEW HOURS OF SOLITUDE IN A PRIMITIVE AREA? 
132 

PERHAPS WE SHOULD EXCHANGE WILDERNESS VALUES FOR EDUCATION VALUES. 

ALL SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS CAPTURED WITHIN A WILDERNESS 

DESIGNATION, AD~ACENT TO WILDERNESS, OR BOUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY 

WILDERNESS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU 

FOR COMING TO UTAH FOR THIS FIELD HEARING. IT IS MY HOPE THAT FOR 

THE GOOD OF THIS GREAT STATE AND FOR THE GOOD OF AN EVEN GREATER 

NATION AND ITS PEOPLE •.. , YOU WILL FAIRLY CONSIDER ALL FACTORS 

AND CONFLICTS AND STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN PRIMITIVE RECREATION 

AND OTHER MANAGEMENT AND USES OF THE RESOURCES FOUND ON OUR PUBLIC 

LANDS. 

WITH YOUR PERMISSION, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I WOULD ASK THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE PART OF MY TESTIMONY: 

**SELECTED WILDERNESS IMPACTS ON UTAH 

**REFERENCES USED IN DETERMINING GARFIELD-COUNTY'S WILDERNESS 

RECOMMENDATION 

**STATISTIC INFORMATION (TWO SHEETS) 

**UTAH SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION BOARD 

RESOLUTION 

**THE UTAH PUBLIC EDUCATION COALITION RESOLUTION ON WILDERNESS 

DESIGNATION IN UTAH 

**PINE VALLEY MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS l9B9 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

**WILDERNESS AS A CHURCH (TAKEN FROM UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY STUDY) 

**WILDERNESS DESIGNATION IN UTAH: ISSUES AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC 

IMPACTS (SUMMARY OF UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY STUDY) 
133 

SELECTED WILDERNESS IMPACTS ON UTAH: 

BLM Preferred 

1.9 Million Acr. 

Foregone Coal Reserves 

All 'llil derness 

3.2 Million Acr. 60~ of Resource 

149,459,000 tons 23.4 billion tons 

Foregone Tar Sands 32% of Resource 

Reserves 934,325,000 barrels 8 billion barrels 

Road Closures 

State Trust Lands 

Encumbered 

Recreational Trends: 

178.85 630 

200,000 330,114 

(National Park Service Data, 

National Recreation Areas 

Overnight Stays in Parks 

ConcessI on Ov~t ni ght Stays 

Park Service Tent Sites 

Park Service RV Campgrounds 

Back Country Use 

(Continues a 4 year trend) 

1987) 

Federal Land Ownership in Utah (BLH, 1989): 

BLM 

Forest Service 

Park Service 

Department of Defense 

Other 

Indian 

State 

Private 

Acres 

22. 6"9U";lm0 

8,480,000 

1,737,000 

1 ,874,000 

877,000 

34,615,500 

2,274,000 

3,627,000 

12,035,000 

+3~ 

+8% 

+7~ 

+15~ 

+8% 

-2~ 

Wayne 0 .. 1ens 

5.2 ~lillion Acr. 

Not quantified 

Not quantified 

2000 est. 

540,000 

66% 

4.3~ 

6.9'I. 

22.9'I. 

Lands Currently t~anaged as Wilderness 

Forest Service 

(Roadless) in Utah: (BLM 1989 figures) 

Park Service (Admin. Endorsed) 

State Lands 

Indian Reservations 

BLM Designated 

Acres 

802,639 

1,264,431 

56,500 

413,000 

22,551 

2,559,121 

% of State 

1. 53 

2. 41 

0.11 

0.79 

0.04 

'T.'TS"'I. 

~Ieber, 1·1organ, Salt Lake, Davis, Cache , Piute Counties 2,636,160 Acres 
Controlling Entity 

u.s. Bureau of Land 

134 

Table I-2 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL 

IN GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH, 

1988 

Acres 

Management 1,641,000 

Other Federal Agencies 1,420,000 

Total u.s. Government 3,061,000 

Utah State Government 233,000 

Corporations and Individuals(!) 45,000 

TOTAL LAND AREA 3,339,000 

Percent 

49.2 

42.5 

91.7 

7.0 

1.3 

100.0 

(1) Includes local governments as well as private corporations, 

partnerships, and individual land owners. 

Source: Western Economic Analysis Center, based on data from the 

United States Bureau of Land Management and the Utah 

Division of State Lands. 
135 

FEDERAL ACREAGE IN GARFIELD COUNTY 

i ACRES IN TOTAL ACRES 

I 

% OF 

FEDERAL ACREAGE i DESIGNATED IN GARFIELD GARFIELD 

IN GARFIELD COUNTY WILDERNESS COUNTY COUNTY I 

Bureau of Land Management I 1,641,000 49.2% 

Proposed Wilderness I 298,155 8.9% 

u.s. Forest Service ! I 1,420,0001 

I 42.5% 

Designated Wilderness 25,548 I .76% 

I I 

I National Park Svc & NRA 

Proposed Wilderness 377,138 11.3% 

Garfield County 3,339,000 

I 

100.0% 

Proposed Wilderness 100,311 3.0% 

Private Property 45,000 1. 3% 

I 

I Total Federal Lands (w/BLMll 

Proposed for Wilderness I 700,841 21.0% 

TOTAL FEDERAL LANDS (WITH 

GARFIELD COUNTY'S PROPOSAL) 

502.9971 PROPOSED FOR WILDERNESS 15.1X 

1

Includes Forest Service, National Parks and National 

Recreation Areas. 

~Includes Forest Service, National Parks, National 

Recreation Area and Garfield County proposed wilderness. 

I 
136 

REFERENCES USED TO DETERMINE THE RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSION'S WILDERNESS DESIGNATION 

1. WILDERNESS DESIGNATION l :V UTAH : ISSUES AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC 

IMPACTS - Research Report 151 Utah State Uni versity, 1995 

Contributors: Jay C. Anderson, Donald L. Snyder, Christopher 

Fawson, E. Bruce Godfrey, John E. Keith, Robert J . Lillieholm 

2. WILDERNESS AT THE EDGE The Utah Wilderness Coalition, 1990 

Introduction by Wallace Stegner 

3. FIVE COUNTY ASSN OF GOV'TS - 1986 WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATIONS 

4. UTAH PUBLIC LAND USE MANAGEMENT ACT- Report of Findings and 

Recommendations Congressman Bill Orton 

5. UTAH WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION WILDERNESS PROPOSAL 

6. RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE - July 22, 1986 

WILDERNESS SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORT TO GOV. NORMAN H. BANGERTER 

7. GARFIELD COUNTY WILDERNESS COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS 

8. THE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WILDERNESS LAND WITHDRAWALS 

IN UTAH George F. Learning, Ph.D. - January, 1990 

9. INFORMATION GATHERED FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS 

10. UTAH STATEWIDE WILDERNESS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT, VOL. III - PARTS A & B - SOUTHWEST REGION 

11. UTAH STATEWIDE WILDERNESS STUDY REPORT, VOLS. IIA & liB -

SUMMARY ANALYSIS AT STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS 

12. LETTERS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED AT WORK MEETINGS AND 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

13. MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR LOCATABLE MINERALSESCALANTE RESOURCE AREA 

14. MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR MINERAL MATERIALS -

ESCALANTE RESOURCE AREA 

15. MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR FLUID MINERALS - ESCALANTE RESOURCE AREA 

16. MINERAL POTENTIAL FOR THE KAIPAROWITZ PLATEAU PHYSIOGRAPHIC 

SUBDIVISION 

17. MINERAL POTENTIAL FOR THE ESCALANTE CANYONS PHYSIOGRAPHIC 

SUBDIVISION 

18. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAPS 
137 

R!:SOol7D.JOn 

n.. 95-01 

:JJ.. BoarJ o/ :J,.,..t. •• o/ i/,. Scf.oo/ and .J,..ti/uliono./ :J,....t ..fa..J. 

_A.t.w.ulrali.on J..,..b'l aJ.pi• a n•o/.Jion concmtiiUj Scf.oo/ :J,....t ..fa..J. a.> 

tf..'l p•riai.n lo tf.. u•w o/ wi/.k,...,,.. . 

WHEREAS, the Utah Enabling Act granted the school trust lands for the 

fmancial suppon of the common schools in Utah; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the School and Institutional Trust 

Lands Administration of the State of Utah must comply with its responsibilities 

under the Enabling Act, Constitution and laws of the State of Utah; and 

WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Utah and principles of trust 

management require the Board of Trustees to set policies for the management of 

the School and Institutional Trust lands Administration that: 

(i) reflect undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries consistent 

with fiduciary duties; 

(ii) require the return of not less than fair·market value for the 

exchange of school and institutional trust assets; 

(iii) optimize trust land holdings consistent with the balancing 

of shon and long-term interests, so that long-term benefits are not lost in an 

effon to maximize shon-term gains; · 

(iv) maintain the integrity of the trust and prevent the 

misapplication of its lands; and 

WHEREAS, the land-management policies of the Federal Government 

under the Federal Land Use Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and other 

federal laws have become de facro restrictions on the development of narural 

resources on Federal lands and have prevented development of school trust 

lands -- in direct conflict with the legal mandates imposed on this board by the 

Enabling Act, the State Constirution and State laws; and 

WHEREAS, Utah's Congressional delegation and Governor are working 

to introduce a bill to designate wilderness areas on Bureau of Land Management 

lands in the State of Utah; and 
138 

WHEREAS, all areas so designated as wilderness will capture and impact 

school trust lands; and 

WHEREAS, couns have consistently held that access must be provided 

across federal lands to trust lands where trust activities so require; and 

WHEREAS, such access routes to trust lands inheld within or adjacent to 

wilderness areas would conflict with or destroy the purposes for which the 

wilderness areas were designated; and 

WHEREAS, virtually all revenue-producing activities are either prohibited 

or greatly restricted within wilderness areas; and 

WHEREAS, the use to which trust lands must be put are inconsistent with 

wilderness management and values; and 

WHEREAS, past federal designations of National Parks, National 

Monuments, National Recreation Areas, National Natural Landmarks, forests 

under the control of the U. S. Forest Service, military installations and 

extensions of Indian Reservations have created unresolved school trust-land 

inholdings of hundreds of thousands of acres which subsequently provided 

minimal suppon for schools and deprived the trust of the opportunity of 

increasing the value of those inholdings; and 

WHEREAS, the trust has had to seek redress for the creation of the 

inholdings, at great cost to the trust, thereby removing funds from the budget 

for education in Utah; and 

WHEREAS, the bill to designate wilderness for Bureau of Land 

Management lands in Utah now being considered by the Utah Congressional 

delegation presents an opportunity to meet the starutory requirements for 

increasing value of the trust lands by repositioning into areas which have 

revenue-producing capabilities; and 

WHEREAS, the bill presents an opportunity to relieve the trust from the 

requirement to fund the federal mandate of wilderness designation through 

either direct expenditure or loss of opportunity. 

THEREFORE, BE IT REsOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, exercising its 

statutory role, hereby requests the Congressional delegation from Utah use its 

best effons to include language in the text of the BLM wilderness legislation 

which would do the following: 

1. Exchange trust lands within, and trust lands adjacent to 
139 

designated wilderness areas if the wilderness boundary creates a panial section. 

for a specified list of federal lands containing a diverse set of resourcedevelopment oppommities; 

2. Direct the Secretary of the Interior to immediately prepare the 

necessary documents of transfer for the specified lands and convey the lands, 

subject to valid existing rights, to the State of Utah within a time cenain; 

3. Provide for Board acceptance of final value of the lands before 

conveyance; 

4. Provide for a determination that the state and federal lands to be 

transferred are of approximate equivalent value; 

5. Provide that a list of all encumbrances known to the federal 

government for the federal lands to be conveyed is provided to the trust within a 

time cenain, and provide for a process to compensate the trust for the lost value 

of those encumbrances, value to be determined by the trust; 

6. Recognize the right of the State of Utah to payments from 

mineral and timber development activities on federal lands, and recognize that 

the determination of approximately equivalent value must include this right; 

7. Provide for determinations that the exchange provisions of the 

bill: 

(i) are exempt from the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act; and 

(ii) satisfy the requirements of Section 206(a) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act requiring the exchange to be in the public 

interest; 

8. Provide for the recognition that the trust is acquiring the federal 

lands for purposes of development and that the lands are suitable for these 

developments; 

9. Provide for acknowledgment of the trust's right to access all its 

lands for the purposes for which they were granted; 

10. Provide for recognition that water is requisite for development 

and that a federally reserved water right for wilderness areas is not in the best 

interests of the State or the school trust; 

11. Provide that trust lands near the designated wilderness area may 

be used for the purposes for which they were granted and that any activity 
140 

generated by those purposes will not be affected by their proximity to 

wilderness areas; 

12. Provide that the designation of certain wilderness areas releases 

all other areas to all the other non-wilderness multiple uses; and 

13. Provide that inspections for the presence of hazardous materials 

shall be conducted, within a time certain, the information obtained shared 

between the State and the federal agency, and that liability that may exist under 

law for any material found shall remain with the present owner. 

f{._ 

Adopted this-Z'I" day of May, 1995. 
141 

The Utah Public Education Coalition 

Wll.OcRNESS RESCJI.l'TlUT>: 

WH(;REAS. UU&h wu entitled to juin the Unu.m un an ~qual footing v.·ith lh¢ other stares, and 

WHEREAS. Utah relinquished the right h> tax· fcdc:rall:tnds in e.-;ch~ngc fur the school trust land grant. and 

WHEREAS. the UcU, En3bhng Act granted I he: school tn.:st Iandi for the tin:ancial S!.ipport of tht: common 

schools in Ucah. and 

WHEREAS. as grtsniOl uf thii trust. tli( l<1.kral goH·nuu<nt h;ts a ~ .. ~.:red \;hhgatiun to eu~un: that th~ 

purpo~e of the tongresston.l grant 1s accomphdtc=:d , anJ. 

WHEREAS. pasc: fedttal des•Jnations ur" Natiunal Par~s. N:uional Monu1nencs. N:ttiunal N .. tund landmarks. 

National Recreation Areas, U.S. Forest Service Wildernes;. military installations etuJ. exu:nsion:s: oi Indian 

R~rvations have each created unresolved school trust land inholdings uf hundtc:dl!i of l.hl)usands of acres th3t provide 

minimal support ror schools. and 

WHEREAS. the st:hools of Uoch should no1 b..: rc~uire:d 10 fund the federal m"ttdotlc: uf wilderness. and 

WHEREAS. mos1 CC\'C'nuc producing a~t i ... ili~:s ;tee prohibited wnhin wilderness .ueas. 

THEREfORE. BE IT RESOLVED. ch•c che Ucah Public Educaciun Coaliciun. rcpresoncing che inc<rescs of 

Utah school children. beheves that c~h propouU Utah wilderness hill muse provide lOr: 

(I) lhe specific lands to be received in exchang¢ for those school tru~t l;mds that will be relinquished by 

the Board of Trustees of lhe S'hool and Institutional Trust Land Administration (Board) inside of the proposed 

wilderness, and 

(2) federal funding co be ucilizcd equally by che Bureau of Land !\1anagcmenc1od lilc lloord tu iiCCOntplish 

1hc exchange of sch®l trust lands. mcluJing fun 1in" of h::as:e ruyments for 1he Ulit: uf S.Lhool hsnds a.; wildernes~ 

from the point of designiltion until 1he uchln~:,t •s ~..:unsumm ltc::d. and 

(3) a specific time within which the u change JS to be cvmplc:ted. and 

(4) an assessn1ent or the C'C'onomic impact of any federal r~servcd water right on the fu1ure econom1c 

viability of school tniSl lands w"ithin c::a'h watc:r~h..:d . and 

(5) acknowtedccment or a right tQ reasonabl.: ~CC(ss lc.r the c\.·onomic devclupmcnt uf .school uust lands 

rcm~uning within wilderness. sufticient to act:o:T.pli~h the purpus.: ot the grant as ..Jire,tell in th~ Enabling Act. and 

,;,..(.,.,l • .i it 

(6) just and fair ,-ornpenS3tion for those lands tA.tCTior tu wildcrne~>s that continue under any cloud of 

.... ·ilderness non-usc. 

-----------·---.. ·--·-· .. -· - · ·-· - ·--·-·-- · ·- ··--·-

Utah PTA • L=t1h School .lkulrds A~soci3tioo • L!tah Sfiltc Bo::~r\.1 oi f,juc;.-11\lfl • Ll~h Stat.: Or"li~ ( ot" Ldll\'iiUOn 

Urah Ed"catton ASJO('illion •litah Sc:boot Superintcndt-nts o\s~iatJon• t.ltah A~so.:i:u ion of l:.lcmtllllit~· s~hool PtiUC!p:lh. 

Ullh Assoti,tion of Second:\ry School Principals • Utah Scllcol Ernployees As so.:i3.1i~ln 
142 

(-rn.kc.,. ~ ........... -it,t F~ 2_,, /, ,. ""_,, :./,, ,, :_·<.tdJ../e .P,,.- -/it.;· 

Pt'v.t:. y a.-t-fl.-.1 n'la~-wltu~1 L,(.),~J.-rnc! .) 

r. ht v_ .... ,uty ~..~ ... ~.,. tJ.rf...-.--r 

i,t- Specific Action Needed !)'"'e. r\icvt•.-.,w;;-" ~, e.Jf-

.--Grazjpg J.?_yesrgck numbers wj l l he limited in the Mill Flat and 

Andel"SS!l' Valley areas. This will reduce the competition between 

~zing livestock and rec reation stock. The approved grazing 

~ariagement plans direct this action . 

--- Gra2ipg gr recregtjgg stock wi ll he restrjrted in Mill Flat and 

Katie Valley. Horsemen will be required to pack thier own stock 

feed in if they camp in these areas. 

Consider addjtigpal rgstristions on sattlg npd'or recreatjggal 

livestock !i&Rrevsnt ~esource damage frgm ossyripg. 

Continue redprjgg grazjpg qre§§pre jg the Wjlderpe§s through 

cooperative efforts with permittees. 

Priority of Action Items 

1. Priority 2 

2. Priority 

3. Pr:-ior:-ity 3 

4. Prior:-ity 4 

Unit or:- Individual Responsibility 

1, 2, 3 and 4 - District 

Target Dates for:- Completion of Actions 

1. Year:-ly 

2. 1989 

3 and 4 - On Going 

Special Use Management (Non-Recreation) (J01) 

1. Manage sur:-face occupance activities authorized pr:-ior to wilder:-ness 

designation to reduce impac t on wi l derness values consistant with 

the intent of the occupancy authori zation . 

-18-
Other faiths have 

not expected I government to 

provide their 

places of worship. 

Pdvatizing the 

natural wilderness 

system would give 

wilderness 

churches the same 

status as other 

churches. 

143 

Wilderness As A Church " 

Many wilderness adnKltcJ hJur the: spirirual values fostered by the isolation. 

solin~de, and bcaucr of wilc.h:rncss . .-\ lnttical c:xaminltion of these views has some 

interesting implic:~tiun~. :\s Rnhcn :-..:dson norc:d: 

Where else docs one lind a place (nr toli1.ary COftCcmplartoru. Jc.arninr of che 

crea,ion, deep )piriru:~~l feeling, .and cmu1innal rcplcnishmenc:l In a church .. . J( 

the creation of o1 wildcrncu arc .a hccumcs •~tcnuinC"Iy religious aa. how can such 

an tct be reconciled with the longstandingconscirutional principle of separ~ting 

church and state~ 

There are innumerable ex:amples of the religious connotations of wilderness, 

from John Muir who called primitive oreu "temples" and described trees as 

'"psalm·singing" co more contcmponry expressions, such as the Wilderness 

Society's explanation that it was necessary to preserve wilderness areas because 

"destroy them and we destroy ourspirir ... destroy them and we destroy oursense 

of values." 

Nelson noted th:st .. If :a wilderness is a true church of an environmental religion, 

governmenr is in effect engaged in the creation and the management of the 

churches of a pmicular faith. It would clearly be unacceptable for government 

ro do rhe same with res peer ro a holy place of a Christian or Jewish faith. Why, then 

should it be acceptable for a place of worship of environmental religion/" 

Environmental Theology 

Some aspects of environmentalism even mirror religious theology, such as the 

beliefthlt men "fell" in the sense th:at they ct;me ro a point where they no longer 

lived in harmony with the earth, in pan due to technological advances and 

urbanization. Dave Foreman, founder of the radical environmental organization 

Eanh First. cires corruption by the evils of •ciry, bureaucracy, patriatthy, war, 

and empires." Chrisrian rheology alTers salvation through reversing the elfecu of 

the fall; environmental rheology also suggests that salvation is possible when the 

earth is cleansed of the "artificial" impacts of man. 

Many environmentalists have an apocalyptic view of the consequences of poilucion, exhaustion of natural resources, mass starvation, and many ocher disasrers 

that is similar to views in ocher religions. And the environmental movement also 

has martyrs willing ro place their bodies before the whaling ships and logging 

bulldozers, ;~nd to sit in redwood trees to prevent their destruction. 

There are many other similarities, including the language (environmental literature is n:plcce wirh stori~sofrhe ";~ssau1c,"•murder," and •ravaging" of narure), the 

'"sin" incurred by renouncing unity with the narunl world, in spice of concurrent 

belief in the "Darwinian world of survival of the fir= By this srandard, the 

human conquest of[he earth, culminating in the great material advances of the 

modern age, is an act fully in accord with rhe laws of nature. If tin Jitm il 110110 H 

COIId..,ntd for =num oca •I m~tlf], 'Uiby rhordd ho1Niniry w jolr.<tl 'on""r.rtd'for itt 

ruljogorron •I norun'" [emphasis added] 

16 
144 

Thejudeo-Christian tradition often condemns rhe pursuit ofself-intt:resr and the 

desire for riches, a view similar to the repugnanc.:e of many c:nvironmenulisu 

reward anempa to derive economic gain from narur:~l are:u. As Nelson nmed: 

Environmencalism has :~ppropriatcd rhe mc s:~gc: tho:~t ~:conomiC punuus :uc 

evil. The relendcss pursuit of profiu, especially by l:srge and impcrson:~l 

corporations. is durroymg the environuu.:nr and rhn.:;.~tr.:n s future Cl.:ological 

catasrrophc. The forccs ofgrecdscill run ram pam in the worlrJ .l:~ y, um.lcrnnn· 

ing che prospeCt of men Jiving in true harlflony w1rh narurc. 

A Subsidy to Religion? 

The extensive prima facie evidence in suppon of the existence of en v1ronmemal 

theology raises the question of whether government pol icies rhar seek to preserve 

these aspects of wilderness represent a subsidy ro religion. While as peers of 

environmental theology may nor be consisrenr with "traditional" forms of reli· 

gion, that does nor mean that wilderness rheology is nor a legitimate expression 

of religion. Failing to recognize these forms of religious expression would amount 

to discrimination, i.e., govemmen' sanction of only some forms of religious 

expression. 

When religion is understood broadly in rhesc rerms, govcrnmcnr policies can 

very ofren have a religious b>~.sis. Nc:lson nurc<.J thou csrabli.s hmt:m of wildt:rnc:.ss 

means government has lireraJiy undertalcc:n ro manage rhc: churches of a secuiar 

faith. "Ocher faiths-Judeo. Chrisrian, Marxist, socialist, or otherwise-have nor 

been so bold u to expect that governmenr should provide their places of worship. 

One means of rectifying this discrimin~ror y policy would bl! ro privatize rhe 

naNrai wilderness system, giving wilderness churches the same narus :1s the 

churches of other traditional and secular f:1irhs." 

Of tourse, people derive many ocher benefirs from wilderness. Nonecheless, 

Nelson argued thac rhis does nor justify governmenr supporr of suth a religious 

organization, especially considering rhe subst;~nri:ll economic resources of environmental organizations, which could be used to acquire and maintain wilderness 

areas. • As with other religious organizations, a clearer sep:lt:ltion between church 

and state could protect and invigorate these churches." 

SUMMARY 

Environmental groups worry roo lirde l:lnd will be ser aside for wilderness. 

Triadirional public land usen worry rhar roo much lond will be ser aside. Borh 

groups are concerned abourpubHc and private rights. There are many controversies associated with the issue of wilderness designation--economic, scientific, 

and emotional. A study of this scope can nor :mcmpt to addre~s ;~II of these i!Ssues. 

The primary purpose of this analysis is co auempr to review :~II available :and 

relevant economic argumentS regarding wilderness i:lnds. Our analysis considers 

various resources, not sires. We hope [hat the prc:semoaion of these facts will 

clarify issues and foster a resolution to wilderness-relaced contliccs. ~ 

17 

Perhaps 

we should ask 

whether 

government 

policies that seek 

to preserve 

certain aspects 

of wilderness 

represent a 

subsidy to 

religion. 
145 

WILDERNESS DESIGNATION IN UTAH: 

ISSUES AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Daaold Sayda-. Cuistopha" Fawoon. E. Bruce Godfrcy,Jolm Keith, D-of EcOMmit:s 

Robcn Lilleholm. DeJKUtmeN of F<Nut RUDIVCU 

Utah State University 

The Wlldemess Aa of 1964, wbich eslablishcd a 

Nalional Wildemess Plaomolion System, was not 

conccmed wilh the~ implctofwildemess 

designalion.lndecd, some wildemcss advocai<S argue 

that economic factors sboald DOl be a facror in wilderness designation, tboucb _,., cilc the economic 

benefits that may ICI:OIIIpiiiJ wildc:mess designation. 

Rural commllllilies ill Uah adjaceat 10 proposed 

wiJdemess IRIS ale Vf1r1 COIIIZIIIOd with this issue. 

There aue widely diw:rpat claims about the economic 

repezcussions of wilderaeas delipllicn. 1bese range 

from those who view wildc:mess cll:sipalion as a 

prelude 10 economic revi1a1izaDmo 10 those who claim it 

wiU be the dealb lmcll for c:ommaailies. 

Tho c:oncent1 of local romrpgnjljes wae the focus of 

this Slltdy. 1inle coasuaiaiJ aad limit:d funds did not 

permit a c:ampd>easive .wy.is ol all rdevant economic faclcn. IIISIC8d - --.ed is1ucs likdy 10 have 

a direct fiDaDc:ial impacl 011 local c:ommllllities. These 

included the efrecls Olt adjlcalllaads, WIICf rights, and 

livestock grazing, along with the economic conDibulions 

of rocrealion-dle primary measurable economic benefit 

associated with wilderness designation. We also 

estimated the probable economic consequences or 

wilhdlllwing access 10 resources in wildemess areas. 

We did not attempt 10 estimate the impacts of wildemess 

designation on nonmartet values, allbouglt we recognize 

the imponant role lhese values have in wilderness 

d<cisions 

ISSUES 

We reviewed other cc:onomists' views of wilder· 

ness. Some view wilderness designation as a 

legal anifact that often ex.acerbatcs conflicts because it 

encowages an "aU or nothing" approach, i.e., recreation is the major usc permitted in wilderness areas. They cite 

altemati-10 Ibis lppiOIICb that would permit the 

utilizalion of teSOwteS without jeopanlizin& "wilder· 

ness" values. 

TABU 1. PROPOSED WILDERNESS ACREAGES BY COUNTIES. 

BlM PROPOSAL UWC PROPOSAL 

COUNTY AoiAGI %OF COUNTY AcREAGE %OFCOUNTY 

aea- 7,321 o.s 81,801 s.o 

Box Elder 0 0 2S,()43 0.6 

Calboo 13/)69 7.3 124,07S 12.3 

DaiiiCil 0 0 12,121 2.7 Duca-. 0 0 9,S32 o.s 

Emery 400.709 14.3 1,049.419 37.5 

Gadield 310,517 9.3 984,170 29.S 

Grand 201,946 8.6 631.764 26.8 

lroD 1.S8S 0.1 S,189 0.3 

Juab 66,08l 3.0 147,763 6.8 

Kane 219,949 8.4 1.1120,489 38.8 

Millard 102,482 2.4 327.399 7.S 

S...JUID 376,1134 7.4 1,000.40S 19.6 

smer 0 0 28,266 2.3 

Tooele 42,176 0.9 187,799 4.0 

U"llltab S41 O.Ql 91,9\lS 3.2 

Washington 63,443 4.1 172,669 11.2 

Wayne 176.072 11.0 513,962 32.2 
Olhers believe wilderness designalioci re~ts a 

ttansfet of weallh from cunent and potential uscn of 

lhese an:as 10 recreationisls. Under lhe cwrent sysiCm 

of wildemcs:s designation, rccroalionisls pay liUle or 

nolhing 10 gain acass 10 lhese J:CSOIIIUS, which, lhese 

economists concend. encowagcs a misallocation of 

lhese resour=. 

Olher economisls argue !hal wilderness cannot be 

valued in ealOODiic ltmiS. Some analysts suggestlhat 

lhc views of many environmealal groups represent an 

"environmealallhcology," and !hal government support 

of wildenleos designation represents a subsidy 10 

religion. One proposed marltct-based alternative would 

le& environmCIIIal groups acquire lhese lands so lhese 

groups could manage them in a manna- consistent with 

lhcir beliefs. 

We ~ lhese marltcs-based penpectives 10 iUusuate 

allalwive views of wilderness designation. Olher 

IIODIIlllkl:c perspectives (e.g., biological, ecological, 

aeslbelic) have received widespread considemion in 

numerous ocademic and popular publications and are 

readily available. · 

We UJed coumy maps 10 examine issues and 

ccacems associated wilh lhc 137 wilderness 

Sludy orcas proposed by lhc Ullh Wilderness Coalition 

(UWC) and lhc Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Mally ollhc UWC an:as involved "cherry-stemmed" 

roallways and iDeludtd roadways. 1be legal swus of 

IIWIY of lbele roallways is cwrendy being debated. The 

bouDdaries of some slUdy areas also inlcrsected town 

boundarieL 

THE EfFECTS ON ADJACENT lANDS 

There is conccm dial wilderness designation will 

inftucac:e lhc developmeN and management of 

adjacenlland. Under lhe Property Clause of lhe U.S. 

Conslillllioa, lhe federal government has lhe ability 10 

pn>leCI federal resources, including controUing lhe 

rnonaacmeat of adjacent lands. 1be federal government 

has exercised lhis authority many times. In some cases, rcatrictiou oa land use near wilderness have resul&ed in 

de faciO buffers, evm when wildemess legislation 

speciJieally forbids lhe implementation of lhese zones. 

Howe-.lhc limited extent and special circumst.anccs 

sunounding lhese cases suggest !hal fears of wide· 

spead and systematic buffen are unwarranted. 

Wbilc it is impossible 10 prodiCI whelher buiTen will 

be created in a certain area, !here are actions !hal can 

reduce lhc likelihood lhey will be cltaled. For example, 

staleS can acs 10 mitigate 111reats 10 wilderness areas, 

instead of wailing for lhc federal government to acL 

Creating wilderness area~ on lhe basis of 

ecosystems ralhcr !halt polllical or olher criteria would 

146 

also reduce lhc problem, as would provisions in legislation lha& include "release language, • i.e., provisions dial 

cl=ly specify how areas not designated as wilderness 

are "released" for olher uses or further •111\lY. 

Scandard language used 10 prohibit lhc creation of buffer 

zones should be carefully drafted 10 ensure dial it mee&s 

its intent under lhe law. Specifying which resources are 

to be protected by special land use designations such as 

wilderness would aUeviale concerns, altbough it would 

also make iti!IOIIO clilfiCUltiO dr.lft and puslegislalion. 

Another alrerrwive is 10 employ a ~fer approach 

in which areas desigJIIICd as wildenleos serve as "core" 

areas surrounded by olher areas where !here are fewer 

restrictions on land use. This melhod has been successfully employed in many areas of lhe country, allhough it 

can be cliflicultiO implemenL 

RECREATION 

We surveyed users of five wilderness areas and 

wildcmess SUidy areas in Ullh 10 determine lhe 

characleristics of users and lhe ecommic impacl associated wilh wilderness use. The visiiOrS tended 10 be male, 

relatively y<lWig, well educated, affluent. white, and 

employed as professionals or executives. A larJe proportion (4710 81 pc:n:ent) of lhe visiton wae from lhe local 

area. which included adjacellt stales. On I household 

basis. visilon spent about $30 per day, somewhat less 

lhan many olher types ol recn:alional aclivily. 

Resideats of urban and nual areas of lhe swe were asked 

aboutlhcir lllilUdes toWard wilderness. Genetally, 

respondents said lhcy made extensive usc ol wilderness 

areas, but a substantial portion of lhc recreational uses, 

such as bicycling or off-road vehicles, would not be 

allowed under wilderness designation. 

We asked a random sample of Utah residents about lhe 

value !hey placed on wUdcmess (thooe respondents who 

favored wilderness) or thallhey placed 011 jlreserving 

multiple use (thooe respondents who oppcsed wilderness 

designation). When these "bids" were ccmplled. 

multiple-use was valued much higher lhan wilderness. In 

olher words, opponents of wilclemess said lhey ,...., 

willing 10 spend men 10 preserve multiple use. 

More lhan two-tltinls ·ollhe respondents indicated lhey 

would vote against lhc BLM proposal. Thae was even 

less suppon for lhc UWC proposal, eve~~ by respoadents 

who supported lhe geuenl concept of wilderness. 

We estinWed lhe CCOIIOIIIic impecl of visiwial10 lhc 

BLM and UWC wilderness and wildemess Sllldy areas, 

based on cumnt visiwion rates 10 wildemess and 

wildemess study areas. As shown in Table 2, wildcmessrelaled expendiwres as 1 percentage of lOla! county sales 

are very low. For example, in Emery COWity, where 31.S 

percent of lhe county would be designated as wilderness 
147 

ABLE 2. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WILDERNESS designation has of~en ~~ access 10 mining claims, 

DESIGNATION AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL and this may occur in Ulah. 

TAXABLE COUNTY SALES. Even though gross salea from mining and minerals aze 

BLM uwc relatively small compared 10 lOIII county sales. lhesc 

SAUSAS SAUSAS exuactive indUSUies orr.en provide a subslanlial shaze or 

%or %OF lhe local property tax base. e.g .. 43 10 6S'lll or propcny 

COUNTY COUNTY w. receiptS in Duchesne Couruy from 198910 1992.1n 

COUNTY TOTAL TOTAL addition, mining wages aze about twice those or most 

Ba.ver 0 0 jobs in the service industry. 

Box Elder 0 0 Based on average monthly employment, 12 or 18 Carbon 0 0 counties with wilderness study azeas had a proportion· Daggett 0 0.4 a~ely larger mining scc10r that the swe average. Coun· Duchesne 0 0 ties with ptoposed wilderness may bear a dis(lroponion- Emery 1.7 4.4 ar.e shaze of the COSl or wildemess withdrawals if 

Gariield 3.1 10.0 wilderness designation decreases mininc-n:laled Grand 0.6 2.2 economic activity. RUI31 counties aze reWively isolated Iron 0 0 in their economic aaivity and may noc panicipaiC in lhe Juab 0.2 0.4 economic gains enjoyed by communities along the Kane 2.2 8.2 Wasa1eh Front, a faciDr that increases the signifu:ance or Millard 0.1 0.2 local efforu ID CoSier economic growth. SanJuan 2.8 9.1 

Sevier 0 0.1 

Tooele GRAZING 0.1 0.2 

Uinlah 0 0.1 The 1964 Wilderness AI:~ all~s ~vesiOCk gr:Wng in Washingum 0 0.1 wiidemess areas. Despite this, wildemess design&· Wayne o.s I.S tion has sometimes led ID a deCline in livesiOCk when 

Average 0.3 0.9 managers deClare land unsuitable for grazing and 

reduce allowable forage utiliz.ation rates, or when under the UWC proposal, wildcmess-relar.ed expendi- operarors decide ID srop grazing due ID ina-eases in tures would be 4.4 pen:ent or IDtal taXable sales. management costs. 

Communities that have benefi!Cd from wilderness Many residents of rural counties depend on both designation were eithu larger metropOlitan areas or ranching and nonfarm income. Neither is sufficient by azeas that already possessed tbe infraslructure needed ID itself. Any decline in ranching income due ID a loss of suppon wildemcss-n:laled activities. The value of grazing on lands desi~ as wilderness would have 

wilderness is expected 10 increase, based largely on negative economic effects. 

higher incomes and the proximity of wilderness. The 

laU.er factor may not be germane 10 many of lhe remote WATER wilderness areas under consideration in ULa11. Also, lhe 

U.S. population is aging, and wilderness use usually Many existing wilderness areas occupy high decttases with age, another factor that should be elevation siteS where concerns over water rights considered when projecting the future use or wilderness are minor. However, in many of the areas now being ...-. considered for wilderness, virtually all of the appropriated water rights are upstream. This, combined with lhe 

MINING uncertainty about the federal government's policy 

regarding "reserved" rights (i.e., the principle that There was liule consensus on lhe trends in mineral quantities of water are reserved when public lands are markets. There is a loog hisrory or mining activity withdrawn from the public domain), means that ceo- in many or lhe wilclcrncss azeas proposed by the UWC. nomic development in many ..- of Southern Ulah 

[t is nearly impossible ID ascenain the OXICnt of mineral depends on a resolution of reserved water rights. deposits in proposed wilderness areas. Wilderness 
148 

CoNCLUSIONS 

Tbe economic gains from n:crcation. which is one of lhe majGr ..... consisr=t with wilderness, appear to 

be iDconscquculia1 and probably would noc o«.et the 

ecooomic losses assoeialed with wilderness designation. 

HoweYu, we did ncx c:onsider the IICliUII8IItet benefits 

a.ssociall:d with wildeme.ss designation. 

The major beneficiaries of wilclemess designation 

appear to be relalivcly young and wealthy reaeationists. 

In clfect. wilderness designation represents a t11111sfer of 

income from nual areas, whete economie opponunities 

are abady limiled. The withdrawal of resoun:es through 

wildemess designation seems inoonsiSICIIt with efforts to 

fClSier lbc ~ial aDd economic revitalization of nual 

ueas of Utah, ID objective that bas long been the stated 

goal of DilDY federal programs. 

T/U:s lllMiy W<11 primDriq 1upponcd by IM milw41 k/Jufwnd.t. witAo~"'Pportfromlhi.D<ptJrOMNc(C~ 

ttNl ~ D~.U.. UIMArmllllwGI E:tpuimeN 

~ U..UUIAC_.,nw~Sovi<:w. ttMIM 

o.,._ t( EcorrDmia 111 UIMSIGU Uniwnily. 

;. ._, t( 1M Jindi"'• u pob/iWd by tM UUIA Agmw· rwtll~SIIIIk>nuR....,.hRqxxt IS/, Wildemeu Oooi......., in Ur.h! lsaues ond l'olauiol Eeonomiclmpacts. 

Copiatr6~fr- 1116 Ul4hAf'icldt.,41 bp<rimeN 

S""""'- Ullllo SitU Uniwr.U,,f..otM, /IT 84321-4810: (801) 

797-2206 C011 u S/0 pllu S4 1M' copy •loip,U., i1M MNIW.g. 
149 

LEGISLATIVE GENERAL COUNSEL H.C.R.l2 

C. Approved for Filing: MGT C. 

C. 02- I 3-95 I :I 9 PM C. 

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WILDERNESS 

2 DESIGNATION 

3 1995 GENERAL SESSION 

4 STATEOFUTAH 

S Spoasor: Bradley T. Jobasoa 

6 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLA TIJRE AND THE GOVERNOR 

7 RECOMMENDING THAT CONGRESS ENACT A FAIR AND EQUITABLE UTAH 

8 WILDERNESS BILL DESIGNATING ONLY THOSE LANDS THAT MEET THE LEGAL 

9 DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS LANDS IN THE 1964 WILDERNESS ACT BE 

10 INCLUDED; RECOMMENDING THAT ANY BILL DESIGNATING PUBLIC LANDS IN 

I I UTAH AS WILDERNESS RELEASE OTHER LANDS WITH NO NET LOSS OF STATE 

12 OR PRIVATE LANDS AND NO INCREASE IN FEDERAL OWNERSHIP AND REQUIRE 

13 FEDERAL AGENCY COOPERATION WITH THE STATE IN DETERMINING THE 

.14 EXCHANGE OF LANDS; RECOMMENDING THAT CONGRESS NOT RESERVE WATER 

IS RIGHTS IN A WILDERNESS DESIGNATION BILL; RECOMMENDING THAT ANY 

16 DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS RECOGNIZE VALID EXISTING RIGHTS 

17 AND HISTORICAL USES; AND DESIGNATING ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS TO 

18 DEVELOP THE WILDERNESS PROPOSALS FOR THEIR COUNTIES. 

19 Be it resolved by the Legislahue of the state of Utah. the Govenwr concurring therein: 

20 WHEREAS the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued its final Environmental 

21 Impact Statement aud m:ommended designating approldmately 1.9 million acres of land in Utah 

22 as wilderness; 

23 WHEREAS the state is willing to cooperate with the United States government in the 

24 designation process aud in protecting Utah's environment; 

25 WHEREAS designating lauds as wilderness affects many communities and residents. of 

26 the state by permanently prohibiting certain kinds of economic development; 

27 WHEREAS a federal reservation of water could seriously affect the potential for : ;t. 

, •••.••.. 
150 

H.C.R.I2 02-13-95 1:19PM 

development in growing areas of the state; 

2 WHEREAS the designation of wilderness would depreciate the value of state inholdings 

3 and adjacent state lands, reducing an important source of revenue for the education of Utah's 

4 schoolchildren; 

5 WHEREAS it is the state's position that there should be no net loss of state or private lands 

6 and no increase in federal ownership as a result of wilderness designation; 

7 WHEREAS lands that may be designated as wilderness are subject to existing rights and 

8 uses under current law, such as mining, timber harvesting, and grazing; 

9 WHEREAS the BLM bas extensively studied public lands in Utah for the purpose of 

10 determining suitability for wilderness designation; 

I I WHEREAS much of Utah's municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply comes 

12 . from public landS, requiring continued management and maintenance of vegetation, reservoirs, and 

13 pipelines; and 

14 WHEREAS the defmition of wilderness lands established by Congress in the 1964 

15 Wilderness Act should be used to determine the designation of wilderness lands: 

16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the 

17 . Governor concurring therein, encourage the Congress to enact at the earliest possible opportunity 

18 a lair and equitable Utah wilderness bill regarding BLM lands, with the Legislature's and 

19 . Governor's suppon of the bill contingent upon its containing the following provisions: . 

20 (I) that any BLM lands designated as wilderness must meet the legal . . cleflJli~on of 

21 wilderness lands as contained in the 1964 Wilderness Act; 

22 (2) that all lands not designated as wilderness be released from Wilderness Study Area 

23 swus and that the BLM be dim:ted to manage those released lands under multiple use sustained 

24 yield principles and be prohibited from making or managina fiuther study area designations in 

25 Utah without express authorization from Congress; 

26 (3} thai no reserve water riiht be panted or implied in any BLM wilderness bill for Utah 

27 inasmuch as federal ~&eocies are able to apply for water throush the state appropriations system 

28 in kecpina with the 1988 opinion of Solicitor Ralph W. Tarr of the United States Department of 

29 the Interior; 

30 ( 4) thai federal ~&ax:ies be required to cooperate with the state in exclJaDBing state lands 

31 thai are surrounded by or adjacent to or adversely affected by wilderness designation for federal 

-2-
151 

02-13-95 1:19PM H.C.R.l2 

lands of equivalent v:~lue; and additionally. because designation of wilderness lands is a feder:ll 

2 action. that federal funds be appropriated to pay for appraisals of state lands and federal lands to 

3 be exchanged; 

4 (5) that there be no net loss of state or private lands and no increase in federal ownership 

5 as a result of wilderness designation in Utah; 

6 (6) that the creation. either fonnally or infonnally, ofbuffer zones and management zones 

7 around, contiguous. or on lands affected by wilderness designation is prohibited; 

8 (7) that all valid existing rights and historical uses be allowed to be fully exercised without 

9 undue restriction or eco~mic hardship on lands d~ignated as wilderness; and 

I 0 (8) that management of vegetation. reservoirs, and similar facilities on watershed lands 

II designated as wilderness be continued by state or private means. 

12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor conclude that elected 

13 county officials, after extensive public input, should develop the wilderness proposals and the 

14 conditions for acceptable designation of wilderness lands within their respective counties, with the 

I 5 aggregate of these respective county recommendations constituting the state proposal for BLM 

16 wilderness designation in Utah. 

17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be sent to President Clinton, 

18 the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the 

19 Secretary of the Interior, the directors of both the state and federal Bureau of Land Management, 

20 and Utah's congressional delegation. 

Fiscal Note 

Bill Number HCROIZ 

Mailing cost associated with the implementation of this bill can be handled within 

existing budgets. 

IS-Feb-95 

9:31AM 

Otr~e of the Legblative Fiscal Analyst 

. 3. 
152 

TESTIMONY TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND LANDS 

CEDAR CITY, UTAH JUNE 23, 1995 BY: A.C. EKKER 

It is an honor to be asked to testifY before such a prestigious Congressional SubcoiTUllittee 

regarding H.R. 1745. Wudemess has been defined as "an area where the earth and its 

conununity of life are untrammeled by man". My maternal grandfather brought his family, 

cattle and horses to Eastern Wayne County, Utah in 1909. They homesteaded what was 

to become the Robbers Roost Ranch , where a short time before, the outlaws Butch 

Cassidy and the Sundance Kid used the area as a hideout. At that time, I'm sure the area 

fit the modem definition of"Wildemess". My grandparents filed for and were granted, 

private title to the water rights of the area during the years from 1912 to 1917. I will talk 

more about these water rights later. After my grandfather died, my parents, Arthur and 

Hazel Ekker, bought the ranch from my grandmother in 1939. I grew up on this ranch, 

now known by the BLM as the "Robbers Roost AUotment" consisting of205,250 acres 

which also contains three proposed Wilderness Areas: Horseshoe Canyon South, French 

Spring-Happy Canyon, and Dirty Devil. Today, none of these areas conform to the strict 

definition of"Wildemess". Why? I remember as a child in the 1950's my inother crying as 

the uranium miners and "oil diggers" came and built roads, drilled dry holes, tunneled into 

the cliffs and left their trash dumps everywhere as they explored for uranium, oil and gas. 

We watched, helplessly, as a family as our beautiful home was scared forever by 

bulldozers, drill rigs and mans blatant disregard for the delicate landscape. Do I know 

what wilderness is? Yes. I grew up in it, learned to love and respect it, went away and 

got a Degree in Business Management from the University of Utah, passed the 

opportunity to become a veterinarian or an attorney and returned to live in the land I love. 

I sincerely ask you all to pass H.R 1745. It will protect the land that we all, so-called 

environmentalists and ranchers alike, love and respect and it will preserve the way of life 

that is so important to our heritage and our local rural economies. 

I have read H.R 1745 over and over. I have changed my mind completely about 

"wilderness" designation. Before, I opposed any wilderness designation. We must 

maintain the existing language in the "Bill" which recognizes and protects established 

water rights, access routes, range improvements (their repair and replacement). We have 

survived as a viable ranching operation, harveSting the forage as a renewable resource, 

under the current administration of the Federal Ranges. I am not asking for increased 

access or further development. I am only asking that we be allowed to operate our ranch 

as we have in the past so that we may continue to make a living, contribute to the local 

economy and preserve the heritage of the west. 

Water rights. Ours date back to 1912. Our Grazing Permit is based on the fact that we 

own the private rights to the major water sources. We have improved these tiny springs, 

to provide water not only for our horses and cattle but also for wildlife. French Spring, 

the largest, only produces one gallon of water per minute. Deer, antelope, wild burros and 

big hom sheep as well as many smaller species drink from our troughs daily. We must 
153 

have the right to maintain and replace our structures and the trails to them or both 

livestock and wildlife will suffer from lack of water. We are also required by the BLM to 

maintain our base water improvements to their specifications or they will cancel our 

Grazing Pennit. Recreationists also use our private waters. As you can see, without the 

right of access to repair and replace our water improvements, we would soon be out of 

business and all will suffer. 

Why is the language regarding access and maintaining existing range improvements so 

important? I will tell you about a few instances where current administration have closed 

existing roads, denied access to repair water improvements, and repair existing fences 

within Wilderness Study Areas. I have attached to your copies of my testimony 

supporting documents and maps that I will refer to. 

A road was built through Goat Park to the Red Nubs "in the winter of 1959-60". (Ref. 

Ted Ekker letter dated: March 19, 1990). It is shown on the USGS map attached as 

"Unimproved Road". The Wayne County Road crew sent their road grader over the road 

in early March of 1990. The BLM filed an immediate "Trespass" against the County. 

Subsequent correspondence between Sheldon Wimmer, Area Manager for the Hanksville 

Area of the BLM and Tex Olsen, Wayne County Attorney, should have established the 

validity of the claim by Wayne County. (Ref. letter Olsen to Wimmer, dated: March 20, 

1990 and Western Association OfLand Users Monthly Newsupdate, August, 1990). 

However, Wimmer was able to convince the County Commissioners that they were in 

trespass and then required them to rehabilitate the road. The road had been used 

continuously since its construction by us for ranch purposes as well as sightseers, 

backpackers and deer hunters. The road remains closed today. 

I have been continually denied access to repair Trail Spring, Middle Spring, Outlaw 

Spring, and Blue John Spring because they all are within the Horse Shoe Canyon South 

WSA. I need to replace rusted though troughs with new ones, replace pipelines and repair 

the concrete headhouses. A backhoe is necessary to haul supplies in and excavate for the 

headhouses. We have used a small caterpillar and backhoes in the past. Because of the 

idea that "absolutely nothing with a motor or any type of vehicle may enter a WSA" my 

requests have been denied. 

Our allotment is 20S,2SO acres, approximately 320 ·square miles, all in one pasture. My 

Dad signed an "Allotment Management Plan" in 1965 and it was revised in 1968. It 

provided for repairing a fence, known as the Coyote Drift Fence, built by him in 1939 and 

construction of an additional fence to divide the Allotment into three pastures. This will 

allow us to establish a "deferred" system of grazing which keeps the cattle off a different 

pasture each year to allow the plants to produce more seeds and thus a healthier and more 

productive range. I have continually requested either a new AMP or revisions to the old 

one s0 that I can repair the Coyote Drift Fence and construct the new on. (Ref. my letters 

dated: April27, 1988 and .Feb. 17, 1989). The BLM continues to tell me that they can't 

allow the repair or construction of the fences under the existing AMP because both fences 

are in the HCS WSA and they will not provide me a new or revised AMP. 
154 

In 1992, I requested pennission to construct three small rainwater catchment reservoirs 

outside but within one half mile of the HCS WSA My request was denied because, "they 

can be seen from the WSA and we don't know what is going to happen when Congress 

takes up that Bill". 

It is evident that grazing is being administered much differently in and near WSAs than it 

was before their designation. Therefore, it is imperative that H.R. 1745 be passed in its 

entirety to protect and preserve our Utah Wilderness and provide for stability and 

continuation of the ranchers and rural economies. 
155 
156 
157 

CROSS S CATTLE CO. +S 

Stan Adams 

Acting Area Manager 

Henry Mountain Resource Area 

Bureau of Land Management 

Hanksville, Utah 84734 

Dear Stan: 

February 17, 1989 

We are in the process of drafting an AMP for the Robbers Roost Allotment. 

I'm sure you remember that ~e have di5cussed it on several occasions. 

Dr. Paul Me Cawley and Roger Banner of Utah State University have both 

offered espertise for its development. This scientific input will he 

very valuable in establis hing initial carrying capacities. seasons of use, 

pasture sizes and us~, and water deve lopment. 

range inventory 

order that we can 

We will also need to 

I have requested several times for you to provide me with 

figures of forage available in each water service. area in 

establish the initial carrying capacity of each pasture. 

know the carrying capacity outside the service areas in 

water development and the priority o f each development. 

order to plan future 

I'm sure you concur that with all the ad'lantages we have discussed that 

will come from implementing an AMP, t here is a degree of urgency to this 

project. If you can get me the requested information by the first of March, 

I plan to have a draft proposal back to you by May l, 1989. 

Thank you for your prompt attention. 

Sincerely,~ 

:.4¢ 

A.C. Ekker 

President 

ACE:nae 

cc: Dr . Paul McCawley 

Mr . Roger Banner 

POST OFFICE BOX 129 • HANKSVILLE, UTAH 84734 • TELEPHONE 801-542-3421 
Mr. A. C. Ekker 

Hanksville, Utah 84734 

Dear A.C., 

158 

Green River, Utah 

March 19, 1990 

In reply to our telephone conversation of 3/18/90: 

You inquired about the road down to the Red Nobs. 

As near as I can remember, I built that road in the 

winter of 1959-60. I was working for Rey Lloyd Hatt, 

operating his D-6 CAT bulldozer. He was contracted to 

General Geophysical Corp., and they in turn were working 

for Texaco Corp. 

Since that time, I have used the road many times 

while working for Arthur and also for hunting deer and 

recreational sight-seeing. 

It was very nice visiting with you. 

Yours truly, 

Ted Ekker 
159 

OLSEN, MclFF & CHAMBERLAIN 

KitH C:MAM.t:AL.AIN 

lf.A'I' L . M c:I P',. 

-.ICHA_.D K. CHAMBI:RL.AIN 

Mr. Sheldon Wimmer 

Area Manager 

Henry Mt. Resource Area 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

22$ HO.T H 10 0 EAST 

POS T OI",..CI: BOX 100 

RICHFIELD, UTAH 84701 

March 20, 1990 

u. s. Department of Interior 

Bureau of Management 

P. 0. Box 99 

Hanksville, Utah 84734 

Re: Wayne County - Notice of Trespass 

Dated March 15, 1990 

Dear Mr. Wimmer: 

Your correspondence of March 15, directed 

County Commissioners was forwarded to me for 

correspondence was received on March 19, 1990. 

TCLC Ht: DOI-8'a45· 4•UU 

TCLI: P'AX 801· &Q0· 544 1 

to the 

reply. 

Wayne 

The 

We note that the Bureau of Land Management is alleging a trespass violation for an unauthorized blading of a roadway 

located in Horseshoe Canyon (South) Wilderness Study Area, which 

roadway is known as the "Goatf Park Road". 

Your notice further states that Wayne county is in violation 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 usc 

1701, et seq.); t .he Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 usc 1131); 43 CFR 

Part 2800; and the Interim Management Policy (IMP) (H-8550-1) for 

lands under wilderness review. 

As you suggested, the Wayne County Commission would like to 

review the matter with you to determine if, in fact, there has 

been a trespass. We are advised that the road is designated by name "Goatf Park Road"; that it has been in existence for a period of more than }0 years; that it is the only access route to a Utah State school section which is under lease for grazing and 

recreational purposes. 

It appears that the facts needs to be studied further to 

determine if, in fact, the road has been dedicated by continuous 

public use and was dedicated as a public way prior to the 

adoption of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act which 

became effective October 21, 1976. 
SHELDON WIMMER 

March 20, 1990 

Page 2 

160 

1. Roadways established by use on public lands: 

By Federal law (43 USC, §932) Congress recognized and 

extended to the states the right to continued use of public roads across public lands which were dedicated and established by 

continuous public U:se as established by State law. 

2. Dedication of a Public Roadway by Utah State Law: 

A right of way is established over pUblic and private lands 

by public use for a period of 10 continuous years. This law was established under the laws of the Territory of Utah (Laws of 

1888, Chapter 29) and continued into the present Utah statutes, 

§27-12-89. A copy of the present Utah law is attached for your 

review. 

3. Federal Land Policy and Management Act: 

The Federal statute cited above, 43 uses, §932 was repealed 

in October of 1976 as a part of the Act known as the "Federal 

Land Policy Management Act•. However, the Amending Act expressly 

provided a savings clause in which it provided that the Federal 

Land Policy Management Act could not be construed to amend or 

terminate any existing rights of way or other land use established and existing on October 21, 1976. 

Therefore, if the right of way was perfected by 10 years of 

continuous public use prior to October 21, 1976, the right of way 

does still exist and could not be terminated by retroactive 

Federal legislation. 

·4. Tez;mination or Abandonment of Right of Ways. Assuming 

the right of way had been dedicated it would have been dedicated 

to Wayne county and then could only be vacated in accordance with 

Section 27-12-90, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. You 

will note from the Section that it can only be abandoned by the 

highway authorities having jurisdiction over such highway. 

Therefore, if the pUblic roadway had been dedicated to wayne 

County it cannot be abandoned except by Resolution of the Board 

of Commissioners of Wayne County. The roadway is not abandoned 

by non-use once established but as I have stated could only have 

been abandoned by formal action of the Wayne County Commission. 
SHELDON WIMMER 

March 20, 1.990 

Page 3 

161 

In view of the situation as it now exists, we bel.ieve your 

suggestion that we review the matter in detail certainly has 

merit. · 

Sincerely yours, 

Tex R. Olsen 

Wayne County Attorney 

TRO:gln 

cc: Wayne County Commissioners 
162 
On HR 1745: 

163 

TFSTIMONY OF RONALD W. THOMPSON 

Berore the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Lands 

Field Hearing on June 23, 1995 

Cedar City, Utah 

A bill to designate certain lands in the State of Utah as Wilderness 

and ror other purposes. 

I support H R 1745 as a consensus proposal. This bill represents a balanced proposal 

for protection of wilderness and to allow productive uses of the land to go forward under 

multiple use management by the BLM on the remainder of public land in Utah. 

Acreage should not be a criteria in this wilderness debate. The criteria should be: 

solitude and outstanding opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation. I believe the areas 

tncluded lor wilderness in HR 1745 meet this criteria. Extending wilderness beyond the 

boundaries found suitable by BLM, in its well documented, professionally done report would 

require the use of a lower and invalid standard. 

I would however, like to suggest a few additions and changes to the specific language 

lllthe olll as follows: 

tAl In Section . under(b) management plans, I would suggest that language be 

added which would require BLM in preparing management plans for wilderness areas 

to coordinate with other federal, state and local government and agencies within the 

area which the lands are located. Also non-federal, state and local officials of units 

within which the wilderness lands are located also be authorized to furnish advise to 

the secretary with respect to the development and revision of such plans and such 

other matters as which may be related to the plans. Also, plans to the maximum 

RWITE.ST .D<>C 

lun..: Ill. 1'1'.1~ 
164 

extent possible be consistent with state and local plans and policy, consistent with 

federal law and the purposes of this act. 

(B) In Section 3(e) I would suggest that in addition to the prohibition against 

designation of a buffer zone that the words "or management" be added to make this 

section read as follows: The Congress does not intend that designation of an area as 

wilderness by this Act lead to the creation or management of protective perimeters or 

buffer zones around the area. 

(C) Under section 3(g), ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYS AS BOUNDARIES, 

the bill as written calls for different setbacks according to the standard of the road 

without defining in specific terms, what the standards are. I believe this varying 

standard leaves a great opponunity for litigation and argument over what the setbacks 

should be, therefore, I recommend there be a standard 500 ft. setback from any road. 

(D) Under section 3(h), roads are sometimes closed not by an overt act of closure, 

but by failure to maintain , therefore, I suggest the words be added in Section (h)(l) to 

the effect that the secretary may not close or fail to maintain roads to limit access 

within the boundary of the wilderness area. 

(E) I also suggest in Section 3(h)(2), that when the secretary takes steps to notify 

the public concerning closure of roads the words "together with reasons for it" be 

added. 

(f) In Section 3(h)(3)(i) regarding access. In the last sentence after the words 

"may be operated and maintained, repaired modified replaced as necessary to maintain 

serviceable conditions add after replaced "and for water conservation and protection 

TESTIM<)N 

Jun.: Itt . t'JY:\ 
165 

mt:asur.:s" Also to th1s section I suggest that wording be added that no federal 

authorization or permit for routine and customary access and maintenance or 

replacement shall be required. The same wording regarding the prohibition on federal 

al!-encies reqUinng permits or authorization should be added to Section (h)(3)(i)(2) as 

wdl. My reasoning for adding the restrictions on requirement for federal permits is 

that if the agency requires permits and authorization for such routine maintenance, 

they also are required to allow appeals and challenges to such permits thereby 

allowing those seeking influence without responsibility to enter unnecessarily into 

what should remain professional judgments as to the managements of the land . 

(G) Section 3(h)(i)(3) add language to allow facilities, structures and related access 

rouh.:s to be operatc::d and mamtained, repaired and replaced as necessary to maintain 

sc rv1ct:able conditions and safety standards and water conservation measures. Also 

Sc::ction 3)h)(i)(4) should include the same language. Also, language to exclude the 

requirement for the federal agencies to require permits or approval to carry out 

routine historic customary maintenance should be added to this section also. 

(HI In Secuon 9(i). The words "material site borrow areas" should be added to 

read as follows: "and other facilities needed in the public interest including ~ 

site borrow areas and road construction and maintenance essential to the development 

and use thereof. 

(I) In Section IO(b) , I would suggest that in release language stating that lands not 

111cluded 1n the wilderness designation shall not be managed for the purpose of 

JlH>hXIIng su1Wbih ty for wilderness that the words or wild and scenic river 

f.(wrfEST [)(K' 

Juu.: ltl . IYY.\ 
166 

designation or wilderness or wild and scenic river character be added. 

(J) In Section I I (b) add specific language as follows to this section: lands 

under this section shall be subject to valid existing rights including unrecorded grants 

for roads under RS 2477 and ditches and canals under the Mining Law of July 26. 

(K) Also Section II as written requires an all or nothing type of land exchange. I 

suggest language be added to Section ll(d)(2) to allow the secretary and the State of 

Utah by mutual consent to amend the maps and lists described in Section (c)(l) and 

(c)(2) to delete up to 5% of the listed lands from the exchange to resolve unforeseen 

encumbrances or value discrepancies. 

TESTIMtiN 

luu.: It!. 11;.1<,1'1 
167 

Utah Petroleum Association A Diviaion of Rocky Mounlain Oil a a.. A88DCiMion 

COMMENTS ON H.A. 1745, A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN PUBUC 

LANDS IN THE STATE OF UTAH AS WILDERNESS AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES. 

PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS AT A FIELD HEARING IN 

CEDAR CITY, UTAH ON JUNE 23, 1995. 

This testimony is submitted by the Utah Petroleum 

Association, a state division of the Rocky Mountain Oil and 

Gas Association, an eight-state oil and gas trade 

association whose members account for over 90% of the 

exploration, drilling, production, transportation and refining 

of crude oil and natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands: 

My name is Jim Peacock. I am the Executive Director of the Utah Petroleum 

Association. I am here today speaking for the petroleum industry in Utah. 

For over 15 years the members of this oil and gas trade association have been active 

participants in the BLM wilderness inventorying and designation process in Utah. We 

have submitted comments and given testimony at each stage of this lengthy process. 

We believe it is critically important to bring this divisive public land policy decision to a 

conclusion so that those lands designated can be formally managed as wilderness, 

and those lands not designated can be released and managed for general multiple 

use. 

To that end we congratulate Congressman Hansen and Congresswoman Waldholtz 

for sponsoring H.A. 1745, and we commend the full Utah Congressional Delegation, 

Utah's Governor and many county commissions in Utah for coordinating and 

cooperating to bring this very difficult land policy issue to a conclusion. 

In previous comments submitted to the Utah Congressional Delegation during their 

statewide wilderness hearings, the Utah Petroleum Association identified ten areas of 

concern and drafted statements of support or opposition to each. They were: 

311 SOUTH STATE. SUITE 320/SAL T LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111/pt....tONE fB01)363-57~7/FAX !801)322-5002 
168 

THE UTAH PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION: 

(1) Supports the wilderness review and designation process for Bureau of Land 

Manaqer!"ent L~r.ds in Utah 35 orcccsc:d "'"d r<•·e~ed '=''' IJ!~h s Governor and 

Conaressicnal Deleqaticn. 

(2) Supports the right of counties and locat citizens to play a major role in 

wilderness designation in their counties. 

(3) Supports evaluating and considering the socio-economic impacts on 

communities, counties and the state resulting from wilderness designation. 

(4) Supports a reasonable and rational wilderness acreage designation that strictly 

conforms to the criteria established in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public 

Law 88-577). 

(5) Supports counties' authority to designate county roads and rights-of-way under 

Revised Statute 2477. 

(6) Supports the inclusion of "Hard Release Language" in the Utah Wilderness Bill, 

thus releasing non-designated WSAs to general multiple use. 

(7) Supports honoring and protecting all valid existing rights within WSA 

designations. · 

(8) Supports language in the Utah Wilderness Act expressly prohibiting creation of 

buffer zones, formally or by de facto management, on lands outside designated 

wi.lderness areas. 

(9) Opposes the inclusion of any wilderness area reserved water rights, either 

stated or implied, in the Utah Wilderness Bill. 

(10) Supports the Utah Congressional Delegation's and Governor Leavitt's effort to 

have Congress act on a Utah Wilderness Bill this year (1995). 

We have evaluated H.R. 1745 against the criteria and recommendations we earlier 

stated. Our findings and recommendations are as follows: 

1. We believe a strict application of the criteria in the Wilderness Act of 1964 to the 

BLMs Wilderness Study Areas would have resulted in a smaller acreage than 

the 1.8 million acres in H.R. 1745. County commissioners analyzed the WSAs in 

their counties and excluded roaded areas from wilderness consideration. 

Significant amounts of acreage nominated in H.R. 1745 encompass roads the 

counties believe disqualify them tor wilderness designation. Even though we 

believe the 1.8 million acres may be excessive, we also believe the lengthy 

public process has been followed and the 1.8 million acres is an acceptable 

compromise if certain criteria in the bill can be clarified and strengthened. We 
169 

strongly recommend that any amendments to increase the acreage for 

designated wilderness be vigorously opposed. We believe the entire Utah 

Delegation should unite behind one wilderness bill. 

2. With respect to the language prohibiting buffer zones around wilderness, we 

believe section 3(e) on page 16 must be strengthened and be very specific in 

stating that areas bordering designated wilderness (buffer zones) are not to be 

managed other than by general multiple use criteria. This same buffer zone 

protection language has been used in other wilderness bills, but has been 

ineffective in preventing buffer zones from being managed as de facto 

wilderness. This has been done to "protect" the buffer zone acreage while 

awaiting a possible future wilderness expansion. Other reasons for buffer zone 

protective management have been to isolate the designated wilderness from 

the sight, sound, or environmental impact from sources outside the wilderness 

area This type of protective management creates buffer zones that are in fact 

an extension of the wilderness area. This is obviously not what Congress 

intended. We believe this bill should specifically state that management of 

wilderness bordering areas shall not exceed that applied to general multiple use 

lands. While the Wilderness Release language in Section 1 0, page 25, gives 

Congressional direction to releasing all WSA lands, not designated wilderness, 

back to non-wilderness management, we believe buffer zone areas must have 

specific direction in the bill to prevent management actions counter to 

Congressional intent. 

3. We believe the definition of roads in the section on ROADS AND RIGHTS-OFWAY AS BOUNDARIES, Section 3(g), page 17 must be rewritten to provide for 

inclusion of AS 24n roads as identified and registered by county governments. 

These roads must also be given the 1 00 foot from center line boundary 

placement, otherwise there will be continuous contention, appeal and court 

adjudication when counties want to maintain or improve these roads. 

4. We question whether the Secretary should be granted such broad road closure 

authority by his sole determination of a "Public Safety Requirement". Public 

safety is not defined, leaving enormous discretion on the part of the Secretary 

to close roads within or bordering wilderness designations, even though they 

legally qualify to be there. This section should be written more explicitly to limit 

the Secretary's closure authority to specific reasons and durations. 

5. We believe the sections dealing with Water, Water Rights, Air Quality, and 

Industrial Facilities, are acceptable compromises. We would much rather have 

had "hard release" language instead of the wilderness release language 

contained in the bill. If, however, Congressional intent as written is followed. we 

believe the bill can adequately protect the non-designated lands. Certainly no 

advocacy group or wilderness philosophy got all they desired in these 

compromises. 
170 

In conclusion we again commend the Utah Congressional Delegation for their 

sponsorship of this biU, and to thank you members of the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Lands for coming to Utah to hear citizen comments on H.R. 1745. 

This very lengthy contentious and divisive issue must be brought to a conclusion. We 

believe H.R. 1745, with some modification. is an acceota!::!e bill to accomplish that. 

Thank you. 

### 
171 

SeUTliEllt.N UTAH STATE COLLEGE 

CeMr City, Ulah 14721 

.:January 2, 1"1 

Mr ~ De.nni.a Iverson 

, 40 E. 200 N. 

\laohingto:a, tn 84780 

After & lone delay, I 11111 writ inc to axpreae lilY perception• of range conditions on tha Pina Valley Mountains in ganar&l and your allotlllant apac:l.fically. 

You requeat:ed that I join you, other permitteu and U.S. Foran S.ervice personnel 

on an examinaeion of the north and of the mountain. I have been in ehat general 

area in e'!le paat 1n a vehicle (prior eo ehe road closure), on foot, and most 

ncently on horaeb&ck. My general impression has been, and remain• the sama, 

that the Pine Valley Mountains are not particularly productive of vegetation. 

Thia appears to be the re.ault. of •hallow, rocky soils on moat areas. There are 

aome &mali valley bottoms aud a few important riparian areas, but moat: of the 

mounta:ln is covered with shrubs or traas on the less productive aitas. 

As we approached the head of Mill Canyon I obnrved aome range aiees ebae 

I estimat" to be in excellent condition. These vero very small areas of only a 

fey· acres where snow accumulates or are "run-in" sites receiving addi~ionLl 

moiature.. I assu.tile. that the aoil1 are deeper and more fertile. The chara.cteriatic planes are blue v1ld rye (Elymue glaucus) and biscuit .:ooc (Liguecicum 

porteri) found 1n association with aspen, I have observed similar sites on 

Cedar MountAin north and east of tho Pine Valley Mountains. Thoae aitea are highly 

preferred by livestock, but I aaw little use of thom on the Pine Valley Hta. 

I w"s pleased eo see that ehe forage utilization was aa lisht as it vas at 

the Ybite Rocks R.e.eervoix and Rock.-ic.-Trae. transect aiee.s near there. Thare waa 

obvious cattle use, but it certainly was not excusiva. Ihera vas abundant 

intermediate ..t>eatgrass and smooth bromo in both areas.. If the uoe on these sites 

is not excessive ~hen the surrounding areas are usually in good condition, whi.c.h 

iJ my 1mpre&s1on of this allotment. 

The only problem that I saw on QUr September 13 trip· wa• rather heavy use 

on bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, and gambel oak. There was no vay for me co de.'t:e.raiine vhic:.h anima.la had used chase shrubs, but I suspect that much of it was 

den use. · c .. rtainly cattla will use desirable shrubs, but during that time of 

year I wou1d suspect that ~hey would use the gras~es. I recogniza thae you cannot graze an~ls {livestock .or game) wichout observing u~ilization on the pl&nts4 
January 2, 1991 

page 2 

172 

I aaw no reason co be overly concerned about any of the areas that I saw on the 

trip. In fact, I was pleased to sea the allotment in as good a condition as it 

~as especially under the drought conditions that we have experienced in recent 

years. 

In 1979 I reevaluated some Forest Service transects that were established 

in the 1940's to assess long term trends in range condition on or near your 

allotment. I am enclosing copies of these evaluations to use as you see fit. 

You can see that, in my opinion, this range is in good condition and improving. 

If I can be of further assistance pl~ase feel free to call on me. 

JEB:js 

enclosures (3) 

Sincerely, 

James E. Bowns, Ph.D. 

Range Ecologist 
173 

7/6/79 

Grass Valley Reservoir 

This range fs presently a cattle allotment, but was grazed with sheep 

when the transect was established in 1943. The transect originates on and 

runs across what 1s apparently a former sheep bedground. The location of 

this transect causes one to suspect the wisdom or motives behind such a 

locat1or.. cattle use is presently very light on this area, but deer are 

present. This range would be more suitable for sheep than cattle due to the 

rough topographY and predominance of shrubs. 

The area seems to have improved dramatically In the past 36 years. 

Johnson referred to the abundance of cheatgrass in past years which is pres• 

ently found In small amounts. Soil conditions appear to have improved so that 

little sheet erosion or hummoek1ng of plants is apparent. There has been an 

increase in most desirable forage species, but use on some shrubs is still 

fairly heavy. This heavy use is most not1cable on Cercocarpus montanus and 

~ tridentata. 

a~ conv1nce4 that this area n~s made noticable improvement (upward 

trend) and 1s now 1n good ecological condition. Improvement so noticeable 

on an old bed ground indicates that the range as a whole fs considerably 

better. 
174 

Pine Ytlley-Second Water 

10/12/79 

This area has been reseeded 1n the past which is evident from the 

abundance of Bromus !.!lJ.m!!. 1n the valley bottom. The area has been grazed 

by cattle 1 but only moderately even for this late 1n th•··season. Deer s1 gn 

is evident but none were observed. 

Dolllinant plants fn the v1c1n1ty of the transect are Stipa lettennann11 

~- .!:Wl!• i· co 1 umbiana I Koe 1 erh .!!..11!!!!· Agropyron trac:hvcaul um, Petr~dor1 a 

PIJ!Iila, ~ spp, and Symphoric:arpos spp. 

Old gullies over the entire area, and especially 1n the vic1n1ty of the 

transect, have healed and revegetated. The large swampy meadow at the head 

of th1s valley still contains abundant green forage and produces abundant clear 

water. ,_..-

This range 1s presently in goad ecological condition with an upward trend. 
un....- ·

~ 

a.,...... .. 

'Deer~ 

175 

118 I. Tllbemlele P.O. llox 1211 at Cleofle, ur 14m 

Reply to: NcMinber 1&. 1884 

D- 1050t'IDII0 

On July at, 1a. DllufctAangerTom ConlniiU lllued adadlloniO rflllle llllellock grazing IIIIMQem.JI 

on 11111 Ale ~ AllolmenL A oonc1111on ct1hll declaiOn wu that a three Ylll' crociLICIIoniUIIIIzan 

IIUdy -*1 be IIIIIMnlken 10 lllablllh 11111IMII'Ige grazing capaciiY on 11111 &IICiimenr. Aline CORCIUIIOR 

cl1t11111Udy, 11111 grazing perrnll& for thl8 llllalment would be edjuced accordingly. Thill II atated In lila 

Dec:lllan Noilee on page 1, pen 3. 

The 1884 QI1IZino _, WUII1IIIInll year In lhiiJ ttvw-year analy8ic period. Baed on the aata for 

this perlocl.-t.w ~that the average lllllmaled grazing capaclly for11\e Pine Vllley ARolmenl 

18 788 c11111e flam June 1 ID October 16. The da!a and calculationS cupporting 1t1ll datenninallon are 

on IUe at 11111 Pln8 Valley Ranger DlaV1ct 0t11oe. 

M a ~ cllhll detllnnlnallon, the following adjuatments wm be made in permllted llveltock use: 

PERMITTEE 

Ed Balan 

FMII!In Bowler 

CllucS Braawel 

lluriDn l!urgau 

NCIIrk 

l!ob HousiOn 

Demla lver8on 

.181 Dtlvelopment 

TOTAL 

ADJUSTED PERMITTED NUMSERSISEAS_ON 

49 callle June 1 to Oaober 1 & 

158 c:att!e June 1 to October 15 

17 callle June 110 October 1& 

78 cattle June 1 10 October 15 

101 c:att!e June 110 Oaober 15 

.$0 cettle June 1 to October 15 

315 cattle June 1 10 October 16 

18 cattle June 1 to October 15 

786 

We wiD 19-issue your T81111 Grazing PermitS tl1iS Winter to reflect tnese cnanges. 

Since 1hle action lmplementa 1118 earlier diClllon cl July 31, 1992, there wtU be no opponunlty tor further 

edrnfrllslta;Mo rwl8w "' thla decision. 

We epprec138 your cooperation and l)lllltnce during thiS 61Udy period. Please contact Thomas A. 

Conueras, DlsUIQ Ranger, 111 873-3431 II you have any questions. 

;:__CJ_~ lHOMAS CONJl'lEAAS . 

Olalrlct Ren!iw 

cc: s.-n ~ SupaMior's Otli08 
176 

_,..-.·A 

TOWN OF SPRINGDALE 

;Mjyor Phi!ljp K Bjmstein Jesticyin~ Before the 

National Parks Forests and Lands Subcommittee go June 23 1995 

(Draft- 6/20/95) 

Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. As the mayor of Springdale, I 

represent a community which stands on the edge of the wilderness. In fact, we are 

literally surrounded by an incomparable wilderness, as far as the eye can see. We 

also stand on the edge of the wilderness debate, because from our perspective, 

wilderness has tremendous value, and I can only wonder why anyone would want 

to drive a stake into the heart of tbi~ land. . . 

At each· of the previous wilderness hearings, Springdale has asked the county 

and 'the congressional delegation to be conservative and responsible and protect 

Utah's wilderness. If we were heard, the bill they have put together does not reflect 

it . . Today I speak in opposition to H.R. 1745, which injures the people and the state 

of Utah. Instead, I urge support of H.R. 1500, whidl, for the benefit of our citizens, 

the wildlife .and the land, protects 5.7 million acres of our most pre<:ious natural 

resource. 

Quite frankly, Springdale supports wilderness because wilderness supporn us. 

Each yeai, 3 million visitors come for the wild and free lands which embrace us - for 

the wildlife, the viewscape, recreation, for the dean air and water. Each year, 

backcountry hiking and primitive recreational activities increase. 

My little town has 250 hotel rooms, soon to become 500, and then 600. We 

have a giant-screen cinemax theater, a wildlife museum, galleries, }lookstores and 

gift shops expanding each year, and restaurants filled to overflowing - all this in a 

little town at the edge of the wilderness, on the edge of this issue. 

WUdemess is the goose which gives us these golden eggs. If we harm that 

wild~mess, we kill the goose, and we lose forever those golden eggs. We must 

p~e and prQtect our source. For· Springdale, wilderness i5 source and resource. 

Ow: economy· and our quality of life depend on it. The same could be said for every 

commurtity in our state 

P.O. BOX 187 Springdale, Utah 84767 (801) 772-3434 
177 

· · From:our petspectiire, this is not the wilderness of the 19th century, 

something to be cut down and beaten back for us to survive in a limited local 

economy. lllis is the wilderness of the 21st century, of a global economy, . 

and as the state of Utah rushes down the information highway, we will need quiet 

places to rest - and to breathe . 

. So will the rest of the world, and they will come here to do so. Springdale 

sees it every day, foreign visitors revere us for our wilderness. They travel 

thousands of miles and spend millions o£ dollars to see it, smell it, and feel it. 

Utah's booming tourist industry depends upon the continued protection of 

wilderness. 

Utah will begin the 21st century with flags unfurled - the 2002 Olympics! - the 

eyes of the world will be upon us - what will they see? What will Utah stand for? It 

will be an opportunity to promote internationally what is most excellent and 

unique about our state. 

Images of Utah will be projected around the world. What images wjll they be: 

transmission l.ines, dried-up river beds, and scarred hills? ·The effects of that image 

begin now and will continue for years after the Olympic snows have melted. We 

will attract more . tourism and recruit more fast-growing high tech companies with 

our natural beauty than with gas pipelines and concrete. 

I've focused so far on wilderness' economic value, but, valuable as it is, the 

color of money pales before the importance of our personal values, our quality Qf 

life, our family, and our spiritual life. A!; an elected offidal, I am concerned about 

the values we nurture in our community and instill in our children. I am 

concerned about the effect of H.R. 1745 on those community values. How can we 

teach our children respect for their cultural heritage if we do not preserve the 

archaeological sites of our predecessors. How can we teach them to respect each 

other unless we respect the sensitive species living on critical habitat now managed 

as wilderness. How can we teach them to clean their rooms if we do not keep dean 

our own environment. 

H.R. 1745 weakens those community values; H.R. 1500 strengthens them. 

A!; congress considers, I believe there are three tests for these bills: 

1) Are they good for Utah? 

2) Are they in the national interest? 

3) Do they have popular support? 

FiJ'st, are they good for Utah? I beUev!! that H.R. 1745 diminishes the very 

qualities that makes Utah a great. state, while H.R. 1500 enhlli'Ices our quality of life, 

our economy, our image, and our community values 
178 

Are these bills in the national interest? Why would Arnt!rican taxpayers, 

owners of this pristine land, want to leak gasoline on their own property? How 

does it benefit them to pave, dam or drown it? In fact, H.R. 1745 injures the 

interests of American citizens, while H.R. 1500 assures them ofthe continued 

survival of their public trust. 

DO the5e bills have popular support? H.R. 1745 clearly does not. Poll after 

poll have demonstrated that Utahns support wilderness. In the most recent one for 

the Deseret News, the largest blocl<, 36% supported the 5.7 million acres in H.R. 1500. 

During the wilderness hearing process, two-thirds of the comment received by the 

Governor's office also supported 5.7 million acres. This groundswell of popular and 

passionate opinion has been ignored. Certainly a majority of Americans will also 

oppose the trampling of their rights and .their land, and will support the protection 

of Utah's national treasures by H.R. 1500. 

H.R. 1745 fails a!l .three tests. 

So - why support this bill, which takes a chainsaw to public values as loudly 

as it bulldozes public land? 

Our community knows that wilderness means business. Properly protected, 

i.t can provide spiritual and economic sustenance for generations to come. 

Wilderness is Utah's most precious natural resource. Please do not destroy it. 

Please do the right, responsible, and prudent thing for U.tah. for America. for 

this valuable and vulnerable wilderness, and pass the only true wilderness bill 

before you. the Citizens proposal, H.R. 1500, America's Red Rock Wildcrne,ss Act. 

Thank you. 

Phillip K. Birnstein 

Mayor, Town of Springdale 

PI<B/ws 
179 

Utah Wilderness 

Association 

455 East 400 ScVItl #205/ So~ Lot<& City, Uton &4111 1 (801)359-1337 

Statement prepared by Dick Carter, Coordinator and George Nickas, Assistant 

Coordinator, Utah Wilderness Association, before the National Parks, Forests 

and Lands Subcommittee of the House of Representatives on the Utah Public 

Lands Management Act of 1995, H.R. 1745, June 23-24, 1995. 

"Introduction" 

We are troubled that we must pass on to you our profound disappointment and opposition to H.R. 

1745, "Utah Public Lands Management Act of !995", as it has been written. The combination of 

"special language," including release language, which effectively suppresses professional land 

management and stymies open, broad and meaningful public participation in BLM public policy 

decision making, and significant omissions of numerous undeniable wilderness proposals leaves 

this legislation empty. 

The Utah Wilderness Association was born with the Federal Land Management Policy Act and 

thus the BLM Wilderness Review in 1976. We testified at the first BLM wilderness oversight 

hearings and have participated vigorously in every step of the BLM Wilderness Review process. 

This has included efforts as diverse as organizing, filing and "winning" the first major BLM 

wilderness appeal before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, to working with Emery County in an 

effort, which unfonunately failed despite the good faith of both parties, to build a consensus based 

wilderness proposal in eastern Utah. 

Our efforts have always been to seek meaningful community and ecologically-based solutions not 

simply positional based proposals. Thus we have developed in the context of this legislative effort 

a 3 million-acre "critical list" consisting of 341arge, intact wilderness recommendations. We have 

provided the Chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee with the detailed 

60 page proposal and have enclosed for your review a summary and statewide map of that "critical 

list" recommendation. We are obviously proud that Utah's largest daily newspaper, The Salt Lake 

Tribune, has vigorously editorialized supporting this proposal. This is an indication of the broad 

based value and appeal of this proposal. 
180 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

While we commend the 1.8 million acres of wilderness recommendations and, in particular, the 

proposals on the Fish Springs, Fifty Mile Mountain, Little Rockies, Butler Wash, Dark Canyon 

and Dirry Devil River, the proposed legislation fails to carry forward the meaningful effort 

exhibited on these areas to other crucial regions within the state. It fades in the light of protecting 

large ecologically based intact areas/regions. It allows activities to occur within these areas that in 

essence re-designates them as a different kind of Utah wilderness, often stripping them of their 

literal wildness, and then precludes professional land managers to do their job on areas released 

and surrounding these areas. It is the worst of micro-management and restricting furure options. 

"Significant Wilderness Lands Ignored in H.R. 1745" 

Notably missing from the legislation are the world recognized canyons of Cedar Mesa (also known 

as the Grand Gulch Plateau). Fish Creek Canyon and Road Canyon units were completely 

left out of the bilL Like the Grand Gulch, these two areas are unmatched in archaeological value 

and dominated by wild, deep canyons, alcoves, arches and pinnacles providing some of the 

wildest and most beautiful canyon country on the Colorado Plateau. Even before BLM 

implemented a recreation permit system in the Grand Gulch, a move that is shifting more use 

toward Fish Creek and Road canyons, both areas were popular backpacking destinations. Fish 

Creek Canyon is typified by canyon walls towering 800 feet above the canyon bottoms. Between 

the canyons are unusually dense pinyon pine and juniper forests, where the soils are blanketed by a 

fragile, but rich, cryptobiotic (living) soil crust that literally holds the soil in place. 

Road Canyon is separated from Fish Creek Canyon by a single dirt road. It shares in the wealth of 

archaeological, vegetative and recreation values, and also contains the Valley of the Gods, an 

internationally known scenic area. With traditional Native American uses protected, there are 

virtually no conflicts with wilderness designation. It is simply not understandable how Fish Creek 

and Road Canyons can be left out of the wilderness bilL 

The Grand Gulch has been severely fragmented by the canyons-only boundary proposed in the 

bilL Omitting the mesa top separating Johns Canyon from Slickhorn Canyon, and Slickhoin 

Canyon from the Grand Gulch is not unlike designating a mountain wilderness but omitting the 

forested ridges and pealks. The mesas provide travel routes between canyons for both people and 

wildlife. They are rich in prehistoric Anasazi ruins and their protection as wilderness will buffer 

the treasures in the canyons from easy access by vandals and thiefs. Grand Flat and Steer Gulch 

lie west of the proposed boundary and should be added to complete an integral wilderness unit. 

2 
181 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

The boundaries drawn for the Grand Gulch have ignored the fact the entire region harbors more 

than 500 recorded and important cultural sites. 

The combination of wilderness recreation and archaeological values found on the Grand Gulch 

Plateau are unparalleled anywhere in the Unites States. This international treasure is recognized by 

UW A's proposed quaner-million acres of wilderness and BLM's recommendation for more than 

200,000 acres, but it has gone unnoticed in the legislation's paltry 51,110 acre proposal. 

Notably missing from the legislation is Turtle Canyon and the Bighorn Benches, pan of the 

Desolation Canyon/Book Cliffs ecological complex which is Utah's largest BLM wilderness 

region. Simply one of the most rugged areas' in Utah, Turtle Canyon, with elevations ranging 

from 5,000 feet to over 9,000 feet, harbors some of the most important interior temperate forests 

and mountain brush communities in this ecoregion. It is home to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, 

elk and black bear. The minor coal conflict, if it exists at all, can be dealt with exceptionally minor 

boundary adjustments. BLM's final EIS notes that only the 2,700 western-most acres overlie 

recoverable coaJ, but judged the potential for recovery to pale in light of the area's high wilderness 

values. The Bighorn Benches are the centerpiece of BLM's recently ·established dray Canyon 

Wildland Management Area, which was established because of the area's special value to wildlife. 

It has been closed for many years to livestock grazing. 

East of the Green River the wilderness boundary needs to extend south to include the Book 

Cliffs escarpment. The proposed boundary is essentially undefmeable on the ground, and is less 

wilderness than recommended by Grand Counry! The legislation leaves out most of the critical 

winter range for elk and deer as well as much of the range for black bear and cougar. A significant 

pan of many canyons such as Right and Left Hand Tusher, Floy, Thompson, Sagers, Antone, 

Sulphur and Wesrwater canyons are left out of the legislation. By omitting virtually all the lower to 

mid-elevation terrain, the legislation fails to capitalize on a rare opportunity to protect the entire 

seasonal ranges of ungulates and large predators. The boundary is designed to limit wilderness 

acreage rather than proleet wilderness values. 

Notably missing is the massive and wild Wahweap, pan of the Kaiparowits ecoregion. It is one 

of the 6largest undeveloped wild landscapes on BLM lands in Utah! It is characterized by broad 

canyons and isolated benches and mesas. This isolation has made it one of the richest floristic 

units in Utah with numerous rare and unique plant communities recognized by BLM and numerous 

scientists. Wahweap contains about 6% of the Kaiparowits potential coal resource making it 

unimportant as a coal or other mineral depository. 

3 
182 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

Paria Hackberry, one of the largest undeveloped areas on BLM, has been severed from its lifegiving source--the Paria River--by this legislation. It simply makes no sense to "end" the Paria 

Hackberry Wilderness at the Paria River. The land on both sides of the river is equally wild and 

without conflict (Paria Hackberry contains no coal). Deer Range Canyon, Bull Valley Gorge, and 

the No Mans Mesa Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)-all proposed by BLM--

should be obvious wilderness additions on the west side of the Paria River. By "connecting" 

Wahweap with Paria Hackberry (the two will be separated by a din road) we can protect an 

ecological and geological lesson book of life zones. 

Wahweap and Paria Hackberry combine to form 300,000 acres of wilderness separated only by a 

dirt road. Tragically, the legislation protects only 57,000 or 19% of the wilderness and excludes 

the only significant water source, the Paria River. 

We are pleased to see the Henry Mountains included in this legislation, but Mt. Pennell and Mt. 

Ellen need considerable expansion to incorporate the biological values attached to this region. 

Life zones range from the Upper Sonoran to Hudsonian. To hike from Mt. Ellen's barren mancos 

shale badlands to the windswept, subalpine fir-dotted North Summit Ridge is like travelling from 

the Gulf of Mexico to British Columbia. 

The Mt. Pennell proposal comes up particularly short in a biological context. In includes only the 

highest elevation on Mt. Pennell proper (ironically it excludes the north and east slopes of the 

mountain) while excluding all of the mid-elevation and lower elevation habitats utilized by mule 

deer, cougar, and the Henry's free ranging bison herd. To capture the full range of life zones 

harbored in the Henry Mountains, Mt. Pennell's boundary needs to be expanded to the west and 

south connecting it with Capitol Reef National Park. 

Sids Mountain on the San Rafael Swell is one of Utah's premier wildernesses. While it is 

laudable that the legislation includes 41,000 acres of wilderness, the boundary fails to protect the 

ecological value of this remarkable landscape. Sids Mountain harbors Utah's largest and healthiest 

desert bighorn sheep population, much of it inhabiting the southern half of the unit, the portion 

excluded in the legislation. The southern half of Sids is somewhat higher in elevation, thus 

receives more precipitation and is relatively more productive biologically. North and South Forks 

of Coal Wash, Bullocks Draw and Eagle Canyon are major canyons unjustifiably deleted from the 

bill. There are no identified resource conflicts. Off road vehicle users, who are far outnumbered 

by hikers, backpackers and horseback riders in the Sids Mountain area, want the canyons left open 

4 
183 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

for vehicle use. Research clearly shows that this approach poses a significant threat to bighorns 

while also creating a manageability nightmare. 

The 60,000-acre White Canyon Complex including Cheesebox and Gravel-Long Canyons 

is a crucial omission from the legislation. These canyons link the Dark Canyon Plateau with White 

Canyon, which runs to meet the once-flowing Colorado River in Glen Canyon. The White 

Canyon Complex is separated by a dirt road from the existing national forest Dark Canyon 

Wilderness and proposed BLM Dark Canyon Wilderness expansion. The entire complex is 

designated crucial yearlong desert bighorn sheep habitat, while the canyons provide extended 

backpacking and hiking opportunities. 

Lacking in this legislation are areas in the southwest corner of Utah (i.e. Joshua Tree, Moquith 

Mtn.)--areas that conservation biologists noted recently need to be added to protect some of the 

most unique biological values in Utah. Utah's southwest corner is a transition zone of the 

Colorado Plateau, Great Basin and Mojave Desert and contains an unusually high percentage of 

plant and animal species considered at risk, including many threatened, endangered and candidate 

species. Wilderness designation in these units is a biologically valuable and cost effective way of 

protecting habitat for these endangered life forms. 

"Special Language" 

Section 3(b). Chem-stemmecl Roads. is absurd on its face. It is not wise to state a priori 

that a cherry-stemmed road will remain open indefinitely and be subject to closure based on public 

safety only. This slaps at the face of the professional, multiple use BLM land management process 

which was enacted into law by way of the Federal Land Policy Management Act and provides the 

land manager in consultation with numerous interested publics to determine the multiple use status 

of non wilderness public lands. This status should be determined by ecological and social 

interactions in the fiameworlc of an open planning process not a feat-reaction to wilderness 

designation. It dictates management and allocation without the benefit of any rational, site specific 

discussion. 

Section 3(i). Access, takes a giant departure from 30 years of history with respect to accessing 

nonconforming uses/saucrures within designated wilderness by utilizing the terminology 

"customarily or historically." The test has always been one of need/necessity. This test has 

withstood both the burden of logic and time because it assumes a historical need. By separating 

need/necessity from both .historical and customary access the legislation effectively suggests almost 

5 
184 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

any kind of motorized access would be allowed within designated wilderness without any rational 

test to determine what should or should not be allowed. 

Again the best way to determine need/necessity is through the wilderness management planning 

process where all options are analyzed in the context of need/purpose. This assures a broad based 

review process and access to all relevant public information. 

Sec. 4. Water Rights. (a) No Federal Reservation. (b) Acgujsjtjon and Exercise 

of Water Rights Under Utah Law. (c) Exercise of Water Rights. (d) Certain 

Facilities not Affected. and (e) Water Resource Projects effectively assures that Utah 

wildernesses will never achieve the objective of preserving wilderness and its related biological, 

ecological and recreational values. Section 4(a) should be replaced with language similar to that 

contained in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-628). This reserves a quantity 

of water sufficient to protect wilderness values, while protecting existing water rights through the 

State's water allocation procedures. UW A supports the belief that federal reserved water rights 

should be exercised through the state appropriation process. 

Section 4(b ), in reality, will not allow BLM to acquire a water right through the State system, 

because Utah water law does not recognize "wilderness values" as a beneficial use for which a 

water right can be obtained, nor does it recognize BLM as a legitimate holder of an "instream flow" 

water right. Sec. 4(a) should be changed as described above and Sec. 4(b) and (c) should be 

deleted. 

Section 4( d) precludes professional land managers from making the appropriate decision, on a case 

by case basis, with respect to the management of water development facilities. The test must be 

that espoused in the Wilderness Act and wilderness management guidelines: Are the facilities 

necessary and what is the "minimum tool" for accomplishing necessary tasks. 

Section 4(e) is in part a "buffer zone" issue, but goes beyond buffer zones to allow activities to 

occur outside wilderness that could nevertheless irrevocably destroy wilderness values. It is 

wrong to assume wilderness exists "in a vacuum or that professional management can occur by 

considering various resources and values independent of one another. Maintaining the biological 

integrity of our lands requires a holistic approach to planning and management. The best place for 

these important decisions to be made is within the extant professional and public planning 

processes. 

6 
185 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

Section 5, Cultural and Paleontological Resources. should simply be guided by Section 

4(c) of the Wilderness Act. This provides the long-standing starutory and regulatory guidance to 

assure culrural resources and values are adequately managed within designated wilderness. 

Section 7. Militarv Overflights. (a) Low-Level Overflights not Precluded and (b) 

Communications or Tracking Systems. both presupposes and precludes professional 

multiple use management when the legislation employs the language/concept of, "Nothing in this 

Act shall... preclude the designation of new units of special airspace ... " The best place to make this 

decision is in the wilderness management plan in consultation with the FAA, appropriate military 

agency and the professional open-ended planning process. The same holds true for placement of 

temporary or portable electronic tracking devices. 

Section 8. Air Oualjty. is superfluous and simply re-states the intent of the Clean Air Act. It 

offers no new guidance and simply adds words and length to the legislation! 

Section 8 (c), Industrial Facilities, again is superfluous (this is nothing but a "buffer zone," 

Section 3(e), issue) as it simply re-states that any projects or facilities outside of a designated 

wilderness shall be permitted (or not permitted) based on all extant and appropriate laws and 

regulations. 

On the other hand to suggest nothing in this legislation should be construed as to restrict or 

preclude construction is ethically wrong. That binds the hands of the professional land manager 

and the multiple use prescriptions which guide the management and allocation of nonwilderness 

lands. It also tends to place wilderness in a vacuum independent of the hierarchical ecosystems 

that extend in and out of the designated wilderness. It may well.be the wilderness values could be 

devastatingly harmed by impacts outside of the wilderness. While this is and has been a significant 

and frustrating issue with respect to wilderness, it is wrong to isolate wilderness in this context. A 

much broader holistic view of ecosystems is necessary to preserve the biodiversity and ecological 

integrity of not only wilderness lands but adjacent non wilderness lands. The best place for these 

important issues is within the multiple use public involvement planning process and the wilderness 

management planning process, which brings all of the issues forward, allows them to be openly 

debated and decides them with an interaction of all participants and issues. Prohibiting that either 

under this section or the buffer zone section noted above is capricious and presupposes conflicts 

which only ran:ly actually occur. 

7 
186 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

Section 9. Disclaimers. is perhaps the most egregious section of the bill. It literally strips 

wilderness protection from several areas designated in Sec. 2 of the bill. It gives cane blanche 

approval for the construction of wilderness destroying darns, pipelines, roads, communication 

towers and other facilities not allowed by the Wilderness Act. In the case of water reservoirs, the 

Wilderness Act reserves to the President the authority to approve a dam if it is necessary and in the 

public interest. This legislation should rely on that tried and true approach. If the projects 

described in Sec. 9( I) are approved, then it is a mockery to designate those areas wilderness. 

Section 9(2) both presupposes and precludes professional multiple use management when the 

legislation employs the language/concept of, "Nothing in the Act shall be construed to prevent the 

maintenance, repair, or expansion of communication sites and facilities or to require removal of 

existing communication sites and facilities ... " The test for maintenance and repair must be made 

under the "minimum tool" concept, and the test for removal or continued use of existing facilities 

has always been one of need and necessity. The place to malte these decisions is in the wilderness 

management plan with full public involvement. The idea of expanding facilities and/or 

constructing new ones is incompatible with wilderness protection. 

Section 9(3) allowing for a natural gas pipeline in Right Hand Tusher Canyon unjustifiably 

fragments the Desolation Canyon proposed wilderness and seriously compromises the wilderness 

character of Right Hand Tusher Canyon. Again, it is dictating that wilderness destroying activities 

will occur in the areas "protected" by the bill. By including Right Hand Tusher Canyon in the 

wilderness, Congress recognizes that wilderness values trump the marginal potential for 

developing the area's natural. The exemption for the pipeline seems to be a questionable gift to a 

private entity. 

Section 9(5) again strips professional judgment from wilderness management by precluding 

managerial discretion in determining wbether mechanized ttavel should be allowed on navigable 

streams. Thirty years of wilderness management have shown the requirements of the Wilderness 

Act (Sec. 4(d)(l)) giving discretion to the Secretary is a workable and preferable approach. These 

decisions must be subject to the wilderness management planning process with complete public 

involvement. 

Section 10. Wilderness Release, represents the finest example of presupposition and 

preclusion of professional land management that we have seen. Having gone through this with the 

1984 Utah Wilderness Act only to see it come back now is a frustrating and sad statement. 

8 
187 

Statement of Utah Wilderness Association: June 23-24, 1995 

Our primary concerns rest with the context of the word 'shall' in Section I 0 (b), line 23, page 25, 

line I and 4, page 26. The word shall is plainly a directive which presupposes undesignated 

non wilderness lands will create such chaos and havoc that they must legislatively be re-defined 

despite their real world characteristics. That is micro management by Congress as it interferes with 

the multiple use planning process designed specifically to address these issues. It is hubris and 

may be intended. But that does not make it right. We believe these "released" lands should be 

returned to the normal BLM planning process and should undergo appropriate and timely multiple 

use planning within the confines of Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act 

without any presupposition of their management prescriptions or allocation. If they harbor 

wilderness values, backcountry values or values associated with biodiversity, endangered species 

or nonwildemess development options the BLM, in the context of the open, accessible and 

professional planning process should proffer a management decisicn, not Congress, 3,000 miles 

away and with no comprehensive or specific knowledge of the land allocation issues. 

Section 11. Exchange Relating To School and Institutional Trust Lands. lal 

Findings. (b) Exchange. and (c) State and Federal Exchange Lands Described. 

accomplishes a necessary part of any BLM wilderness legislation for Utah. Because the State of 

Utah has determined that the primary purpose of trust lands is to generate revenue, it is imperative 

that federal lands exchanged to the State be lands that do not have exceptional environmental values 

(i.e. wilderness study areas, lands proposed by conservationists for wilderness, ACECs, research 

natural areas, critical habitat for endangered species, etc.). The lands available to the State for 

acquisition should be identified in the legislation, provided that the lands ultimately transferred to 

the State of Utah should be of approximate equal economic value to the lands acquired by the 

Federal Government. 

"Miscellaneous" 

Section 2(a) (21--Coal/Spruce) and (22--Flurne), are a single wilderness unit sharing common 

boundaries and should be combined and renamed the "Book Cliffs Wilderness" . 

Section 2(a) (1--Desolation Canyon), (43--Nutters Hole) and (20--Floy), are a single 

wilderness unit sharing common boundaries and should be combined and named the "Desolation 

Canyon Wilderness". 

9 
188 

Statement of Terry Tempest Williams 

3499 Little Tree Road 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

on the Utah Public Lands Management Act of 1995, HR 1745 

and 

America's Redrock Wilderness Act, HR 1500 

Cedar City, Utah 

June 23, 1995 

~~v~ 

Good morning, Re ntative Hansen, RepresentativesHinchey, and 

Representative Vento ppreciate the opportunity to testify before 

you as a resident of the state of Utah and a citizen of this country 

regarding the preservation of wilderness. I do not take this privilege for 

granted and honor the time you have committed to hearing us. 

I bring you the collective statements of hundreds of citizens whose 

voices ask to be included in the Congressional Record regarding HR 

1745 and HR 1500. Last night, a Citizens' Hearing was held on the two 

bills before us. From 7:30 p.m. until the early hours of this morning, 

informed, impassioned, and concerned individuals spoke on behalf of 

wildness. Hundreds of other citizens sat respectfully in the audience of 

the Indian Walk-in Center in Salt Lake City supporting them and thousands 

of other citizens in the state of Utah and across this nation 

join ttlem in solidarity. 

It was a gathering of citizens who believe in the value and vision of 

wilderness. 

It was a gathering of citizens who believe in the value and vision of 

democracy. 

It was a gathering of citizens who understand the correspondence 

between wilderness and economy, that the health of one ensures the 

health of the other. 

Virginia Hoyt from Washington State presented 1500 signatures from 

Lewis County, a county that is suffering from the demise of their natural 

resources. It is a timber community where 80 percent of the county was 

once forested. 
189 

"We should be rich, " she said. "Now we are poor. No nation is able 

to survive the collapse of their natural resources." 

She drew the possibility of future parallels between her rural county 

in the Pacific northwest and the rural counties of southern Utah. 

"If the land breaks down the economy shatters." 

And then Fred Swanson, a citizen from Utah, supported her comments 

by saying, "Our task, then is to show that Utahns' best interests, our self 

interest, will be served by protecting all the wild country that is left. We 

must demonstrate that our dignity as a people will be in part determined 

by how we treat our last undeveloped open spaces." 

He went on to say, "The only solution is to protect all of the wild land 

that is left and simultaneously search for real economic possibilities for 

rural Utah residents. We must save the wilderness and save rural 

communities." 

Seventeen year old, Angie Edwards, stood and said simply, "I speak 

for future generations who cannot speak for themselves. We need 

wilderness." 

Professor Tom Lyon from Utah State University said, "We stand in a 

fork in the roadlwith two paths; One road offers full protection of the 

wildlands we love.- The other road gives us what the Utah Congressional 

Delegation didn't want anyway .... The real bottom line is the diversity and 

health of the world before us." 

And then William Newmark, research curator at the Utah Museum of 

Natural History, addressed the issue of ecological health and well-being 

by outlining the serious flaws of HR 1745 in preserving Utah's 

biodiversity. 

He made five points, I) that it does not protect large contiguous areas 

for mammals that need wide expansive tracts of land, 2) that it does a 

poor job in enlarging existing areas of wild country such as national parks 

and monuments, 3) that it reduces the likelihood to re-establish biotic 

communities for survival, 4) that it does not connect existing wild areas 

with corridors for the safe passage of animals, and 5) that the ratio to 

edge and interior habitat is higher in HR 1500, hence HR 1745 favors the 

intrusion of exotic species at the peril of native flora and fauna. 

lise Porter, 72 years old, then walked up to the microphone and told 

a story about her grandson who is in the navy. He told her that his white 
190 

hat is a reservoir for air should he be faced in an emerge'ncy situation 

such as drowning. She then faced the audience and saicf. "The Utah Public 

Lands Management Act of 1995 is less than a hat-full of fresh air." 

Wilderness. and democracy. The voices of the people. I bring you their 

stories and . ask you to recon~Ciiir; Representative Hansen the bill you have 

placed on the floor of Congress. 

We do not believe it honors both the health of the land and the· health 

of the people in rural communities, r: 'j. /.,,._f,,_ 

We do not believe it secures ttie values and vision 'ot the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 by its provisions to allow oil and gas developments, the 

building of dams, and the installment of communication towers1 (. ': : 

We do not believe it reflects the wisdom of good biology suggested 

by the Committee for Biological Commentary on Utah Wilderness. 

We do not believe our voices have been taken in consideration of your 

proposal. -· ' ' · 

We believe the integrity of Utah's wildemess is being threatened and 

in the process so is our sense of democracy. '~··', 1: ·.·_' 

Who is speaking <;m the side of time? Deep ti.;,e:·· , 

We believe that:Representative Hinchey's ~ill. HR 1500, is a more 

complete bill and with the exception of two citizens last night, that was 

the overwhelming sentiment. We support America's Redrock Wilderness 

Act. 

We have a history in this country of environmental courage, a natural 

vision of natural places. . I recently returned home from Japan where I 

attended a symposium on culture and landscape. One of the delegates 

from Tokyo stood before his people and said, "We are very, very rich and 

we are very, very poor. We have sold our souls in the name of the yen. 

We must now look to America for environmental leadership. It may be 

that what the United States has to offer the world is wilderness." 

Representative Hansen, the Utah Congressional delegations bill, 

HR 17 45 falls short of environmental leadership and adequate wilderness 

designation and protection. Former Congresswoman Karen Shepherd 

in her remarks last night at the Citizens' Hearing said, "Never have so 

many had so little influence on their representatives .... Domesticating 

these places we will feel less free and less bound to each other." 

What I can tell you as a writer, as a woman who has devoted her life 
191 

to both language and landscape, as a woman with deep roots in and 

affection toward Utah, both its people and its wilderness, is that I 

never felt more inadequate in the expression of my feelings. 

I love these lands. ' ' 

have 

These lands desperately need protection, much more than you have 

given to them in the Utah Public Lands Management Act. It is 

unacceptable, Representative Hansen. I ask you to please reconsider 

the 're'commendations you have made, especially the hard release language 

that renders a lack of respect for the preservation of possibility. Do we 

really know enough to take 1.4 million acres out of wilderness 

consideration forever. Where is our restraint, our humility? Please hear 

us once again and show us as your constituents that democracy can shape 

change, that legislation is in fact yielding to the desire and dreams of the 

people. We the people, place our testimonies on behalf of Utah wilderness 

in your hands. ,._:-,/ r ' ~:-- ' - · ' 

Representative Hinchey and _.Representative Vento, thank you for 

understanding the importance of these things In your support of the 

citizen's proposal of 5.7 million acres. Thank you for your courage and 

conviction that w~ can do something brave and bold and necessary. Your 

leadership is our prayer for the future. Please hear our collective voices 

when we say, our lack of intimacy with the natural world is in direct 

proportion to our lack of intimacy with each other. We need wild places, 

a lot more than a little, to ensure civility and well ~eing among all people 

for all time. 

Thank you. 
192 

STATEMENT OF CLAUDIA F. BERRY, Ph.D., J.D. 

Perhaps one of the most significant characteristics 

distinguishing Homo sapiens from all other life forms on this 

planet is our ability to appreciate the fact that we, as a species, 

have a history. Humankind is also able to appreciate the fact that 

the study of our history is an intellectually rewarding experience 

from which we can also learn how our predecessors adapted to the 

world in which they lived. 

The vast majority of past cultures, however, did not 

leave us any writings. Instead, we are left with only the physical 

remains of those cultures. In many parts of the world, these past 

remains have been destroyed, either by purposeful human destruction 

and vandalism or by natural processes such as sedimentation, 

erosion, decay and exposure to the elements. The Desert West, and 

in particular, the Colorado Plateau, is one of the few areas in the 

world where geography, climatic conditions and remoteness have 

worked together to preserve significant portions of our cultural 

heritage. Thus, our nation now has the opportunity to preserve 

this evidence of past cultures by placing large areas of the 

Colorado Plateau in a "savings bank." This may be a unique 

opportunity that we will never see again in our lifetimes. There 

can be no question that designation of 5. 7 million acres as 

wilderness in Utah will prevent or dramatically slow down the 

destruction of archaeological resources so that they will not 

suffer the same fate we have tragically witnessed in much of the 

world. 

The Colorado Plat~au, because of these special 

conditions, constitutes a unJ.que preserve which documents the 

history of hwnankind in the New World from its earliest known 

appearance approximately 11,500 years ago until the present. The 

5.7 million-acre wilderness designation contains the full range of 

known New World occupations by humans from "Paleo-Indian hunters 

through Archaic hunter-gatherers, early agriculturalists, late 

agriculturalists, historic tribes, and the initial presence of 

European settlers. The nurtber of sites wi~hin the 5.7 million 

acres is also very large. The need to protect all of these sites 

is critical if we are ever to understand the prehistory of the 

region. Saving one site is not enough. This obtains because a 

single site cannot begin to provide an adequate picture of past 

lifeways. It is only by protecting and conserving sites within a 

large region that we can ever hope to learn how our predecessors 

lived and how they interacted with the ecosystems which existed 

during past times. 

It is undisputed that there is an unfortunate correlation 

between site destruction and proximity to roads. In this reg.ard, 

we, as humans, are our own worst enemy. ·All of the data collected 

by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service show 

that wherever there is access by road to an area, damage to 
193 

archaeological sites immediately increases. Sites near roads have 

all 'been vandalized to some extent. Many have been virtually 

destroyed. w"'hile some - significant sites in many parts of the 

Southwest are now monitored by human patrols or by remote sensing 

devices, these techniques are far too expensive to use at the vast majority of sites. The only viable option for conserving 

archaeological sites and controlling destruction is to designate 

large areas as wilderness. 

Many individuals may also be unaware of the fact that 

site preservation aids the study and analysis of ecosystems and 

ecosystem change. As the federal government and private entities move toward an ecosystem approach· to management plans, it is 

crucial that knowledge of past ecosystems be understood. It is not 

widely appreciated that information on past environments, on biodiversity and on the presence of species is frequently preserved 

at archaeological sites. Thus, the preservation of archaeological 

sites plays an important role in understanding past ecosystems so that we may better manage ecosystems today. 

I have attached two recent letters, one from a number of 

archaeologists and anthropologists from federal, state, university 

and private industry who support the maximum designation of 5.7 

million acres of wilderness and a second ·letter from the Utah 

Professional Archaeological Council. Both letters explain in 

greater detail the need for maintaining large roadless areas in 

Utah if we are to save this nation's cultural heritage. It is my 

hope, as well as that of the majority of Utahns, that Congress will 

support the Citizens Proposal for 5.7 million acres of wilderness. 

- 2 -

UTAH WILDERNESS 

SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Salt Lake City, UT. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call at 9:30 a.m., in the Auditorium, State Capitol, Capitol Hill, Salt Lake City, Utah, Hon. 

James V. Hansen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order. This is a field 

hearing of the Subcommittee of Public Lands, National Parks and 

Forest Service. As Chairman of the Committee, I will conduct the 

hearing. 

We are grateful to have with us the gentleman from Minnesota, 

Mr. Vento; the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. 

Faleomavaega and our friend from New York, Mr. Hinchey. We appreciate them, all as members of the Committee. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. I will give opening remarks, followed by members 

of the Committee. Then we will turn to Senator Bennett, Congressman Orton and I understand Congresswoman Waldholtz will be 

coming in in a short time. We have three panels today and we will take them in order, 

which we will announce at a later point. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands convenes this field hearing to further the legislative process 

of designating Bureau of Land Management wilderness area within 

the state of Utah. This hearing is the second of three legislative 

hearings this Subcommittee will conduct, two here in Utah and one 

in Washington, D.C. on June 29th. Testimony received at yester- day's hearing in Cedar City was informative and useful to the Subcommittee. 

These proceedings are far from the beginning of this process. Indeed, I am hopeful we are commencing the final leg of this long 

journey. I have spent over 15 years working on this issue. I have 

been to virtually every wilderness area, I have talked personally to 

hundreds of concerned citizens and I have spent hundreds of hours 

looking at maps and data. During my tenure in Congress I have 

worked with Congressmen Marriott, Nielson, Monson, Owens, 

Orton, Congresswoman Shepherd and now Congresswoman 

Waldholtz. I have worked with Governors Matheson, Bangeter and 

(195) 
196 

now Governor Leavitt on BLM wilderness. This is not a new issue. 

These are the same lands I began looking at 15 years ago. It is 

time to resolve this issue, protect what is really wilderness and release the remainder back to multiple use. The BLM began this 

process in 1978 and I hope to bring it to a conclusion in 1995. 

In 1978, the Utah State Office of the BLM began an exhaustive 

process to develop a Utah BLM wilderness proposal in compliance with Section 603 of FLPMA. BLM professionals scrutinized 22 million acres of Utah's BLM lands for their wilderness characteristics. 

After numerous legal challenges and appeals, the BLM found 3.2 

million acres suitable for wilderness designation, but recommended 

1.9 million acres be designated as wilderness, 1.4 million acres of 

which is known as the paramount recommendation, or the most 

pristine areas. 

The BLM professionals spent over $10 million between 1978 and 

1992 and approximately 2, 777 work months-if you can believe 

that-has been officially charged to the wilderness program. The 

BLM recommendation is sound, it lives up to the mandates of the 

1964 Act and has withstood court challenges. Congress should not 

allow this professional work to go to waste, but we should take it 

very seriously. 

The 104th Congress provides the people of Utah and Congress a 

unique opportunity to preserve the most pristine BLM lands in 

Utah for today and the future. There are two proposals before this 

Subcommittee, H.R. 1745, introduced by myself and Congresswoman Waldholtz, and H.R. 1500, introduced by my colleague Mr. 

Hinchey from New York. 

H.R. 17 45 represents the culmination of a process initiated by the delegation and the Governor that involved over 45 public meet·· ings, hundreds of personal testimonies and literally thousands of 

written comments. The delegation has made every effort to take 

this issue to the people of the State of Utah, to hear their concerns,. and most importantly, to hear testimony regarding the land and its: 

wilderness characteristics. 

H.R. 17 45 proposes to designate about 1.8 million acres of land. 

including great places such as Desolation Canyon and the Book 

Cliffs, Escalante Canyons, the Kaiparowits Plateau, the Grand. 

Gulch and the San Rafael Swell, the Henry Mountains, and the list 

goes on. H.R. 17 45 would designate a wide variety of landscapes,, ecosystems and habitats. Whether it be slick rock, fluted sand .. stone, desert canyons, the steep and rugged peaks of the West 

Desert, high plateaus, high mountains that shoot up from thE! 

desert, or canyons cut by great rivers, this legislation protects somE! 

of everything. 

Equally as important is the manner in which H.R. 17 45 wouldl 

manage these wilderness areas. The language protects the grazing of livestock, fish and wildlife management by the State of Utah, 

Native American uses, military overflights, while prohibiting buffer 

zones and no Federal reserve water rights. State school trust lands 

will be traded out for better funding of Utah's school children. Last .. ly, H.R. 1745 contains tough release language that will permit rural Utah to go back to work on the lands necessary to sustain 

our economy. 
197 

H.R. 17 45 is not perfect, nor will it be. I do not expect everyone 

to be happy with this legislation and we have not attempted to 

please any side of this debate. And as you may recall, some of you 

anyway--

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN [continuing]. in 1984-we must have order here 

today. In 1984 when we passed the Wilderness Bill, Jake Garn and 

I were the two sponsors of it. That is the one thing we found~ that 

most people thought we-a lot of people thought we gave away the 

store and other people thought we did not put anything in it. So 

I am sure that was a good piece of legislation. 

I am dedicated to doing what is best for Utah and that will involve making positive changes to the bill. H.R. 1745 enjoys the cosponsorship-and I want you to hear this-enjoys the co-sponsorship of every Republican member of the Resources Committee, 

which comments on the interest of this issue in Congress. Wilderness designation, like all Congressional efforts, is the art 

of compromise. Every member of this delegation that supports H.R. 

1745 has made compromises, yet we have produced a product that 

is reasonable, responsible and is good for Utah. Those parties who 

do not come to the table ready to compromise will not be players in this process. 

I would like to thank the county commissioners who worked very hard in making their recommendations. Likewise, I want to thank 

the Governor and his staff who have been a tremendous help in 

this process. Lastly, I want to thank every person in the State of 

Utah who have given us input, provided thousands of comments, 

which have been important information for this process. I look forward to the testimony and welcome our witnesses today, and welcome you people who are here today. Keep in mind we have got three panels to go through and we are going to have to maintain 

order. 

My friend from Minnesota who I have sat with 15 years on this 

Committee, the past Chairman, and really the institutional memory of this Committee, and my dear friend, Bruce Vento, we will 

now turn the time to you, Bruce. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being here 

and the cooperation that you have extended to provide a successful 

forum for a discussion and hearing on the issue. Clearly it is obvious to me and to everyone that there is a proportionate group that 

support and favor one measure over another, but your cooperation today is absolutely essential if we are to get through the hearing and process the legislation and provide the type of exchange and 

communication that will be helpful to the members of the Committee. So I want to especially ask that you do that. I have been at 

hearings where I have not had that type of support and where the 

circumstances were different, and I just want to mention that it is 

not helpful. I think it is important to understand that while we all 

have very strong feelings and maybe even differences about measures that are before us, hopefully we can conduct ourselves in a 

way that facilitates the process of communication and the conduct 
198 

of this hearing. I am glad you are all here, incidentally, I am very 

happy you are here. I think your presence, more than anything, 

demonstrates the type of support this legislation has. 

But we are all going to have to continue to work throughout this 

Congress to bring this to a conclusion. I concur with Chairman 

Hansen's remarks concerning the fact that this issue has been on 

the table and considered. It is my contention and feeling that a lot 

of what should have been studied as wilderness study areas was 

not. But the information, the record that the BLM has on the quality of those lands is there, and it should be used, and it should be 

used in a way to try to make the best possible decisions that we 

can. If we cannot make those decisions now, if we are not ready 

to make them in terms of what we designate as wilderness or how 

we classify lands to multiple purpose use, then we ought to lay 

over that particular portion. There is much that we agree on. I 

think as I look at Jim Hansen's bill, the areas that he has designated as wilderness are good, they are areas that should be wilderness. But the point is, it does not go as far as the BLM and it 

does not go as far as I think it should go in terms of making that 

decision. That may be a question of readiness, it may be a question 

of what the policy path should be. But that policy path with regard 

to public lands is dramatically changing. It is dramatically changing in the west, it is dramatically changing across our landscape 

of this great nation. And I firmly believe that much of the future 

of this state and this nation is rooted in our preservation of those 

lands or conservation of resources and restoration of these important lands. I know that many of us are spending money in Washington trying to do that with regards to mining and many other aspects, trying to take new information and integrate it into public policy so that we can better conserve land. 

So I think the future of many of our lands and of these areas obviously resides with how these lands are used. There are industries 

and entities and businesses in this state that were never anticipated to bring this type of revenue. I want to see Utah successful 

and I want to see the communities successful. Certainly we are cognizant of its impact on the people, on the culture, on the way of 

life in terms of issues like ranching or even mining. But we also 

must recognize where the policy path is and where the demands 

are for the future and how we are going to meet those needs. 

I ce;rtainly commend Jim for moving ahead to try to tackle this 

problem. I do not agree with his solution, but I commend the Utah 

delegation for being engaged in this. This is tough. It is easier just 

to stand back on the high moral ground and not get out there and 

try to do something. So I am an activist in terms of Congress, I am 

one of the last of the unreconstructed Federalists, as a matter of 

fact. 

[Laughter.) 

Mr. VENTO. I want to see Congress active in solving problems, 

and I think Jim Hansen has always been in that mode, even if we 

have not agreed on what the final goal ought to be. The Resources 

Committees have jealously guarded the ability to continue to make 

decisions. We have not passed a lot of that to administrators, and 

we have dealt with a lot of detail. In the time that Jim has served 

with me on the Committee when I chaired it, we dealt with hun-
199 

dreds of different measures, not all of this importance, but hundreds of them, because we wanted to make those decisions and we 

felt that we wanted to be sensitive to what t~e impact was. This 

is still our goal. 

We have got a big difference here in terms of this bill. We have 

to come to meet on a common ground. Where we can, we will agree; where we will not, we will debate it. Hopefully we will come out 

to a decision and the best ideas will prevail and represent and be 

reflected in our policy. After all, that is what our goal is. But the 

1964 Act should not be rewritten simply for Utah or for the BLM 

law of 1995 or 1996. We ought to look at a national wilderness law. 

If you do not want it as wilderness, then let us not try to name 

it as wilderness and then pull the rug out from under it. I feel too 

often, in many instances, it seems to me that happens in some of 

the legislation. 

So I am going to be working hard with you, Jim, and with the 

delegation. I am pleased to see them here. I know it is a very, very important issue to my friend and colleague, Mr. Orton, who I serve 

with on the Banking Committee, and who I know has worked diligently and has been a real scholar in terms of some of these conservation issues. So I think you have got a lot to contribute in your testimony. I think that this issue has had both Democratic and Republican threads, whether it is Karen Shepherd or Wayne Owens 

who have strongly advocated and worked on these issues in the 

past. So it is not and should not be a partisan issue. Issues that 

are decided in that way, even if all the Republicans in the delega- tion agree, is not the way to go. That is not the way that we conduct public policy in the Congress. Those types of policies have a 

short life and a controversial one. 

So I look forward to working with you on this, Jim, and with the 

delegation. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Bruce, I appreciate that. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Faleomavaega, our friend from American 

Samoa, who is no stranger to the State of Utah, having gone to 

BYU, a very fine member of our Committee, we have got you all 

set up, Eni, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE RON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. 

DELEGATE FROM AMERICAN SAMOA 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I 

want to again express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and 

the members of your staff, and certainly to the good people of Utah 

for the tremendous hospitality that has been extended to us as 

members of the Subcommittee since we have been here for the last 

couple of days. 

I do want to offer my congratulations also to the good people of 

Utah and the City of Salt Lake for hosting the Winter Olympics in year 2002. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Samoan 

Tribe is definitely going to sponsor and will have a bobsled 

team--

[Laughter.] 
200 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. in 2002. There is so much snow 

in the islands that we just felt that we had to give full representation of my tribe in the bobsled event come the year 2002. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend you for your initiative and 

the leadership that you have taken in this very important issue. 

Having to deal with this issue for 15 years, I can sympathize with 

you, the fact that unfortunately the issue has become not only a 

very emotional issue but one that is now somewhat on a very partisan basis. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Chairman, that in the process in the coming weeks that we try to rid ourselves of the partisanship of the issues but look into an area where I suppose the 

phrase I could suggest in this process, where we find it, where we 

can strike a balance on the needs of the preservation of our environment, the situation of the developers, the situation with how 

the Federal Government has had to deal with the State of Utah on 

these very important issues. 

Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to offer 

my personal welcome to Senator Bennett and Congressman Orton 

for their presence here and I am looking forward to hearing their 

testimony and other leaders of the State of Utah. Thank you again 

and I will see you in the Olympics in 2002. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, the author of H.R. 

1500. Mo, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me too express my deep appreciation to you for holding these hearings and for putting this issue high up on the agenda. It is obviously a very important one, if somewhat controversial, but nevertheless one that is very significant not only to all the people of 

Utah, but to many people across this country. I thank you very much for holding these hearings and for giving us the opportunity 

to once again visit this magnificently beautiful state. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I am the sponsor of one of the 

bills that is on the agenda today, and I thank you very much for 

including it on the agenda, H.R. 1500. This bill is modified after 

a version of the legislation which was originally introduced in 1989 

by Wayne Owens of Salt Lake City. After Mr. Owens left Congress, 

I agreed to introduce H.R. 1500 in the 103rd Congress and again 

this year. I was delighted to have the opportunity to take up the 

work that he had begun on this matter and I have benefited frankly from his counsel and encouragement on this issue in the intervening period. 

Some of my colleagues on the Committee, and no doubt some 

Utahns present today have wondered perhaps why a New Yorker 

like myself would be interested in what happens to Utah's lands. 

So I thought I would take this opportunity to explain myself a little 

bit on that issue. 

I was first asked to take up Mr. Owens' legislation by someone 

who is both a Utahn and a New Yorker, a neighbor of mine in my 

small home town of Saugerties, New York, a place with a popu-
201 

lation of about 18,000 people. She had lived in southern Utah for 

many years and taught school here, then moved to New York for 

a few years and taught school there. And now she has since retired 

and lives in Idaho. 

My neighbor exemplified something important about Americans. 

We have a tendency to wander from one place to another across 

this country. Someone who is a Utahn today may be a New Yorker 

tomorrow, and vice versa. It was, after all, a New Yorker who 

brought settlers to Utah in the last century and made it what it 

is today. I would like to be able to say-actually brag I think-that 

Brigham Young could have been one of my constituents, but the 

fact of the matter is that the towns that he and Joseph Smith came 

from are just a little bit over the border from the district that I represent. So I cannot really make that claim, although we are very 

close neighbors. So there is a long history of New Yorkers taking 

an interest in Utah, and I have no doubt that that interest will 

continue and I am sure that Utahns will continue to be interested 

in some of the thin~s that happen in New York as well. 

But my neighbors concern transcended the facts of her own geographic mobility. What she was saying to me is that these lands 

are important to all the people of our country and that they belong 

to all the people of our country. We New Yorkers do not say that 

the Statue of Liberty belongs only to us, it belongs, of course, to 

all Utahns as well. The lands we are talking today also belong to 

all Americans. 

And many Americans are deeply interested in those lands. As of 

today, 75 of our colleagues in the House have co-sponsored my bill 

this year. Most of them have co-sponsored it because their constituents have asked them to. I have heard from many more of my colleagues about it, invariably because they have heard from people 

back home, like my former neighbor, who care intensely about 

what happens to these very precious lands. Some of them, like my 

former neighbor, have lived here in Utah, some have not. Some 

have visited these areas as I have, and know them intimately, 

some have not. But even many who have never been here, or perhaps who never will be here still marvel at the wonders that southern Utah holds. 

My interest in land management and in wilderness long predates 

my introduction of H.R. 1500. It goes back to my boyhood days, living on the edge of the Catskill Mountains in New York. I liked to 

spend my time wandering the woods and the streams there. It is 

a very different landscape from what you have here in Utah, but 

I think it is a very beautiful one, in any case. Part of its beauty 

remains because New Yorkers back in the early part of this century enacted the first wilderness protection legislation. They did so 

in 1885 with they established the Adirondack Park. Later, in 1907, 

the legislature protected the Catskills which comprise much of the 

district that I represent. They declared at that time that both of 

these areas, the Catskills and the Adirondacks in New York should 

be wilderness, or in our parlance in our Constitution, forever wild. 

New York took that action for two reasons. It realized, first, how 

special these areas are. And it realized too how much it had already lost and how much more it would lose if it failed to act. Even 

so, wilderness protection controversies continue to this day. I took 
202 

an active part in them during the 18 years that I served in the 

New York State Legislature. 

And perhaps because of that service, I am acutely aware that 

there are very few places where we have achieved a consensus on 

wilderness, or ever will. Some will always want more land pro- tected, some will always want less. Some will always put the interests of nature first, some will always prefer resource extraction. 

And people on both sides will always have sincere and legitimate 

arguments for their position. 

Clearly, my views come down on the side of protection and conservation. That is shaped by my experience, not by special plead- ings or public relations efforts. I have seen what we can lose and 

I know what we have lost when we focus on a temporary or shortterm gain. I have seen how difficult it is to recover what we lose 

when we lose wild lands. I have seen how many people mourn 

those losses and I have seen that the mourners are often the descendants of those who promoted development. 

So to those who ask why I am here, I say I am here to help protect our nation's common heritage. I know that most Utahns would 

be horrified if the Statue of Liberty's Little Island in New York 

Harbor were turned into an amusement park so that jobs could be 

created or that other similar activities could go on there. It is with 

that same spirit that millions of Americans in Utah and elsewhere 

across the country want to see part of southern Utah, 5. 7 million 

acres of it, kept forever wild. And I think that working together, 

we can achieve that. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Are you concluded, Mo? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would be happy to give you a little more applause time. 

Mo, I appreciate your opening statement. I am going to send you 

a book on why the Mormons were driven out of New York, you will 

find it interesting. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. We are grateful to have with us Senator Bennett 

and Congressman Orton. We expect Congreswoman Waldholtz to 

walk in any moment. Prior to hearing from them, I would ask 

unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch 

be included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HANSEN. And incidentally, let me say that Orrin would like 

to be with us today. He has a very dear friend who is having an 

extreme medical problem in New York and Orrin felt very strong about going there, or Orrin would be with us. He has been working 

very diligently on this issue and we have been working well as a 

delegation and I am sorry he cannot be here, but you are free to 

read his comments in the record. 

We are pleased to have with us Senator Bennett. And Senator 

Bennett, we will turn the time to you, sir. 

[The statement of Senator Hatch may be found at end of hearing.] 
203 

STATEMENT OF BON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, AU. S. SENATOR 

FROM UTAH 

Senator BENNE'IT. Thank lou, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity of being here an the opportunity of hearing the open- ing statements, and I will try to respond to some of them, because 

I believe they are offered in good faith and represent the basis on 

which we might get a resolution to this issue. 

I have prepared a chart, Mr. Chairman, of the history of the 

Utah wilderness debate, which I had planned to go over at this 

point, but I think you have adequately discussed that, starting in 

1978 in the Carter administration, moving on through the present time, the Bush administration finally offering the BLM proposal to 

Congress. And I would ask that this be included in the record at 

the conclusion of my remarks. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. [The history mentioned may be found at end of hearing.]BENNE'IT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the Chairman knows and the Subcommittee may, prior to the 

writing of this bill, the delegation with the Governor went throughout the state and had a series of hearings, out of which a number 

of impressions linger. But the one impression that lingers the 

strongest for me is that wilderness is in the eye of the beholder. 

I will tell the Subcommittee that we had witnesses that would 

stand before us with all sincerity and full good faith and say "If 

you could only see this particular piece of land for yourself, you would know automatically that it must be designated as wilderness," followed by a witness equally sincere with equal good faith 

standing in the same place who would say "If you would only go 

see this particular piece of land with your own eyes, you would recognize absolutely that it in no way qualifies under the 1964 Wilderness Act." 

Roads tum out to be in the eye of the beholder just as well. We 

had an experience in one of the hearings where the county commissioner stood and said, "This cannot be designated as wilderness, it 

is interlaced with roads and that violates the 1964 Act," followed 

immediately by a witness who said, "I challenge the county commissioners to show me a single road. I have walked this place within the last week and there is not a single road there, and I have 

challenged the county commission to show me the roads and they have been unable to take up the challenge," interestingly followed 

by a witness who, calling him by name, said, "If you will get in my four-wheel drive this afternoon, I will take you over every one of 

those roads, I will meet the dare of the county commission, the 

roads are clearly there." 

So wilderness becomes a subjective kind of decision and each of 

us reacts to the so-called wilderness experience in our own way. If 

I may be, as you have been, Congressman Hinchey, a bit personal here, I have hiked what is now wilderness in the national forest 

area. As a Boy Scout, we went up into the High Uintas and it was 

a marvelous kind of experience. At my age, I am not likely to repeat it, but the memory remains very strongly with me. I love the 

openness and the freedom and the sense of isolation that comes in 

Utah. But I have had the same "wilderness experience," if you will, in areas that I have been able to drive to, leave my car and then 
204 

walk from in a period of 15 or 20 minutes, it has not required the 

full week of backpacking that that Boy Scout experience required, 

for me to get completely away from the city and the pressures, and 

to have the kind of communion that I feel in the so-called wilderness experience. 

I would ask you to take a careful look at the colored map behind 

you or over here, and for just a moment think of what those colors 

represent. All of the green on that map, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the light green as well as the dark green, 

is national forest land. It is to the national forest that I now go if 

I want those kinds of wilderness experiences. And I believe, again, 

Congressman Hinchey, that you could duplicate your experience in 

the Adirondacks, in Utah's national forests. There are over eight 

million acres of national forest in this state, approximately ten percent of which have been designated as wilderness acres. But the 

eight million acres are the acres to which most Utahns go when 

they want a wilderness experience. And I can, like the other witnesses that have appeared before you, say to you if you would just 

go on your own and see it for yourself, you would understand that 

it can produce those moments and experiences of solitude. 

Now if you would look at the dark purple on the map, there are 

close to two million acres in this state of national parks and recreation areas and other areas preserved in that fashion for fish and 

wildlife purposes. It is to these acres that the world comes. When 

we hear in the hearings about we must preserve southern Utah's 

magnificent heritage so that the world will come see how wonderful 

it is, it is to those particular areas that they come. And indeed, 

those areas-Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Zion, Bryce-are absolutely incredible. 

When you add the eight million acres of national forest to the 

two million acres of national parks and recreation areas and then 

go through the green cross-hatched areas which are in the bill that 

the Congressman has introduced, nearly two million acres of wilderness from the BLM inventory, you get a total of 12 million acres 

of Utah lands set aside and protected from the kind of exploitation 

that we hear decried. I point that out because one of the arguments 

that we got during the hearings and that I expect you will hear 

here today, is that we must tithe the State of Utah for our posterity, we must set aside at least ten jercent of the state's land for 

our children's use. You have referre to the religious motivation of 

the people who came to Utah, tithing is a very attractive concept 

in Utah. Twelve million acres is more than a tithing, twelve million 

acres is a double tithing. It is over 20 percent of the state that has 

been set aside and will be maintained for the future. 

So if I may, the issue, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, is not protection. Congressman Hinchey spoke movingly 

about the need for protection and I agree with that and respond to 

that and resonate with that out of my own experience in Utah1 have never been to the Adirondacks, I will take your word for it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Please come. 

Senator BENNETT. The issue is not protection, it is procedure. In 

what way will we protect these future lands? And I will not concede that the national forest is open for the kind of exploitation 

that we have heard about in the hearings and the debate on this 
205 

issue. There is not a hamburger stand anywhere in the national 

forests, there is not a strip mall anywhere in the national forests. 

One of the witnesses that appeared before us in the hearings throughout the state-he is as old or older than !-remembered 

how bucolic it used to be driving from Salt Lake to Provo, and he 

said that wilderness is lost forever and we must not do that to the 

rest of the state. Well, that was not wilderness. In his mind, per- haps he had had a wilderness kind of experience on that land, but 

that land was not wilderness, was never scheduled to be wilderness, never could become wilderness. He may decry the fact that 

there are now motels and indeed factories in the area between Salt 

Lake and Provo, but to decry that and then imply that that is what 

will happen in 90 percent of the State of Utah if your bill, sir, is 

not passed, is frankly not accurate. 

So I say to you the issue is not protection the issue is procedure and I believe if the Chairman's bill passes, we will have protected, under different kinds of procedure, but protected nonetheless, some 

20 percent of this state and certainly the lands in which all of the 

people of this nation have a primary interest. 

Now one of the issues that has to do with a procedure that influenced me in my considerations as we went into this bill is the issue 

of manageability. I had people from the BLM who worked not only 

on the original inventory and the subsequent recommendations, 

but who have worked on this issue since then, say to me many of 

the lands that are included in H.R. 1500 simply cannot be managed 

as wilderness. You can draw the line around them on the map and 

you can take pictures of these lands, but the fact is we will be required to keep people off the land in a police kind of action if they 

are designated wilderness in ways that we simply cannot accomplish. I am speaking particularly of land that comes from a clear 

wilderness area, about which there is no dispute, out to a road. 

And to designate the land between the road and the area in which 

there is no dispute as wilderness and then ask the BLM to manage it as wilderness and enforce it as wilderness is to put a management burden on the BLM that is not sustainable. 

And so many of the acres that I have agreed to eliminate from 

this bill have been eliminated not on the basis of their beauty or 

their lack thereof, but simply on the issue of whether or not it can 

be managed. Indeed, I have been told-! cannot vouch personally for its truthfulness, but I believe the people who told me were 

speaking accurately-that many of the wilderness study areas that 

currently exist have been violated simply because it was impossible 

to manage them as wilderness even though that is the mandate of 

the BLM. They have had hunters and recreators in them from 

areas that have traditionally used those areas-from people who 

have traditionally used those areas, who have simply continued to 

do so and the BLM, by virtue of its resources and staffing, has been 

unable to do anything about it. And an excessive amount of land 

that has been designated wilderness, not because it is justified as 

wilderness, but because it will provide some kind of a buffer for the 

land that has been designated, is to put a management burden on 

the BLM that they cannot adequately accept. And laws that are not 

enforceable breed contempt for the law and end up ultimately destroying the result that you want. 
206 

Now, what will happen to the lands that are not designated'? What will happen if Congressman Hansen's bill is accepted and 

Congressman Hinchey's bill is not? I come back to my earlier comment and ask you to think of the map and the experience. Strip malls will not automatically appear. The land that is going to bt:l 

left behind out of the wilderness designation is the yellow land that 

you see there, and it will be managed by the BLM. What will happen on that land? The answer, being very blunt about it, is that 

cattle will graze the land. That is the only exploitation that will 

occur on most of these acres. 

[Laughter and verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HANSEN. We will not have any outbursts. We appreciate you being here, if you want to applaud, that is perfectly all right, but 

no outbursts. We will ask you to leave if that occurs. 

Go ahead. 

Senator BENNE'IT. I have talked with the BLM managers in all 

of these areas, and the answer is for the vast amount of the acres 

that would be left out, the activity that would take place on those 

acres would be that cattle would be in those areas. Indeed, this i:s 

the driving force behind most of the opposition here to H.R. 1500--

it comes from the cattle. 

I have prepared a video, which I believe the members of the 

Committee have seen, indicating that properly managed cattle can 

enhance the land, improve the land, be good for the wildlife. 

We have support from strong environmentalists on the evidence 

that we have assembled on this issue. This is an emotional issue, 

but if you look at the science, you are going to see that this circumstance is not creating the strip malls that exist between Salt 

Lake and Provo, if these acres are not designated. I leave you with this thought again-wilderness becomes an emotional issue because people have emotional experiences on the land. 

I respect that, I have had experience myself. But the issue is not 

whether the land should be protected, the issue is how the land 

should be protected and what procedure. And I submit to the Committee that the wilderness designation, valuable as it is as a proce- dure for protecting some acres is not the only procedure that 

should be followed and should not be used as a blanket protection for all acres. There are other ways of seeing to it that our children 

have the heritage we want them to have, that our visitors to the 

state have the kinds of experiences we want them to have and that 

the unique nature of Utah can be preserved for future generations without it all being put into the single mode of the wilderness designation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator Bennett, we appreciate your 

comments. 

For the benefit of the Committee, Senator Bennett and Senator 

Hatch have introduced, to my knowledge, the identical bill and is 

it Senate Bill 884, which is introduced now in the Senate. 

Senator BENNE'IT. We have. 

Mr. HANSEN. We are trying to take this along parallel tracks, if 

we can. 

We welcome our friend from the Third Congressional District, 

Congressman Orton, and turn the time to you, sir. 
207 

STATEMENT OF BON. BILL ORTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM UTAH 

Mr. ORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me to testify before you. Before doing so, I would request consent from the Committee to submit to the record a written statement, and I would just summarize my comments here and be brief. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. ORTON. And in that written statement, I would also like to 

include with it a copy, a draft copy of a proposal which I am going 

to be recommending, which includes wilderness and NCAs. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. ORTON. And in addition, a copy of a resolution from the Navajo Utah Commission with regard to the wilderness issue as well. Mr. HANSEN. Who is that from? 

Mr. ORTON. The Navajo Utah Commission. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. Mr. ORTON. Thank you. 

As the Chair knows, approximately 90 percent of the public lands 

under consideration for wilderness are located within the Third 

Congressional District. It is my pleasure to represent that district. 

Also, as Chairman Hansen mentioned, he has been working for 

over 12 to 15 years on this particular issue. I also over the past four and a half years in representing this district have spent over 

1000 hours of my own time on this specific issue. I have been out 

to, over, around, across, between and through every area under 

consideration, not only by the BLM but by the Utah Wilderness Coalition. 

Chairman Hansen and I three and a half years ago went around 

in both of our Congressional Districts holding joint hearings on this 

subject, listening to everyone who would come. As a result of that, 

we had a draft proposal. I think that was a good proposal. I think 

it represented a reasonable approach to finding a solution to the 

problems. I also commend the delegation and the Governor for 

working together. We have spent countless hours along with our 

st aff in trying to put together the best work product which represents a compromise and a good faith effort to identify those areas 

most eligible for and most appropriately designated wilderness. I 

believe that the wilderness proposal by the delegation is a good work product. I do not agree with all of it, I have some concerns 

with some of the specific designations in the bill and I have concerns with some of the language, and I will be recommending some 

minor changes to language. 

But serious disagreement continues to exist over this issue on 

both sides, those advocates and those opponents of wilderness designation. And let me just share a couple of examples. There are those folks who believe that if Sids Cabin, Mexican 

Mountain, Muddy Creek, all areas inside the San Rafael Swell, are 

actually designated as wilderness, that in fact, the wilderness management of those areas may reach out beyond the wilderness designation itself and impact the local surrounding community and environment. It may have an impact on water rights and usage above 

those areas, may have impact on air quality standards on power plants that exist just outside of those areas, and therefore, that 

concern was addressed by the delegation in placing specific lan-
208 

guage regarding those particular wilderness areas, saying that 

these would not be concerns, that the wilderness designation in 

these areas would not impact the local community. However, that 

protective language is antithetical to the very issue of wildernes:s. 

And I believe stands a strong likelihood of being stripped out during markup and consideration through the House and Senate in 

conference, at which point we then may end up again with the 

problem of wilderness designation expanding and impacting area.s 

beyond that which is designated. 

On the other hand, there are those who argue that there ar·e 

pristine, unique, primitive areas in this state which are unique in 

all the world-areas like the Escalante Canyons, like the Book 

Cliffs, the Henry Mountains, the slick rock area, areas which are 

currently subject to significant degradation by the impact of mankind, and that those areas should have some management, specifically wilderness management protection, to protect those. 

I believe there is a basic flaw in the debate on wilderness up 

until this point in time, and that basic flaw is that the assumption 

that wilderness is the only way to manage and conserve nature, 

that it either has to be designated wilderness or it is not designated anything at all. And I think that problem, that basic flaw 

in this process, argued on both sides, then has resulted in one approach which is an all-wilderness approach, another approach 

which is a minimal wilderness approach, neither of which may 

pass. I want to pass a wilderness bill and resolve the issue of public lands and wilderness in my district. 

I believe that the county hearings we held in this process just a 

couple of months ago validated information which we previously 

developed. Congressman Hansen and myself in hearings in our own 

district several years ago, discovered that people wanted alternatives considered, not all wilderness. The Governor himself looked 

at and has studied and analyzed and considered a concept called 

ecoregions. The counties, in their recommendations recommended 

some core wilderness but said the bulk of these areas under consideration ought to be managed under alternative proposals which include primitive and semi-primitive designations. 

Many areas simply do not qualify under the 1964 statute as wilderness and have not been recommended by the delegation. The 

principal environmental impact on these areas, historically and I 

believe in the future, has in fact been mining exploration and offroad vehicle use. You do not need wilderness to resolve those two 

issues and in fact, wilderness is not necessarily the best solution 

to those issues. 

I have withheld co-sponsorship of the delegation bill, largely for 

two principal reasons. First, I believe that the local and county recommendations, which include core wilderness as well as alternative 

management designations, deserve consideration at the Congressional level. It deserves a hearing, you ought to know what those 

recommendations are and be able to consider those as an alternative. Secondly, I have serious reservation as to whether the allwilderness or the minimal-wilderness approach can in fact pass 

both the House and Senate and be signed into law. 

Therefore, I have proposed and have submitted to the Committele 

and my colleagues a copy of a draft bill which I will be submitting 
209 

and asking the Committee to consider in its deliberations, which 

does two things. First of all, it does designate some wilderness and 

it also designates several areas that are called national conservation areas. I believe that this approach could serve as a basis for 

a compromise that could actually pass and be a win-win situation 

for both land users and conservationists. My proposal will include 

approximately 1.3 million acres of wilderness designation, about 

one million acres of that lie outside of areas that will otherwise be 

designated as national conservation areas, about 350,000 acres of 

that core wilderness are inside areas that would otherwise be designated as national conservation areas. 

There would be six national conservation areas designated in my proposal which are drawn from the county alternative recommendations that we heard throughout our county hearings, as 

well as the Bureau of Land Management RMPs. Those areas include approximately 3.1 million acres, for a total of approximately 4.1 million acres of special management classification under my draft proposal. It attempts to address the concerns of the local communities and landowners and land users as well as the conservationists. There are specific designations, management plans, local 

councils for local participation in the future in the management, as 

well as designations of multiple use and withdrawals in certain 

areas from mining, from surface occupancy and from off-road vehicle use. 

There would be three recreational conservation areas in the San 

Rafael Swell, the Escalante Canyons and the slick rock area surrounding Moab. There would be one cultural or archeological conservation area on the Cedar Mesa in San Juan County and there 

would be two wildlife conservation areas, one in the Book Cliffs 

which the state has been working laboriously over the last decade 

in pulling together state lands to have the core of a wildlife conservation area, habitat for big game, elk, cougar, bear, an area outside of Yellowstone you see very rarely. And also the Henry Mountains. The Henry Mountains is one of only two or three areas in 

the entire hemisphere where there is a free roaming herd of buffalo. 

I believe that this approach does in fact propose a reasonable alternative. It does recognize the impact of man, it recognizes the 

degradation and attempts to resolve those issues. It also recognizes the multiple use, it recognizes the local communities, it recognizes the need and necessity of those local communities to be able to continue to survive. And so I would urge my colleagues and the Committee to consider as a compromise approach this type of an ap- proach which I believe you will find does in fact resolve the bulk 

of the concerns on both sides of the issue, on the bulk of the land 

under consideration. 

So I thank the Committee for allowing me to come here. I am 

willing to work with you through the hearing process. I have on my staff, detailed to me, Dr. Greg Fain, who has been detailed over 

from the BLM. He has been their wilderness manager, he is the 

person who essentially put to~ether the bulk of the documentation 

and the study and the analys1s on BLM wilderness, and I want to 

let you know that he is available as a Committee resource as well 

in helping you to be able to complete this process. 
210 

So thank you very much for your consideration. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. [Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Congresswoman Enid Waldholtz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ENID G. WALDHOLTZ, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Ms. W ALDHOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to testify, and I want to thank the other members of the Subcommittee for taking the time to travel here to listen to the con.- cerns of people here in the state. We appreciate your willingness 

to spend the time necessary to come and talk with us face-to-facEl. 

Mr. Chairman, I would request the Committee's consent to submit 

a written statement along with two maps for the record, the maps 

I will refer to in just a moment. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. WALDHOLTZ. As you will hear today, Utahns have a deep respect and a concern about how we ought to manage our natural 

heritage. That concern and respect does not always culminate in 

agreement on the best way to appropriately protect and manage 

these resources. That is why this has been such a divisive issue 

within our community. 

Since 1964 with the passage of the Wilderness Act, our state has 

struggled to come up with the appropriate approach that complies 

with the requirements of the Wilderness Act, that recognizes the 

need to protect some of these magnificent pieces of land and at the 

same time acknowledges the reality and the importance of the 

state's economic well-being. It is time, I believe, to make a decision 

on this issue and the bill that you have in front of you, H.R. 174~>. 

is the culmination of a decades-long process of trying to grapple with this issue. 

I am a recent addition to the delegation, as you know I have only 

been in office six months, but this is an issue on which my staff 

and I have spent a great deal of time trying to review each of these 

wilderness study areas to look over all that has come before as a 

part of this process over the last several decades, and we have participated fully in the process that has already been described to you that has gone on in the last six months. 

During this process, there were two basic principles I think 

reaffirmed to me that I just want to share with you this morning. 

First, that wilderness is an appropriate and a critical component 

of our Federal land management policies necessary to protect certain irreplaceable lands that remain in their pristine condition and 

that need protection. Second, the Wilderness Act neither requires 

nor allows us to sacrifice our rural communities in the pursuit of 

protecting those areas. There is room for us to be able to accommodate the various interests and the Wilderness Act itself recognized 

that and provided for it in the way we defined what was wilderness 

and what was not. Most of the argument will continue to focus on 

how many acres should be designated. 

But before I address that, I think it is important that we also 

recognize there are other critical issues that have got to be discussed and resolved. And we tried to do that in the appropriate 

way through this bill. Issues dealing with water rights, with bufi'Elr 
211 

zones, with management of cultural and paleontological resources, 

critical resources that have got to be appropriately managed. And 

we needed to deal with Native American cultural and religious 

uses on this land before there ever was a United States government and we needed to deal with the rights and interests of Utah's 

school children. The trust lands that are scattered throughout these wilderness study areas were given to the school children of 

the State of Utah to help us with very critical funding problems in 

this state and we need to deal with making certain that the rights 

and the interests of Utah's school children, who own that property, 

are dealt with appropriately as we designate some of these areas 

for wilderness protection. 

Let me also make it clear that as a delegation, we recognized 

that this Congress has no authority to bind the deliberations of future Congresses, and we did not make an attempt to do that in this 

bill. We recognize that every Congress that comes in every two 

years has every right to re-examine the Federal land management 

policies, not just of Utah BLM land, but of all the land throughout the United States, and we are not trying to bind the hands of future Congresses-indeed we cannot. And we did not try to do that. 

Let ;me just echo what has already been said by Senator Bennett 

and by Congressman Orton, and that is that the 1964 Wilderness 

Act was never intended to become a catch-all designation for public 

land. Wilderness is one way to designate and protect certain lands 

that meet certain requirements established in the 1964 Act. It was 

intended to protect those lands, but we also have a range of other 

designations, whether it is primitive, semi-primitive areas, wild 

and scenic rivers, conservation areas, parks, recreation areas. We 

have a whole range of opportunities to figure out ways to protect 

land consistent with its nature and its character and what we 

think is the wisest way to deal with that particular piece of land. 

So the issue here today is not all or nothing. It is not wilderness 

or throwing land open to any sort of development that the people who have some interest in developing it may fmd appropriate. I believe that there are going to be other areas of land in the state that 

were considered as part of this process, that are not candidates 

under the defmition of the 1964 Wilderness Act for wilderness, that 

nevertheless should receive some form of protection. But I think it 

is critical that we settle first on those lands that meet that most 

restrictive designation of wilderness and then continue to pursue 

other designations for other areas of land that may not meet that 

most restrictive designation, but still have unique properties that 

require some sort of management beyond simply throwing it into 

the multiple use inventory of the Bureau of Land Management. 

And so I think that this is a first step in a process that does not 

end when we decide what is wilderness, but that cannot really 

begin until we decide what is wilderness, what areas are not wilderness and we can start to begin to figure out other ways to appropriately manage those areas that were not designated as wilderness. 

I believe that H.R. 1745 represents a substantial and credible effort toward making that first designation and recognizing what 

meets the criteria of the 1964 Act, but it is not the end of the discussion on how public land should be managed in the State of 
212 

Utah. It is, however, something that has to be decided before we: 

can move on in determining the best way to manage and protect; 

the resources in those areas that are not wilderness. I support the: 

bill and I am an original co-sponsor of the bill. 

I do have to say, however, I believe there are additional lands 

that should be included in wilderness designation to make the bill 

complete. The map that we have set up at the end of the table herE! 

will show you-and I am going to go over and point to these areae: 

if you will excuse me. 

The areas in the green hatch marks here match the map behind. 

you. Those are the areas that are recommended currently in thE! 

delegation proposal. I propose adding acreage in eight different 

areas for a variety of reasons, most of which are that each of the 

areas that I am going to show you were recommended for wilder·· 

ness designation by the Bureau of Land Management in its state·· 

wide wilderness final environmental impact statement with the ex·· 

ception of two areas, in Book Cliffs and Desolation Canyon. ThE! 

Book Cliffs expansion was recommended for inclusion as wilderness 

by the Grant County Commission. And at the time of the BLM in·· 

ventory, the area that I am going to show you in Desolation Can·· 

yon was the subject of oil and gas leases which have since been 

abandoned and the road reclaimed. So at the time the BLM madE! 

its recommendation, there were clearly conflicts in the area, but 

those conflicts no longer exist. 

The eight areas that I would propose begin with Turtle Canyon, 

which is off to the side here at the Desolation area; an expansion 

around the Desolation Canyon area. Two reasons for this. First, 

these areas contain unique lands that do fall, I believe, under thE! 

wilderness designation and here we are attempting for manage-· 

ment purposes to eliminate this very narrow neck of land which WE! 

believe would make management of the land very difficult, and ex·· pand the boundary out to make this one large contiguous area that 

could be managed and that provides more of an ecosystem than thE! 

current proposal with that narrow neck of land. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. W ALDHOLTZ. The next item is an expansion in the Book 

Cliffs and I apologize for the fact that this is a little bit difficult 

to see. But as I said, the Book Cliffs expansion was recommended 

by the Grand County Commission as part of their recommendation 

of what should be designated as wilderness. 

Next is an expansion on the southern end of Sids Mountain. AJ.; 

you heard, there are concerns in the community for Sids Mountain 

because of a power plant that is located very closely in proximity. 

I believe, however, if we can appropriately address the buffer zon•~ 

issue, that the inclusion of this southern area would not only be appropriate, but again, would give you a larger contiguous area for 

wilderness management. 

Next is an expansion of the Paria-Hackberry area in Kane County. The Paria-Hackberry area would include areas west of the Paria 

River. They were recommended by the BLM. These areas have a 

very high scenic value and by adding them you would include th~~ 

Paria River itself on both sides in the wilderness area. 

Next, Fish and Owl Creek Canyons, which are adjacent to th~~ 

proposed Grand Gulch expansion area. These were all rec-
213 

ommended by the BLM as wilderness. They have many, many archeological treasures. They were included in the national conservation proposal submitted by San Juan County. So there is great recognition that this is a unique area that needs protection and it is 

really a question of how. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WALDHOLTZ. Next would be Road Creek Canyon immediately 

south of the areas just described to you. They have those same 

properties. 

Next, would be Grand Gulch Complex expansion. The Grand 

Gulch Complex, as you know, has been the subject of a great deal 

of interest and it is because of the unique geographical area that 

it is, because of the archeological treasures and in our review, we 

have concluded that appropriate management and protection of 

this area would require expansion of that area. They were originally recommended for inclusion by the Bureau of Land Management and it again helps to establish a larger contiguous wilderness 

area. 

The total additional acreage that I am recommending is approximately 363,000 acres. Let me make it clear again that I support 

what the delegation has done. I believe we have dealt in an appropriate way with a host of difficult issues. But I also would submit 

to you that in order to really meet the criteria of the Wilderness 

Act, to provide areas that have large areas that help us manage 

those areas, that provide wilderness habitat, that accomplishes 

what the Wilderness Act was intended to accomplish, I think these 

areas are prime areas that should be included in that wilderness 

designation. 

Let me just say also that I believe that the process that we went 

through was a good one. We did not set out in this process to come 

up with a preconceived number of acres. We tried to take the wilderness bill and apply its provisions and we came out with a proposal that while there are differences, there are areas that I think 

should be added, there are other areas where other members may 

feel that we did not do exactly the right thing, we nevertheless 

worked through this process, area by area and tried to come up with a proposal that we felt best complied with the Wilderness Act. 

Let me just add one other thing before I conclude. I know thereare being a great number of polls bandied about and there are various claims going to be made on how many people support how 

many acres. That is what the focus of the disagreement has come 

to center on. So that I could have some benchmark myself, I commissioned a poll that was done by Dan Jones & Associates on April 

26, 1995, with a survey sample size of 600 people located solely 

within my Congressional District, the Second Congressional District, that you are now in. The results of that survey I want to 

share with you-23 percent supported approximately 5. 7 million 

acres of wilderness; 36 percent supported approximately 1.2 million 

acres of wilderness identified as an earlier proposal from Representative Hansen; and 24 percent supported approximately two 

million acres of wilderness constant with the BLM's proposal. Now 

I am not offering this information as definitive on this issue. I am 

offering it to demonstrate the wide range of survey data available 

on this issue. I think that you can only pull a few conclusions from 
214 

all of this infonnation that is going to be presented to you as survey data in one fonn or another. And that is that Utahns are concerned about this issue, that Utahns want some wilderness designated in our state, but that there is not a great deal of consensus 

on exactly what the appropriate number of acres should be. 

In view of this wide range of opinion, I believe it is our duty to 

apply the 1964 Act as written in the most careful and considered 

way we can, and I believe that the work product of our delegation 

does just that. In closing, I will simply say that I think it is very important for 

our state to resolve this issue. Sadly, it has bitterly divided many 

communities in our state. It is an issue that has been going on for 

decades, it is time to make a decision, to decide what is wilderness, 

what is not, and to begin a discussion about how we can manage 

these resources, not just as wilderness or not as wilderness, but to 

come up with a comprehensive plan as to how we can best manage 

these resources that we cannot ever duplicate. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chainnan, members of the Subcommittee 

for allowing me the chance to talk with you this morning. 

[The statement of Ms. Waldholtz may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Waldholtz, we apprtlciate your comments. 

Let me point out to the Committee and people that are here we 

have three panels left to go, we have got a number of folks that 

have got to catch airplanes before too awfully long, so we would 

like to move this along. Now if members of the Committee, instead 

of giving each of you five minutes to ask the members of Congress 

questions, if someone has a question, if you would give us a briflf 

question and we would appreciate a brief answer, we would like t.o 

get to the next panel. 

Congressman Vento? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chainnan, rather than get into a lot of 

questions with my colleagues, I think it is best just to acknowledge 

their remarks. 

I wanted to say to Senator Bennett and to Congressman Orton 

and to Congresswoman W aldholtz that obviously you have done 

your work on this. I really respect the fact that you have put in 

a lot of time and I know that we have been able to work closely 

with Bob Bennett in the Senate on some issues. 

I just wanted to say, Senator, in tenns of your comments, I think 

that all the lands need to be protected-all of the forests, all of the 

BLM lands. In other words, that does not mean they do not get 

used. What we are really talking about is how we want to use 

those lands. I agree with you we should not be using wilderness 

designation or park designation to exclude grazing or to exclude 

mining. But I think the reality is when you talked about managtlment limits with regard to wilderness and boundaries, I think it is 

very important to look at those limits. Also, I think that we have 

to recognize management limits with regard to what happens 

whether it is law enforcement or archeological pillaging or any of 

the other things that go on. It is evident when you look at those 

forests, while there are two million acres of wilderness, thanks to 

the work of Jim Hansen and the delegation that worked in 198•!, 
215 

it is also evident that much of that forest is open to mineral appro- priation and to other purposes. That is from forest plans, it is not 

just out there; we are not operating on the robber baron theory of 

the 19th century, at least we should not be. That is why I would 

like to change a lot of those laws. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. VENTO. It is those laws that sometime force us to do other 

things. And I have argued almost the same statements as you have 

when faced with large wilderness proposals for multiple states, 

that we have to have a Forest Service that we trust, a BLM we 

trust. I think we are building up the professionalism in those agen- cies and we need to continue to do that. 

I think times have changed, I think we need to address that. I 

hope that if it is five percent you want and five million acres of wilderness in the state, or if it is-I note your change in terms of some 

of the boundaries and I note you have your number sweater on 

today. I thought maybe we needed an extra decimal point placed in that three. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. VENTO. Just kidding, just kidding. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. I know Mo thinks you need that. But anyway, I accept your comments in good faith and respect the work you have 

done. As I try to continue to be a student myself, I pledge to work 

with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. My other two colleagues, do you have any comments you would like to make to this panel? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly would 

like to commend the members of the panel for their statements. 

Interestingly enough, some of the comments that you have made 

was touched upon in our hearing yesterday. The most serious question that I raised yesterday, as was indicated earlier by Senator 

Bennett, is the fact that it is not so much the question of acreage but on the procedure. How do we go about making a designation where everybody could agree upon. And I suppose it might even 

have to deal with semantics, making it very difficult at times to say what is considered wilderness and what is not. I think that this is something that l-and I thought that Congressman Orton's suggestion here is to look at these possible op- tions, other than just designation of wilderness. I was touched by Enid's comments about the Native Americans, and as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Native Americans and Territories, I wanted to ask Congresswoman Waldholtz about the tremendous potential on archeological finds in this whole area. What 

would be your suggestion on how we could have the Native American community here in the State of Utah to be active participants in the process? 

Ms. WALDHOLTZ. Well, there is no question but that we have had 

difficulty I think as a government over time dealing appropriately with the religious and cultural concerns of Native Americans in 

dealing with archeological resources. And I think that as we now 

recognize, we are coming more fully to recognize what sort of archeological treasures we have in these areas and I think it would 
216 

be appropriate for us to establish some sort of mechanism to work 

with the tribal governments. What to us are interesting museum 

pieces are sacred relics of their ancestors and I think we need to 

be more sensitive and work out a way formally to work with the 

tribes in dealing with the disposition of these archeological trea.sures. And so I would suggest some sort of formalized mechanism 

between our government and the tribal governments to deal with 

how these particular artifacts should be used and protected. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. To your knowledge, has the BLM taken any 

real extensive surveys, inventory of the potentials there in the wilderness areas that has archeological and cultural value as far as 

Native American communities are concerned? 

Ms. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Orton I think is going crazy to be able to 

answer your question, but there has been some work done, I am 

not certain of the extent to which they have all been recognized. 

Frankly, there are so many of these sites that I do not think anyone yet has accurately mapped them. There are some being discovered every day, but I do not think we yet have an appropriate protocol in place to deal with them appropriately. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Congressman. 

Mr. ORTON. If I might, my undergraduate degree is in anthropology archeology and as a student, I--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The next time I catch an anthropologist 

come to my island, I am going to shoot him. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ORTON. Just in response to your question, as a student at 

the university, I was a volunteer with the BLM in mapping mueh 

of the area that you are talking about in Cedar Mesa. That is exactly the purpose of the cultural archeological conservation area in 

my proposal. My proposal includes a requirement that a local council would be established in managing the conservation areas, whieh 

would include a requirement to include on that council a representative from the Native American community. And so I believe what 

we are attempting to do here is in direct response to your question. 

So I would be happy to work with you and the Subcommittee to 

be sure that all of your concerns are addressed. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Definitely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Hinchey, do you have any comment for this 

panel? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much. 

First of all, I just want to thank the members of the Utah delegation who came here this morning, and thank them particularly for 

their testimony. I think it is quite clear that you have thought a 

great deal about this and this issue and the state means a great 

deal to all of you. And that of course is very important and someone like myself takes a great deal of comfort in that frankly, because I am continually reminded that we are talking about lands 

that are owned by all of the people of the state, all of the people 

of the country. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. This is a national resource and indeed it is a national treasure. You, of course, are the closest stewards of it, and 

therefore, you will inevitably have the most to say about what hap-
217 

pens to it because you are closest to it and because you care mostly about it. From whatever perspective that care comes, our hope is 

that it will be expressed in the most munificent way from the point of view of protecting and preserving as much of this treasure as 

possible. 

So I am comforted by the fact that you have thought a great deal 

about this, and I think also that this debate is moving in the right direction, it seems to me also, as a result of what I have heard here 

this morning. And I particularly, Mr. Orton, want to thank you for 

the work that you have done. I think you have made a great contribution to this effort in the testimony that you have outlined here 

this morning. And I personally appreciate that a great deal. 

Senator, I want to agree with much of what you said. I was in 

Cedar City yesterday and came away with exactly the same impression that you did, that wilderness, like beauty, is in the eye of 

the beholder. We heard people talk about how difficult it is to manage wilderness lands, as you pointed out, under various circumstances, and also particularly the difficulty when it comes up against settled communities and villages and towns and cities. 

We heard also from the Mayor of Springdale, however. The 

Mayor of Springdale came and told us how wonderful it was that 

his community bordered right up on wilderness land and how he 

thought that it was of economic value and economic benefit to his 

community and the people of that community. And I think that 

that is an important expression of concern in this debate as well. 

The issue of grazing is important. After all, there are people in 

this state who make their living that way and we do not want to 

detract from that. But it is true also that grazing that takes place 

on wilderness lands or lands that might be declared wilderness will 

not be impeded, that will continue, grazing will be able to continue 

on that land. 

Senator BENNETT. Congressman, if I could have your absolute assurance that that is the case, my comfort level would go up. There 

are a lot of folks who insist that while the bill says grazing is per- mitted, they are going to lie down in front of the train and die before they will allow it to be permitted. Mr. HINcHEY. Well, that is my belief and understanding and I 

think it is accurate, I certainly hope that it is. · You make the point that it is not so much whether the lands 

need to be protected, but how. And I think that you are absolutely right about that. The only thing that I would add is a slight caveat 

and that is how and to what extent it is protected. And I think that 

that is very important. It is important in light of something that 

Bruce said a few moments ago, that a lot of the land baron rules 

of the 19th century are still with us, the 1872 Mining Act particu- larly. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. Now the 1872 Mining Act, as you know, leaves 

these lands open for various kinds of development. In fact, if a mining company comes in, as I understand it, and patents the land, 

then that land is in effect made private. And not only is it made 

private for mining purposes, but it can be made private for a host 

of other purposes as well. And therein lies the threat of strip malls 

springing up between Salt Lake City and--
218 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY [continuing]. Provo and other places. If we could at 

once go back and make corrections in those laws that linger too 

long on the books and provide disadvantages to us, then I think we 

would be doing a great service. But I think what we are doing now 

has to be cognizant of the fact that we act in a particular environment, some of which was set forth in a different time, a different 

era, but nevertheless the burden of which we continue to bear. 

Senator BENNETT. If I may, Mr. Chairman, if I may--

Mr. HANSEN. Senator Bennett, the time of the gentleman has expired, but you have had comments by Congressman Vento and 

Congressman Hinchey. If you want to respond to both of those, you 

may give a brief answer. 

Senator BENNETT. Just very quickly. I agree with you about the 

non-mining uses of patented land under the 1872 Mining A<:t, 

which is why I have introduced, along with Senator Hatch, a bill 

changing that law and making that no longer possible. I just simply want everybody to be cognizant of the fact that we are aware 

of that abuse, we are aware that it exists in the present law, and 

we are working, at least on the Senate side and I think perhaps 

on the House side also. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Who sponsors that in the House? 

Senator BENNETT. I do not know. 

Mr. HANSEN. Senator Bennett, did you want to respond to Congressman Vento's comments? You have forgotten them? 

Mr. VENTO. Probably. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. They were so good, you cannot remember them. 

Senator BENNETT. I think in the interest of moving along--

Mr. VENTO. On the grazing issue, obviously grazing has a policy life of its own and is permitted under the wilderness designation, but that is not to say that grazing policy itself is not being addressed. I think the big problem with grazing is frankly the hot 

desert areas, the other marginal areas, Senator. And you know, 

permits continue to be subject to an evolution in terms of what the 

policy is. 

Mr. HANSEN. We thank the panel for being with us, thank you 

so much. You are welcome to join us up here if you would like to; 

if not, we will excuse you, whatever you want to do. Thank you 

very much. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Our next panel is Ted Stewart, Executive Director, 

Natural Resources Department, State of Utah, who will be speaking for the Governor; Ruland J. Gill, Jr., Chairman, Board of Trustees, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; Mel 

Brown, the Honorable Speaker of the House of the Utah House of 

Representatives; Ty Lewis, Chairman of the San Juan County 

Commission; and Gayle A. Stevenson, Chairman of the Davis 

County Commission. 

We welcome this panel. If you will notice in front of you, there 

are three lights. With the elected members, we kind of ignore that, 

but on this we do not. The green light comes on, means you have 

got five minutes; the yellow light tells you to wind up and the red 

light means to stop. This is going to be a long hearing, I can see 
219 

this one coming, so I am going to get a little tough on this as we 

go. However, Mr. Stewart is speaking for the Governor, so we will 

give you what time is necessary. We will hear from you now, Mr. 

Stewart. 

STATEMENT OF TED STEWART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. Good morning again, gentlemen. I ap- preciate again this invitation to address the Subcommittee in support of H.R. 17 45. 

Governor Leavitt apologizes for not being in attendance. He is 

hosting western governors this weekend. He will, however, testify before your Subcommittee next week in Washington. The State of Utah supports H.R. 17 45. This legislation reflects 

the state's commitment to a balanced strategy for protection of the 

public lands. That balance is reflected in the fact that there are 

outspoken critics of this legislation on both sides, as you heard yes- terday, and as you will hear and have heard again already today. 

But I will again reiterate that H.R. 17 45 is an honest approach 

to wilderness. It recognizes that the definition of wilderness contained in the Wilderness Act of 1964 endures as the standard for 

determining what lands should be designated wilderness. 

H.R. 17 45 proposes for wilderness protection the 1.8 million acres 

which constitute the crown jewels of wild and pristine areas in the 

state. We have focused on those areas that are most startling in 

their geographic character, and through the judicious use of cherry- stemming and crafting of boundaries, attempted to exclude evidence of man and keep areas manageable. 

In contrast, and with all due respect to you, Congressman Hinchey, we believe that H.R. 1500 would forever corrupt the concept of wilderness. The intrusions of man in H.R. 1500 lands are 

massive. By the admission of supporters of H.R. 1500 themselves, 

the lands they want designated as wilderness are laced with miles 

and miles of roads, reservoirs, railroad tunnels, drill pads, landing strips, telephone lines, water lines, fences, chainings, mines, 

cablecar systems, et cetera. And all this information is found in the 

book that you can buy for $20.00 outside as you leave today if you do not have one already. There are areas in the northwest part of 

the state that lie adjacent to bombing ranges known for low level 

bombing runs. Such lands, though deserving of special protection in many instances, are not wilderness. 

I will gladly match my personal commitment to wilderness protection against that of anyone. One of the things that I am most 

proud of in my public life is the fact that I played a small role in 

the passage of the 1984 Rare II Wilderness Bill. As I have traveled 

the state with my family the last ten years, I have pointed out to 

my kids over and over again, ad nauseam, the areas that were designated wilderness by that Act. 

There are frankly many of us who are disturbed to have the concept of wilderness defiled and debased in the manner that we believe H.R. 1500 will. And what is most troubling to me is the fact 

that it is absolutely unnecessary to corrupt the concept of wilderness contained in the 1964 Act. 
220 

At the time that the 1964 Act was passed, wilderness was the 

only way to protect the public lands. Since 1964, law after law has 

been passed by Congress to provide the means to protect those 

lands. Those Federal acts include: 

NEPA; FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

which passed in 1966 and ended the right to establish R.S. 2477 

rights of way, to make homestead entries and made it more difficult to locate and work mining claims; SMCRA, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, by which under Federal law and 

state primacy, any mining operation in the State of Utah is regulated, reclamation bonds, reclamation plans have to be in place and 

frankly most western states do an awfully good job of that; the Endangered Species Act, which by the way is the answer to the question asked by witness Terry Tempest Williams yesterday in a reference to the biological assessment conducted by proponents of 

H.R. 17 45. The Wilderness Act of 1964 does not even contain the 

word "biology" or ''biological." The Endangered Species Act passed 

in 1973 is a Federal law designed to deal with protection of habitats of plant and animal species, not the Wilderness Act. The Clean 

Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wild and Scenic River Act; ail 

of which laws contain authority to affect the use of and to provide 

protection for the public lands. 

Rather than forever corrupt the concept of wilderness by designating four million acres that do not meet the criteria in the 1964 

Act, would it not be more prudent to rely up on those legislative 

powers to protect lands worthy of preservation? 

Proponents of H.R. 1500 state that the above referenced evidence 

of man's intrusion can be ignored because they are in the process 

of "returning to a natural state." Congressman Hinchey, you yourself made that statement in yesterday's hearing. Please tell me, if 

all such lands are returning to their natural state, does that not 

completely undermine the argument voiced over and over and ove'r 

again by H.R. 1500 proponents that, "once it is gone, it is gone forever." You cannot have it both ways. If you admit the impacts of 

man are erased by Mother Nature given time, then what is the justification to protect it as wilderness in the first place? If your rElsponse is that once man has impacted the land, it can never again 

qualify as wilderness, how can you justify the designation as wilderness the lands impacted by man in the ways admitted by H.R 

1500 proponents? 

The image conjured up and repeated so enthusiastically by proponents of H.R. 1500 that failure to designate lands as wilderness 

dooms them to unregulated abuse and desecration is quite frankly 

nonsense. The notion that thousands of bulldozers are lining up to 

advance on unprotected BLM lands is bunk. the Federal laws I 

have cited, backed by growing public sensitivity to preservation of 

the public lands, provide all the protection such lands need. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, H.R. 17 45 is a 

true wilderness bill. It protects as wilderness all the crown jewels 

of Utah's wild areas and the finest examples of each of the state''s 

unique ecosystems-high mountain ranges, river canyons and red 

rock desert. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it ensures that wilderness will continue to have a unique and singular 
221 

connotation to the people of this state and nation. That is of 

uncalculable value in my mind. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. [Applause and verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Gill. 

Ruland has recently had surgery and we really appreciate your patience. Why do you not give us your statement and we will excuse you at that point if that is OK 

STATEMENT OF RULAND J. GILL, JR., CHAIR, BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GILL. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. The floor is yours for five minutes. 

Mr. GILL. Thank lou, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Ruland Gill, am the recently elected Chair of the Board of 

Trustees for School and Institutional Trust Lands and I am speak- ing today on behalf of the fiduciary-- Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, Mr. Gill. Can you folks hear Mr. Gill? 

VOICES. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Pull that mic up. Mr. HANSEN. Could you pull that mic a little closer to your face, 

sir, please? 

Mr. GILL. Thank you. I am Ruland Gill, I am here speaking on 

behalf of the fiduciaries for the school trust lands. 

We have taken quite a sophisticated business view of these trust 

lands, and we have come to several conclusions. One, we needed 

the best advice from appraisers across the nation, which we have. 

We have hired and have under contract some of the best attorneys and appraisers available to help us. From that, we have concluded 

that: 

1. You have to deal with valid existing rights as they exist in the 

wilderness areas. 

2. An exchange of the school trust lands out of wilderness is the 

best for both sides. 

3. It has to be fair for both sides to make it work. 

One of the things that we have looked at in terms of these lands 

is the difficulty we are having placing values on lands that were 

taken off the market effectively some dozen years ago. As an analogy, we looked at some-say that for example, any of you owned 

some land, a large parcel, and around it was zoned land that was 

out of use. Prior to that zoning, you had mineral and mining and 

other leases and uses on that land but because of that zoning, not 

on your land but around your land, your land became effectively unusable. And then the entity that did the zoning comes in some 

dozen years later and says it wants to buy your land and it will 

buy it solely at the surface value. That has caused us a great deal 

of alarm as managers for these school kids. 

The board supports a framework for approximately equivalent value. We do not think you can come up with the kind of values 

for our lands that are necessary on purely a cold and hard ap- praisal basis. The bill must recognize that there are valid existing rights on about 12 percent of the wilderness land on whatever size 
222 

wilderness you decide. And the trust lands are, in effect, these 

valid existing rights. And those valid existing rights for trust lands 

go across the full multiple use. Now I would hope that we would 

not have to try and manage those lands inside a wilderness and 

we think it would be very difficult for the Federal Government to 

manage those lands as well, to manage around those lands and to 

provide the access that the law allows. 

We do have a right to seek gain on those lands. Now I would per- sonally hope that we never had anything inside a wilderness area 

that was any different than what we had inside a national park. But I would hate to see a Teton Lake Lodge inside one of your wilderness areas. But because of the constitutional and statutory requirements on us as a board, we may have no choice. 

You must let the children's lands be used or be traded. That is 

really the only choices we have. We can allow the opportunity that 

we have to stay in the wilderness, or we can move that opportunity elsewhere, i.e., an exchange, or we can retain those lands somewhere else for the long-term. One of the things that you will have to look at is the worth of 

these lands. Some automatic statements appear when you talk 

about value. There is no value to the trust lands. One of my environmental friends said these are worthless grazing lands. On the 

other hand, the Federal lands, because they are subject to being leasable right now, are valuable. I would remind the panel, if I 

might, that all the lands, both the lands that are being exchanged, the school trust lands, and the lands-the Federal lands that are 

subject to being exchanged, offered for exchange-have and are 

subject to mineral leasing and mineral leases-all of them. 

Also, I would ask you to consider that the Federal lands may or 

may not be developed. Whatever development may occur on those 

for the benefit of these children is only speculative at this time. 

And another thing I would ask you to consider, the Federal mineral interests that are being offered for exchange are only subject 

to half going to the Federal Government. Half of it goes to the 

State of Utah, not the children of Utah. So what the trust is offering is roughly 200,000 acres, pardon me, of mineral interests for 

approximately 100,000 acres of Federal mineral interest. In contrast, the state acquires only the opportunity at some future time 

to develop. What the Federal Government obtains is the present immediate right to occupy and use those lands for Federal purposes. 

In conclusion, I would say that my time is up, thank you. Mr. HANSEN. Ruland, you are welcome to stay or go, whatever 

is best for you. 

Mr. GILL. I need to leave, if I could. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for coming, we appreciate it. 

Mr. GILL. If you have questions, there will be some folks at the 

Washington hearing that can address those. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much, we do appreciate you coming by, that is very kind of you. We are honored to have the Speaker of the House with us. It is 

a personal honor to have you here, Mr. Speaker, and we will turn 

the time to you, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Gill may be found at end of hearing.] 
223 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELVIN R. BROWN, SPEAKER, UTAH 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

It is an honor as Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives 

to appear at this hearing and represent the position taken by the 

Legislature on the subject of wilderness designation in Utah. 

The Legislature of the State of Utah has taken a position twice 

in recent years on wilderness designation. First, H.C.R. 13 by former state representative David M. Adams and others was adopt- ed by both houses of the Legislature in 1991. I will just read one 

paragraph from this resolution: 

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature of the State 

of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, recommend that Congress enact, at the earliest practical opportunity, a fair and equi- table Utah wilderness bill designating no more than 1.4 million 

acres as wilderness, taking into account not only the protection of 

Utah's natural beauty but also Utah's people and economic future." 

The 51st Legislature of the State of Utah took up the issue of 

wilderness designation again in 1995 and passed House Concurrent 

Resolution 12, Resolution Supporting Wilderness Designation by Representative Bradly Johnson. Sixty-two members of the House 

voted in favor, six voted in opposition, and the resolution passed the Utah Senate by a vote of 27 to 0. Two paragraphs from that 

Resolution: 

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature of the State 

of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, encourage Congress to 

enact at the earliest possible opportunity a fair and equitable Utah 

wilderness bill regarding BLM lands, with the Legislature's and 

Governor's support of the bill contingent upon it containing the following provisions:" The one provision to mention today is "that any BLM lands designated as wilderness must meet the legal definition of wilderness 

lands as contained in the 1964 Wilderness Act." 

The summary paragraph says this: 

"Be it further resolved that the Legislature and the Governor 

conclude that elected county officials, after extensive public input, should develop the wilderness proposals and the conditions for acceptable designation of wilderness lands within their respective counties, with the aggregate of these respective county recommendations constituting the basis of the state proposal for BLM 

wilderness designation in Utah." 

The Legislature of the State of Utah has gone on public record 

in support of wilderness designation within the parameters laid out 

in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Philosophically, the mere existence of federally owned public land 

in Utah is troubling. Such designation violates at least in spirit if 

not in fact what has become known as the equal footing doctrine. 

Public land designation curtails the rights of states to manage not 

only its land, but to a degree its destiny; and public land designa- tion eventually impacts the right of property ownership of the citizens of the State of Utah. 

It has been our sad experience that there has been grievous impositions placed upon the citizens of the state who have for genera-
224 

tions made their living from the land, as a result of burdensome 

regulations. Wilderness designation, with its accompanying baggage of regulation, entanglements and policies, will only accentuate 

and aggravate their ability to continue working the land to their 

benefit. Every time the government has acted in this very sensitive 

area of public policy, part of our culture has died. 

[Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. BROWN. Our economic environment has become more clouded 

and less secure and our communities have felt the stress of helplessness and uncertainty. The resolution now before the Committee enacts the acreage recommended by the counties, and thus this portion of the bill offends 

the intent of the Utah Legislature as expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 12. 

We find the other parts of the bill acceptable. 

There is a particular sensitivity on my part to the protection of 

the school trust lands in holding, not only in the wilderness designated areas but all in-holdings within the Federal lands system. 

One hundred years is long enough. 

We in Utah are responsible contributors to our state and national community. We love the land on which we derive our maintenance. We recognize and appreciate and respect the delicate environmental balance that must be addressed in order to preserve the 

economic vitality and beauty of our state. We are up to the task, 

and are willing and abundantly able. We do not want to become 

minions to the whims and fancies of the Federal bureaucracy flood 

of programs, policies and procedures. Our desire is to maintain the 

integrity of our sovereignty and control over our destiny as a state. 

It is time to come out of the wilderness on wilderness and act 

responsibly as servants of the people. Our citizens most impacted by the various wilderness designation proposals have been languishing in economic and social uncertainty far too long. We owe 

it to them to act in their interest and the interest of their children 

who will ultimately inherit the legacy of our action. 

We encourage the Congress of the United States to resolve the 

issue of wilderness designation in Utah. The issue has been and 

continues to be hotly contested and divisive; yet the quality of our 

lives, our culture, our communities and our families deserve to see 

this process culminated. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

[Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, you in your comments alluded to two 

resolutions that were passed by two different sessions. I do not 

know if we have a copy of those. 

Mr. BROWN. They are in the body of the written text. 

Mr. HANSEN. Fine, we would appreciate having a copy of those. Thank you for your comments, we appreciate it. 

Commissioner Ty Lewis, we recognize you for five minutes. 

[The statement of Mr. Brown may be found at end of hearing.] 
225 

STATEMENT OF TY LEWIS, CHAmMAN, SAN JUAN COUNTY 

COMMISSION 

Mr. LEWIS. My name is Ty Lewis, I am Chairman of the San 

Juan County Commission and also Chairman of the Utah Association of County Commissioners and County Councils. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee and hope that the 

ideas and issues we present will be of some benefit. 

As many of you know, the issue of wilderness has been divisive 

in our state for a long time. We agree with our delegation that it 

is time this issue be brought to closure. In doing so, however, it is 

important that you understand why we have concerns. 

A few years ago, a grazing allotment in our county managed by 

the Ute White Mesa Cattle Company and being managed under the 

wilderness interim management policy of the Bureau of Land Management came under attack. The initial issue was whether or not 

there was enough forage within the allotment to sustain the number of cattle allotted. It very quickly narrowed to whether or not 

grazing should be allowed in four small canyons that were used by 

backpackers seeking a wilderness experience. Again, keep in mind 

that three of the canyons in question are within the boundaries of 

the three wilderness study areas, and the fourth canyon is within 

an area that the environmental community would like to have in 

wilderness. It was clear from the onset environmentalists were not interested 

in the management of grazing within the allotment, but rather in 

the elimination of grazing from the canyons they wanted, and used 

the grazing and interim management policies of the managing 

agency to facilitate their position. 

The Bureau of Land Management offered to resolve the issues 

through two methods, one being a Coordinated Resource Management Plan, the other within the confines of the Resource Management Plan. Neither of these plans were acceptable to the environmentalists and a lengthy court battle ensued, the results of which 

ended up in a decision that was tenuous and did not bear any resemblance to testimony of many, many experts. Rather, it reflected 

the personal bias of an administrative law judge. The case has 

been appealed to the Interior Board of Appeals and is awaiting further review. The point being if the legislation presented in the Utah wilderness bill is not clear and concise in nature, further decisions will 

be left to agencies and the courts to determine the intent of Congress. We do not think this is wise. In that spirit, we, as responsible county officials and members of 

the Utah Coalition have attempted to draft some wording that we 

believe reflects both the spirit and the letter of the Wilderness Act, 

if initiated, will lessen the need for interpretation by a legal system, where neither resource principle nor law is well understood by 

many who are called on to interpret them. 

Specifically, I would like to call your attention to several of these: 

1. Wilderness designation should not reflect unnecessary exceptions to the Wilderness Act. Exceptions create management problems for the public and land managers alike. It would seem that 

if too many exceptions need to be in place to designate an area as 

wilderness, then it logically follows that it really does not meet ei-
226 

ther the letter or the spirit of the law, and therefore should not be 

designated. 

2. Manageability. The issue is critical, not only to counties, but 

should also be important to the agencies that manage wilderness. 

If boundaries are not delineated reflecting relatively simple management with existing personnel, then wilderness management will 

become a nightmare. 

3. It is important to the 14 wilderness counties that the delega- tion and Governor follow the process they outlined to the counties. 

The intent was that areas recommended meet the spirit and letter 

of the law. We have tried very hard to follow that process and exhort you to do so as well. 

4. It is important that primacy be recognized when dealing with 

water and water-related issues. This includes both upstream, within and downstream from designated wilderness. 

5. Air quality should reflect the current situation, even if the law 

is changed. 

6. Release language should be hard and final. The inventory has 

been done by the agency, and those areas that have not been designated, should now and forever remain open to the operation of 

the public land laws. 

7. We believe that cherry stemming is a violation of the spirit and letter of the law. It specifically says in the law that wilderness 

areas will be devoid of roads. 

8. In relation to grazing, wilderness should not be a factor in determining whether an area is suitable for grazing, and not allowed 

as a factor in allotment adjudication. 9. State and Federal PILT and mineral lease moneys are important to the survival of rural communities, especially where the 

lands are captured by wilderness. We believe that a process to compensate state and local governments needs to be addressed in the 

wilderness bill for Utah. 

10. Mining, as it relates to wilderness, should follow the letter 

of the law as well, which states that impairment to wilderness can 

occur so long as logical progression occurs for the mining unit. 

11. Public safety concerns those of us in wilderness counties. It 

is expensive and as more and more people come to the federally designated wilderness areas, the burden on local taxpayers becomes increasingly stressful. We believe that moneys other than 

PILT should be given to counties to deal with rescues in these remote areas. In the same context, other members of the traveling public could come to view these specially designated areas, cause 

sanitation problems and other social burdens that need to be dealt 

with. 

12. Past land uses and use patterns also need to be considered. 

Even though these are arid lands, they are important because of 

their economic values. Case in point is the largest oil field in the 

State of Utah, the Aneth oil field. This field is probably in the most 

arid part of the State of Utah. 

Many other issues relating to wilderness are being included in a 

mock up version of the existing bill and has or will be presented 

to you. 

Thank you for your time, and hopefully you will consider some 

of the ideas that we have expressed in our testimony. 
227 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner, we appreciate your testimony. 

Commissioner Gayle Stevenson, Chairman of the Davis County 

Commission. 

STATEMENT OF GAYLE A. STEVENSON, CHAIRMAN, DAVIS 

COUNTY COMMISSION 

Mr. STEVENSON. I appreciate being invited to testify before you 

today. My name is Gayle Stevenson, I am Chairman of the Davis 

County Commission and also President of the Utah Association of 

Counties. Davis County is unaffected by the Bureau of Land Management wilderness proposal. I would like to have told Congressman Orton, however, that Ted Stewart has 650 head of free roaming buffalo on Antelope Island, but he is gone and I will not say 

that. 

Mr. HANSEN. I will tell him for you, Gayle. 

Mr. STEVENSON. OK, thank you. 

It is, however, in my capacity as President of the Utah Association of Counties that I offer this testimony. 

As you know, the counties in Utah have long been involved in 

the wilderness issue. Wilderness is a public policy decision which 

not only affects local economies, but which has long-term effects on 

families whose livelihood is tied to land use. Further, wilderness is 

a public policy issue which is never really settled. Once we complete this BLM wilderness process, we will be facing recommendations from the Forest Service for further additions to the wilderness system enacted on forest lands in 1984. Wilderness never goes 

away and this controversial issue never seems to finally be resolved. 

Because we are a public land state-with nearly 70 percent of 

the land base owned by the Federal Government and another nearly eight percent owned by the state but managed under the Congressionally mandated Utah Enabling Act, we must be certain that 

what we do here is truly in the best interests of the majority and 

not just a very vocal well-organized minority. 

[Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. STEVENSON. The BLM wilderness proposals have been in 

WSA status for about ten years. It is time to settle this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, you and the other members of the Congressional 

delegation and the Governor tasked the 14 affected counties in 

Utah to develop the wilderness recommendations for their counties. 

You challenged them to conduct an open process in which anyone 

and everyone who wanted to be heard on any aspect of wilderness 

within each of these counties would be heard. Public hearings were 

to be held. You told the elected county officials that the recommendations which they make for lands to be designated as wilderness had to meet the legal definition of wilderness as contained 

in the 1964 Wilderness Act. The county process was to be completed by April 1. 

I want you to know that the county officials took your charge to 

them seriously and complied with it to the letter. Their recommendations were made on March 29 and the ball then shifted 

to your arena. 
228 

The product which you and the other members of the delega- tion-except for Congressman Orton-have introduced does not 

enjoy the support of the affected counties. We believe that the 

standard we used-that is, compliance with the 1964 Wilderness 

Act-is not the same standard used for adding lands to the county recommendations. 

We are disappointed that some of the sections in this bill relating to management of these lands after designation is not stronger and 

does not comport with assurances previously given. The affected counties have submitted to you recommendations f<>r 

modification to the management sections of this bill which we find 

inadequate. To this statement, I have also attached those recommended changes and would ask that they be included in the 

record. 

In the interest of time, I would like to point out two of these sections which need improvement to make this bill acceptable to the 

affected local governments. 

On page 16, at the beginning of line 16, the section relating to 

the prohibition of buffer zones causes us concern. This language appears to be the language that has been part of nearly every wilderness bill since 1980. At any rate, it is exactly the same language that appears in the Washington State legislation which proved inadequate when in 1993 the Federal district court in Washington State ignored it and upheld the closure of several roads of the 

Wenatchee National Forest because they were close to a wilderness 

area and the noise could be heard inside the wilderness. The Ninth 

Circuit upheld this ruling on appeal last year. This buffer zone language does not prohibit nor protect us against a creation of buffer 

zones. 

Again, we have submitted language for your consideration which 

does what you and we intend, and that is to prohibit the creation 

of buffer zones in part or in whole around designated wilderness. 

The second area of concern I will comment on relates to the section on roads. To begin, we find it amazing that this 2-1/2 page section even appears in a wilderness bill, since wilderness is sup- posed to be, by definition, roadless. Is the intent of this section to 

change the required characteristics of- wilderness from that pro- vided for in the Wilderness Act? 

We believe this language, as it appears in this bill, may not adequately recognize and account for the prior existing rights granted under R.S. 2477. Many counties in this state have filed quiet-title actions on roads claimed under the R.S. 2477 grant. Language in 

this section may undermine those legal efforts to acquire title to 

these rights-of-way. Language which we submit to you will, we bl~­

lieve, protect these rights-of-way when impacted by wilderness designation. 

I appreciate being invited to present this statement on behalf of 

the affected wilderness counties in Utah and also the Utah Association of Counties. Our desire is to work cooperatively with you to 

make this bill reflect our unique way of life in Utah, which has 

been carefully crafted with a very heavy Federal presence all 

around us. We appreciate your efforts to bring this very contentious wilderness issue to resolution. 
229 

And I am reminded of one final statement which says "In controversial matters, my perception is rather fine, I always see both 

points of view, the one that is wrong, and mine." 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The revisions to draft Utah wilderness legislation submitted by 

Mr. Stevenson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony, we appreciate the 

comments of this panel. We will now open it up for questions from 

members of the Committee to members of the panel. I am going to 

give each member of the Committee five minutes to ask questions. 

We will start with the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Speaker 

being here. I served in my Legislature for six years before, so I always tip my hat to those that do that service and are so close to 

the people. 

One of the things I wanted to say to the panel generally was that 

I regret that wilderness designation and land classification as such 

has become sort of the scapegoat for a lot of lack of communication 

between the Federal Government and local communities. I think 

that is something we have to work on rectifying. I think reducing 

Federal employees and presence is probably not the answer. In 

fact, I think that has contributed greatly to it. In any case, I think the problem is that the de facto management 

of lands is changing radically. And it is not necessary, but I think 

we are going to have classification and claims made on the land 

and obviously the way we do wilderness is by bringing them to 

Washington. Unfortunately, other laws that are vestiges of the 

19th century make their claims in other ways. That is evident 

through water appropriation or water permit, through mineral appropriation, through the whole laundry list of activities. And of 

course, sometimes with BLM lands, it is simply through public purpose and park use or absorption by a local community. Maybe it 

is for something worthy in Washington County like a golf course, 

in their view, but it may be that others take a different view of 

that. That does not give us an overall view of what we have to do, 

and I think what we need to do is come together and put all of this 

on the table and look at it. I think sometimes we are doing this 

in a singular way and not doing it in a collective way in terms of 

getting all of the issues on the table from a planning standpoint. 

But I think we have got to recognize in southern Utah, more 

than in any other place, general public domain lands look like 

parks. I was outside of Zion, and I could not tell where the park 

ended and the general BLM lands began. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. VENTO. The issue, of course, of what its condition is for wilderness, Mr. Stewart, is an issue we are going to have to agree to 

disagree on, because in one instance you suggest that these lands 

are close to the 1964 Act in terms of stringent requirements for wilderness, but then in the bill that we have and that you propose and 

support and are speaking for the Governor today, you support all 

sorts of exceptions that would undo what is admittedly--

[Applause and verbal expressions from the audience.] 
230 

Mr. VENTO. You know, it is one thing to talk about bending the 

rules for putting something into wilderness. But it is another thing 

to then claim something is wilderness without question, and then 

destroy it. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. STEWART. May I respond? 

Mr. VENTO. That is the direction you are giving to the BLM Managers. You can criticize the BLM manager, you are telling him to 

do things here, and I know from reading this and from 20 years 

experience trying to work with land management what the consequences of these particular instructions are going to be. 

Now you said yesterday that the State of Utah recognizes-and 

I am going to ask you, does the State of Utah recognize wilderness 

as a beneficial use for the purpose of BLM securing a water right 

for wilderness? 

Mr. STEWART. No, that is not yet law. 

Mr. VENTO. It does not. So in other words, the answer is no, that 

wilderness per se, could not acquire a water right. 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. You say you are for this type of wilderness, but if 

the wilderness gets dewatered, the very qualities that we are talking about would be destroyed, would they not? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I must say in response to the way 

the audience is responding to us--

[Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. STEWART. If I may, I take great comfort in the fact that 

when Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt was here last, the same 

people treated him the same way, and so that tells you a little bit 

about who is in the mainstream and who is not here. 

[Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HANSEN. We will be in order. 

Mr. STEWART. In reference to your first point, Congressman, I 

would gladly sit down with your staff or anyone and show you precedents in any other BLM, Forest Service or in the 1964 Wilderness Act itself to justify our special language. 

Mr. VENTO. OK 

Mr. STEWART. On the second point, reserved water rights, we 

have in the State of Utah, a right that resides in the Division of 

State Parks and Recreation and the Division of Wildlife Resources 

for an instream flow as a beneficial use. Last fall, we designated--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes of my 

time--

Mr. VENTO. No, that is all right, I have got time. 

Mr. STEWART. Last fall, we designated the San Rafael River, 82 

miles of it, as an instream flow to the Division of Wildlife Resources. If somebody wants to come to us and under the state process allege that a wilderness area is at risk because of dewatering, 

which I do not think will happen, but if it was to be done, we would 

gladly work with them to establish an instream flow, if it met all 

the other requirements, as we did 82 miles of the San Rafael River 

last year. 
231 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I would be concerned about all the fauna and 

flora and I would say that with regards to exceptions that are put 

in this bill that they exist someplace else, but if you collect every 

bad idea and put it into here, it obviously makes a much weaker 

bill. 

And the problem with instituting new policies or precedents is 

that they then qualify the 1964 Act even more, so we really lose 

the essence of what we are trying to protect in terms of wilderness. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the members of the 

panel for their testimony. I just have one question of Mr. Stewartwe meet again. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. from yesterday's hearing. 

You said that H.R. 1500 will corrupt the concept of wilderness. 

That is pretty strong words. Can you elaborate on this? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEWART. Gladly. If you were to look at the legislative history of the 1964 Act, which I have done, you would see with great 

vigor what was perceived to be wilderness in 1964 were lands that 

were pristine, they were primeval and so on. 

If you recall the discussion yesterday about the reserved lands, 

Forest Service, Park lands, et cetera, et cetera, and the BLM lands 

was. everything else. The corruption of the Wilderness Act occurs 

when you start putting in lands that are, as I indicated, laced with 

all these man's intrusions, and I believe that it would forever make 

a mockery of the idea that these lands are special, that they are 

primeval, that they are virgin. And those are the words that were 

used by Senator Frank Church, by Senator Clinton Anderson of 

New Mexico, and the others who were the proponents of the 1964 

Act. 

I just do not think that it is fair to use wilderness as a tool to 

accomplish something else; i.e., do away with grazing, stop a mining project you do not like, and so on. And that is what I believe 

is being done by H.R. 1500. It is not to protect lands, it is being 

used as a tool. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I gladly yield. 

Mr. VENTO. I do not think that is being done by it. The problem 

is we have not changed many other laws that do affect those BLM 

and Forest Service lands. I just would reiterate that I do not think 

there is any intention to eliminate grazing or wilderness. But on 

the other hand, I do not think that the bill that we have should 

enshrine grazing permanently and make what is a permitted activity into something that is unchangeable. And I think all of us recognize that it is an evolutionary process, as we get more information we have got to integrate that into public policy. That is the 

challenge that we face at the state level and the Federal level. And 

it is tough to do. 

Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
232 

[Applause.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the members 

of the panel. I too want to express my particular appreciation to 

the Speaker of the House. I served in the House in New York for 

18 years and I know what Speakers can do. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. So I want to pay you particular deference, Mr. 

Speaker. Mr. Stewart, you compare yourself to Bruce Babbitt, but I know 

Bruce Babbitt. 

[Laughter and applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Stewart. H.R. 1745 

allows for the development of certain kinds of activities-reservoirs, transmission lines and other facilities-in four designated wilderness areas as well as the development of a pipeline in another designated wilderness area. Are there any existing, valid 

rights to that kind of development of wilderness areas currently? Mr. STEWART. Within those four areas? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Mr. STEWART. I believe in some, yes, and I would point out, Congressman, that that language you just referred to comes directly from the 1964 Wilderness Act, with the exception that we took out 

the ability to develop power. We did not think that was justified, but the water, we dia, and it comes directly from the Act. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So you are telling me that these developments have a valid, existing right-the developers have a valid, existing right to develop these projects on public lands? 

Mr. STEWART. I believe that there are within those four areas 

valid, existing rights which could be exercised under state law 

and--

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, specifically it says, "Nothing in this Act shall 

be construed to prohibit the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water conservation works, transmission lines and other facilities in Cougar Mountain Wilderness, Red Mountain Wilderness, Parunuweap Canyon Wilderness, Canaan Mountain Wilderness." 

Are there specific valid, existing rights for those developments? Mr. STEWART. Congressman, I believe that there are and absent 

wilderness, they would be allowed to progress to fruition. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I would appreciate it if you would show me 

those. 

Mr. STEWART. We will be glad to, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Appreciate that. 

You talk about the fact that wilderness ought not to be designated for a variety of reasons; one of which is that you say that 

there are some wilderness areas which would be designated that 

are near bombing runs. Well, I think the appropriate response to 

that is to simply stop the bombing runs. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Vento points out to me that the bill that you 

are supporting even puts in specific language for military 
233 

overflights. If you are concerned about existing bombing runs, why 

are you supporting legislation which would establish even more 

overflights for additional bombing runs? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. STEWART. Congressman, thank you for validating my point, 

that wilderness in this case is being used not to protect wilderness, 

but for another purpose. And I do not think the ending of bombing 

runs in the West Desert of Utah is a legitimate purpose for a wilderness bill. 

Mr. HINCHEY. No, you got it the other way around. What you do, 

Mr. Stewart, is you twist the things the other way around. What 

we are talking about is the existence of these areas, and the need 

to protect them in the wilderness category. The fact of the matter 

is that just because there is some bombing activity going on, which 

has some relationship to a different era, does not mean that we 

ought not to be looking to the future to protect and preserve those 

lands, rather than protecting an activity which has no relevance in 

today's world. That is the point. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. You also claim that we need to take some protection in the existence of certain national environmental laws. And 

I think that those environmental laws are very appropriate and 

very good and they have all served very good purposes. But if you 

are telling us that we ought not to be thinking about wilderness 

designation because of the existence of those laws, I need to tell 

you that the Congress of the United States is currently attacking 

each and every one of those laws. And I take no comfort whatsoever in the ability of those laws to sustain themselves against the 

kind of attack that they are experiencing currently. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. And I would not be surprised if you support that 

attack, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Congressman, if I may, going back to the bombing 

runs. You know, many people in the State of Utah just dedicated 

thousands and thousands of hours of their lives to preserve the existence of Hill Air Force Base and you here are arguing for an activity that would end the ability of Hill Air Force Base to survive. 

[Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. No, you misunderstand me, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. I guess I must, I am sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. HINCHEY. What I am arguing for-and I know that you 

would love to put words in my mouth, but you are not going to get 

away with that. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. What I am arguing for is for us to be cognizant 

of the fact that we are living in 1995, not 1945. What I am arguing 

for is the protection of these valuable lands and what I am arguing 

for is an Air Force that is relevant to today's needs, not the needs 

of several generations ago. 

Mr. STEWART. I do not want to argue military with you, but your 

second point was--

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you. 
234 

Mr. STEWART [continuing]. may I again emphasize that I believe 

in the bill that we support, the State of Utah supports, the crown 

jewels of wilderness are protected. [Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will be in order. No more outbursts. 

Go ahead. 

The time of the gentleman has expired. Look, we have got another two panels to go here. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. [Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Stewart, would you stay here just one moment, please? 

You worked on the 1984 Wilderness Bill, you are the Director of 

this area, you have served very ably as a very competent attorney in this particular area-let me ask you, you have seen a lot of 

these laws before-is it not true that we have things like, is there 

a buffer zone provision in the 1964 Wilderness Act? 

Mr. STEWART. In the 1984 Wilderness Act? Yes, there is. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you this-is it true that you can have 

livestock grazing on the ground? 

Mr. STEWART. Both under the 1984 Act and the 1964 Act. 

Mr. HANSEN. And is it not true that you can have existing conditions such as called for in this bill, H.R. 17 45, as far as anything like power lines, water lines, things such as that, is that not true? 

Mr. STEWART. It is all provided for in the 1964 Act. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have been part of a number of wilderness bills 

and every one of them is almost identical to this. I will name those 

bills-the 1984 Wilderness Act here, the Wilderness Act we did for 

Dick Cheney in Wyoming, the Wilderness Act we did for Bob 

Stump in Arizona, the Wilderness Act that we did just recently in 

California last year that Mr. Vento and I went head-to-head on a 

number of times. All of those have these same provisions that have 

been brought up here. 

Now let us go to military overflight. Is there anything in the 

1964 Act that says anything about military aircraft flying over wilderness areas? 

Mr. STEWART. Not to my knowledge. Mr. HANSEN. There is nothing in it. This has been a uselesswell, anyway let me go on with this. [Verbal expressions from the audience.] 

Mr. HANSEN. This Committee will continue, and if we are going 

to have further outbursts, we will just adjourn. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate you being here, we appreciate your 

comments. Your 104 legislators represent everybody in the State of 

Utah, is that correct? 

Mr. BROWN. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. You were elected by the majority and that is why 

you are there, is that right? 

Mr. BROWN. True. 

Mr. HANSEN. And in this Resolution, what were those again, how 

many people voted in the Legislature in favor of those things? Mr. BROWN. In the Resolution that passed this year, the 1995 

Resolution, there were 62 of the 75 members of the House voted 
235 

in favor of the Bill with six in opposition, some obviously were absent. In a 29 member Senate body, 27 of the Senators voted in 

favor of the Resolution, zero in opposition with two absent. 

Mr. HANSEN. So Mr. Speaker, what you people, who represent 

everybody in the State of Utah have said to us, you do not agree 

with H.R. 1745, you really are saying it is too much, is that right? 

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely. We believe that the language which has 

been debated here the last few minutes about what should and 

should not be contained in the bill is favorable, because we believe 

it is consistent with 1964. We believe that the acreage designation 

exceeds what the legislature would recommend. 

Mr. HANSEN. There are two county commissioners who are with 

us, do both of you agree with the Speaker of the House, that H.R. 

17 45 has too much in it? 

[Messrs. Lewis and Stevenson nodded affirmatively.] 

Mr. HANSEN. And you represent-Mr. Stevenson, as the Chairman of the Utah County Commissioners, President of it, the county 

commissioners are on record as opposing this, is that right? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Where are you on H.R. 1500 then? 

Mr. STEVENSON. A little ways away. 

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate that, appreciate your comments. One 

of you made some statements on R.S. 2477 roads. Was that you, 

Mr. Stevenson? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Right. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you reiterate that again, please? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Well, we are concerned about the designation of 

roads at all, because technically we have presently an attorney who 

has been with testimony in Washington already, with regard to 

those rights of ways and filing of those rights of ways and we are 

concerned that there will be an effect made on that designation. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate the panel. Thank you for 

being here, you have been very polite and very courteous and I appreciate that. You are dismissed and we will now turn to the next 

panel. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. This panel is composed of Ken Sleight of Moab, 

Utah; Ted Wilson, Director of Hinckley Institute of Public Policy; 

William Smart, past Editor of the Deseret News; Alan Kimball of 

Salt Lake City, Utah and we have with us our former colleague, 

Karen Shepherd. We would like to give her a minute or two if no 

one objects, at the end. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. We will start out with Mr. Sleight of Moab, Utah. 

You all know the rules. When you see the green light go on-a lot 

of people have thought we are in the dark around here-Mr. 

Sleight and the rest of you, when you see the green light on, go 

ahead, you have got five minutes; the yellow light tells you to wrap 

up and the red light means to stop. If you go over a little bit, I 

surely understand, you will notice we have let other people do that. 

Mr. Sleight, we appreciate you being here and we will turn the 

time to you, sir. 
236 

STATEMENT OF KEN SLEIGHT, PACK CREEK RANCH, MOAB, 

UTAH 

Mr. SLEIGHT. Chairman Hansen, members of the Committee--· 

Mr. HANSEN. Hold on just a minute, they tell us it is dark or 

nothing. What would be your choice? 

VOICES. Light. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, we will go ahead. Mr. Sleight, I am sorry. 

Mr. SLEIGHT. There has been a lot of expert testimony here today 

and I need to take just a few moments to strive to establish myself 

as an expert witness. I have been fortunate that I have had the op·· 

portunity to enjoy the wilderness lands of the canyon country for 

much of my life. My guiding profession has taken me down rivers, 

the Green and the Colorado, many times, San Juan; it has taken 

me hiking, and by horseback, into the various canyons, and many 

of the canyon areas now under study I have been to, I have taken 

groups in there from all over America. 

I hold or have held permits and concessions in Canyonlands, Di·· 

nosaur, Arches, Grand Canyon and in Glen Canyon. I also hold 

permits on lands administered by the Forest Service and the BLM. 

I have led trips into many areas of the San Rafael, the High 

Uintas, Zion, Dark Canyon, Cedar Mesa, Beef Basin, the LaSa:l 

Mountains, the Blue Mountains, Elk Ridge, the Hole-in-the-Rock 

trail, the Escalante country and a host of others. And we continUE! 

to hold a concession permit in Glen Canyon under the name of 

Lake Powell Tours. I have held permits there since before the con· 

struction of the dam. 

At present, my wife and I own and operate Pack Creek Ranch, 

a guest ranch and country inn on the LaSal Mountain drainage. 

We also hold permits from the BLM and the Forest Service at that 

point. 

In addition, I have spent my life in agricultural pursuits and 

businesses, the planting of pastures, harvesting of crops, tending to 

livestock. I have run livestock on the public ranges, snaked the logs 

out of the forest lands and hauled coal from the mines. 

I have held positions on numerous committees having to do with 

resource subjects, natural resource subjects. 

But I say with that introduction, it is extremely important tha-~ 

we now have wilderness designation in those areas that are of a 

wilderness character. Exciting and destructive as it was, the period 

of manifest destiny is over. Changing conditions dictate that national policy shift from the need for development toward the need 

for preservation. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SLEIGHT. I support H.R. 1500 as introduced by Mr. Hinchey, 

and I also compliment former Congressman Wayne Owens for 

spearheading a drive for preservation of the wilderness areas, and 

also compliment Congresswoman Karen Shepherd for her work. 

I find many problems with this bill before you, Chairman Hansen, that you have introduced, and the others. In the main, these 

flaws negate the true wilderness provisions which are called for in 

the Wilderness Act. Many areas of a wilderness area and qualified 

for designation have purposely been left out to accommodate special interests. I oppose these bills in their entirety. I also oppose 

Congressman Orton's bill, proposed bill, draft bill. 
237 

I agree wholeheartedly with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and the Utah Wilderness Coalition regarding their positions 

on water rights, off-road vehicles, dams, roads, gas and oil development, state lands and the release language. Here in Utah, we are blessed with an abundance of the most 

unique and priceless lands in all the world. Places such as Dark 

Canyon and the Grand Gulch and Cedar Mesa and Escalante Canyon. There is nothing like these lands anywhere. The value to us 

as they are keeps rising. To preserve them is by far the wise 

choice. Utah has developed a large tourist industry. With that 

comes responsibilities. We must not destroy the very things that 

our visitors come here to see. 

We had once beautiful lands-we had Music Temple, we had Cathedral in the Desert, Gregory Natural Bridge. Now these forms 

are all under water. A great wilderness area was taken away from 

us, buried under hundreds of feed of water. Along with it went a 

lot of Indian ruins-mass destruction. 

We have very few real wilderness lands left, they are priceless 

to us. I ask you-and I send a word from Mark Merryboy, Commissioner of San Juan County, his feelings in regard to wilderness. He 

has asked that the wilderness process as constituted here be 

slowed down, we need more time. So I ask you, likewise, we need 

more time to show the real values of this land. This is a hurry-up job and we need to have much more study. I thank you. [Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

[The statement of Mr. Sleight may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF TED WILSON, HINCKLEY INSTITUTE OF 

PUBLIC POLICY 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thanks for the wonderful opportunity to be here today. My name 

is Ted Wilson, I am from the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the 

University of Utah, but I do not speak for the Institute today, we 

do not take public policy positions; nor do I speak for the University of Utah, which I think anybody knows that I do not do that. 

But the issue of wilderness in Utah is one that affects us all 

deeply. I appear as a private citizen who moderated a citizens hearing on Thursday night where 350 citizens, mostly from Utah-we 

had a couple from out of state but mostly from Utah-assembled 

at the Indian Walk-In Center, 75 people spoke between 7:30 in the 

evening and about 1:00 in the morning, and everyone had pretty much unlimited time, though I as one of the moderators tried to 

limit it to three minutes. Nobody obeyed that. But we were up late 

and it was an excellent hearing. 

I really think today I would discourage my friends behind me 

from demonstrating so vociferously. I do think it gets in the way of testimony. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, that this demonstration is based upon an incredible frustration with this process. These people feel left out. And whether they have been or not, I 

guess is a matter of like wilderness, a matter of perception, but it 

is something that needs to be corrected or explained. And I think 
238 

that had led to boisterous behavior, which may not be really what 

these people want to do. 

I would also say that the people that spoke at our hearing on 

Thursday night were strong. Angie Edwards, age 15, said "I love 

Utah wilderness and want to have some for future generations." 

Clayton Donbaugh from Chicago said, "Healthy land is like blood, 

we die without it." Ilse Porter, a 76-year old woman that walked 

all the way from the Delta Center and walked back after 10:00 

even though we offered her rides, she told a story about her son 

that says you can go down at sea with your Navy hat and capture 

air in it. It sounded like a myth to me, but she said that wilderness 

is like a hatful of air. I thought it was wonderful. A noted publisher, Gib Smith from Utah said, "My Mormon pioneer grandfather who was born in a wagon in 1853 on the way to this state 

would be proud that I support 5. 7 million acres of wilderness." 

These comments and many more were eloquent and heart-felt. It 

is too bad the Committee really does not have time to hear all of 

them today. These people spoke eloquently and beautifully. They 

spoke of the respect they have for land that tends to put human 

kind in its perspective. They talked about the awesome creations 

of God, his land, his waters, his space and his creatures. One 

woman, divorced and cancer-ridden, came to Utah with her two 

sons and credits the wild lands with saving her health and her 

spirituality, and returning her to a normal existence. 

Mike McBee, a spina bifida victim in a wheelchair, spoke disputing the idea that wilderness should also be there-or disputing the 

idea that wilderness is closed to people who must travel with 

wheelchairs and other things. 

Most felt that this process was important and they also, many, 

many spoke their concerns about rural Utahns. They do not want 

one job lost in rural Utah, and they spoke to that, and they said 

that the idea of wilderness and jobs need not be mutually exclu· 

sive, that they can be put together. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would ask the members of the delegation 

from Utah and the Governor-things have changed in Utah, they 

have changed all over the west. We are seeing a total change in 

the economics of extraction. Agriculture is a little more steady, but 

extraction has changed dramatically. It .is Korea and Taiwan and. 

Japan and other places that are now setting market prices for 

many of our resources. We cannot control that. There is a new age 

and this state's future is lifestyle, and people will come and they 

will bring their good economies. And really, that has already been 

shown. St. George has changed from a little sleepy village, once 

just a destination place for its beautiful Mormon Temple. Vernal iB 

beginning to perk up and change because of the attractive area 

around it. We have seen Cedar City make enormous changes. Moab, once a shutdown town after the uranium mining days, has 

changed. And we really must look at the future. 

And I believe strongly, and I think all of the people that testified 

at that committee hearing the other night-pardon me, at that citizens' hearing the other night, all believe that 5. 7 million acres of 

wilderness, Mr. Hinchey's bill, is the way to do this. I agree myself 

and hope that the Committee would consider this. Thank you very, 

very much. 
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. [Applause.] 

239 

Mr. HANSEN. William Smart is recognized for five minutes. 

[The statement of Mr. Wilson may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. SMART, PAST EDITOR, DESERET 

NEWS 

Mr. SMART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Committee, thank 

you for your courtesy in being with us. 

I request the Chairman's approval to distribute to members of 

the Committee, copies of my statement and some supporting material that I would like to refer to. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. SMART. My name is William B. Smart, I am a lifetime resident of Utah. I represent today not the Deseret News, but the 

Grand Canyon Trust, a non-profit organization dedicated to the 

conservation and responsible use of the natural and cultural resources of the Colorado Plateau. Our nearly 6000 members include 

people living in all 50 states of the union; over half of them, however, live in the four corner states of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico 

and Colorado. 

I am also a Director of the Coalition for Utah's Future. This organization has meticulously maintained neutrality on the Utah wilderness debate, but has spent much of the past four years, Congressman Vento, trying to get people of the opposing parties to talk 

with, not past, each other. 

Recently the Coalition commissioned the most comprehensive 

and we think totally unbiased poll, measuring the opinions of Utah 

in regard to wilderness. You have before you the summary of the 

poll's findings. You have heard of one poll today and you know that 

poll results can differ greatly depending on how questions are 

asked. We framed our questions in the most neutral possible way 

and we have listed them there for you to examine to see if you 

agree. Unlike the poll of which you heard today, we have released 

all of our poll to the public and there is available for your examination an 84-page complete report giving demographic breakdowns 

and other information. 

May I invite you to briefly review highlights of the findings that 

you have before you. On the page numbered page 5, if you will, 

please, you note that in answer to an open-end question, development, growth and environmental impact are seen as by far the 

greatest threats to the quality of life in Utah. 

On page 8, note question 4 regarding acreage. Sixty four percent 

of the respondents want acreage more than that contained in H.R. 

17 45, with the greatest support for the 5. 7 million acres included 

in H.R. 1500. Only 28.4 percent want 1.9 million acres or less. 

Note on page 9, 78 percent of Utahns say they visit wilderness 

often or sometimes, and note in question 6 that the uses they feel 

are important on public lands are the ones most compatible with 

wilderness. 

On page 10, the response to question 7 shows strong opposition 

to the kind of hard release language contained in H.R. 1745. 

And finally, on page 12, note that only 33 percent agree that economic development in southern and central Utah is more impor-
240 

tant than wilderness designation; 63 percent disagree. And 87 percent of Utahns polled say they value the preservation of natural, 

roadless areas. 

I submit that it is clear that from this poll and similar results 

in polls taken by the major newspapers of the state, that H.R. 17 45 

does not represent the people of Utah. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMART. With this background about how most Utahns feel 

about protecting Utah's priceless and irreplaceable wild places, 

may I present the position of the Grand Canyon Trust, as contained in the written statement before you. Acknowledging the 

complexity of the issue and the desire of all of us to get it behind 

us, and with all due respect to Utah's Governor and its Congressional delegation, I submit that H.R. 1745 is the wrong approach, 

for the following reasons-and in the interest of time, I will not 

give all of the information about these, but just make the quick 

statements: 

First, the process was flawed and unrepresentative. 

Secondly, the acreage proposed for wilderness designation is inadequate. 

Three, much of even that limited wilderness acreage is not really 

protected, as has been pointed out by members of the Committee. 

Parunuweap Canyon, adjoining Zion National Park, for example, is 

certainly one of the most magical and beautiful wild places on 

earth. H.R. 17 45 properly designates it as wilderness. But incredibly, it would not prohibit a dam and a reservoir there or transmission lines or the construction of roads necessary to produ<:e 

those things. 

And finally, four, the bill's hard release language is unprec~~­

dented and counter to long-standing public lands policy. 

The Grand Canyon Trust urges you to reject H.R. 17 45 and to 

support a measure that includes adequate acreage and corrects the 

serious flaws that make this bill so adverse to the national public interest. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, for myself, may I express astonishment 

and profound sadness that now of all times, when we have won the 

Olympic Games and are prepared to proudly invite the world to see 

the kind of state we have, when our economy is robust and our 

population is soaring, when just this week we have been designated 

as the nation's most livable state, we are even thinking about sacrificing a priceless irreplaceable, lasting heritage for short-term 

and fleeting economic benefit. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMART. Gordon B. Hinckley, a man revered by many in this 

room, has said, "I have looked at majestic mountains rising against 

a blue sky and I thought of Jesus, the Word by whom all thint~s 

were made. This earth is his creation. When we make it ugly, we 

offend Him." 

Do not, I plead with you, make these beautiful places ugly. Do 

not offend the Creator and do not offend your own grandchildren, 

who one day may look on ruined wild places and never know what 

might have been. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, I appreciate your sincerity. 
241 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Smart. 

Mr. Kimball. 

[The statement and attachments of Mr. Smart may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF ALAN KIMBALL, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Mr. KIMBALL. Mr. Chairman and Committee, I would like to 

thank you for this opportunity. My name is Alan Kimball and I 

have been active in the sports and outdoor community in Utah my 

entire life. I am a recreation coordinator at the Utah Independent 

Living Center, which is a private, non-profit organization that provides a variety of services for people with disabilities. I have been 

involved in the community surrounding independent living for 

eight years; therefore, I feel I have an understanding in this community as a whole. 

Although I cannot speak for everyone, I can speak for the individuals with disabilities, with whom I have contact on a daily 

basis. We do not believe that wilderness designation will exclude 

us from accessing these remote wilderness areas. In addition, the 

use of wheelchairs, including motorized wheelchairs, is permitted 

in these wilderness areas when the wheelchair is a medical necessity. 

One of the challenges put forth to many people with differing 

abilities involves access in a world with few accommodations for 

wheelchairs. In order to make life more successful, one must come 

up with creative solutions to difficult problems. I find it presumptuous when people say off-road vehicles or air flights are the only 

means of access for people with disabilities into these areas. 

Watercraft, horses, dogs and sleds are permitted in wilderness 

areas. It has been my experience as well as many others that 

horses, canoes, rafts, kayaks and dog sleds are reasonable and feasible means for people with disabilities to access these areas. I believe that federally reserved water rights for wilderness areas will 

ensure access into remote areas for people of all ability levels. 

Since becoming disabled, I have personally experienced both 

horsepacking in the Escalante Canyons and river rafting through 

the Fisher Towers and Arches Lost Spring Canyon proposed wilderness areas. I and many others have been able to gain access into 

wilderness areas by alternative means available to people of all 

abilities. 

There are two organizations in Utah that I have had contact or 

involvement with which offer programs that educate people with 

disabilities how to access these outdoor areas. I hope that this 

Committee will understand that access for people with disabilities 

is not a reason to exclude areas from protection offered under the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

I, along with many other individuals with disabilities, support 

the citizens' proposal of protecting 5. 7 million acres of public land 

as wilderness embodied in H.R. 1500, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. 

Thank you for your time. 

[Applause.] 

[The statement of Mr. Kimball may be found at end of hearing.] 
242 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Kimball. 

We will now recognize our former colleague, Karen Shepherd. 

How much time do you need? 

Ms. SHEPHERD. About four minutes, I think. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you give Ms. Shepherd four minutes please. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN SHEPHERD, FORMER MEMBER OF 

CONGRESS 

Ms. SHEPHERD. I want to thank the Committee and especially 

Chairman Hansen for allowing me to speak today, and I appreciate 

the fact that Representatives Vento, Faleomavaega and Hinchey 

are here with us today. Thank you for traveling all the way to 

Utah. This has been an important issue for us a long time and I 

know it has been for you as well, and I trust having you on the 

board. 

I would also like the Chairman to know that I appreciate his allowing testimony on H.R. 1500. 

Let me begin by saying that I very respectfully believe that 

Utah's Senators and Representatives are proposing a law which 

will change the character of Utah forever. And I also do not think 

that this law represents the constituents of this state. Bill has already talked about the Coalition for Utah's Future poll. I could talk 

about my own poll, which is radically different from Representative 

Waldholtz' and very close to the one that the Coalition did, and I 

could also talk about the fact that for one year I walked door-todoor every single solitary Saturday, and I know for sure that the 

members and constituents of the Second District do not support the 

bill that you are proposing-they simply do not. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. SHEPHERD. I also feel in my bones that this is not the time 

to decide, and I know for sure that this is not the bill to begin the 

discussion. H.R. 17 45 proposes to protect a mere three percent of 

the State of Utah, and it has embedded within it poison pills which 

will ruin what we understand to be wilderness. This issue of being 

able to build a dam in a wilderness area, being able to build communication apparatus in a wilderness area, being able to build any 

new roads we want in a wilderness area, combined with the erosion 

of environmental laws that is taking place right now in Congress, 

exposes this land to tremendous harm and we must not allow that 

to happen. And we must not--

[Applause.] 

Ms. SHEPHERD. In the State of Utah, we must not allow this 

process to erode our sense of community. Chairman Hansen, I want 

to share with you the fact that so many people here believe they 

have no influence on our Congressional delegation, they believe 

their voices are not being heard. There is this sense that our whole 

unitedness is at stake here and it is another reason that we must 

decide not to decide right now. 

Utahns want to preserve the wild land in Utah because they 

have lived in it and because we feel this presence around us all the 

time. I just spent four months in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at 

Harvard University, and I had never lived in a place in my life 

where all the land was domesticated, all the land was tamed. It 

was pretty, it was very pretty, but it was not glorious. And the peo-
243 

ple in Boston do not even know what they are missing because they 

have never, ever been in a place of solitude. They have not ever 

liveci in a land like we live in where literally every town and every 

city nestles within the original creation of God's natural work and 

creates for us this sense of place, which is so much a part of what 

we are in Utah. 

My plea in the end is to save the wild lands of Utah because we 

need the lands and we need the community which connects us to 

the land. The mountains, the desert, the red rock canyons, the rivers and all the plant and animal life that they contain set us apart 

from the country and bring us together in the process. We absolutely must not destroy that which makes us unique and we must 

understand that the value of this land is the land itself, not what 

it can produce. And we must understand that if we lose the lands, 

we will be impoverished in the process, by losing that sense of spiritual renewal which they offer to us. 

So I would like to close by asking our Utah Representatives and 

the other members of this Committee to respect the wishes of the 

constituents of Utah and of America, because these truly are national lands, and not to make this decision now. To pass this bill 

would be the first bad step, not the first step, because it exposes 

too much land to too much harm, and the harm that is sustained 

on the land is irrevocable and permanent. We do not get another 

chance. Every acre of wild land lost is an acre of wild land essentially lost forever. 

Finally, let me close with a question to Senator Hatch, Senator 

Bennett, Chairman Hansen and Representative Waldholtz, the 

sponsors of this bill. I respectfully want to ask you if you really 

want to go down in history as the politicians who decided that no 

future generation in Utah or in America would ever know these 

lands the way you have known them? Do you really want to be the 

ones that decide that the wild lands you have seen and walked in 

will never be walked in by your grandchildren or your great grandchildren? Is that really the legacy you want to leave to your state? 

Because I believe if you decide now, that is what will happen. If 

you decide now, you will not only divide the Utah community forever, but you will also lose precious wild lands forever. This is absolutely not the time to decide. Withdraw your bill, join the community and help us find a solution that protects that which we love 

most about Utah. 

Thank you. [Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank the 

members of the panel for their statements, and obviously again request that we need the cooperation. This is an extraordinary responsibility for him because as Chairman, it is very difficult to conduct the business that we are trying to conduct in front and for the 

next panel, especially when there may be those that do not share 

the views of the majority in the audience. So I just want to remind 

you of that and request that your cooperation continue as I will be 

having to leave to catch a flight back to Minnesota. 
244 

But I very much appreciated the insights and the comments of 

those that were making statements on this particular panel, and 

the experience and background they brought here today. I am reminded of Ted Wilson's work as Mayor of Salt Lake with my fellow 

Mayor from St. Paul, George Lattimer-who I helped celebrate his 

60th birthday last weekend, I might add. I again appreciate your 

work and contributions at the Hinckley In-stitute and your continued involvement in these issues that are of critical importance to 

the Nation and to the State of Utah. 

I might just get back to the substance of the bill, and my colleague and friend, Jim Hansen, commented about what the effect 

of the bill is and the special provisions included. I will look at that 

and evaluate it and if I have overstated the case when Mr. Stewart 

was making comments about the exceptions, I certainly will, you 

know, try to deal with that. I think though the problem is with the 

number of exceptions in the bill. We want to look at what the effect 

is. Obviously, Mr. Stewart, in suggesting that we have these areas 

that are not modified by this, I did not mean to imply that. I am 

willing to accept to some extent the air space reservations alongside of a wilderness. I think the issue of further incursions into 

them might be of more concern. I fought too, and won, for keeping 

a military site in the Twin Cities in this last go-around, so I want 

to commend my colleague. All of us do not come to this with simply 

one concern, we have many concerns and I know that Jim Hansen 

represents them well for his District and from his point of view. 

And I respect his efforts in advancing that. 

I think that we want to solve this particular problem. I undel'-

stand that many of you may feel that the votes of the delegatio::1 

and the Congress are not positive toward the outcome that yo·l 

may desire. I think there are some in-between steps that can be 

taken here, as were taken in 1984 when we had areas that we did 

not determine to designate as wilderness. We left part of it io. 

study. If we can agree on 1.8 or 2.0 or 2.3, and then leave the TEimainder in study in the conventional manner, this would be helpful. One of the reasons it may be justified is because it was net 

WSA. I think that that has its own problems for a constituency 

that wants to see this returned to general public appropriation, but 

I think given the consideration that there are problems with the 

general appropriation laws that we have not resolved, whether it 

be water dams, other types of projects. So there are some areas 

here we can move to, to find a legislative solution which will go 

part way, but will reserve the opportunity to decide some of those 

areas down the road. So I just want to point that out, that it is 

not an all or nothing contest here. I mean, I think that Jim Hansen 

is working in good faith on this. Some of you disagree with the decision he has come to, and I disagree with it, but I want to rei1;-

erate that particular point. We need to move forward in terms of 

making decisions in some of these areas, if we have the information. And we certainly can take the time to do it. It is going to take 

some time. 

I looked at the public opinion polls and I think it is very encouraging. I think to have public opinion polls is important. Most politicians want about 90 percent polls. So I admire your willingness to 

spend political capital, Mr. Chairman, when you do not have that 
245 

type of a poll. In fact, we need more politicians that will do that, 

not fewer. 

And so he is into a controversial issue here. I hope that when the 

day is done, we will find some agreement. You know, I have reiterated my concerns on this repeatedly. I think that some of the areas 

around the parks where there is private land-! wanted to say this 

on the Utah trust lands incidentally-could be exchanged for lands 

that are similar that have not been impaired for 12 years. I mean 

the truth of the matter is that there is no revenue flow coming from most of the trust lands now that the state has. And so I think 

we need to look carefully at that. If we can find some way to provide a revenue flow, but also some parity in terms of values exchanged with the public domain, that is enormously important. As 

you know, we successfully last year, in the last session, worked 

with Congressman Hansen and Karen Shepherd, then a member of 

the same Committee incidentally, and Senator Bennett on a big exchange project for Utah. Yesterday, when I talked to the BLM, they 

mentioned that that particular project still was being upheld by 

things like trying to hire appraisers. I guess that has been resolved, but I do not even know if you are aware of that, but that 

has been resolved. 

But there have been a number of issues we have worked on and 

worked successfully in terms of bringing about resolution, but that 

means we have to get off the high moral ground and get out there 

and work on issues where we may not be giving the perfect solution in one person's mind. There are plenty of differences here I 

think, but it starts with all of you working with and working 

through this process. And if you can do that, I think you will make 

the environment for the Representatives much easier. So I encourage you to do that. Maybe on the last panel today, we can show 

some of that willingness to cooperate, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses. Incidentally, Congressman Hansen worked long and hard on access to wilderness. Greg Leyhus is 

from my area. He specializes in wilderness inquiry, which is and 

focus on people with disabilities going to the wilderness. We have 

one in our state, the Boundary Waters, and that especially has 

been used by canoeists and others, and not motorized wheelchairs 

but mechanized devices are allowed for mechanical-or for medical 

necessity. But I know that Jim had a special interest in that. And 

we need to pay more attention, as we have over 100 million acres 

that are now wilderness, how we manage those lands and how the 

agencies manage it, so that we do not run into the problems we 

have heard about with grazing, handicap access, and the myriad of 

other things. 

One of the saddest things that is happening with wilderness is 

even after we designate it, we see signs of deterioration. So simply 

the designation of it is not something you can designate and forget. 

It has to be managed, you have to have people, whether they are 

Forest Service or BLM rangers ensuring its protection. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vento, appreciate your comments. 

The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
246 

I certainly would like to echo the sentiments that have been expressed by the gentleman from Minnesota, and certainly would like 

to associate myself with the comments and the observations that 

he has made concerning this legislation and how important it is 

that the varying groups who have an interest in this legislation should sit down together and work out these differences, and hope,- fully something that will be acceptable to the community will be 

such that the Congress can then provide the appropriate legislation for. 

I was very touched by the eloquence of the statements that the 

members of the panel have presented before the Committee this 

afternoon. It gives me a lot of time also to reflect about how important, as it was yesterday, I had the privilege of being invited by 

one of my tribesmen who lives in the city of St. George. As we were 

driving from Cedar City to St. George, I kept saying every five minutes how beautiful this place was, how beautiful it was. It just hits 

to the core of myself and my being and seeing what a beautiful 

state the State of Utah is. 

Interestingly enough, the word "unta" in my language means exactly the same as the Ute word for mountains. So when we say "unta", it means to the mountain region. Now I do not know what 

happened, Mr. Chairman, how that came about. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But it was interesting that when I visited 

St. George, I was told that a fellow by the name of Maroni was 

around that area some 1600 years ago, and I said wow, maybe he 

might have a couple of archeological stuff over there that maybe we 

need to look into. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But I really sincerely, with Mr. Sleight's testimony and his association over the years with the members of the 

Navajo Tribe, Mr. Chairman, I will submit that I definitely will be 

involved in looking at the legislation as it affects the needs of our 

Native American community here in the State of Utah, and that 

they do become active participants in the process and with testimony from Mr. Sleight and other members of the panel, I really, really appreciate your sentiments and your concerns and hopefully 

we will come to a good ending in this legislation. One term I have 

learned over the years being here in Utah is "either fish or cut 

bait." I do not know what that means here, but I think it is time 

that we have to make a decision, and hopefully the decision will 

be such that will be acceptable to the people of Utah as well as to 

our national government. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, members of the panel. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, I appreciate your comments. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks 

very much to this panel. I have had the opportunity to get to meet 

some of you and I hope to become more acquainted with the rest 

of you as time goes on. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it has been a great privi- lege for me to be able to carry on the work that was started by Wayne Owens, of this community, with this legislation. I cannot 
247 

tell you how privileged I feel really to be able to do that, to be a 

member of the Congress and to be able to pick up this responsibil- ity that he initiated so courageously and so correctly, and so farsightedly. That causes me to be very grateful for being elected to 

the Congress so that we can do these kinds of things. 

But I think even more so, I am very grateful for the opportunity that I have had to meet the people of this wonderful state, and 

some of them are seated on this panel. I have had the opportunity 

to enjoy the hospitality of Ken Sleight, for example, down in Moab, 

and served with Karen for two years in the House of Representa- tives. And to listen to you today and to hear and see how deeply 

you feel about these issues and to be touched emotionally by what 

you say, is also very gratifying and something for which I will always be grateful. 

So I appreciate your being here and I appreciate your carrying 

on this work. As I mentioned to others yesterday, this issue is not 

going to be decided in Washington so much as it is going to be decided here in this state by the people of Utah. These are national 

lands, they are national treasures, but again, you are the closest 

stewards and by virtue of that fact, you are going to have inevitably the greatest amount to say about the outcome of this issue. 

So I thank you, members of this panel and those in the audience 

and others around the state for your courage, for your perseverance, for your farsightedness, and I am delighted and honored to 

have the opportunity to be associated with you. Thank you very much. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate the panel, thank you so 

much for being with us. We appreciate your input and the great testimony you have given us. 

The next panel is composed of Fred Selman, President of Harold 

Selman, Inc.; Bob Morgan, Utah State Engineer, Division of Water 

Rights, Department of Natural Resources; Don Snyder, Professor 

and Head of Department of Economics, Utah State University; and 

Alexander H. Jordan, President of the Utah Mining Association. 

Thank you, gentlemen, we appreciate you being here. And Mr. 

Vento, thank you, sir. We will turn the time to you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave to catch a 

flight to make some commitments in Minnesota. I know that this 

panel is an important panel and I have the testimony and will review it. As you notice, I do read the testimony. And we will obviously continue a dialog working with the Chairman. I think it is 

a positive beginning and again appeal to those that are our guests here to obviously, even when you hear things you do not like, to 

let the dialog continue. 

I appreciate the task the Chairman has. I had to do it for many 

years under different circumstances. Thanks, Jim. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, sir. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Gentlemen, you know the rules-when the green light goes on,,ou start; when the yellow light goes on, you wind 

up and there light, you really wind up. Mr. Selman, we will recognize you for five minutes, appreciate you being here. 

Can we have order, please? 
248 

STATEMENT OF FRED SELMAN, PRESIDENT OF HAROLD 

SELMAN, INC. 

Mr. SELMAN. My name is Fred Selman and I am the President 

of Harold Selman, Inc., a family corporation. We graze sheep in the 

Forest Service Mount Naomi Wilderness Area. I appreciate the op- portunity to appear before you and explain some of the problems 

we have had grazing in this wilderness area. In my testimony, I 

am not only representing myself, but the Utah Farm Bureau, the 

Utah Cattlemen's Association, the Utah Wool Growers and anumber of other family-owned livestock enterprises. Mr. HANSEN. Could you suspend for a minute? Would somebody close those doors, and the doors in the rear of the chamber? 

Thank you. 

Mr. SELMAN. We have had a long history of predation on our 

sheep in this area and we had developed a major predator control 

program, including the use of poisons, traps, hunting and aerial 

control. This effort kept our losses at an acceptable level. 

When the wilderness was first proposed, we were naturally concerned about the impact on our grazing operations. We were assured and reassured that our grazing and predator control activities would not be changed by wilderness designation. However, the 

designation of this area as wilderness has had a negative impact 

on our operation. 

After the use of 1080 was banned on public lands in 1972, we 

were forced to rely more heavily on other tools, such as aerial gun- ning. In April of 1992, this was also prohibited in the wilderness 

area. In addition, we also had to be able to produce documentation 

of verified losses before we could perform any control at all. Recently, we have had to sustain at least a four percent loss of our 

entire herd before any predator control could be instituted. 

A good example of other difficulties is our effort to replace a 60-

year old water trough built by the CCC. We have wanted to fly in 

a replacement trough and material by helicopter since this is the 

easiest and most cost-effective way to do it, and it would have no 

environmental impact. The alternative would be to bring it in by 

some mechanical means, as was done when it was originally put into place. This would require constructing at least a temporary road. . The helicopter would not even land in the wilderness area, but 

could place the trough on the ground and hover long enough for the 

cable to be disconnected. This request has been denied because it 

is located in the wilderness area. I should note that in addition to 

providing water for our livestock, this trough also provides the only dependable late summer water supply for wildlife, including about 

75 head of elk. 

To cite another example, we were forced to use primitive methods such as hand tools to open and repair damaged trails. Mechanized equipment such as chain saws would have both been more 

efficient and cost-effective. 

The Forest Service's refusal to allow us to use a helicopter to replace the old watering trough clearly violates the guidelines which 

are referred to in Section 3(c)(2) of the bill before you. Guideline 

number 2 states that "Where practical alternatives do not exist, 

maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the 
249 

occasional use of motorized equipment." It goes on to say that 

"Moreover, under the rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized equipment should be permitted where practical alternatives 

are not available and such use would not have a significant adverse 

impact on the natural environment." 

Similarly, I think this same guideline should have allowed us to 

use mechanized equipment such as chainsaws to repair the damaged trails. 

I think it also should have allowed us to continue aerial gunning 

for predator control. The report states, "In summary, subject to the 

conditions and policies outlined above, the general rule of thumb on 

grazing management in wilderness should be that activities or facilities established prior to the date of an area's designation as wilderness should be allowed to remain in place and may be replaced 

when necessary for the permittee to properly administer the grazing program." Certainly, predator control by the most practical 

means falls within this directive. 

In considering changes to the bill before you, I recommend making guidelines even more specific and detailed and actually writing 

them into the law. I also suggest that the law place the burden on 

the Forest Service to suggest an alternative method which complies 

with those guidelines when they turn down the suggestion of the 

permittee to do something like replacing the water trough on our 

allotment. 

In Section 3(c)(l) of the bill before you, I would strongly urge you 

to include a phrase that would make it absolutely clear that traditional predator control activities which were conducted before wilderness was designated will continue after designation. 

That you for this opportunity to present my experiences and suggestions. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Selman, I appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Bob Morgan. [The statement of Mr. Selman may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. MORGAN, UTAH STATE ENGINEER, 

DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

Mr. MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Morgan, and I currently serve as the Utah State Engineer. I oversee 

the appropriation, allocation and distribution of the waters of the 

State of Utah. I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify 

concerning wilderness and reserved water rights within the State 

of Utah. I support the existing bill as drafted and offer the following supporting comments. 

I have been state engineer since March of 1985 and have been 

involved with several agencies concerning potential reserved water 

rights within Utah. Water is a very curious substance and is the 

subject of a lot of controversy. 

Utah was settled by people looking for many things, including 

economic opportunity, or freedom to live a lifestyle that would be 

void of persecution. Common to all who came here was the need 

for water. It usually was not readily available and required diversions upstream from the settlements. It was agreed that the first 
250 

there had the first water right. Subsequent diverters took their 

place in line. Although contested at times, this was the birth of the! 

Prior Appropriation Doctrine. It has been the dividing factor be .. tween the west and the Riparian Doctrine of the water-rich east. 

Utah water law follows this concept and it has been the basis for 

more than 90 years of state administration of surface waters. AlJl 

major river and stream systems throughout the state are governed 

by this doctrine, and the result is a fine-tuned system relying upon 

diversion, return flow, rediversion, mingled with some storage res .. ervoirs. Any new filing or alteration of the existing pattern of water 

use sends ripples through the total system. In the same breath as 

wilderness always comes a discussion of reserved rights. They are 

fighting words and more than one westerner has met his demise 

by "messing'' with someone else's water. Without water, we have 

nothing, nor would we have the natural wonders, such as Grand 

Canyon, Canyonlands, Bryce or Zion. 

I urge you to consider the following regarding Congressional des·· 

ignation of wilderness areas in Utah: 

1. All necessary water rights should be obtained through the ex .. isting state water appropriation system. I realize the state system 

does not address everyone's concern about instream flow, but it has 

facilitated the creation of an instream flow to protect a variety o:f 

resources on the lower reaches of the San Rafael River and others. The state engineer also has the authority to protect natural and 

recreational values in acting on new appropriations or change ap .. plications on existing water rights. Creating water rights for wilderness through the state system gives certainty and allows the 

right to become part of the priority of a river system. All users 

would know where they stand, who is entitled to divert water before them and who is entitled to divert water after them. Users, 

whether consumptive or non-consumptive, can be given their proportionate share by the proper administration of this system. 

2. Most wilderness areas currently in Utah are at higher elevations, usually considered headwater reserves. Obviously, if the 

wilderness is above all diversions, there are no potential conflicts 

with water rights. Wilderness areas downstream of existing diversions and water uses generally result in direct conflict. New appropriations of water can be affected, and the ability to file change applications or exchange applications on existing water rights iB 

sometimes seriously hampered. Depending upon the situation, reserved water right claims could also impact the ability of a state 

to utilize its current interstate compact waters. 

3. It is imperative that wilderness designation clearly address 

how water rights for these areas will be obtained. I strongly support the current language in the bill that water will be obtained 

through the state system. Without such a provision, we may be left 

with the assertion of so-called implied Federal reserved water 

rights which, from my experience, can only lead to contentious and 

expensive litigation between state and Federal Governments over 

issues such as quantity and quality of water, recognized uses and 

the distribution of water. There are no winners in this scenario. 

Utah is blessed with a wide variety of topography and unique 

vistas. I am not speaking against wilderness, but it must be ap-
251 

proached in a manner that water issues are specifically addressed 

and any ripple effects are at least contemplated. 

Mr. Colt may have invented the great equalizer in the west, but 

I believe that a shovel and the diversion of water had much to do 

with the settlement of the west and the quality of living that we 

have now. Water, or the lack of it, will be the ultimate 

decisionmaker. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Morgan, for that excellent testimony. 

Mr. Jordan. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER H. JORDAN, PRESIDENT, UTAH 

MINING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted formal 

comments for the record and I would just like to make brief comments. 

Mr. HANSEN. All the testimony that has been submitted will be 

in the record. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. I am Alexander Jordan, President of the 

Utah Mining Association here in Salt Lake City. 

We represent some 41 mining companies and about 85 service 

companies that support the mining industry. These are, for the 

most part, the major recognized mining companies that adhere to 

state and Federal guidelines as they conduct their operations in the 

state. A problem we do have in the state and throughout the west 

is a phenomenon we call prospecting by bulldozer. This is really 

what leaves the scars in many cases. This does not excuse previous 

mining scars from large mines that came from the period that we 

all know in our history dictated by economic necessity, national defense. As Mr. Hinchey knows, we have the same phenomenon in 

the Adirondack Wilderness Area where the North Creek Mine, 

which is surrounded by the wilderness area, contributed greatly to 

this country's ability to defend itself through titanium used for submarine and aircraft hulls. 

We have a similar contribution in minerals in this state. As you 

all are aware, we are known as the treasure house of the nation, 

and we are known for that because of the unique geological structure of the grounds here, partly by volcanic activity and partly by unique mineralization that took place. There are minerals in this 

state that are found either rarely in other parts of the world or nowhere else. Specifically I would mention to you red barrel, which 

is similar to jade, which is unique to the State of Utah. And then 

a very unique mineral we have, we mine it in ore called 

bertrandite. This is found only in two other locations in the worldKazakstan and China. This mineral is what makes possible our 

space program, it has previously made possible much of our national defense. It is an extremely new mineral and a new development. It was found in 1939, very recent in the time span of mining. And the reason I mention this is without this beryllium, we would 

not have a space shuttle flying and we might not have future forms 

of technology. 

What is important here is not that we have the ability to go out 

and scar the earth. What is important is that we as a people, all 
252 

of us in this room, make a determination through you as the elected legislature of what our priorities are vis-a-vis our economic direction. And if we choose to purchase natural resources and finished goods abroad, obviously we pay a price. If we are willing to 

pay that price, so be it. 

What we ask in Utah, as we look at wilderness, is to keep in 

mind that there are unique resources here under the ground. 

Again, not to go out and dig and scar, but if we need those or if 

technology becomes necessary, the ability to at least locate those 

minerals and see if it is economically and in the sense of the wilderness if it makes sense to extract them. And with today's technology, much can be done in a different fashion than what has 

been done historically where you had large tailings piles, such as 

we have in North Creek, New York, or the Mesabi range in Minnesota. And that is a key issue for us, this ability to go out and 

locate what may now be worthless but what may in the future may become extremely valuable. 

I will point out, as was mentioned earlier, we are blessed in Utah 

to have two of the genetically pure herds of native American buffalo; one is on Antelope Island, the other herd is in the Henry Mountains. Underneath the Henry Mountains is an extraordinarily 

rich coal reserve. However, that reserve, by the agreement of the 

Utah coal operators, will never be mined. And the reason is that 

it might disturb that herd of buffalo. And that is an agreement we 

have come to and we have worked it out with the State of Utah. 

We are an industry that is not totally insensitive to what we have 

here and what we need to do. 

Again, I think the sins of omission of the past weigh heavily 

upon us. Most bona fide mining companies must comply with state 

and Federal regulations on reclamation standards. We have a fund, 

the Abandoned Minelands Fund, which takes care of that aspect of 

mining. The problem is how much money is allocated to go and 

clean up the messes that were left from a previous generation. And 

it does leave a sore point when one wanders through the wilderness, not only of Utah and the west, but in the Adirondack region 

of New York or the Mesabi iron range in Minnesota. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. 

[The statement of Mr. Jordan may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Jordan, appreciate your testimony. 

Dr. Snyder. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD L SNYDER, PROFESSOR AND HEAD, 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Honorable Committee 

Members. I would like to request that my edited version of the remarks be substituted for the unedited that were mistakenly sent 

out. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. SNYDER. And also that summary report and the complete report on wilderness designation that we completed could also be introduced on the record. 

[The summary report was placed in the committee hearing record 

files.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 
253 

Mr. SNYDER. We at Utah State have been involved in the study of issues and economic impacts of wilderness designation for over 

four years. Our study was initiated at the request of county and 

local governments, communities within Utah, and was financed pri- marily through mineral lease funds. 

Before proceeding, I would like to draw your attention to two important aspects of the study. First, the focus of the study was local 

impacts. Second, the study did address the economic impacts or at 

least attempted to, of wilderness designation. Both these issues 

have important implications, often overlooked in the various critiques and reviews of this work. 

There are several economic views of how the impacts of wilderness ought to be measured. Some economists argue that wilderness 

effectively cannot be measured, or that such lands have an infinite 

value. Most economists would probably disagree with that. Others 

argue that wilderness designation has become an all or nothing proposition which promotes conflict and controversy. Some even 

argue that wilderness should be privatized, that environmental organizations should step up and pay for wilderness that they want. 

Still others suggest that government involvement in the identification and designation of wilderness represent a subsidy for the religion of environmentalism. 

Our own view is that there are tradeoff's between wilderness and 

other uses and that the correct measure to use in evaluating the 

impacts of such tradeoff's is a comparison of what will be lost compared to what will be gained, or the opportunity cost of wilderness 

designation. 

We examined several issues that have been raised by others, including the potential impacts of wilderness designation on buffer 

zones or adjacent lands; wilderness-related recreation; minerals 

and mining; grazing and related uses; and water and water rights. On adjacent lands or buffer zones, we identified several instances 

where uses on land adjacent to wilderness were adversely impacted due to their proximity to wilderness. However, we did not identify 

any systematic pattern to the implementation of buffer zones. 

Wilderness recreation. Wilderness users typically do not spend large amounts of money in or near the designated wilderness areas. 

In the aggregate, such expenditures would not comprise a major share of any county's gross sales, even when assuming a generous level of visitation. In addition, recreation opportunities that are 

generally not considered consistent with wilderness designation would be lost and should be accounted for. 

Minerals and mining. We found it nearly impossible to ascertain 

the extent of mineral deposits in most proposed wilderness areas. 

While the BLM was careful to avoid areas having a long history of mining or mineral activity, no such care was taken by the UWC 

or other large wilderness proposal advocates. Wilderness designa- tion has restricted access to mining claims in some instances. In 

addition, even though the gross sales attributable to mining and 

minerals has declined and is relatively small, these extractive industries typically still provide a significant amount of property tax 

base, which is an important source for infrastructure development. In addition, we found that the rural areas are generally quite isolated from economic activity that occurs along the Wasatch Front, 
254 

which is a relatively new finding. And that is a factor which has 

impacts on what the possibilities are for local economic development. 

With respect to grazing, while the original wilderness act and 

most subsequent acts specifically allowed for a continuation of 

grazing, agency practices have not always been consistent with the 

language in these acts. Some reductions in animal numbers were 

identified and are generally attributable to one or more of three 

causes including, first, a reduction in the allowable forage utilization rate; second, increased management costs imposed on the allottee; third-excuse me, second was an administrative decision 

that areas previously grazed were no longer suitable for grazing 

and then the third was the increased management costs. In addition, a survey that was completed in the west revealed that there 

were several instances where grazing had been eliminated, specifically because the area was designated as wilderness. And these indications were made by the land managers themselves. They actually indicated that was why it had been done. 

On water and water rights. Water in many of the presently considered wilderness areas has the potential to be an enormous problem. Unlike previously established wilderness areas where the 

headwaters were often in the wilderness, these under consideration 

generally lie below the headwaters. It appears that there could be 

a significant problem any time water rights are appropriated upstream from the wilderness area, essentially leaving the wilderness 

area without water, though that will all depend on how water 

rights are viewed with respect to wilderness. Some have argued for 

an aboriginal right for wilderness areas, meaning that the water 

rights associated with wilderness lands would precede all others. 

Even in the case where the water right is awarded based on the 

date of designation, future water developments would likely be in 

peril. 

On the household assessment of wilderness, we surveyed a random sample of households in Utah. The results of this survey suggest that Utahns overwhelmingly support the concept of wilderness, to the tune of about 80 percent plus. However, these same 

households voted against the UWC and BLM wilderness proposals by a nearly two-to-one margin when they were provided with specific information about where the areas are and the accompanying 

conditions. 

We would suggest that it is very important to identify the benefits that accrue to wilderness per se. Many of the benefits that proponents would like to attribute to wilderness designation are not 

exclusively related to designation and would occur anyway in those 

areas. 

In conclusion, we find little evidence of strong local positive economic impacts or benefits which might accompany wilderness designation. Please note that we are not suggesting that every wilderness area will result in an adjacent land dispute, a loss in grazing, 

restricted access to minerals and mining or a reallocation of water 

rights. Nevertheless, if the Utah delegation wants to minimize the 

potential negative impacts of designation, special care should be 

taken to ensure that the enabling language is carefully crafted so 

that the prospects of future adverse impacts are minimized. 
255 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Dr. Snyder, we appreciate your testimony. 

The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. F ALEOMA V AEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the 

members of the panel for their testimony. I have a question of Mr. 

Jordan. 

I think I agree with you that it is useless to think of the sins 

of the past or whatever may have happened as far as the mining 

industry is concerned, about prospecting by bulldozing. I would just 

like to have your comment about the bill under consideration, both 

H.R. 1500 and H.R. 1745, about protecting the wilderness, and 

wanted to know what the opinion of the mining industry in Utah 

is concerning this. I suspect that you follow very closely the Federal requirements before you can even do any extractions. I just 

wanted to have some-your opinion as far as the mining industry 

is concerned in the state, that in every way possible you do support 

the concept of wilderness preservation here in the state. 

Mr. JORDAN. We do support the concept of wilderness, and for 

the most part, the acreage and land specified in H.R. 17 45 we are 

supportive of. There are a few areas that impact existing mining 

operations and in one instance a potential operation. But for the 

most part, we are supportive of the concept. 

You know, there has got to be a meshing of what we decide 

through the marketplace, and you are a part of that too, as members of Congress, as were your predecessors. You determine the 

marketplace by saying these are the rules and regulations. When 

you wanted to encourage development, the bam door was left open 

and the herd went out. Now we want to pull back, so you have an 

impact on what we do as a nation and determine, do we buy these 

things overseas. 

So to that extent, we are supportive of wilderness. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank yc>U. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Selman, I listened to your testimony and I could not quite 

understand. I thought that the complaints that you were having, which seemed to be legitimate based on what you say, were largely 

a result of the administration of the law rather than the fact of wilderness itself. Did I understand you correctly, or not? 

Mr. SELMAN. Pretty much so. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So what we are dealing with here is not so much 

that wilderness designation itself is a heavy burden, it is that frequently the administration of the law causes problems for those 

people who have to live with it. 

Mr. SELMAN. That is right. I might add that this wilderness 

thing has been talked about in this Naomi region since in the 

1960's. Our only opposition to it was the fact that we did not think 

that they would grant us the things that they said they were going 

to. And our wishes were-or our fears were justified. Our predator control was eliminated. Now, I might say, instead of having a graz-
256 

ing plan like we should have, our grazing plan is established by th1~ 

Forest Service. We will go into an area and rotate and rotate and 

rotate, which is the best part for the land. 

Now if we go into an area and are hit by coyotes, after this 

slaughter, we have got no alternative but to move somewhere, 

move away from the problem. It is not a situation that is good for 

the land, it is not good for our animals, it is not good for us and 

it is not good for you. But that is the situation we have to take. 

And at the end of our rotations, if our time has run out, if our days 

have run out and we have got no place to go, it is very economically 

disastrous to our operation. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So we the members have to appeal to the administration particularly for some things that you are entitled to and 

ought to expect, such as predictability and consistency in administration. 

Mr. SELMAN. Yes, and the thing of it is, this could be spelled out 

in the law to where we could get some help here. If this four percent as I referred to in here was a percent per day, if we had--

if we moved into an area and we had extreme predation that night, why if we could get assistance to get this problem taken care of~ 

why we would be all right. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Morgan, you addressed your remarks largely to the question 

of water and the impact of wilderness on water rights. And I havE~ 

some appreciation of this particular problem in an area as dry as 

Utah. Even in one as wet as New York, we have some major water 

problems, which Mr. Jordan is probably familiar with. And they 

are ongoing, they continue to this very day. So I fully appreciate the level of controversy that water can create in an environment 

such as the one you live in. 

But with regard to the water rights for. wilderness, these water 

rights, in the bill that I am sponsoring particularly, are junior 

water rights, they are secondary to any existing water rights and 

they are non-consumptive water rights. In other words, the water 

just flows through the land, it is not used or changed in any way 

other than that which nature does by itself. So does that cause a 

problem? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, Mr. Hinchey, it could in the event that up·-

stream users with the senior priority would file change applications 

or exchange applications, particularly if the applications involved 

moving from a tributary to another tributary. There may be some 

priority issues that they would then be junior to the wilderness 

rights. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So even though-I still do not-maybe you could 

rephrase the answer a little bit, I still do not quite get it. 

Mr. MORGAN. In some situations, not in all, when water that is 

to be appropriated from a major river system, the diverter wishes 

to change to another tributary, that tributary may affect a wilderness area where you had a junior water right until the change ap- plication was filed. Under Utah water law if in fact a change appli- cation is filed, interference problems are decided on the priority of 

the change application, not of the mother application. And so thero 

could be conflict. 
257 

Mr. HINCHEY. All right. So you are saying that there may be 

some conflict in the future based upon some need that may arise 

in the future or some application that may come about in the future. 

Mr. MoRGAN. That is correct. 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK But not that it affects anything that currently exists. 

Mr. MORGAN. No, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK, I just wanted to be clear on that. 

Mr. Jordan, I share your concern about decisions whether or not 

we buy things that are made here in this country vis-a-vis those 

that are made somewhere else in the world. I think we have given 

away far too much, of our manufacturing capacity particularly, to 

other countries, and I think very stupidly and short-sightedly. And 

that needs to be stopped. So we need to deal with that. I see my time is up, so I will not go on, but just to say that I 

agree with you and I appreciate your testimony as well as Mr. Sny- der's. Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. That is the best thing you have said 

today. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I am sure that there are other things that 

we might agree about, Mr. Chairman, if we had the opportunity to 

talk about them. It is just that on this particular issue, we may not 

see precisely eye-to-eye. Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman from New York. 

Are you through? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I--

Mr. HANSEN. If you have another question, go ahead. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I think I do. 

Ted Stewart stated that the BLM cannot, under state law, get a 

water right for wilderness, only wildlife and parks. How is the 

BLM to manage wilderness if we cannot get a water right for wilderness purposes? Mr. MORGAN. I call your attention to part of the testimony of Mr. 

Stewart and myself where we cited some 80 some odd miles of the 

San Rafael River where through the cooperation of the current 

water right holder, The Nature Conservancy, and other agencies, that protected water right was converted, was actually deeded to 

the Division of Wildlife Resources. Under Utah state law, they have the ability to file for an instream flow designating that reach 

that is unique and should be protected for their purposes. I would challenge the BLM-there are probably in excess of 

12,000 filings for the BLM and many of them are elevated and are 

based upon grazing levels that occurred in the 1900's, a lot of them 

carrying priorities 70 years before the BLM was even created, 

based upon development by individuals of those water sources, that 

are now on lands managed by the BLM. There may be opportunity for the BLM to do the very same thing that happened on the San 

Rafael. And with that designation, that reach of stream is pro- tected by state law for those purposes defined by either the Division of Parks and Recreation or the Division of Wildlife Resources 

for the maintenance of that instream flow for those unique values in that riparian zone. 
258 

Mr. HINCHEY. So once again, really what we are dealing with 

here is an expectation of some absence of fairness in the future. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. But those things can be dealt with. These are 

things that reasonable people can work out. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, they are. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Just finally, if I may, Mr. Chairman, since you have given me this leeway--

Mr. HANSEN. Surely, go ahead. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I thought I understood from you, Mr. Snyder, that 

what you were saying was that wilderness is pretty neutral as far 

as the economics are concerned, that it does not have too much of 

an impact one way or another. Did I miss something or is that basically correct? 

Mr. SNYDER. It really depends, it is very site specific. If you have 

an area that has, let us say, a large amount of harvestable timber, 

then obviously it is not going to be as neutral as an area that does 

not have any harvestable timber or other resources, so it does depend very much. 

There are estimates given from several hundred dollars benefit 

to a thousand lost when designation occurs. I think the most frustrating thing for us was in doing this-and I know the BLM is not 

surprised at this, but how difficult it is to try to quantify some of 

those impacts, either because the base information is not there 

about the minerals or harvestable timber, whatever it is, or because we do not know what the costs are. 

Mr. HINCHEY. thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. 

Dr. Snyder, you mentioned an interesting statistic in this very exhaustive report that you have done. You started out by saying that 80 percent of the households in Utah voted for wilderness. 

Then you added a caveat on that. Would you go through that again and make sure I understand what you said? 

Mr. SNYDER. OK, 80 percent of the households, responding 

households, indicated that they supported, basically gave a yes vote 

for the general concept of wilderness. And that is very consistent 

with what has been found elsewhere, that kind of a percentage. What we did beyond that was ask them then about their support 

in a voting-! cannot think of the word right now-referendum, 

whether or not they would support, for instance, the UWC proposal 

or, for instance, your proposal, Mr. Hinchey, or would support the 

BLM proposal. In both those cases, whether you looked at the rural 

population that was sampled or the urban population sampled, it 

was about two to one against those two proposals. 

Mr. HANSEN. After they got. a little more knowledge on it? 

Mr. SNYDER. We did provide them with maps of the areas. We 

talked about what specific activities could go on in wilderness, tried 

to make sure that they had an understanding of what could and 

could not happen, and following that information, then the vote 

came out as indicated. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is very interesting. 

Mr. Jordan, this hearing today really was not supposed to get into military, it did a little bit. I have tried to stay out of it, but 

I am one of the senior members of the Armed Services Committee 
259 

and I am one of the senior members of the Intelligence Committee. 

And one of the great problems that we have is this, and that comes 

down on the idea of strategic metals. You mentioned beryllium. Do 

you know of any-well, this is a difficult question, but do you know 

of any metals in any of the proposed wilderness areas, you mentioned coal in the Henry Mountains, but let us go to strategic metals. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, I do not. 

Mr. HANSEN. You are not aware of any at this particular time. 

Mr. JORDAN. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. You have brought out that strategic metals though 

are used in possibly everything we are doing now, the space station-the proposed space station, I should say, the B-2 bomber, the 

F-22 has 240 pounds of it on it. Many of the things we use in gathering of intelligence information through satellites, I know that we 

use a lot of those particular metals. So that would be kind of a concern of yours I guess. Mr. Hinchey talked about the idea that let 

us not go to a foreign source. How much more do we pay to a foreign source of strategic metals? 

Mr. JORDAN. If you talk of beryllium, you are subject to national 

policies of Kazakstan, formerly the Soviet Union, and China. I 

mean, they control it and if we do not want to play the game, no 

money in the world, as you and I know, will supply us with that 

mineral. They will just shut it off, which has happened before to 

nations historically, for those of us who know the history. So that 

is a concern. 

Let me just correct one thing on bertrandite ore, which contributes to beryllium. It is within the view shed of the Fish Lake 

Range, the mines. It is specifically mentioned in the legislation, so 

that is a concern. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, many of us are very concerned about the position of the United States military at this time. Actually, the idea 

that peace is here is baloney. They ought to have the opportunity 

to see the threats that we have around the world, it would scare 

a lot of Americans, if I may say so. 

Mr. Selman, what do you lose of your lambing crop? When you 

are lambing, what percent do you lose? 

Mr. SELMAN. At our actual lambing time? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SELMAN. When the lambs are dropped on the ground. 

Mr. HANSEN. When the lambs are dropped. 

Mr. SELMAN. Well we range lamb, we do not shed lamb, we range 

lamb. And I would say that through natural conditions, we probably lose about-on an average year, probably about 10 percent. 

Now this is through birth problems and what-have-you. 

Mr. HANSEN. What would a person like Edison Stevens and others right out on the range, what would they lose, same percent? 

Would you say that is a pretty good average for the state, for the 

west? 

Mr. SELMAN. I cannot say that. I am just talking for our experience. 

Mr. HANSEN. What precautions do you take against that? 

Mr. SELMAN. Well, we have an extreme predator program that 

includes aerial flying, both helicopter and fixed wing. We have a 
260 

trapper on the ground, we have a trapper in our family that spends 

all of his extra time. We have a houndsman. It goes on and on. U 

is a continual program that we keep these losses down. 

Mr. HANSEN. In front of the Committee, someone brought up the 

idea that there are some kinds of dogs they are using. Have you 

tried that yet? 

Mr. SELMAN. Guard dogs? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SELMAN. Yes, although you cannot use guard dogs at 

lambing time, it just does not work. 

Mr. HANSEN. But you do use them other times? 

Mr. SELMAN. We have used them occasionally. They do not fit 

our operation too well. I might add in this Mount Naomi Wilderness Area, it is an area, a very fragile area, it is awful steep and 

rocky. Dogs have a tendency to bunch the sheep. When they bunch 

the sheep, they start to roll rocks and rocks break lambs' legs. 

When this happens, it is a very fragile environment, it disturbs thE~ 

soil and we do not like dogs. 

Mr. HANSEN. Your testimony disturbed me a wee bit. I put 

Naomi in wilderness. Contrary to what a lot of people think, I am 

the only one that has put anything in wilderness in the State of 

Utah. We were of the o_pinion when we put it in, and the testimony 

we received from the Forest Service, was that you would have a 

better working relationship with the Forest Service. It did not quitE~ 

tum out that way. 

Mr. SELMAN. No, it has not. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is the same testimony we received in Cedar 

City, the people on Pine Mountain in Washington County. 

Mr. Morgan, are there any unappropriated waters left within thE~ 

proposed designated areas? 

Mr. MORGAN. If there are, they are very small amounts. 

Mr. HANSEN. You would not know of any that you could give us'? 

Mr. MORGAN. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I want to thank you, panel, for coming. It haB 

been very kind of you to be here. I thank the members of the Committee for being here. 

I would like to ask if either gentleman wants a closing statement. If so, I am going to limit you to two minutes. I think the people here have been very patient. It has been kind of a long hearing, 

a little hot out there. I appreciate your patience, I do appreciatE~ 

you folks for being here and thank you for your testimony. 

The gentleman from American Samoa, any closing remarks? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, again, I express my sentiments in telling you how much I appreciate the invitation that has been extended to the members of the Committee for 

enabling us to come and visit here in this great State of Utah, and 

to certainly thank all the members of the community for coming 

out here to hear the testimony of the several witnesses. I really appreciate the hospitality. · I invite all the members of the community here to visit Samoa-- pa~ your own ticket, but I will be happy to host you there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think if there is anything that has reinforced my thinking, Mr. Chairman, it is to see how much we really 
261 

could appreciate the environment and something that the good Lord has placed on this planet, and for us to appreciate and that 

we should never let go of that. Very similar to Native American 

traditions, as you know, Mr. Chairman, as well as with my own 

people, this planet or this mother earth literally is our mother. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It is ironic that-at least as an observation, 

my recent reading of the Mormon scripture, this word seems to 

come right out, since 1830, it is called pollution. Who would ever 

think since 1830, that the word pollution now is so much a common 

expression in our latter days, to see that literally this earth is really filled with pollution. I have a serious problem in the Pacific. Since 1945, the countries 

of the world have detonated or exploded in excess of 2036 atomic 

bombs, and now I am faced with a very serious problem with the 

French government, which has decided to resume its nuclear testing program starting in September, eight nuclear explosions, each 

ten times stronger than what was dropped in Hiroshima and Naga- saki. It really makes one appreciate what the environment means. 

And I think what we see here in the State of Utah about the importance of wilderness and all that we see here, such beautiful natural landscapes, much to the aesthetics, how much we can really appreciate what the good Lord has brought for us to appreciate. We 

have also similar problems in my part of the world and I sincerely hope that countries that have such tremendous power, such that 

they could certainly exercise a greater sense of restraint and appre- ciation for some 28 million people who live in that part of the world 

but .seem totally helpless because France is such a great country and they have all the power and the authority to explode these 

dangerous explosives. And I suppose the only reason why they 

want to do this is to kill another person. You might say, Mr. Chairman, that chivalry is no longer part of 

being valued as a great warrior as we saw in times past. We now 

produce bombs that literally give you no sense of really feeling as 

a first-class warrior because all you do is press the button and a 

hundred thousand people are dead. To me, that is not warfare, that 

is just murder. 

But anyway-- [Applause.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. -I thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank the 

members of the community, the members of the panel. Again, the 

invitation holds true, come and visit Samoa. Maybe a couple of my tribesmen will play for the University of Utah or BYU. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. You have got to keep in mind that the gentleman from American Samoa played for BYU. As a graduate of the University of Utah, I have some problems with that, and I guess from 

Utah State, Dr. Snyder, that always bothers you, does it not, when 

you see these people. I do not know what you feed them down 

there, but they sure do a great job. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, we have-we call it our steroids in 

Samoa, Mr. Chairman, it is green bananas. 

[Laughter.] 
262 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think we have a pretty good record for the 

ten Samoans that played in the NFL, three made All Pro this year. And I think five more got recruited in the NFL ranks this year. I 

do not know, somehow Samoans have a real good feeling for contact sports. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. And that is why he ran for Congress because that 

is the biggest contact sport I know. 

Mo Hinchey, do you have closing remarks? 

Mr. HINCHEY. And that is why we respect what you say about 

war and warriors also. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again I want to express my ap- preciation for your holding this hearing and giving me an oppor- tunity to be here in Utah and to listen to the testimony that we 

heard both here and in Cedar City yesterday. I think it was excellent testimony, I have learned a lot. It continues my education 

about this wonderful state. It is an education that I hope will only be enhanced and accentuated in the years ahead. 

I live in a state, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that has 

a lot of wilderness. In fact, we have more wilderness in New 

York-contrary to what many people believe, that the state is 

paved over from one end to the other, we have more wilderness in 

New York than any other state east of the Mississippi River. And 

in fact, with the Adirondack and Catskill parks, we have the largest parks anywhere in the lower 48 states. 

So I come to you as one, both who knows something about how 

to preserve wilderness areas and also from the perspective of one 

who has observed what happens when you fail to protect that 

which is most dear and most valuable and in fact irreplaceable. You people here in the State of Utah and we across the country are 

about to make a decision-whether it will be made this year or 

next is unknown of course to any of us, but it will be made at some 

point in the near future. The point to remember is that I thinkprobably the most important point to remember-is that this decision, once it is made, will in large measure-not entirely, but in 

large measure-be irreversible. I say not entirely, because in times 

of national emergency, if it turned out that we needed to go into 

someplace and get the seed ore that produces beryllium, you can 

bet your life that that is precisely what we would do. So it is not 

entirely irreversible and I do not want anybody to kid you about 

any of that stuff. 

But the fact of the matter is that to a large extent these decisions will be made irreversibly because once the land is used and 

used up, you cannot go back. We have a chance here to do something that will provide those in future generations an opportunity to look back with gratitude, or to look back with regret. So the decision that we make will determine what their attitude will be about 

us far into the future. 

I thank you very much for what you are doing, I thank the 

Chairman for his leadership on this issue. Although we do not 

agree on the outcome; nevertheless, he is a man of intellect, he is 

a man of principle, he is a man of courage-in spite of what he 

might think about the things that I say about certain issues-he 

does possess those qualities and I respect him very much for that. 
263 

We will continue to disagree about this issue. I urge you to continue to hold onto your principles and perhaps in the cauldron of 

public debate, we will come out with something that is solid and 

secure for ourselves and for the future. 

Thanks very much. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HANSEN. One of the nice things about Congress is we disagree in an amicable manner. We have some very strong feelings and we feel them in Congress, but we usually remain friends. And 

that is the best way to do business, if I may say so. People who 

take things personally I worry about. 

Anyway, let me thank each and every one of you for being here. 

The record remains open for ten days, as per our rules, for any 

comment that anyone would like to make. So if anyone would like 

to add, take away or discount what they said, here is your chance 

to do it for ten days. We thank each and every one of you for being here. The next 

issue that will come up on this particular bill, or the next time we 

will face this issue will be the 29th of this month in Washington, D.C. That will be a different type of hearing than this one. Tnose 

are under very strict rules. You are welcome to come, but you only have the latitude to sit. 

Thank you very much, this meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was subm1tted for the record:] 
Governor Mike Leavitt 

The UQn ~onas Delegation 

cJo Govemors Office 

116 S1ala Capitol 

s.11 UJ<.e e~~y, vr 84114 

264 

Dear Governor Leavitt and Members of the Ut.i!lh Delegation: 

May 1, 1995 

Preserving and protecling Utah':; armeofogieal, histolical, and saaed Native ~n 

sites is of great =ncem and importance to armeolcgisl$ and lltllhrOpologists, not only from 

Utah, bUt from all areas of the country and abroad. For this IUSQn, a d'rveJSe group of 

arcneologists and anthropolcglsts from federal, state, univelsity, and priv31e itulusuy settings 

have a>me tagether 1o pnMc!e ltlis statement on the wildcmess issue rw your c:ons;deralion. 

As you knoW, our government has made a signif'JCJI'II commilment to the prc1eaicin and 

pte$1Nation of impoftant areheCiogiCal, l'islori<:al, and sacred Native American sites lhrough a 

11arlety of federal laws. These lnducle me: 

Antiquilics At:. of 1906 (!>•* Law 59-209 16 U.S. C. 431-33l 

National Histone Preservation Ad, 191!15 (PubUc Law 8U65 16 U.S.C. UO as amended in 1976 by 

Public Law 91..243 93-54 94-42:2-

- Envircnmorcar Policy !>d.. 1~ (Public taw 91-190 42 u.s. c. 4S21-43·m, 

Arcneolcgic:al and t-fiSIO<ic-Nt., 1!074 (Public Law 93-m 15 u.s.c 459), and 

~ogic:al ~-Ad, 1979(P.r..oic U1w 116o8515 V.S.C. 470. 

While pnltec::ion of imponant sites :s wrillen inti> laW, aaual protec:lion on the site by site 

baSis iS difficult for a vafiely of reasons. Sites are often remote ind scatterecl making them 

diffacuft to mon~or. and ~ for palro{s of sites on the lflerally millions of aaes of (eder.~l 

land in lJialt are limited. An:l\eologlcal, llistoric:al, and sacred Native American sites are nonrenewallle, yet eac:t\ Gay, our resource base is dwindling 1t1n>19t thoughtless aas of people whO 

want to exploit the remnants of our co11ea;y. heritage lor tneir -.. personal gain. Derol>ec2te 

locling of ardleologlcal sites, lncludin!l gra~obbing. is an ongoing probletn Uvoughout the 

state, and pertic:ulal!y ~patll in SO<IIIreasem Ulan w!ic:ll has $0111e of our mo5t Sl)edac:ular 

arclleolagical sites. The damage has become so widespead and intense 11l31 the valUe of the 

C:Uitlnl propenles, if not ~heir' very exlstenc:e, is lhrealenecl. 

To date. most of the potllunting lias been done by private c:it.izens who keep their r..m or 

sea tnem for • profit. Though - at 111e paiJlUIItii'IO is crone by private Citizens, it may still De 

well ~~ptoying otf.folld ..ellides to tUC:Il sites and C8 r.lios as waminQ systems 

._ app-ettension, 8nd d- undw llle QQVW Of_nighl to 8IIOid <Mtection. And, it ia doin; 

serious damage to 1fle atdleologlc:al nisource base. One group enll!nld C~nds National 
265 

Par1t to pomun: on Chlislmas day! Al!rition of ztdleological sites on public looncls liaS been oond 

a>ntinues to be ~ .. rious pmblem. 

Olganized commercial groups who ...,. he3Yy eqUipment have yet to move into out state 

in atty $ignif'teant way. but it may be just a rnaller or time. The devasl3ling t>ffeas of their 

adions can toe seen in neighboMg eou-in Colonodo, New Me>rioo, and Arizona. ~ 

t:t1 Q.dlural resoun:es alSo comes 1n>m ~ activities sud1 as wheeled \lehides driving 

~ sites. ancl ddibenrte adS of vandaiSm such as spray painting o-. rubbing -. or 

scratching gratfili on roc:1< art. and pushing aver~ 'II1CI wals. 

Thete have been several scientific studies on hoor to best protect these pie<:es of our 

haritllge given thejr scattered and remote nature and our limiled resources. AU of those INdies 

found lhat aa::ess afl'oroed by proximity 10 reads Is one of the lliggeot factors in Wllelner a site 

will be looted. damaged, vandalized. or cleslroyed (Harden 1979: Ughlfoot and Fnlncis 1976; 

NickeR$ et 81. 1981; SCOtt t977; Simms 198&). One polhwllerc.onsulted as part_of a vandalism 

ruJdy In SOUII!westem Colorado stated "Famiies go to easily acoessible plaCes, wllere they can 

cfriv" in wilh the I:Xis and have.lhe «>rrvenia'as of home" (Nickens et al. 11l81:108). The same 

.!ludy Showed that most people wiH only Wlllk a short distance 10 reach a she. one infofmant 

staled "We llSUally pa:t. right w1>eoe we dig" (N'ICkens et al. 1981 :109). In the same study, 70 

percent of the t/lOSI: inteMew<od about their digging and artifact collectinO activities statcel that 

they walk no more than 101 yards 1o reach a site: 85 percent walk no farther than one-half mile. 

Clearly. maintaining roadless areas is largeot and least cosily deterrent to polhunling. 

vandalisn. ;ord ;n;odverfent vehicular damage. For this reason. we ber.eve 11ra1 clesignating the 

maximum amount of wilderness possible wiU provide Ule rna>cimum protection for the maximum 

number of llrCieological, historic:al. and $3C%'ed Native · """'rica" sites. We rec:ognize that 

oonduaing sz:io!nlifiC resean:h in roaaless areas wm be less c:onveoient ana logistically more 

clifiiCIJit, but our ultimate goal is praiedion and prese~~~alion of our nonnenewable ~ and 

- believe thai such inconveniences are a smaU pric:e to pay for achieving this goal. 

We ..ould atso like 1o point out that Utah has been blessed wil1l a dive<se assemblage of 

arclleological sites and site types from a wide variety or c:ult\Jres, including Paleoindian, Archaic, 

Fnlll'lonl, Anasazl, SOUI/Iem Paiute. I.Jie. Goshute, Shoshone, Navajo, and Hopi peoples. As. 

such, sites from different parts of the slate all! unique. Therefore. it is only 1111 protecling 

roacllesS 18ndS in all major areas of the state that ..., c:an assure lhe pl1:lleCii:>n and preserval«>n 

or a sample of all types of sacs. from an cultural periods. and all c:ullutal gn>ups. 

we a!So be&ve ir is c:rftical to protect. as wilderness, latge, c:onliguous tr.ads of land. 

Small wiiOetMSS areas are not as etrective as 1a1ge areas in limiling aa:es5. 'They alSO -

lr.ll.e visitation On a few archeolcgial sllr:s, a>nllibuling grutly lO their deiBrionllliOn. l.a<ga 

lnlds ate also needed to prolad the r.-t range of arc:fleological manifestationS '""'""""'li"g each 

Cldtwal group and time period. Tllrougll the majority of U1ah'll human prellistory. people -~ 
266 

n\ollilo hunters ;ond ~ who -.ned laJVe arus in SI03tCh of food and Olhef lleCeSSaly 

~- Many ptac:tiCecl a seasonal pottem of usifig high-during !he wann seasons 

and loWe.- elevations dllltnQ tne - monllt$. PreseMition of tne - range of site l)1:les 

~ a partic:ular preflislOIIc; scmemenc srsciom is dependerlt on deo;ignatlng large 

contiguous tracts in both hig!Und an1110w1anc1 emrinlflments for P!Qtection. 

While-~ suppact full wilderness designalion as 1lle beSt rne8115 of pn>(ec:tln; our 

state-s unique prenlstor, - amuraJ herlage, wv woutt c:ertany support am entellain any Oilier 

~nalions (e.g .• primlNe ;nas, National COnseMIIion ~liiiBt IICC:Oml)llsh the same goal 

Of ~ velliaAar access. We do, '-· 5trongly c>ppcoie ""Y hanl ,.,,_ language. 

The last decade has seen 5UboUntial pn>gr115S In our scieftlific techniqueS and abilil)' to 

unde1slancf and apprecial1t .past culbns and we e:xpec1 the rapicl pace of advam:emenr to 

continUe wen IntO the tuture. Sites. anitacls, feallns. and clheT manifestations wllictl do r101 

now seem as impoltanlto protect may ...,u be COilSiclerecl important in light of funn advanceS in 

our field. We believe that_ lhe oplion to consiclef' new are.as for wilderness designalion in the 

ruwre is critical. 

we hope we can count on you to help us proteCt Utah's a.1tura1 past and its unique 

w!Wral resources. If we can help in 2r1y way during the site seledion proee$$. please do not 

hesitllte to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

vf..J... H·d·c ~ .. ... 

\)ro(! ~ .... 1 'aoT.£. l.0<c 
267 
268 

·---------------·---· . ···-·· - ·------··· -.... 

---·---·- ----------,---

... --·-·--·---·---··----

--· -·--.... -Co.n::!Ar± &oon::::.: ....... ......... ______ ___ .. . ·- --- ------------------.. ·--·-·---- -

- ----·-- N~ J. k~,--th._Q_ __ _ 

------,----~.JJM-tf--k_~j,(..() 

C4oiPn\an49 N~~~~n~------------­

(eo9 2.~- ?.<;II 

---------------------·-----------·--·-···-----·--·---- "&:*"'f I T, f>~__,.....M.J..-_,_ ______ ..... 

____ .. . p,:m:_~~ IN~ 

______ _ aa.JJ:.J .. ~% , w-: ~~~~ ·----

____ .... -- {1!!J).~"J~--- ···· -- -·······-···· -··- ·- .. ----· 
269 

-----·- .. . -----

··· -----------· ·- . ------... ---- _,. _. 

-.•· - ·----· --

--- ~--- · 

. ----------- -··- -- - ····-···--·-------9-~--=- ~ 8.2 . .. -----··-- ·····-

·- ··-------------.... .. 
f{eferences Cited 

Harllen. Frea 

270 

1979 Cultwal Resoun:e Sutveillance Report Summer 1979. Ms. Report on file at the 

Buteau of UIOd Management. San Juan Resowee ~a. 0\nngo. 

Ugnlfoct. Kent G. And Julie E. Francis 

1978 lbe Effect of Casual Sutface Colleclicn on .Bellaviontllnletpn!lalions of An:haeclcgical 

Data. In An Anll/ytiCII/ Approacll to CUJIJJral ReSJNr» ~ The l.illle 

Cclorarlo F'lllntlmg Unit. edited ~ l"tecc Plog. pp. 82-110. Arizona sttte Unive!Sity AnlhropoJogical R&sean::h Papers 13. Tempe. 

Nickens, Paul R., Signa L l...atr.lkle. and Gorllon C. Tucker. Jr. 

1981 A s..vey of V8ndali'Sm to AFr:haeologics/ R-ir7 Scuthwestem Colotaci:>. 

Buteau of Land Management Cultural Resources Series t 1. Denver. 

Scoll. Douglas D. 

19n Two Vandalized Pueblo U/ BllfaiS: Some Key Factors AJfec1Jng V81ldtism of 

Situ. SOuthwestern Lore 43(3): 10.14. 

Simms, Ste-ten R. 

1988 CuiiUnll Resource Investigations in Soullleastem UWI to Aiel in tne As$eSSmelll Of 

Ardleological Vandalism. lnven!Dty of Sevenly-(our Siles and Two Test Excavations 

in the Manti-LaSal National Fotest and SCieded, Adjacent Bureau of Lancl 

Yanageml!nl Areas. Weber Slate College ArcllaeOIOglall Teclmidan Program. 

Submilled to u.s. Fotest Service. salt l...a.ke City and Monlic:eUo. 

TOT~ P.0B 
271 

Utah Professional Archaeological Council 

~or JU.eh~l t.e:rvitt 

210 state capitol 

Salt Lako City, Utah 84~14 

May 15' 1!1!15 

The O'ta.h Professiona1 Areh.aecl.og-ical. Cou.ncil (UPACJ i.S a..n ocga.n.i.z.atio11 o~ 

s:aore th.2...tt 100 prcras:-.:iOD&l iL:'c:haeologiGts:, a.a.t.hropol.ogiS1:.S,. and Mst.ori.ana who 

work in or have an interest in· urah•s p~1story anc1 hiJtt.orya D.lr ~ship · 

represent& .. a wide c:ros£--C.ect.i.on ot' pract.i.cir.q p:rofessio~ f.ram. a..ll. facets of 

the field - uniYe.rsi.ey professors and rt.a:ff, state an~ federal. agency 

a~chaacl.cCJirt1;, and private consulting fir":~~~ OW!U2:rs and employees.. tJPA.C· s 

membership deri.ves froca Q't.ah and a. 'V2riRty or othel:' ctat,u: i."\c:ludin.g COl.o.rado, 

Ari.:ana, &nod Nevada. 

wilderness vas oc.e of the main tcpic• discussed a.t cur semi-amma.l." busl...ness 

meeti.lu; on Fri.day, April 28th- A.i; a. q:cup, we are very di.st.urt:ted by recent 

!:ta'teme::ats made i.n the press, .at the Moab reql.or...a~ hea.rir.g, and by b::l~ 

congressma!l Orto::t a.."l.d the s.an Juan ee-.~nty co:=is:si.oners, tr..at archaeol.oqistS' 

eppose w~1de--ness- ~e are ~~ CQ~aLn wh2re these stateme~~5 or~g~ted, but 

,_,.;_sh to di:;pal. t~ with e.mp.'h..a.s-i~ a.:::d finali!;y. They do r..c~ :-erreSi2!lt the 

~j ority "Vit'!!W o£ }?%".=te:t.ic.Ln.g F0'£2~£i.c.n.a.2 .;u:eh&t!Ol09.i.St.s: i.r:. oo.l: statQ ~or the O"'!:.a..h 

Professional ~c~log~ea~ Coc~e£1. 

One of O\:r ul~i;oa-ce goals :;.~: a.rcha.ealog~s. 

historians i..s to p.rese...T"Ve and protec~ cult.ur.al pr~ies. 

~~~hrO?Qlogist~, and 

Ow.r voting me:!Dbersl\ip 

at the reoent bus~ess meeting cn~n~u~ly ~~dorsed tte Citizens Proposal fo~ 

5.1 10illio.1 a.c:es of wilderne£t:: 0:1 R~esu of Land Ma...'lagement Land J..o Utah& We. 

took thLs a~~ion b~~ause we beli~ve that ~ilderness designation could b~ one of 

the mos-1:. effective mechanisms of pres_ervinq and p.reteee.i.n.g" the rapidly 

dimini&hing traces of Utah's heritagQ. 

Our qoverncent • s coumi.t:l:lent to protecting a.rch.3.eologica.l si.tes dates back 

a..l..oost a cen~ 1:.0 the Antiqu'i._ties Act of 1906. 'l"hi.s c:oaztti."O:U?.nt ba.9 bQQn 

consistently maintained ~Q the present tbroagh a variety o£ laws, regulations 

and the E:QPl.~t of professi.on.a.l. a..rchaeol.og.i...st.s, a.n.thropoi.og.i.st=. and 

hist.ori~ by al.IQC).et every land. ~nagi.ng a.qenc:y i.n · cu.r: :state and fecle.ra1 

Creating A 
272 

Utah Professional Archaeological Council GcVKrnor ·La&vitt 

Page 2 

govert'liN!n~s. Despite this conai.tmen~. our cuitural legacy is ~hreatened as sites 

ace being da.aged and dectroyad. 4lt .oar:~ alarming rate. Tha damage c0121es ill tza~ny 

£orac th.:at icc:iude loati.J!lg, pot..hu....,.~ing, van~lis:m, deval.opoo..=.t, O'Ver-viei.tat;iCn; 

and even ~dve.rr;e:n~ daaa.ge from. .vl\Qelvd vehit:le..s. MD~. i.£ not all, of thet:• 

de~cti....e :..~etA ea.o bo Al.i.-inatecl or greatly recSu.ead. ~hrO'Uqh vi.ldcrnea.!t 

dvsiqnati.on. A va.r.i.a~y ot 5C:iiu:rtlli.c studies, conc!uctad mos'C:ly in S.O"Otha.a~tern 

ot~h (Ab1~troo ~ al. 1992; Ronaycu~e aad Fettarmaa 1.985; xY~ 1990; Nickens 

et al. 1981; s~ 19&6; Mylie and Nagel 1989), have shown that ease of acceGs 

1.5 one af the largast faetorc in si.~ V\llD.era..bility to lootin.g, ;pc;t.hWlti.ng, ~ 

vandaliSnJ. ltestricting access ~hrou.gb wilderness d~Uign.a~ion will help qu~ll 

these de&~ctive activlttes as WQll as prevent da=age fr~ wheeled vehicles 

driving across eUl~ura~ propo:ties. 

Wo r4~1izQ t~t wilderneca des~gnat~oft ~leo ~~~~ts vehicular &eCe$& to 

sit~ £or leqit~te purposes, such as 1n0nitori.n9 patrols and researc.h. We 

eertai..e.ly be1i.ave th.at tlte benefits far outwe1.gh the 4et.rac:tions of vilderne~ 

d.e5t.c;n.at.1.on. 

FurthL."""::DOra, it i.s cuse.nei.~l U.a.t. wilCerness arcu• bQ large a..o4 nu=ercus. 

Otherwise, there is a s~gnlticant risk of visitor use bei~ co~een~rated en ~ 

few archaiKllogica.l. sil:es, l:hUC: h.a..ctening th2i.r dQ.t&riora.'t.iOJ'):. La%qe areas: are 

a.ls:o neees.c~ry to Qttsure the preservation of entire p=ahic:t.oric cattl"QQ.Qnt 1..'"'!1d 

subsi.st.tnca sys.tQ!:S whieh typically c:pa...n ~ variety of bahi.ta~ :i..~ ~~ 1.-rge.::-

mountain-desert eeosyatee. 

7iaally, ve •ehKm&Dtly oppose hard releASe lanquage. Science , including 

arc;h.aeol.ogJ.'-'al &c:l.Qnca, is actvar.ei.ng a.t a ca~.td p.a.ee. wa -.u.o:. retain fle.xi.bi.li.ty 

into the f\;;;t\lre as t:.li!'W t:ctcl'-.::1iqua-s and c!i.ceov~ri.as: Uter our unc!e.rstanding ot: vl-...at 

is important to protect and pre>se.rvQ n.ov a.!ld !or future ge!:l.era:~ion.s . 

In suo~ OPAC .SUPPOrtS 'Wi.1d~!l9 and :rcspeetfully request that· the 

i..n.1.ceura.te cea-e.caaan:ts:: Ua~ ~""'e been 111.;u!e reg;ardituJ our pe.cieioft 'ba ~tricken f~ 

or correcteod in the &ppropri.atQ records::. Wet a.l.so beli8"'0'• that cul.turoal. 

properties in all ac.e.as of cile state de.serva the protection tha.t only c. 

respon:~.ible az:Jcl gw:::.erou.s: vUde.ra.ess bi.ll, s;uc:b. a.s:: the c.!.tizens Proposal. .ror 5_ 7 

Ai.l.licn acrec of wilderne••, in eonc:e.rt vith the provisioc.. CNtli.n.ocl ahoVG, can 

~~ord .. 

Creating A Future For Utah's Past 
273 

Utah Professional Archaeological Council 

Governor Leavitt 

Pall" 3 

DPAC d.ra..., f,_ a ~ci~&ble depth of bovleds- and experi.ezlce ""!!al:'din9 

1:hese ~- We will. be happy = work witb you tD drav up tbe special 

peovi.sions d .. crlhed above. %f you b<l.v" aAy quest:ionc rega.rcUnv ;my p.arti.cul.ar 

are:aa, Wilt wi.1.l. be gla4 .to of'f"t~r our assi..stance. fta.nlc. yeN far this oppoR.ttDi:tr 

to Cc::IIIIIDCm'e, present ~ vi8WS r and. corn:ct the al.ai.a.£D.J:Iaid:i.on being ci.rcal..a.ted 

about our posLtLon. 

Sinc:e:r:ely, 

William D&vis 

UPAC Presidem.t 

P.O. Box 100 

Bluff, D~ 84512 

~S~! 

p~~ 

ll~~ 

;,pi.J,~~ 

~~...., 

K~~"' 

~x;~~ 

~g,;.J~~~ 

Creating A Future For Otah's Past 
274 

Utah Professional Archaeological Council 

.Ahlstrom, Ri.c.h.ard V.lf., Kalcota Ac!a1.r:, Jt.. ~ Jtul.U,. and. ~ez:t c;:. Z\al.e.r 

1992 J'Oclituiti.IJg iD C~t:r:"~ ..l.;r~a:: r.be Perry ltc:sa. Arc:J.a..eo~og.ic&.Z SiC.e 

V&.l>d&l.i,.. Stady. a.l.taral Rasources lla.nac;-t Report J.3. U.S.D.A. 

rore~ serv.1ce, ScnrthYe.Stern: ttagioa. an4 u .. s .. D.I. Bureom of' L&Ni 

Management, Arizona. 

l!cneycutt. Linda and Jerry· Fetterman 

J.985 The Alkali Ridge CUltural Re.50Urce S\:rve,:J' u:4 V&.l2d'a..Z...i.sa ~udy, 

So~=e= Ul:ab. Wood!! Canyon Arc:-log~c;aJ. c.>n=.l~. Yel.low 

.J'a.elu!:t, Co1orado. Sabm.itted to t:he &urea~ of Land Hana.g~ Moab 

Dirtr~ Office, ~-

Xvamme, X2nneth I.. .. 

1990 Sil.n .7'\:..an Cot:.nty, 'Otah, Archaeological Vandalisz:a:: An A£:se.sSiZilQll.t of 

a vandalism Model and Praetice.s. Ari.z.ona Stat.ril: Ku.a~, Oni:versity 

of A:iz.ona, Tuc:son. 

Nickens~ Paul R-~ Siqca L .. Larralde. and Gordon c. T~cker 

1981 A survey o~ vandal~~ co Azchseolog~c~l RQsources in Soa~v•s~~r.n 

CcZorado.. Surg.au of ~d Ma.n.a.ga:z:ilat Cul.tc..rU ll.esou:cc-as S&l;ies 11 .. 

De::rve.r .. 

silrms, s~even a .. 

1986 C12lE:urU ResoilZ'Cit InV...sr.igations iD. Souebea.see.ni Dt;ab t:a Aid :i..:1 Ue 

.i:cs•.s-~t: oL ~oJ.og.it:al Vandali.sla. Archa.eoloqi.cal. Tec:bni.cian 

Program,. Weber State eol.l111113V, I.og"an.. Sub:U.tted to O'.S.D.A .. Forest 

Serviee, Salt Lake City and Montice1lo. 

Wylia,. Jer:ry Lo"\d. &o!lo ll•qel 

l.989 Q'O:a.A'!:i.~i..ag attiS Xoe!ei.l.i..nc;J A..reb&e-olo'lic:~ Looti..nq: The 'Ol:.a.h 

:ra.t.cr~t1jJency GIS Project. P~ presented a.t the Soci.et:y for A.:Ntt'i.cau 

A:'chaeology Anti-~.i.ng' Working COnference, Taos. 

Q-eating A Future For Utah's Past 
Testimony of Ruland Gill 

Chair, Board of Trustees 

Scho ol and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

State of Utah 

H. R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

June 24, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to address you today concerning the issue of 

school trust lands and proposed wilderness designation for Bureau 

of Land Management lands, pursuant to either H.R. 1745 or H. R. 

1500 . 

The School and Institutional Trust Lands were offered to the 

state for the benefit of the common schools in the Act of 

Congress which enabled the territory of Utah to become a state. 

The lands were accepted by the state for those purposes in the 

state constitution. In exchange, the state gave up the right to 

tax the federal lands . Pursuant to its sovereign powers as a state, Utah manages this fiduciary contract and the associated 

trust lands through an independent state agency, the School and 

Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) , and a seven 

member policy setting Board of Trustees (Board) . State law 

requires the Board, as trustees, to set policies that, among 

other things, reflect undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries (the 

public schools, universities and other named institutions), 

optimize trust land holdings, and prevent the misapplication of 

its lands. 

The Board, SITLA and their predecessors have been concerned 

for a long time about de facto restrictions on the utilization of 

the trust lands caused by federal land management. The trust lands are scattered checkerboard style throughout the federal 

land in Utah, with the federal land surrounding the smaller 

parcels of trust land. Restrictions on, and complicated 

procedures for, the use of the federal lands have become a real 

and significant burden on the development of the trust lands . 

The Board and SITLA are greatly concerned about proposals 

for the designation of wilderness because federal reservations 

created solely for the purposes of preservation, such as national 

parks and wilderness, can be directly at odds with the purpose of 

the trust. For example, the trust has the legal right to 
reasonable access to the trust lands in order to accomplish its 

responsibilities. Land surrounded by protected pristine areas can be very attractive on the real estate market . Real estate 

development, however, would severely detract from the wilderness 

setting the Congress envisions for these areas. SITLA believes 

that H.R . 1745 properly identifies the interdependence of trust 

lands ~s they relate to and contribute to the wilderness areas. 

The Board and SITLA see the opportunity for both the federal 

wilderness and trust objectives to be accomplished through the 

proposed exchange of lands. H.R. 1745 correctly recognizes the 

rights, importance and obligations of trust lands and SITLA. 

Specifically, Section 11 provides for a fair and timely exchange 

of trust lands. We note that H.R. 1500 fails to address this 

important issue. 

The lands to be exchanged are identified on the map entitled 

"In-held School Trust Land Exchange- Proposed, June 6, 1995." 

The State offers its title to trust lands within or bisected by 

wilderness boundaries in exchange for fee simple title to the 

federal lands shown. 

H.R. 1745 states that Congress finds that the proposed 

exchange lands are of •approximate equivalent value.• The Board 

and SITLA concur with this finding for the following reasons: 

• Considering the diminishing supply of pristine wild 

lands in the United States, the critical location of trust 

lands (over 12\ of the proposed wilderness areas) is vital 

to the successful management of the wilderness ecosystems. 

The United States can never achieve the full purposes and 

goals of the wilderness act so long as trust lands remain in 

their midst. The proposed exchange immediately grants the 

federal government the full utility of the in-held trust 

lands for wilderness purposes. 

t The cost to the federal government to manage the 

proposed wilderness areas will be greatly increased if the 

in-held trust lands are not exchanged at the outset of the 

designation. 

t The trust lands offered have been leased for mineral 

development at one time or another within the last fifteen 

years. No significant revenues are being generated from the 

trust or federal lands at this time, therefore, only the 

possibility to develop can be transferred. The acquired 

lands must provide the trust with a corresponding 

opportunity. It is fair to transfer the opportunity to 

develop and the risk of non-development and changing markets 

from trust lands to the targeted federal lands. 

• Among other encumbrances, the targeted federal lands 

2 
~7 

are encumbered by local government's right to one-half of 

the royalties covered by the federal Mineral Leasing Act. 

t As stated earlier, real estate development within 

federal holdings can be of high value. The location and 

utility of the trust lands within the proposed wilderness 

areas increases their net worth. 

t The trust is unwilling to consider the worth of its 

lands in this exchange by only looking at today•s 

conditions. The trust lands must be examined with due 

consideration to the relevant components of value; utility, 

scarcity and desire, and the four basic forces which 

influence these components; social, economic, governmental 

(legal) and environmental (physical). Wilderness is a very 

desirable commodity today, due to societal recognition of 

its scarcity. The worth of wilderness has increased over 

time, due to increasing scarcity, and is currently in much 

demand. These values will be immediately realized by the 

federal government but the values transferred to the trust 

will be dependent on market conditions and the Board and 

SITLA's ability to capitalize on future opportunities. 

In conclusion, the trust lands are highly desirable because 

~hey are located within wilderness areas and because wilderness 

1s unique. It has no substitute. By designating these lands as 

wilderness, the Congress is recognizing their inherent and 

intrinsic worth to the citizens of the United States. That 

recognition should be reflected in the federal lands transferred 

to the trust. 

3 
278 

Testimony of Melvin R. Brown, Speaker, 

Utah House of Representatives, 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

of the Committee on Resources, 

United States House of Representatives, 

Saturday, June 24, 1995 10:00 a.m., 

State Office Building Auditorium, Salt Lake City, Utah 

WILDERNESS DESIGNATION IN UTAH 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: 

It is an honor as Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives to appear at this hearing 

and represent the position taken by the Legislature on the subject of wilderness designation in 

Utah. This testimony is particularly significant and important, I believe, because the Legislature, 

the elected representatives of the citizens of Utah, was not invited and did not sit at the table 

during the discussion which formulated the policy which lead to the creation H.R. 1745, the 

resolution under consideration, and which would legislate wilderness designation in Utah. 

The Legislature of the state of Utah has taken a position twice in recent years on 

wilderness designation in Utah. H.C.R. 13, by former state representative David M. Adams and 

others was adopted by both houses of the Legislature in 199!. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, 

the Governor concurring therein, recommend that Congress enact, at the earliest 

practical opportunity, a fair and equitable Utah wilderness bill designating no more than 

1.4 million acres as wilderness, taking into account not only the protection of Utah's 

natural beauty and but also Utah s people and economic fUture. 
279 

The Fifty-first Legislature of the state of Utah took up the issue of wilderness designation 

again in 1995 and passed H.C.R. 12, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WILDERNESS 

DESIGNATION by Representative Bradly Johnson. Sixty-two members of the Utah House 

voted in favor and 6 voted in opposition. The resolution passed the Utah Senate with a vote of 

27 in favor and 0 opposed. 

NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state 

of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, encourage the Congress to enact at the 

earliest possible opportunity a fair and equitable Utah wilderness bill regarding 

BLM lands, with the Legislature's and Governor's support of the bill contingent 

upon its containing the following provisions: 

(I) that any BLM lands designated as wilderness must meet the legal 

definition of wilderness lands as contained in the 1964 Wilderness Act; 

(2) that a// lands not designated as wilderness be released from 

Wilderness Study Area status and that the BLM be directed to manage those 

released lands under multiple use sustained yield principles and be prohibited 

from making or managing further study area designations in Utah without 

express authorization from Congress; 

(3) that no reserve water right be granted or implied in any BLM 

wilderness bill for Utah inas·nuch as f ederal agencies are able to apply for water 

through the state appropriations system in keeping with the 1988 opinion of 

Solicitor Ralph W. Tarr of the United States Department of Interior; 

(4) that federal agencies be required to cooperate with the state in 

exchanging state lands that are surrounded by or adjacent to or adversely 

affected by wilderness designation for federal lands of equivalent value; and 

additionally, because designation of wilderness lands is a federal action, that 

federal fonds be appropriated to pay for appraisals of state lands and federal 

lands to be exchanged; 

(5) that every effort be made to ensure that there be no net loss of state or 

private lands and no increase in federal ownership as a result of wilderness 

designation in Utah; 

2 
280 

(6) that the designation of wilderness not result in the creation, either 

formally or informally, of buffer zones and management zones around, 

contiguous, or on lands affected by wilderness designation; 

(7) that all valid existing rights and historical uses be allowed to be folly 

exercised without undue restriction or economic hardship on lands designated as 

wilderness as provided in the Wilderness Act of 1964; and 

(8) that management of vegetation, reservoirs, and similar facilities on 

watershed lands designated as wilderness be continued by state or private means. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor 

conclude that elected county officials, after extensive public input, should develop 

the wilderness proposals and the conditions for acceptable designation of 

wilderness lands within their respective counties, with the aggregate of these 

respective county recommendations constituting the basis of the state proposal for 

BLM wilderness designation in Utah. The county officials should be consulted 

regarding any changes to their respective county recommendations. 

The Legislature of the state of Utah has gone on public record in support of wilderness 

designation within the parameters laid out in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Philosophically, the mere existence of public land in Utah is troubling. Such designation 

violates, at least in spirit if not in fact, what has become known as the equal footing doctrine. 

Public land designation curtails the rights of states to manage not only its land, but to a degree, 

its destiny; and public land designation eventually impacts the rights of property ownership by 

citizens of the state. Illustrative of the curtailment of property rights and land ownership is the 

endangered species laws and regulations, wet land designations, range reforms, national parks 

designations. Enherent with these federal-sponsored programs is a lack of appropriate and 

prudent safeguards for private property owners against takings and wilderness designation. 

It has been our sad experience that there has been grievous impositions placed upon the 

3 
281 

citizens of our state who have, for generations, made their living from land-use as a result of 

burdensome regulations. Wilderness designation, with its accompanying baggage of regulations, 

entanglements and policies will only accentuate and aggravate their ability to continue working 

the land to their benefit. Every time the government has acted in this very sensitive area of 

public policy, part of our culture has died, our economic environment has become more clouded 

and less secure and our communities have felt the stress of helplessness and uncertainty. 

The resolution now before the committee exceeds the acreage recommended by the 

counties; and thus, this portion of the bill offends the intent of the Utah Legislature as expressed 

in House Concurrent Resolution 12. 

I find the other parts of the bill acceptable. 

There is a particular sensitivity on my part to the protection for the school trust lands in 

holding, not only in the wilderness designated areas but all trust in holdings within the federal 

lands system. One hundred years is long enough. 

We in Utah are responsible contributors to our state and national community. We love 

the land on which we derive our maintenance. We recognize and appreciate and respect the 

delicate environmental balance that must be addressed in order to preserve the economic vitality 

and beauty of our state. We are up to the task. We are willing and abundantly able. We do not 

want to become minions to the whims and fancies of the federal bureaucracys' flood of programs, 

policies, and procedures. Our desire is to maintain the integrity of our sovereignty and control 

our destiny as a state. 

It is time to come out of the wilderness on wilderness and act responsibly as servants of 

the people. Our citizens most impacted by the various wilderness designation proposals have 

4 
282 

been languishing in economic and social uncertainly far too long. We owe it to them to act in 

their interest and the interest of their children who will ultimately inherent the legacy of our 

action. 

We encourage the Congress of the United States to resolve the issue of wilderness 

designation in Utah. The issue has been and continues to be hotly contested and divisive; yet 1:he 

quality of our lives, our culture, our communities, our families deserve to see this process 

culminated. 

Thank you. 

5 
283 

REVISIONS TO DRAFT UT~Y. WILDE~~SS LEGISLATION 

Page 15, line 14 : af"Ce!:" t.he date "19 7 6. " inse:::~: "Subj ec~ howeve!:" 

to the provision that where conflic~s ar~se becween this Ac~ and 

the '.Vilderness Act and the Federal Land Policv and Manacremenc Act 

this Act shall take precedence." - -

Page 15, line 20 : afte:::- the word 11 s!:all" delete "as sec:: as 

possible" and insert "within five (5 ) years" 

Page 15, line 22: af':er the word 11 wi:.de::::less 11 delete the pe::::..cd, 

ea.dd a comma and add: 11 Subjec-:: to the mar:ageme!'lt provisions of this 

Ac-: and a:::v other aonlicable federal land laws. " 11 It is fu:::-:.::e::: 

di~ected chat the seC=etary shall cco:::dir-at: any and all manase~e~t. 

plans af:ecting lands designated by t~is Act with those of lccal 

gove~me::.'::s ir: the affe-=;:eci counties." 

Page 16, 1.:.ne 3: af~e::: the word 11 mar:ageme!'lt 11 delete t!i.e we::-:: "· 

anci 11 /lo_C.d: 'v-1il~e:---::ess shc·.ll not be used as a st:.:..tab:..li.t.y c::::.~:::::..a 

fc::: manag:..:1c; a::y c:::-:.:.z~::g a2.lot:ne!'l.c . " 

?ace 16 , Li.ne.s 10 and 11: eli.min~t.2: r11c ::-d~::g az:-:e::- 11 ll3l (C) ~7) 

t~=-suc:: h '' a.:::e·='::i!:S'. '' Inse:-:. en li::e ::= a£::e::- ::::e ~~c::-d ~~~~::s- ' ~::= 

fc~2.0W~:lg: nst:c.l: c=~c:.. nue t.o be c::::C.:.:c:.e-::i by t:=:e Sta~e i:: s-...:.c:: 

rr:a!'l::e!:'" ar:d by suC~l means as has bee:: Ccr:e his~c::::-.:..cally by t::e 

Gtate, wilde!"~ess desi gnac.:..on notwi~::s::a~d.:..::g.'' 

Pa·:;e 16 , line :.s: d~lete bes-:.:1i.ng on l.:..::e :6 "The Ccr:g::-ess dces :-:.c~ 

in~:::nd t~ t ciesigr..ac:.cn of ar: ares. as ·,o~:.lde::-::es.s by this _':l_c~ :.ea.·d 

t:o the. '' Ee-;::i~:..ng aft:e::- the wcr~ " (C) ::-eac.:..cn 11 add "of ar:? 

pr~t.ec~.:.. e pe!".:..~e~e::-s or bu.:£e::- zc~es in wr.o le o::- in par:. a==~::~ 

ar:~/ a!:"e.a. des:..g::ated as wi2.de:-:1ess by this Ac= is p::::-~h.:..~.::..t:d :;~...;. . .._ fcrbidden.'' (Elirni~ate othe::- word!ng !n this se~t.ence. ) 

Pa9·e 

are=.." 

16', li::e 1? t::=-ouqh 23 : El.:.m:..::ate "The fac':. tbat. ... :-.ess 

Paqe 16, li~e 19: a.f':e= t!le word "are.: ." ir..se::-t. "It is fu.=-:.::.er 

provideC :hat i= any agency decision af=ec~~~g the use or pr=pcsed use of any la~d under its jurisdic~icn wh.:..c~ is nee designateC as wilCar~ess is blocked, mod:...:ied, delayed o~ ot~e~Nise affec~ed i~ 

any way by any cour~ de~~s~on or by any oc~er action by any party or agency wh~~~ is based in whole or in par~ on the prox~m~=Y cf t~e exis~:..ng c~ prcposed ac~:..vity o= use to any wilde=-~ess area 

designac:d by ~~is Ac~ and admi~is~e~ed by the agency, the age~cy 

shall immedia~ely reduce the size of that wilderness are~ bv 

redrawi!'lg the bcu.."ldaries to whateve= exc.ent necessa=--J to elimi::a::e t~e perceived or ac~ual c~nflic~ with the or~ginally desi~atsd 

wi:!.de!:"::ess area. Wit=:..:..n si:c mont~s of taking sue:::. ac~.::..on, the Sec:-eta::-.1 sl:all 
report to the President and the 

and Senate his recommendation area should continue to be 

Prese~ation System. 

284 

appropriate committees of the House 

on whether the redrawn wilder~ess 

part of the National Wilderness 

The land previously contained in designated wilderness, but 

which was excluded from the new wilderness boundary as a result of 

the Secretary's actions, shall be immediately released for multiple 

use management as directed in Section 10 (b) of this Act. 

Whenever an activity or use which has been proposed on land 

under the agency's jurisdiction has been blocked or threatened with 

blockage by any act~on described in this subsection, the agency is 

directed to expeditiously begin or continue the decision making 

process to decide whether to allow the proposed activity or use as 

soon as the boundary or boundaries have been redrawn. 

Page 19, line 17: Insert new subsection (k) as follows: "Within areas designated as wilderness by this Act, lands and interests in 

lands acquired by the Federal Government shall be appraised without 

regard to the presence of a species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1532 et seq.)" 

Page 19, line 19: Delete "Nothing in this Act or any other Act of 

Conoress shall constitute or be construed to constitute either" 

Insert in its place: "The State of Utah retains primacy on all 

issues pe2:"taining to water. 11 

Line 21, chan~e "ann to "An11 

Line 24, eliminate period, add "is forbidden." 

Paae 20 , line 6: Eliminate "Nothing in this Act shall be construed 

to-authorize" 

Line 7, change "the" to "The" 

Line 9, after "lands" eliminate the period and insert, 

"designated as wilderness by this Act is prohibited." 

Page 20, lines 14 through 16: Eliminate "Nothing ... State laws" 

Insert "Congress prohibits any limitation on the exercise of 

water rights as provided under Utah State laws." 

Page 20, lines 17 and 16: Eliminate "Nothing ... affect" 

Line 16, change "irrigation" to Irrigation" 

Line 21, after the word "Act" insert: "shall be operated and 

maintained in their historic and customary manner and by 

historic and customary means including but not limited to 

repair, modification, or replacement of such existing 

facilities as provided in section 3(i) of this Act, wilderness 

designated by this Act notwithstanding.• 
285 

Page 21, line 3: Change "for" to "of" 

Page 23, line 19 : Delete period and add at the end of the sentence, 

"wilde::ness designation notwithstanding." 

Page 23, line 21: Delete "Nothing in this Act shall construed to" 

Insert "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or this Act, and 

wilderness designation not withstanding, the following shall be 

permitted -" 

Line 22: Eliminate "prohibit the" Change "establishment• to 

"establishing" Change "maintenance" to "maintaining" 

Line 23: Eliminate "of" 

Page 24, line 1 : After the word "including" insert •construc~ing 

and maintaining roads." Eliminate "the road construction and 

maintenance . " 

Page 24, line 11: After ( 2) , Delete all language in lines 11 

through 15. Inse::t "constructing, maintaining, repairing or expanding communication sites and facilities in -• 

Line 24: Eliminate "prevent the construction of" 11 const:r-ucting '' 

Page 25 , lines 3 through 6 : Eliminace all ve::biage 

Insert 

Line 7, eliminate 11 to prev ent the use of" Insert "using 11 

Page 26, line 1 : After the numbe:: (1712). Inse::t the following 

sentence, "Withouc prior specific authorization by congress" 

Change "Such" to "such" 

Line 3: Dele~e the word "and" Insert the word "but" 

Line 18: Inse::t language recommended by Trust Land Board and 

UAC as indicated: 

Page 27, line 3 : After the wo::d "Utah" insert "and the Uni ted 

States" 

Page 27, line 9 : After the word "lands" eliminate the pe::iod 

and inse::t, •and are accepted as equal value for purposes of 

exchange in this Act." 

Page 27, line 22: After the word "rights" Delete the period 

and inse::t "which shall include, but not be limited to, the 

right of the State of Utah to receive (and distribute as provided by State law) fifty pe::cent (SO%) of the proceeds 

from the lands described in subsections (c) (2) and (d) 

generated from the production of minerals that are leased, or would have been subjec~ to leasing unde:: the Mineral Leasing 

Act." 
286 

Page 29, line 3: After "(c) (2)" insert •which shall include, 

but not be limited to, the revenue allocation to the State of 

Utah under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act• 

Page 30,_line 16: Eliminate the word •section• 

Page 30, line 23 : After the word •to• insert the word "the" 

Page 31, line 1: · Insert a new text to part (C) as follows: 

"In applying the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to 

decisions regarding the granting of access to the lands 

described in subsection (c) (2) under title V of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Section 28 of the 

Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Secretary 

shall only consider those impacts that occur on lands 

directly involved in the provision of access over federal 

lands. Activities to occur on the lands of the State of Utah 

shall not be considered by the Secretary with respect to 

cumulative impacts, affects Q!: significance. Applications for access to lands of the State of Utah shall receive final 

action by the Secretary within ninety (90) days after they are 

filed. Failure of the Secretary to issue a final decision on aoolications for access to State lands within ninety (90) davs 

shall constitute approval of such requests for access . " 

Page 31, line 1: Change " (C)" to "(D)" 

Page 31, line 3: After the word "Utah" eliminate the rest of 

the sentence and insert, "under Federal law ~o share in the revenues from such Federal lands and the conveyance to the 

State of Utah shall be subject to such revenue sharing 

obligations." 

Page 31 : Insert line 22 and beyond as necessary to 

accommodate the following language, "(G) Lands acquired by the 

United States as provided by this Act shall become entitlement 

lands under public law (cite PILT act) and exempted from the 

provisions of section 1603(d) (?) of that Act.• 
287 

Pack Creek Ranch ... A Country Inn 

P.O. BOX 1270 MOAB, UTAH 84532 

June 20, 199S 

SUbject: ~ic:aal bearing on v11-....... doaignation 

(llrittan CX1I'Y <Illy - to bo briefed at oral bearing) 

Dear c.ongr.;.,..ional ca..ittee: 

PHONE 18011259-5505 

I bave boen fortunate that I'v. bad the ~ty to enjoy the defac:to 

w~ lacds of tho carJ)'a1 =t.rr for 11i01JY years. HY gui<llng professioo has taken "" clooln rivva ond · i:Jto IIIIUY canyons now 001181dered ill the biJ.l.l H.R.1745/S.S84 

Aa a roeident of t1>e canyon OOUDt.ry JI06t of lftY life, I bave been fortunate to 

bave boen a participant in llliiDY ways. 

I bold or bave bolcl petlli.ts ond/or CXliiC:888ioNs ill <:anycnlands Hatiooal. Park, Dinc&aur Jlational. Jtxaamt, Art:bes Jlational Park, Grond COnya> Jlatiooal. Park ond 

ill Glen COn!'OI\ Jlational Recreation Area. I also bold pemi.ta on lands 

a:llaininero4 br t1>e Fc.rost. Sezvioe and tl>e a.reau of Land Kanageowsnt. 

I have led tripe into many areas of the sao Rafael, tho High Uintas, Zion 

Jlational Park, the Dark canya, WilderMSS, Cedar llesa, Beef Basin, the LaSal. 

lt:JuntaiDs, the Blue Kounteins, lllk llidlle, t1>e Hol&-i.n-tbe-Rodc trail, the 

Bo<:alaDte C<>Unt.ry ond a boat of other areas. 

we continue to bold a """""""ion pemi.t in Glen Canyon lmdor tl>e name of Lalol 

Fewell Tours. I have b8ld pemi.ts thore sl.noe before the oonstructicn of the dam. 

At pr08QIIt, 111f vifo ond I own and operata Pad< Creek Ranch, a _.t ranch IIDd 

OOUDt.ry inD en t1>e LaSal Mountain dr~. We bold permits tbero from the 

foroet Mrvice ond the Bureau of Land """-""'>t. 

Long U.. agricultural pursuits and b.Jsinoases have seen our family engaged ill 

the planting of pastures, barvllctiDq of cropo, ond tanding to livestock. I bave 

run livestock ""public ranges, snako4 logs <>.~t of forest laoos, ond hauled coal 

fzat the .u.s. 

I bave bold positioas on I'IUIIIOrous o:>nmittoes that deal wit!) natural resc:.JrOO subjoc:ta ond am well aoquainto4 wit!) the i.ssl»s ond tile subject areas. 
288 

TO 1=a64392 p . 03 

Utah bllll developed a large tcuri.t um.try. With t.llat oa.a respaa.ibillU... 

We IIIUSt. not destroy tbe very thiD;s tJJat aur visitors are ~ to Me, 

experience, and enjoy. We ..t ~~-1M find 110 IIB!IIdfioently 

valuable. 

We had beautiful l.ands: ~ic fall>le, catb8dral ill tbe besert, lliAtdeD Pas&age ms 

Gregory Naturallk'idge. TlwH land form are now baDeath Lalre I'OIIell. We lost a great vil.del:mss area in Glen CcJrcD. Its U. to . pull back az:d pzotect th8 

remaining Utah lmds that bave hecx.e 110 pnciatB az:d sac:red. 

The Alaerican people dalllandad that a llaticaal. wil.den.ss PrMcYatial SJStaa be 

establiabec!. In resporwe, Ooclgreu p8SII8d th8 lfildum&s Jlct for t.be hlmefit of . 

PClllulatiolw, 

present and futun 

expllllliiJl!J 

generations. 

settl-ts, 

"n. 

~ 

people, 

MdlaDi.zatitm

fearing th8 

, aut 

effect 

dlliDdl.iD; 

of ~ 

oatural .resources did not w~mt all areu of aur aaticla ~l.opel! . 'lbq -.ted certain 

"wildcness areaa", to be preserved, protected, and left Ullilpaired ill their 

natural state u emuriD; and valued J:118011r'CM, 

Wildemesa, as a aul.~le w;e r~ (1ltlich ~at• ..n,. ~). is fat 

di&appearing . Wildernesa bas bacx8e an "CIISIII!gare4 apec:ies" itaelf. As th8 loss 

of wilderness is irreversible, we Dl8t ~ vildumu for vildemass' salril 

aloae. This is the greatest of all ~ for additional vil.dameu 

designation. 

Biological diversity, species prot.actioD, ~ diversity, az:d evolutiooary 

prooasses are lang term economic benefits. 11~ areas 11D1U11Jffer ZCD!I8 -.t 

be large 81D.I9h to allow for acosyste. to fuDcticn intact without ~ 

intruaions by lua!m-kin1 and their .......... i_. vabiclea and tools. SUch anM 

would pnMrve natural vegetation types, prevent the destructicD of IIIJCJaDgered 

and Ulreatened plant species, and provide IIIIDCI:Uari• for NDY wildlife species. 

We would be better able to protect aur cultural, ecllcaticmal, and ~ 

resources. For instance, allowir9 oatural JW>l.o9ical :prac:.ssM to return to 

normal would ultilllately helP build up aur deplate4 vat~, illproye water 

quality, and protect downstrealll users interests. 

Wildemeu designation will spur CJD -xr-tacreational opportullities. We-t 

be careful, IDfever, aa the deaigoatiml of ~ !ltu:!y areas" hils itself 

increased ecooomic activity vithill the caD!IZ oountry. It hils helped, in pert, 

alleviate the illa of tha booe-blat llirlillg . 'l'Clurisll, aur fastst growi.ng 

in:lustry, is especially depenQant q>en tbe ~ati<Jil of the area's natural 

.beauty. 

In anotber vein, the spiritl.lal and ..tbetic value of wil.cSerMsll bil8 .t.mllldltrl!llllhuized. '1'here are deep spiritual CCIIIIOtatiolll ill the -.Wig of wilder1*a• 

Rational• for the preeervati.CJD of ~ aN ofUD related in sucb ten. • "nature appreciatico, educatico, free&-, 80ll~. a~ty .• " In additiQl to 

leisure am recreatiollal p.nuita, l'il"""- 1IOUl4 provide an OlliiOrtUDity to 

e)(perienc:e a - of .spirituality - oft8D .called a ~ tlllplri.eoce: " 

I feel tbllt tbe state's atteapt to quidiiBa th8 wU"""-s CS..igaation JIE'OCI88 '- II.Jrt 1MIJY that haw not Y.t had a voice. I ~ 1111t with tbe lfavajo pecple CJD 

aeveral OCQISiolw and find this to be au.. !ban voic:e Mli bMD D119lected. 
289 

TO 12025464392 p. 04 

MILITARlC FACILITIBS , 

w. llllBt prohibit the c:cnstruction of military facilitiea in all wildeitMU areas. 

Mo DMf elec:tranic: cxaudcation 8l'St- sb:lllld be allowed. 

aJIUflCATIQf FACILITIBS 

w. nust prohibit the coostruc:tion of 0011111111ication towers in Wilderness -· n--e are IIIIIDY other locatable sites outaide of proposed wilderness areas. 

R1LEAS1 LMGUAGE 

l.-!8 tbat are not desi.9[lated as vildenlesa slo1ld be managed aooording to 

exUlting public: land law, and be lllllnllg8d for wilderness values where awropriate. 

''Hard rel-" language should DOt be .i.qoosed. It has no place in any wildal:ZI888 

bili. FUture wilderness designation is an option for future generations to 

decl.c». 

STATB LAJm UNITS 

We JlllSt provide for equal value trade of state inboldings, CXlll5istent with the 

Federal Landa Policy and Management Act. We shculd not allow trades of school 

trust land inholdings for BLK land elsewhere on an acre far acre basis, rather 

than val.ua far value. All trades llllSt be in the public interest and based upon 

envi=nmental stmies. 

CEDAR Hl!SA 

Road and other prcposed tourist deYel~ts, oil daYelopment, and proposals far 

piilyon-juniper forest c:baininri would irreparably baral the remaining tracsa of 

Anasazi habitation in this iiNS. lfUIDBraus corridors suCh as OWl and Arch Canyoos 

essential riparian areas l!llSt be preserved. 

tABYRIN'l1l CAIMltf ARBA 

Labyrinth Canyon D..lllt be protected. We hava had too many seismic lines crisscrossing the landscape. Drilling stations scar scenic vistas. We cannot allow 

new .road5 which would frag~~~ent critical wildlife habitat. Canyon systems on both 

aides of the GriMII'I River IILISt be protected. 

Here in Utah, w are blessed with an alJulldaDce of the 11[)8t unique and priceless 

lands in all the world. Places auch as Dark canyon and the Grand Gulch and Cedar 

MeA and Bsallante Qmyon. There is nothing li.Jte tl.M lands anywbere. tbeir 

value to UB, as they are, lceeps rising. To preserve thEal is by far the wise 

cboice. 

We are faced with diminiahing X'eiiCIUrCH. Our defacto wilderness areas are i.Ddlaed 

vanishing. ~ citizens see this. 
290 

TO 12025464392 P. 05 

In June 1955, the lfavajo Utah ca.iasion, a body of Navajo Imian leaders, passed . 

a re.alution CJllSIOBing ~l~ta "such u oil, gas, aod lliniDg 1-in tba 

Cedal: Mesa res~ion .. " 

The Calnis8ion asked that Utah GOIIemor MiJia t.avitt and tba Utah <:on;ressional. 

Delegation to "dow down the vi.1derma procliiSS ao tba ~ People biMt llll 

opportunity to becaue actuc::.ted on tba iuuas to proactiYIIlY r~lYII any conflict. 

Navajoa have with protec:tiOD of theM l«DDk tllrcugh wil~ designation." 

I join with 1:!*1 in their endNYan. n- OODgreaiooal bills llboul4 JK)t get 

a joy ride through COngreSs. n- billa, Mptei•lly Ccmgress.n OrtOa'a, - very d8oeptive aod carry huge~-

I ·feel that H.R. 1745 and S. 884 Shaulcl b& witldrawn fro~~ tba legislative 

proceaa. We have JK)t at all coasidered in dllptJ:I tba vallMB .of our lands. We 

need 1110ra tilDe to do thia • 

. SiDoarely, 

TOT~ P.05 
291 

Statement of Ted Wilson 

Former Mayor, .Salt Lake· City 

I appreciate the opportunity to apeak before the sub-· committee on the very important issue of setting aside wilderness 

in Utah . 

Two nights ago, I, along with local author Terry Tempest 

Williams and Editor Emeritus of· the Deaeret News William Smart, 

moderated a Citi7en•s Hearing on Utah Wilderness . Today, I 

deliver the Voice of Utah to the subcommittee because I am firmly 

convinced that HR lSOO, in setting aside 5.7 million acres. as · 

wilderness, better represents the interests of Utahna than the 

measly anti-wilderness bill, HR 1745, proposed by our own 

congressional delegation. .· Six months ago, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt and the Utah 

Congressional delegation initiated a public input process which 

culminated in the June 6 introduction of HR 1745 . The process 

itself will forever serve as a case study in bad public policy. 

Rural, largely anti-wildernes·s county commissioners were 

given the primary role of crafting recommendations that would 

form the basis of the delegation's proposal. County meetings 

were held at inconvenient times and in inconvenient locations for 

almost 90% of the people who live in the state . Not 

surprisingly, the county commissioners' recommendation was 

extremist in its anti-wilderness slant. 

The delegation followed on the heels of the county 

commissioners by holding a series of wilderness hearings in 

April. In all, four-fifths of the meetings were held where only 

12% of the state's population resides. Evenstill, wilderness 

supporters outnumbered opponents at the hearings. More than two- thirds of the input received by the Governor's office between 

January and May supported the setting aside of 5.7 million acres. 

A Valley Research poll found that more than half of Utahns 

want an expansion in the area of protected public lands in Utah. 

The greatest support in that poll and in a subsequent Dan Jones 

poll was for the setting aside of 5.7 million acres of BLM lands 

in Utah. 

Given the strong and significant outpouring of public 

support for wilderness preservation amongst Utahns, it is 

puzzling, to say the least, that somehow the delegation feels 

they are representing their constituents with HR 1745. HR 1745 

would protect less than one-third ·the acreage supported by the 

majority of Utah citizens. HR 1745 would also undercut the 

spirit and intent of the· 1964 Wilderness Act. Clearly~ Utahns do 

not want this to happen. 

Utah citizens requested an opportunity to address the 

subcommittee, but. were denied. This .is why we have held a citizens' hearing: to give Utahns a chance ·to convey to Utah 

politicians and subcommittee members, their support for wi~derness designation in Utah. 

I am here today to deliver the voice of Utah because I not only heard what Utahns had to say, I listened. :Thank you £or 

this opportunity. 
G R A 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

H·idH.Getches 

Chairman 

HansjOrg Wyss 

Stcrttary·TuaJuru 

James Trees 

Founder and 

Hor1orary Chairman 

Claudeen Bat~s Anhur 

hmes E. B:~bbitt 

Anne K. Bingaman 

David Sonderman 

T crrcnce L Bracy 

Robert Elliott 

Ben Fingerhut 

Hde:nlnsram 

Ann McBride 

Vernon Masayesva 

Nonna W. M3theson 

N. Scott Momaday 

ChaseN. Peterson 

John P. Schaefer 

William B. Smart 

Steven Snow 

Stewart L.Ud:lll 

292 

N D c A N y 0 N T R u s 

Testimony of the Grand Canyon Trust 

H.R. 1745: Utah Public Lands Management Act of 1995 

June 23-24, 1995 

My name is William B. Smart, and I represent the Grand 

Canyon Trust, a non-profit organization dedicated to conservation and responsible use of the natural and cultural resources of the Colorado Plateau. Our nearly 

6,000 members include people living in all 50 states. Over 

half of them live in the four-corner states of the plateau . 

I am also a director of the Coalition for Utah's 

Future/Project 2000. This organization has meticulously 

maintained neutrality on the Utah wilderness debate, but 

has spent much of the past four years getting the opposing 

parties talking together in search of the best solution to this difficult issue. Recently the Coalition commissioned 

the most comprehensive and, we think, totally unbiased poll 

measuring the opinions of Utahns regarding wilderness. You 

have before you a summary of the poll's findings. 

As you know, poll results can vary greatly depending on the 

way questions are asked. We have framed our questions in 

the most neutral possible way, and have listed them here 

for your examination. May I very briefly review highlights 

of the findings: 

On the page numbered page 5 you note that in answer to an open-end question, development/growth and environmental 

impact are seen as the greatest threats to quality of life 

in Utah, far greater than any other threat. 

On page 8, note question number 4 regarding acreage . This was asked before HR 1745 with its 1. 8 million acres of 

wilderness was drafted. 64% want more acreage than that 

contained in HR 1745, with the greatest support for the 5.7 

million acres included in HR 1500. Only 28.4% want 1. 9 

million or fewer acres. 

Note on page 9 that 78% of Utahns say they visit wilderness areas often or sometimes, and note in question 6 the uses they feel are important on public lands. 

The res.,onse to question 7, on page 10, ·shows strong 

opposition to the kind of hard- release language contained 

in HR 1745. 

Finally, on page 12, note that only 33% agree that economic 

development in southern and central Utah is more important 

than wil derness designation; 63% disagree. 87% say they 

value the preservation of natural, roadless areas. 

HcadquarutJ. Offia: "Th~ HomtJtcad': Rorac 4, Ba.r 718, Flaa.Jta!J: Arizona 86001 (520) 774 -7488 fAX ($20} 774-7570 

Umh Offia: 46 A11CW0r Squnr~. 2 1\'t.Jt St. George 811•d., St. Gtorg~. Utah 84770 (801) 673-8558 FAX (80/} 673-85-15 

\\'nshittj' IOn Office : /.:00 16tlt S1rrr1, N. U'. . Suitt 300. 1\'rt.Jhin.~ton. D.C. 20036 (JQ]} 797-54'"!9 F.·l.X t]MJ _:.::!7 

T 
293 

Testimony of Grand Canyon Trust -- Page Two 

With this background about how most Utahns feel about protecting Utah's priceless and irreplaceable wild places, may I present the 

position of the Grand Canyon Trust as contained in the written 

statement before you. 

Acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the desire of all 

of us to get this contentious issue behind us, and with all due 

respect to Utah's governor and Congressional delegation, HR 1745 is 

the wrong approach, for the following reasons: 

1. The process was flawed and unrepresentative. 

Throughout the statewide process, important national interests were ignored . County commissioners were given the impression they could 

determine wilderness boundaries, and based their recommendations on incomplete or inaccurate information. Worse, most of the county recommendations represented strictly local concerns, ignoring statewide, to say nothing of national, interests. The bill that 

emerged out of this flawed process will ignite a divisive battle 

nationally whose bitterness will be felt in Utah for years to come. 

2. The acreage proposed for wilderness designation is inadequate. 

As has been thoroughly documented, the BLM inventory was itself 

defective and excluded several million highly qualified acres from 

wilderness consideration. Yet, the proposed bill includes even less acreage than the BLM recommendation. 

3 . Much of even that limited wilderness acreage is not really 

protected. 

For example, HR 1745 would not prohibit reservoirs, transmission 

lines and construction roads in the Parunaweap Canyon Wilderness, one of the most beautiful wild places on earth. It designates eight other wilderness areas where water development, pipelines, or communication towers would be permitted. No wilderness area would 

be protected from the drying up of its streamflows by upstream 

water development. 

4. The bill's hard-release language is unprecedented and counter to 

long-standing public lands policy. 

In light of the many areas omitted from the BLM recommendations, we urge you to preserve the opportunity for full and fair 

consideration of all eligible wilderness lands, including those in 

HR 1500. HR 1745 would not only deny that opportunity but would 

foreclose the options of other forms of protection for these 

pristine lands. 

I urge you to reject BR 1745 and to support a measure that includes 

adequate acreage and corrects the serious flaws that make BR 1745 

so adverse to the national public interest. 
June 22, 1995 

294 

COALITION FOR 

UTAH'S FUTURE 

PROJECT 2000 

PO !lax 30901 Salt l.d<e Gry, Utah 84130 

I!IJ1m~ 

The Honorable James v. Hansen and 

The Members of the National Parks, Forests, and Lands Subcommittee 

812 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: 

The Coalition for Utah's Future/Project 2000 is a non-p~ofit, multiissue organization representing broad interests. We seek to address 

critical long-term issues facing Utah, and to promote courageous 

community leadership. 

we have meticulously maintained peutrality on the wilderness issue. 

Over the last four years we have sought, and frequently succeeded, in 

encouraging some of the opposing parties in the wilderness debate to 

talk to each other; most notably, the discussions between the Utah 

Wilderness Association and Emery County. 

Because of the fast track wilderness process, our Emery County Wild 

Lands Project was cut short and we determined to do an in-depth survey 

of Utahns' views of roadless natural areas. We have attached .a copy of 

the questions that were asked as well as the poll results. 

This poll took language from the Wilderness Act to define, for those 

interviewed, what constitutes wilderness. We have been skeptica.l that 

lists of acreage choices were meaningful because it is difficult for most people to visualize millions of acres. In order to mitigate this 

problem we used a more comprehensive statement regarding the current status of the land in question - that 3.2 million acres of wilderness 

study areas are currently being managed by the Bureau of Land Management as if they were wilderness. We also had the various acreage cboices 

read twice, with a visualization component added by giving the 

respondents the percentage of all land in Utah each proposal 

represented. 

we hope that the wilderness debate can be resolved in a way that 

respects and includes all legitimate . interests and improves 

environmental decision making to the benefit of the United States and a broad range of Utah's citizens. 

Sincerely, 

Irene Fisher 

Board Chair 

Mike Alder 

Board Vice-Chair 
295 

Introduction: (Along with introduction, give definition of 

wilderness: Land that e~ists in its natural condition which is 

roadless, undeveloped, with little or no sign of human impact and 

offers solitude. 

1. What do you value most about living in Utah? 

list) 

(Do not read 

Economic 

Social 

Family 

Recreational 

Other (Specify) 

Aesthetic 

Quality of Life(probe, What do you mean ••. ) 

Religious 

Safety/low crime rate 

2. What do you see as the greatest possible threat to what you 

value about living in Utah? (Do not read list) 

Economic 

Development/Growth 

Political 

Other (Specify) 

Crime/Violence 

Environmental impacts 

Cost of living 

3. How aware are you of the Governor and congressional 

delegation's process currently underway to develop a Utah 

wilderness bill for submission to Congress? 

Very aware Not very aware Somewhat aware Not aware at all 

4. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently manages 3. 2 

million acres of wilderness STUDY AREAS as if they were wilderness. 

I will read you six options for this land and proposed by various 

groups. Please listen the first time through. I will then go back 

and briefly read them again so you can tell me which you would 

support. 

o acres of wilderness 

1 million acres recommended by rural county commissioners 

(about 2% of all land in Utah) 

1.9 million acres recommended by the BLM as qualifying for 

wilderness (about 3.6% of all land in Utah) 

2.9 million acres recommended by the Utah Wilderness 

Association (about 5.5% of all land in Utah) 

The 3.2 million acres the BLM is currently managing as wilderness (about 6.1% of all land in Utah) 

5.7 million acres recommended by the Utah Wilderness Coalition 

(about 10.5% of all land in Utah) 

Now I will read a shorter version for you to select from: 

o acres of wilderness 

1 million acres recommended by rural county commissioners. 

1.9 million acres recommended by the BLM as wilderness. 

2.9 million acres recommended by the Utah Wilderness 

Association. 

The 3.2 million acres the BLM is currently managing as wilderness. 

5.7 million acres recommended by the Utah Wilderness Coalition 

Don't agree with any of these. 
296 

4. Would you support other protective land classifications that were less restrictive than wilderness but still protective? 

Yes 

No 

Maybe 

Don't know 

5. How often do you visit existing or proposed wilderness areas? 

Often (at least 4 times a year) 

Sometimes (less than 4 times a year) 

Rarely (only once or twice ever) 

Never 

6. Which activities are most important to you on public lands? 

Sightseeing by car Camping 

Hiking 

Fishing/Hunting 

Other 

None 

Off road vehicle use Mining· 

Grazing 

Mountain Biking 

Back packing 

7. When a wilderness bill is passed, congress will determine what 

happens to the lands not selected as wilderness. Do you believe 

these lands should •••• 

be released for multiple use as determined by BLM 

have continued protection for wilderness values never be considered for wilderness designation again none of the above (Don't read.) 

8. Who do you trust most to determine the future of Utah's 

wilderness areas? 

The Governor of Utah 

Rural county commissioners 

Members of Utah's congressional delegation 

(Hansen, Waldholtz, Orton, Hatch, Bennett 

The United states Congress 

Other (Don't read) 

9. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat aqree, somewhat 

disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. 

Economic development in southern and central Utah is more important than wilderness designation. 

I value the preservation of natural, roadless areas. 

Wilderness will enhance Utah's economy through increased 

tourism. 

Wilderness is to restrictive as a way to protect the natural 

lands of Utah. 

10. Record gender of respondent: 
11. Age: 

18-24 

45-54 

297 

25-34 

55-64 

35-44 

Over 65 

12. What it your total household income? 

Under $25,000 

$35,000 - $50,000 

$75,000 - $100,000 

Refused 

$25,000 - $35,000 

$50,000 - $75,000 over $100,000 

13. Record zip code: ~ __ 

14. How long .have you lived in Utah? 

Less than one year 

1 - 5 years 5 - 10 years 

10 - 20 years 

More than 20 years 
298 

2 NEWS STATEWIDE POLL 

FOR 

COALITION FOR UTAH'S FUTURE 

Kay 18, 1995 

Valley Research Incorporated 

Ref 1265 

This statewide poll may be interpreted and reprinted in whole or part by bona fide, independent news agencies. Because the 

Coalition for Utah's Future wishes this document to remain an 

educational instrument, it may not be reprinted in part by any other parties without permission from the Coalition for Utah's 

Future. It can be reprinted by any party if, at minimum, the 

Frequencies (pages 1 - 13) are reproduced in full. This document 

is released in its entirety. 
299 

Methodology 

Margain of Error: +/- 4.5t 

In this survey, "Urban• is defined to be Salt Lake, Provo, Orem, 

and Ogden. Anything south of Provo or north of Oqden are designated "Rural" . We have weiqhted Urban to approximately 75t of 

the survey, and Rural to approximately 25t of the survey. The 

actual number of respondents are shown below: 

Quota Cell of Respondent Number Percent 

Urban 

Rural 

366 

336 

52.1 % 

47.9 % 

Total 702 100.0 % 

Missing cases = o 

Response Percent = 100.0 t 

Contents 

Frequencies 1 - 13 

CrossTab by Urban-Rural/Income •.••• • 14 - 29 

CrossTab by Gender/Aqe • 30 - 46 

Cross 4 x 2 47 

Condensed CrossTabs (recoded Income/Age) .48 - 64 

Unweighted Frequency [OFTEN Users Q#6] 

Unweighted CrossTab by Urban-Rural • • 

Weighted CrossTab 4x4a, 4x5 • • • • • • 

65 

66 - 82 

83 - 84 
300 

2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 May 1995 pogo 1 

Weighted Quota Cells of Respondents 

Urban 

Rural 

Total 

Missing Cases • 0 

Response Percent c 100.0 X 

1. What do you value IIOSt about living 

in Utah? 

Economic 

Aesthetic 

Social 

Quality of Life <•pecify) 

Recreation 

Religious 

Safety/Low crime Other (specify> 

F001ily 

Total 

Missing Cases s: 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 X 

Nudler 

1098 

336 

1434 

Percent 

16.6 X 

23.4 X 

100.0 X 

Percent 

2.8 X 

26.6 X 5.6 X 

8.9 X 

21.7 X 2.6 X 4.4 X 

19.6 X 

1.1 X 

100.0 X 

Quality of Life Issues 

A COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING •• EDUCATION, JOB, 

ENVIRONMENT 

A LOT OF THINGS ••• THE ECONOMICAL PART ••• THE 

MOUNTAINS BEING CLOSE TO WHERE WE LIVE ••• STUFF LIKE 

THAT 

ACTIVITY 

ADVANTAGE OF BEING ABLE TO GO INTO THE MOUNTAINS 

ACTUALLY I LIKE EVERYTHING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE 

ANYWAY. 

ALL OF THE ABOVE 

ALL WOULD BE VALUED ABOUT THE SAME 

BEAUTY OF MClJNTAINS, SMALL CC»4MUNITY, CLOSE KNIT 

STATE 

CANYON 

CLEAN, NO DRUGS, NO GANGS. 

CLIMATE NO TORNADOS 

COMMON UTAH VALUES 

COMMUNITY AND FRIENDLY AND THE PEOPLE 

EASIER GOING, NOT TOO BUSY LIFE STYLE. 

EVERYBODY IS MORE RELAXED IT IS A GOOD PLACE TO 

LIVE AND RAISE A FAMILY AND CHEAPER 

EVERYTHING IS CLOSE, EASY ACCESS TO RECREATION 

HE Ll KES THE COUNTRY 

IT INCLUDES THE OTHER MENTIONED WORDS AND OVERALL •• 

THE CLOSENESS TO THE MOUNTAINS AND CLEAN AND 

OPPORTUNITIES 

FOR EMPLOYMENT 

IT ENCOMPASSED FAMILY LIFE ••• LESS GANGS LESS DRUGS 

AND CLEAN ATMOSPHERE ••• CLEANER AIR 

IT TIES IN WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS, WE FEEL SAFE 

AND OUR FAMILY IS HERE. THE ECONOMICS ARE GOOD AND 

THE 

RELIGIOUS ATMOSPHERE IS GOOD. 

LIFE STYLE 

LIFESTYLE AND CHURCH 

LOW CRIME RATE. 

t!!ICE PEOPLE, GOOD FEELING TO LIVE IN MORGAN, 

BEAUTIFUL 

NICE PLACE 

OH, RELIGION. 

OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE, VALUE OF RELIGION 

PIONEER WAY OF LIFE, PEACEFUL 

SECURITY 

SECURE SURROUNDINGS. PEOPLE OF UTAH HAVE STRC~G 

MORAL VALUES 

Valley Research Inc. 
301 

poge 2 2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 May 1995 

SLDIIER Ll FESTTLE 

SMALL ~ITT 

SURROJIIDINGS, SALT WATER, AND NOT YET TOTALLY 

INHABITED BY EVERYBOOY. 

THE OPENNESS 

THE PEOPLE ARE GREAT AND THE AIR IS GOOD AND HAS A 

LOT OF NATURAL BEAUTY THAT I ENJOY. 

THE WAY PEOPLE RAISE THEIR CHILDREN 

THIS LADY LIKES THE SOLITUDE ABOUT LIVING IN THE 

caJNTRY 

WEATHER 

ABILITY TO RUN HER CATTLE 

ALL OF THE THINGS LISTED 

BEAUTIFUL STATE 

BEAUTY, AND WIDE OPEN AREAS 

BEAUTT,SEASONS MOUNTAINS 

BEING ABLE TO GET ClJT INTO THE OUTDOORS. 

BEING CLOSE TO THE MOUNTAINS FOR BOTH RECREATION 

AND SCENERY 

CLEAN AIR OPEN SPACE 

CLEAN AIR PLACES TO GO SEE 

CLEAN AIR WHERE I LIVE 

CLEANLINESS 

CLIMATE RELIGIOUS, SCENERY 

CLIMATE 

CLIMATE 

CLOSE TO BYU 

CLOSE TO FAMILY 

CONVENIENT 

COUNTRY L1 FE 

CULTURE 

DESERT, 

DESERT 

DIFFERENT CLIMATES, MOUNTAINS, WILDERNESS AND 

DIFFERENT TERRAINS 

DIVERSE LANDSCAPE FOR BUSINESS AND PLEASURE 

DIVERSITY 

DIVERSITY OF CULTURE AND SCENERY 

DIVERSITY OF ECO-SYSTEMS 

DIVERSITY OF THE RESOURCES 

DON'T RAISE TAXES 

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, FAMILY TIES 

EMPTINESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL AESTHETIC 

EVERYTHING 

EVERYTHING 

FAMILY 

FAMILY AND LIFESTYLE 

FAMILY ORIENTED 

FAMILY VALUES 

FREEDOM TO DRIVE INTO LAND RATHER THAN BE FORCED 

TO WALK 

FRESH AIR AND MOUNTAINS 

FROM IDAHO SO LIKE LIVING IN WEST. FAIRLY 

RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND. 

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION 

GEOGRAPHY 

GOOD PLACE TO RAISE KIDS 

HAS ALWAYS LIVED HERE AND HAVE LOVED THE MOUNTAINS 

HISTORICAL, AND CULTURAL, AND RELIGIOUS 

I DO LIKE THE OUTDOORS. 

I JUST CAME FROM NEVADA AND I LIKE THE FACT OF NO 

CASINOS AMD THE MORAL VALUES 

Y•t ler Research Inc. 
au~ 

2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 May 1995 poge 3 

I JUST LIKE IT. IIOTHING SPECIAL. 

I LIKE LIVING HERE 

I LIKE THE LIFESTYLE WITH THE WIDE VARIETY DF 

ACTIVITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. 

I LIKE THE RURAL·NESS I LIVE IN. 

I LIKE THE SMALL TOWII FREED!JI I HAVE. 

LIVED HERE ALL MT LIFE SNOW IN THE MIDDLE OF MAT 

LOVE THE MOOIITAINS AND JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING 

I VALUE ALL OF THE PEOPLE. 

I liAS BORN HERE 

I'M HANDICAP~ED AND WITIIQJT THE ROADS WE ARE NOT 

ABLE TO SEE ALL BEAUTY I 

ISOLATED LAND 

IT'S H!JIE IT HAS GDOO DUALITIES. NOT A LOT OF 

DRINKING AND GAMBLING AND THINGS LIKE THAT 

LAND. 

LAID BACK ATTITUDE 

LESS CRIME AND FUN THINGS TO DO 

LOW POPULA T1 ON 

MOOIITAINS AND WIDE OPEN SPACE 

MORAL VALUES 

MOUNTAINS 

MOUNTAINS FOR RECREATION 

MOUNTAINS FOR RECREATION AND SCENERY 

MWNTA IN$ FOR SCENERY ANC RECRU.TION 

MOUNTAINS 

MY H!JIE 

NATURAL AESTHETIC 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

NOT CROll> ED AND A LOT OF NA lURE CLOSE 8Y 

NOT REAL POPULATED 

NOT TO CROll> ED. 

NOTHING, I WOUlD LIKE TO MOVE OUT OF STATE. 

NOTHING NOT HERE BY CHOICE 

OPEN SPACES 

OUR CANYONS 

OUIDDORS FOR SCENERY ANO REC 

PEOPLE 

PEOPLE AND THE MOUNTAINS 

PEOPLE AND THE SEASONS 

PEOPLE, CULTURE, Ll FESTYLE 

PRESERVATION OF OUR ECD·SYSTEM 

PRETTY WCIIEN 

PRIVACY 

PUBLIC LANDS 

QUIET. 

DUllE SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE 

RURAL YET URBAN 

SCENERY 

SCHOOLS 

SERENITY 

SHE LOVES THE CITY 

SMALL C!JIKJNITY. 

SMALL TOWNS NOT BEING SHUT QJT 

SMALLER POPULATION. 

SOLITUDE 

SOLITUDE, LOW POPULATION 

SPACE 

STRONG COHIUII TY , PEOPLE 

THAT IT IS SMALL AND NOT LIKE CALIFORNIA WHERE 

THEY HAVE BIG INNER CITIES 

THAT THERE ARE \ll l DERNESS AREAS. 

THE COMFORTS OF THE CITY BUT STILL HAVE THE LUXURY OF THE WILDERNESS. 

THE CULTURAL THINGS LIKE THE SYMPHONY ,BALLET AND 

THONG LIKE PLATS 

THE FREE LANO AND OPPORTUNITY, 

THE FREEDOM THAT SMALL lOINS LIKE MOAB HAVE 

THE GAMf AND THE FUR. I'VE BEEN A TRAPPER ALL MY 

LIFE. 

THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE. 

THE LIFESTYLE OF A SMALL lOIN 

THE LIFESTYLE. CAMPING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 

THE MORAL AND FAMI L T VALUES 

THE MOUNTAIN JUST CAUSE THEY'R£ THERE 

THE MOUNTAINS FOR REC AND SCENERY 

THE OPENNESS . 

Vtllrt lecearch Inc. 
303 

-4 2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 Mar 1995 

THE PEOPLE 

THE PEOPLE HE~E 

THE PEOPLE THE ENVIRONMENT AN!) THE OPPORT\INITY'S 

HERE 

THE PUBLIC LAN!) AND THE ~UlAL SETTING. 

THE SCHDOLS. 

THE SMALL CCIIfJIIITY, 

THE VARIETY Of HABITAT SCENERY PEOPLE LIFESTYLES 

THE IIEATHER AN!) ClUR NEIGHBORS 

THIS IS IIHE~E MY JOB IS. 

TIMBE~ LIVING 

TOO DLO TO GO ANYIIHERE ELSE . 

TYPE OF PEOPLE 

UNINHABITED OPEN SPACE. 

liE NATE UTAH 

WEATHER. 

WEATHER. SCENERY. EVE~TTHING 

!lEATHER 

IIIOE OPEl SPACES 

IIIOE OPEl SPACES I FEEL MORf COIIFORTABLE IN 

IIIOE OPEl SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE 

Ill LDERNESS AREAS TO ESCAPE TO 

Ill LDERNESS AREAS 

IIILDERNESS CLOSENESS IIITH THE HEIGHBORS 

IIILDLIFE 

Vtllrr le!e!r!:lp Inc, 
304 

Z H~s Stat~! de Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 Mar 1995 

2. What do you see •• the greatest 

possible threat to what you value .txlut 

llvl~ In Utoh? 

Ec..-lc 

Crhr~e/Violence 

Developoent/Growth 

Envlr.....,tol l""""tt Political 

Coot of living 

Other (specify) 

Total 

Millh .. CU. • 0 

R._ Porcont • 100.0 I 

ADJUSTING TO THE DIFFERENT LAIIS 

BUILDING HOUSES 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

CALIFORNIA PEOPLE MOVING IN. 

CLINTON 

CLOSING DOWN THE CUT DOOR AREAS, BY TURNING IT 

INTO RESTRICTED Ill LDERNESS AREAS. 

CLOSING OFF A LOT OF THESE ROADS 001111 HERE AND 

THEIR ARE A LOT OF HANDICAPPED 001111 HERE AND THEY 

CAN'T WALK 

AIID SO THAT IS A GREAT OISADVAIITAGE TO THEM. 

CLOSURE OF PUBLIC LAIIO, LIMITED ACCESS, 

ACQUISITION OF FORMERLY PUBLIC LANDS FOR 

WILDERNESS 

ODESN' T SEE AliT THREAT 

DECLINE OF THE FAMILY 

DECLINING MORAL VALUES 

DISINTEGRATION OF VALUES 

DISl!ESPECT FOR THE LAND AND THE AREA 

ODESN' T KNOll 

DOESN'T SEE AliT THREAT 

DOESN'T SEE A THREAT. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCREASE 

DON'T KNC:W 

DON'T PERCEIVE AliT REAL THREATS RIGHT New 

DON'T SEE A THREAT. 

DRAMATIC INCREASE OF POPULATION ALONG WASATCH 

FRONT 

ENVIRONMENT, HATES TRASH 

Percent 

3.0 X 13.0 X 

49.4 X 

10.5 X 

5.5 X 

1.3 X 17.3 X 

100.0 X 

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AS IN WILDERNESS FANATICS 

FAMILY PROBLEMS. GANGS, DRUGS. ETC. 

FEDERAL GOVT. CWNING TOO MUCH LANDS 

GANGS. 

GOVERNMENT WANTING TO TArE MORE LAND. 

GRAZING. 

Glaoll NG POPULATI 011 

HADN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT I DON'T rNOW 

HARD TO FIND A GOOD JOB 

HAVE NOT GIVEN THAT AliT THCUGHT. loiO ARE HAPPY WITH 

THE IIAT THINGS ARE FOR US. 

HAVING THEM MADE INTO WILDERNESS SO loiO CAN'T GET TO THEM 

HUMANS CUTTING TREES. 

I HAVE NO IIORRIES 

I LIVE BT MINES AND I FEAR THAT THE MINERS WILL 

TRY TO TAKE OVER THE ENVIRONMENT. 

JUST THAT loiO WOULD LOSE CUR NATURAL AREAS TO 

DEVELOPMENT POLLUTION OR POLITICS 

LACIC OF CARING AIID MORALES 

LACIC OF FAMILY VALUES 

LACIC OF GOOD EDUCATION. 

LAND NOT USABLE FOR INDUSTRY DR RECREATION 

LOCICING UP MINING COUNTRY IN WILDERNESS AREAS 

LOGGING. 

LOOSING MORMON VALUES, COMMUNITY VALUES, INFLUENCE: 

OF OUTS I DE PEOPLE 

MAKING A LOT OF MISTAKES ABOUT BRINGING ANIMALS Ill 

UTAH LIKE THE loOI.VES. 
305 

poge 6 2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 May 1995 

MILITIA GRCUPS. ARMY GRCUP 

MONEY GRABBERS AND MONEY MAKERS BECAUSE THEY DON'T 

CARE ABOUT THE LANO. 

MORAL DETERIORATION OF THE SOC lETT 

KORAL VALUE 

WJRMON CHURCH 

MORMONISM 

NATURAL DISASTER 

110 THREAT 

NO THREAT 

NONE 

NONE 

NONE 

NONE 

NONE 

NONE I KNOW OF 

NOT ENOUGH PROTECTION FOR THE 1/ILDERNESS 

NOTHING 

NOTHING 

NOTHING MUCH 

NOTHING YET 

NIJCLEAR HOLOCAUST 

OLYMPICS COMING TO UTAH. 

OJTSIDE INFLUENCE , DIFFERING MORALS 

OUTSIDERS MOVING INTO UTAH 

OVERPOPULA Tl ON 

OVERPOPULATION . 

OVERPOPULATION 

OVERPOPULATION 

DVERP!li'IJI.ATION 

OVERPOPULATION 

OVERPOPULATION 

OVERPOPULA Tl ON 

OVERPOPULATION AIID OVEROEVELOPMENT 

PEOPLE AliUS lNG THE LAND 

PEOPLE DOING THING$ THEY SHOULDN'T 

PEOPLE FROM CALIFORNIA MOVING IN TO OUl STATE 

PEOPLE THAT DOII'T CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. 

PEOPLE THAT POACH 1/ILDLIFE. 

PEOPLE TRYING TO SHUT THE LAND OFF FRON THE 

PUBLIC, THIS LAND IS HERE FOR US THE PEOPLE. IIHO 

IS GOING TO GET 

TO ENJOY IT IF THEY SHUT IT OFF FRON THE PUBLIC? 

PEOPLE 1/ITH RADICAL IDEAS TRYING TO TEACH THEM AND 

CHANGE THINGS. 

PERMISSIVENESS OF THE PEOPLE 

POLLUTION 

POLLUTION 

POOR MANAGEMENT OF IIILDLIFE RECREATION ANO HUNTING 

BY THE DIVISION OF 1/ILDLIFE RESCUtCES. 

POOR MANAGEMENT OF Ill LOLl FE. 

POPULATION INCREASE FRON OUT OF STATE 

POVERTY. 

PRIVATE 01/NERS IIONT LET YOU ON THEIR LAND 

OVERPOPULATION 

RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST 

RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS 

RADICAL$, FAllA Tl CAL GROUPS, RACI $M 

RAPID INCREASED IN POPULATION 

RULES AND REGULATIONS PRotiiBITING THE LANO 

SATANIC INFLUENCE 

SEES NO THREATS. 

SMOG 

THE CUTTING DOliN Of TREES. WOlVES BOTHERING THE 

LIVESTOCK. PEOPLE LIKE US MAKE A LIVING ON SHEEP. 

OTHER 

PEOPLE CLAIM THEY DON'T BUT liE ICNOW BETTER. 

THE DIFFERENT CULTURES THAT OOll'T KAYE THE SAME 

STANDARDS AIID THE BRINGING IN Of THE NEGATIVE. 

THE FISK AND GAME DEPARTMENT INCREASES IN 

LICENSES AND NOT RESTOCKING Of FISHING AREAS 

THE GANGS COMING IN. 

THE OLYMPICS 

THE OLYMPICS. 

THE PEOPLE DESTROY THE Ill LDERNESS. 

ENVIRONMENTALIST ARE THE IIGGEST DANGER. THEY TAU: TOO LOUD. 

THE PEOPLE. THERE IS TO KANT Of THEN. 

THE POLLUTION AND GARBAGE. 

THE POSSIBILITY Of THE OLYMPICS 

Ytl ley lesef!rch Inc, 
306 

Z News Statew1de Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 Hay 1995 

THE STATE CHANGING REGULATIONS ON HUNTING AND 

FISHING. 

THE STUPID WAY OF THIN~ING. ALL Of THE DAMNED 

MORMONS. 

THE WASATCH FRONT. 

THE WEATHER 

TOO MANY PEOPLE 

TOO MANY Ill LDERNESS AREAS. 

TOO IIJCH Ill LDER~ESS 

TOO IIJCH WILDERNESS. 

TOURISM 

page 7 

THE WILDERNESS TIEING UP ALL CUI! B£AUTIFUL SCENERY SAI.MILLS CUTTING D!UI TREU. THAT DON'T TAa CARE 

THERE NEEDS TO BE A BALANCE WITH THE WILDERNESS 

THING. 

TOO MANY 140RMONS 

TOO MANY LAWS. 

TOO MANY OUTSIDE INFLUENCES TD DISRUPT THE 

COMMUNITY 

OF PLACE 

FAMILY VALUES GOOD CLIMATE 

Val ley lt!Mftd! tne .. 
307 

page 8 2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 May 1995 

3. How aware are you of the Governor ..:f congressional 

delegation's process currently l.l"lder way to develop e Utat wilderness bill for sW.issfon to congress? 

Very aware 

Somewhat aware 

Not very aware Not aware at all 

Total 

Missing Cases = 0 

Response Percent c 100.0 X 

Percent 

12.1% 

34.2% 

33.1% 

20.6% 

100.0% 

The Burean of Land Management CBLM) currently •nages 3.2 million acres of wilderness stu:ty areas as if they were wilderness. This being the case, which of the following 

wilderness recoamendatlons do y<>u •'4'P"rt? 

4. <Current BLM areas). Which of the 

following would y<>u •'4'P"rt? 

0 acres 

1 11illfon acres 

1.9 •illlon acres 2.9 million acres 3.2 million acres 5. 7 ~it lion acres Don't agree with any 

Total 

Missing Cases c 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 X 

4a. Would you support other protective 

land classifications that wer-e less 

restrictive than wilderness but still protective? 

Yes 

No 

Maybe 

Don't Know 

Total 

Missing Cases • 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 X 

Percent 

4.5% 

12.3% 

11.6% 

10.1% 

23.2% 

30.6% 

7.7% 

100.0% 

Percent 

76.2% 

10.6% 

11.0% 

2.2% 

100.0% 

Vel ley leseerc::h Inc, 
308 

2 News Statew1 de Poll : FINAL RESULTS 18 !!n 1995 

5. How often do you visit existing or proposed vi lderness •reas? 

Often 

Scxneti~~es 

Rarely 

Never 

Missing tana • 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 S 

6. Which activities ere -.ost liiPOttent to you on p.bl ic lends? 

SightsHing by ear 

Off road vehicle use 

C-ing 

Mining 

Hiking 

GrUir'ISI 

fiohing/HLnting 

MOU"tain biking 

Backpacking 

Otllar 

None 

Percent 

54.0 X 24.1 X 16.4 X 5.5 X 

100.0 X 

Percent 

10.5 X 3.5 X 25.2 X 

0.4 X 

22.1 X 

1.0 X 

17.6 X 

4.4 X 4.9 X 

8.9" 

1. 7 X 

Average Nl.lrber Of Responses Per Case • 2.1 

Response Percent • 100.0 % 

ALL EXCEPT FOR MINING AND OFF ROAD VEHICLE USE, 

BUT ALSO ENJOY SKIING 

ASTRONOMY 

BACKPACI : NG, OFF·ROAOJNG, CAMPING 

BIKING. 

BOATING [7) 

BOATING AND WATERSKIING [3] 

FISHING 

COMMUNITY SCClJTING ETC ACTIVITIES 

cows 

CROSS·CClJNTRY SKIING 

FOUR WHEELING ANO PICNICKING 

FREE ACCESS 

GOLFING 

HANG·GLIDING 

HAVING ACCESS, 

HIKING 1/ITH HORSES. 

HORSEBACK RIDING n11 

HORSES, CAMPING. FISHING 

HUNTING !31 

I LIKE TO DO TO A VARIETY OF THINGS 

IRRIGATION 

JET SKI UIG, BOATJ .. G 

JUST BEING THERE . 

JUST BEING WITH NATURE AND ENJOYING THE LAND 

JUST GETTING OUT Of THE CITY 

LOVES NATURE AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

MIXED USE 

MClJNTAIN CLIMBING 

OBSERVATION OF NATURE 

OFF ROAD MOTOR BACK RIDING 

PAINT BALL 

PHOTOGRAPHY, 

Val\ey Reuardt 1ne. 
309 

_,0 2 News Statewide Poll: FINAL RESULTS 18 Mar 1995 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

SPORTS 

JUST BEING THERE 

PICIIICKING [131 

PRESERVING IT FOR THE FUTURE USE OUR CHILDREN ETC. 

PRESERVING LOCAL HABITATS AND SPECIES , (PLANTING 

TREES, ETC.) 

PRODUCTION Of LIVESTOO: 

PROSPECT AND EXPLORE. 

PltOTECTION OF THE WILD LIFE AWO WATER AREAS 

RAFTING 

RANCHING , FARMING 

READING OUT IN THE NATURE 

RECREATION 

RECIEA Tl OIIAL 

ROO: CLIMBING [3] 

ROO: COLLECT! NG 

RUNNING SHEEP. 

SCENERY AND OUIETWESS 

SNOOTING 

SKIING !1ZI 

SNOII«lliLING [6] 

7. · When a vflderness bfll II passed, Congrasa vii t 

deteretne tmet happens to the tends not selected 11 

wlldernesa. do you believe theae lando ahould: 

Be released for 111Jl t;pte use as· deterwfned by BUt 

Heve contii'JJed protection for wildtrnes1 veluec Never be considered for wi lderness designation egein 

None of the above 

Tot8L 

Mfssing Cases • 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 X 

TAICE CATTLE UP THERE. 

THE LANOIIARKS AND IIATBE SOMEONE STATING IIHT IT'S A 

LAIIOMARK. 

THE WI LOLl FE 

THET SHClJLD HAVE HANDICAPPED SCOOTERS 

TOO OLD TO TRAVEL. 

IIATEit Kl DOIIIIHILL KliNG 

WATER KliNG 

WATEit KliNG AND BOATING 

WATEitKIING 

WATERKIING 

WILDERWESS CANOEING 

WILDLIFE 08SERVATION 

WILDLIFE SIGHTSEEING 

WILDLIFE WATCHING AWO 

WILDLIFE 08SERVATION 

WORK 

Percent 

Z5.1 " 58.2" 

7.4 X 

9.3" 

100.0" 

y.ttn •nnrcll Jnc 
310 

2 N•ws Stat•wi d• Po 11: FINAL RESULTS 18 May 1995 poge "11 

8. Who do you trust IIOSt to dettnaine 

the future of Utah's wilderness areas? 

Governor of Utah 

Rural C~ty Conmissioners 

Utah's Congressional Delegation 

United States Congress 

None of the Above (do not read) 

Other (do not read) 

Total 

Missing Cases • 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 X 

A WILDERNESS SOCIETY SOMEONE ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE 

NOT POLITICS 

BIOLOGISTS [21 

BLM 16l 

CATTLEMEN , RANCHERS 

COMBINATION OF ALL OF THE ABOVE, WORKING IN THE 

PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST 

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION PROVIDED THAT PUBLIC 

INPUT IS CONSIDERED 

DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE CIM<ITTEES. 

BECAUSE AT TIMES THEY HAVE GOOO INPUT. 

EACH COUNTY SHOULD HAVE THEIR D11N CHOICE 

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS 

EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A SAY SO ABOUT THAT 

GOVERNOR, AND CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, AND 

CONGRESS, AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

GRClJF Of STATE Of STATE FEDERAL LOCAL 

HE THlNK THE WILDERNESS SHOULD BE A STATE DECISION 

NOT FEDERAL ONE 

I DON'T ICNC:W MUCH ABClJT THE ISSUE TO KNOJ. BUT OF 

WHAT I DO KNOW I TH INK THE PEOPLE SHOULD DETERMINE 

THE FUTURE FOR THE AREAS EVEN IF IT IS FEDERAL 

LAND. I THINK THE PEOPLE AND NO ONE ELSE SHOULD 

DECIDE. 

I DON ' T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. I TRUST SOME OF THE 

PEOPLE. 

I TRUST THE BLM THE MOST WITH THE FUTURE OF UTAH'S 

WILDERNESS AREAS. 

IT NEEDS TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE APPO INTED BY THE 

GOVERNOR ALSO GROUPS SUCH AS WILDERNESS GROUPS AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS ALL HAVING A VOICE IN THE 

ISSUE 

JUST THE PEOPLE. 

MEl I'M THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE OWN IT. THE 

GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE CONTROL OF IT. (HE 

STRONGLY BELIEVES THIS) 

Percent 

25.2 X 

27.8 X 

9.6 X 6.5 X 21.8 X 

9.1 X 

100.0 X 

MYSELF 

PEOPLE AND WILDERNESS ASSOCIATIONS 

RESIDENTS 

RESIDENTS OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE LAND 

RURAL AND STATE LEADERS 

SHOOT THEM ALL AND VOTE ON IT. 

SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE OF UTAH 

SOMEONE WHO WILL FIGHT FOR US. LIKE THE PEOPLE 

WHO HAVE BEEN THERE . YOU CAN'T TAKE SllMETHING 

FROM SOMEBODY 

WHO HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER AND IT'S THERE 

LIVELIHOOD. 

STATE LEGISLATURE. 

THE CITIZENS AND THE BLM. 

THE COMMUMITY SHClJLD HAVE A SAT 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOMETIMES. 

THE LOCAL PEOPLE. MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT TO SOME 

EXTENT. 

THE NATURAL FOREST SERVICE. NOT SURE OF ANYBODY 

ELSE. 

THE PEOPLE [131 (PUT VOTE TO PEOPLE 131) 

THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE A SAT IN IT. THE 

POLITICIANS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING Cli. ALSO 

THEY HAVE STUPID OPINIONS AND THEY ARE TO WRAPPED 

UP IN THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS TO EVEN KNOW WHAT 

THE HECK IS GOING ON. THE PEOPLE WHO liVE HERE 

KNOW ~HAT IS GOING ON. LET THEM DECIDE. 

THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPENT MOST OF THE TIME ClJT 

THERE. THE ONES WHO GO CAMPING, HUNTING AND 

FISHING OR WHATEVER. GENERALLY THE ~HOLE 

POPULATION OF EACH STATE SHClJLO HAVE A CHANCE TO 

VOTE ON IT AND MAKE A DECISION. SO THEY CAN 

DECIDE THE BETTER OR WORSE. 

THE PEOPLE. A GROUP CALLED THE SClJTHERN UTAH 

~ILDERNESS ASSOCIATION ALLIANCE. NO GOVERNMENTAl. 

AGENCY OR POLITICIANS. 
311 

pege 12 2 News Statewide Poll: nNAL RESULTS 18 Mar 1995 

THE PEOPLE , I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO AN EXTENT. 

AS LONG ~ THEY 00 IT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE 

PEOPLE ANI) NOT FOR THEMS!:LVES. 

THE PEOPLE. NO ONE ELSE. 

THE RESIDENTS OF EACH COONTY BY VOTE 

IITAH PEOPLE IIIlO VISIT 

UTAH WILDERNESS ASSOC IIOULO IE IIOST TRUSTWORTHY 

liE SHOULD CREATE A SEPARATE OFFICE FOR SOMEONE TO 

OVERSEE THIS IN OUR STATE ANI) HAVE IN FILLED BY 

ELECTION 

WILDERNESS GROUPS 

YOU REAllY DON'T QIOII WHAT THE OUTCDIE 1/ILL IE 

ANO WHAT IS REALL l, CAN YOU TRUST ANT Of THBI, YOU 

HOPE SO. 

Strongly S-"""t S-ot Strongly DK/IIA Total agree agree disagree di segree 

.ease tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following 

:atements: 

1. Econo.fc deve lopment i n southern and central 

tah is 1n0re iaportent than wilderness des igr\ati on. 

'· I value the preservat;on of notural, roedless 

reas. 

Wilderness wil l enhance Utah's economy through 

~reased tourism. 

Wilderness h too restricti ve aa a .. ay to 

rot ect the rwtural land$ of Utah. 

10. Age 

18· 24 25 · 34 35 ~ 

45·54 

55·64 

owr65 

Refused 

Total 

MiUh"'J CIISH • 0 

Response Percent • 100 . 0 I 

11 . 4 

59. 8 

36.2 

19.3 

Perc.,t 

17.2 ll: 

24.0 ll: 

Z0.8ll: 

12.911: 

9.6 ll: 

15.4 ll: 

0.1 ll: 

100.0 X 

21.8 

27.2 

31.7 

23.1 

Vtlln ISH!tdt Inc 

28.0 34.9 3. 9 100. 0 

5.9 5.9 1.2 100. 0 

13.8 13.5 4.7 100.0 

23 .8 30.3 3.5 100.0 
312 

2 !!ews Statewide Poll t EISAL RESULTS 18 Max 1995 

11. llhlt II yoor total household ,,..,_, 

Under 125,000 125 • $35.000 

S35 • S50, 000 

S50 • S75, 000 S75 • $100,000 OYer $100,000 •• , .. oo:t 

Toto I 

Mlul"' CU. • 0 

·-Percent • 100.0 s 

13. MOll t.,. haw you lived In Utoh? 

Loss thon 1 yeor 1. 5 _ ... 

6 • 10yeors 11 • 20yeors ...... then 20 years 

Totel 

Mlssl"' Cosos • 0 Response Percent • 100.0 % 

-

Mtutng C.ses • 0 

Response Percent • 100.0 X 

20.5 s 23.8 s 22.7 s 14.2 s 5.2 s 3.7 s 9.9 s 

100.0 s 

Percant 

2.0 X 7.2 X 7.0 X 11.2 X 65.7 X 

100.0 X 

Percent 

51.0 s 49.0 X 

100.0 X 

ftllex •esnrsh Inc. 
313 

Testimony of Alan Kimball before the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee 

on H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

June 23, 1995 

My name is Alan Kimbalt and I have been active in the sports and outdoor recreation 

community for many years. My 'interest began iJt an eiJrly age· and hils continued 

throughout my life. I am. a recreation coordinator at the Utah Independent Living 

Center. I heve been involved with the community surrounding independent living for 

8 yeOJrS and therefore feel that I understand this community as a whole. 

Although I cannot speak for everyone, .I c~'n. speak for those With differing abilities 

with whom I have contact on iJ daily basis. We do not believe that wilderness 

designation will exclude us from accessing remote ereas. In addition, the use of 

wheelchairs. including motorized wheelchairs, is permitted in wilderness areas when 

the wheelchair is a medical nec.~~sity. 

One of the challenge's put forth. to many people with differing abilities involves access 

in a world built without accommodation for wheelchairs. In order to make life 

successful one must have the ability to come up with creative solutions to difficult 

problems. An active imagination is a necessity for people of differing ability ·levels. 

I find it presumptuous when people say off road vehicles or air flights are the only way 

for people of differing abilities to access designated wilderness areas. There is a 

growing constituency of people who also feel this way. 

In a 1992 "Report to the President and the Congress of the United States on Section 

507 (a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act• the National Council on disabilities 

found the majority (76% percent) of the respondents with disabilities do not believe 

that the re&trictions on mechanized use stated by the Wilderness Act diminish their 

ability to enjoy wilderness. 

Watercraft, horses, dogs, and sleds are permitted in designated.wllderness areas; It 

has been my experience. as well as many others that horses, canoes, rafts, kayaks, 

and dog sleds are reasonable and feasible means for a person with a disability to 

access designated wilderness areas. I believe that federally reserved water rights for 

wilderness areas will ensure access into remote places for people of all abilities. In 

some cases it is easier to access wilderness areas than to travel in a city and stay in 

a motel or hotel. 

Since becoming disabled I have personally experienced both horsepacking in the 

Escalante Canyons and river rafting on the Colorado River through the Fisher Towers 

end Arches Lost Spring Canyon proposed wilderness areas. I end many othera have 

been able to gain access into these wilderness areas by alternative means available 

to people of all abilities. 

Thera are two organizations baled in Utah which offer program• educating people 
814 

with differing abilities about the possibilities of access into wilderness and other 

outdoor areas. I have been active in both end only hope that this committee will 

understand that access for people with disabilities is not a reason to exclude areas 

from the prot.ection offered by the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

I and many others with differing ebilities support the citizen's proposal protecting 5. 7 

million acres of public lands as wilderness; embodied in H. R. 1500, Americas Red 

Rock Wilderness Act. 
315 

STATEMENT OF FRED SELMAN BEFORE THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND LANDS 

JUNE 24, 1995, IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

My name is Fred Selman, and I am President of Harold Selman Inc. a family 

business. We have a sheep and cattle operation in Box Eider and Cache Counties in 

Northern Utah. One of our forest grazing permits the Cottonwood Allotment on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest includes the Mt. Naomi Wilderness Area established 

as part of the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before your committee and explain some of the problems we have had grazing in the 

wilderness area since it was cr~ated. In my testimony I am not only representing 

myself, but also the Utah Farm Bureau, The Utah Cattlemen's Association, the Utah 

Wool Growers and a number of other family owned livestock companies. 

We have had this particular allotment since 1936. In 1961 we voluntarily reduced the 

number of sheep on this allotment to 1000 head to improve the range. That is 

approximately the number we have been running since then, though in the past nine 

years, when we have had an extended drought in this part of the state, we have 

voluntarily grazed this permit at about 50% of what we could have done. 

In 1965, we lost 48 sheep to predators and in the following years, we made a major 

predator control effort, including use of poisons, traps, hunting and aerial control. 

Coyotes are the predators which cause us the biggest problem, but we also have 

problems with mountain lions and bears. Over the next few years these predator 

control activities allowed us to keep our losses to an acceptable level, though we still 

continued to suffer losses. 

When the Mt. Naomi area was first proposed for wilderness in the 1970's we were 

naturally concerned about the impact this could have on our grazing operation. 

However, we were assured and reassured that grazing and predator control activities 

which are especially essential to maintaining a viable sheep operation would not be 

changed by wilderness designation. 

Our experiences since designation of the wilderness have shown us that our original 

concerns were justified. The designation of this area as wilderness has had a 

negative impact on our operationn. 

When the poison 1080 was banned on public lands in 1972 we lost our most effective 

predator control tool. We were forced to rely more heavily on other tools, such as 

aerial gunning. In April, 1992 this was prohibited in the wilderness area. We also had 

to be able to produce documentation of verified kills of our sheep before we could 

perform any control at all. Recently, we have had to sustain at least a 4% loss of our 

entire herd before any predator control could be instituted! 
316 

It is important to remember that this allotment is very remote, with no roads and no 

easy communication. It is difficult to get word of predator losses out of the area, much 

less get documentation and get the control activity started. As a result, wilderness 

designation has cost us money and continues to cost us money compared to the way 

were able to manage the operation before wilderness. 

In addition to the problems with predator control, wilderness has had other negative 

impacts. Our difficulty replacing a 60 year old water trough and/or materials built by 

the CCC Is a good example. We have wanted to bring In the replacement trough by 

helicopter since this is the easiest and most cost effective way to do it, and would 

have no environmental impact. The alternative would be to bring it by some other 

mechanical means as was done when It was originally put Into place. This would 

require constructing at least a temporary road. 

The helicopter would not even land in the wilderness area, but could place the trough 

on the ground and hover only long enough to allow the cable to be disconnected. 

While the range conservation officer on the Forest Service District thought this was 

acceptable In a designated wilderness, he was over-ruled by the District Ranger. As 

a result, we hav(l had to depend on •patch and fix maintenance• on this trough. I 

should add that in addition to providing wat.,r for our livestock, this trough also Is 

essential for wildlife, Including about 75 head of elk. In late summer in most years, 

this trough Is the only source of water in a large area. 

Our experience with restoring trails blocked or damaged by avalanches during some 

heavy snow years in the early 1980's is another good example. We were forced to 

use primitive methods, such as hand tools to open and repair these trails. Before 

wilderness designation we would have been able to use mechanized equipment such 

as chain saws which would have been both more efficient and cost effective. 

I have looked over the guidelines which Congress gave the Forest Service in 1980 

specifically directing how grazing should be managed In wilderness areas. These are 

the same guidelines (attached) referred to in Section 3 (c)(2) of H. R. 1745, the Utah 

BLM legislation. Based on my experience in the Mt.Naomi Wilderness, the federal 

government has not been adhering to these guidelines. 

The Forest Service's refusal to allow us to use a helicopter to replace the old watering 

trough and materials clearly violates guideline number 2, which states that 'Where 

practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be 

accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. • It goes on to say 

that "Moreover, under the rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized 

equipment should be permitted where practical alternatives are not available and such 

use would not have a significant adverse impact on the natural environment.· 
317 

Not only is the use of the helicopter the most practical alternative, but using it would 

have NO Impact on the natural environment. Why then does the Forest Service not 

permit it? Why are they not required to follow the instructions of Congress? 

Similarly, guideline 2 should have allowed us to use mechanized equipment such as 

chain saws to repair the damaged trails. It was the only practical alternative and 

would have had no adverse impact on the natural environment. 

As I read these guidelines, they also should have allowed us to continue aerial 

gunning for predator control. As the guidelines state, "In summary, subject to the 

conditions and policies outlined above, the general rule of thumb on grazing 

management in wilderness should be that activities or facilities established prior to the 

date of an area's designation as wilderness should be allowed to remain in place and 

may be replaced when necessary for the permittee to properly administer the grazing 

program." Certainly, predator control by the most practical means falls within this 

directive. 

To apply our experiences specifically to the bill under consideration, I do not think the 

specific directive in Section 3 (c)(2) is strong enough. The language in Section 301 

(a) of the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act which set up the Mt. Naomi and other wilderness 

areas in Utah makes reference to these same guidelines. As I have already 

explained, the reference in the forest wilderness bill has not prevented the Forest 

Service from ignoring significant parts of these same guidelines. 

I am not certain what the answer to this problem is, but I think part of it is to make the 

guidelines even more specific and detailed and to actually write them into the law 

rather than make a reference to them. I also recommend that the law state that the 

burden be placed on the Forest Service to suggest an alternative method which 

complies with these guidelines when they turn down the suggestion of the permittee to 

do something like replace the water trough on our allotment. 

There is a saying that 'nothing is impossible to someone who does not have to 

implement. • Too often that is the problem with the federal managers. It is easy to say 

no to a permittee's suggestion in a case like this. But if they had to come up with an 

alternative to accomplish the goal which Congress specifically says is permitted or 

required by these guidelines, then they would be forced to be more realistic. 

As it is now, we appear to have much the same problem with the Forest Service 

which forced the Congress to adopt these guidelines in the first place. I found the 

summary of the situation Congress found in the late 1970's very much like our 

situation today. Let me quote from House Report 96-1126, the one referred to in the 

grazing section of this bill. 'During the 95th Congress, congressional committees 

became increasingly disturbed that, despite the language of section 4(d)(4)(2) of the 

Wilderness Act and despite a history of nearly 15 years in addressing and providing 

3 
318 

guidance to the wilderness management agencies for development of wilderness 

management policies, National Forest administrative regulations and policies were 

acting to discourage grazing in wilderness, or unduly restricting on-the-ground 

activities necessary for proper grazing management. • 

From my experience, this is still a major problem. Merely referring to these guidelines 

again in the bill will probably not be enough to convince the BLM to do what Congress 

intended just as it has not been enough for the Forest Service. 

Let me make one other suggestion. In Section 3 (c)(1) of the bill before you, I would 

strongly urge you to include a phrase that will make it clear that traditional predator 

control activities which were conducted before wilderness was designated will continue 

after designation. Since predator control is so important to sheep operations, I think 

that this kind of provision would be especially important in this BLM wilderness bill. It 

is my impression that sheep represent a higher proportion of the livestock grazing on 

BLM land. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present my experiences and suggestions. I will be 

happy to answer any questions or expand on any of the points I have raised here. 

4 
319 

EXCERPTS FROM HOUSE REPORT 96-1126 

JUNE 24, 1980 

fact that the Zone is within the exterior boundary of the wilder- ness. The conferees adopted these provisions because of the 16 vear historv of restrictions on mining within the Xational Wilder- ness Svstem and the. unique circumstances surrounding the mineral cobn.lt. 

(.J) Within the )lanagcment Zone. allminin:r lo..•ntions and ac- cess roads are to he used for mining" and minPrnl procr>sin~r only, 

except t.hnt personnel of th~ Itlnho Fish ami Game Department 

may use these same acres.~ roads to continue their big'horn sheep 

trappinl! and manag-ement efforts within the area. (.i) Subject to ,·alid existing" rights. all patents is~ued under 

the mining lnw;. of the F$. for claims wit.hin the )fanul!elllent 

Zone are to conwy title onl~· to the mineral deposit. re~r,·ing to 

the United States all title in or to the surface or the surface re- sources. The patentee does, howt'ver, han the right to cut and use as much mature timber from the claim as ma)· be necPSSary for 

mining operations if the timber is not otherwise available and is 

cut under sound timber hnn·esting techniques. In addition, the 

patentee has the ri,g"ht to use as mueh of the surface as is reason- ably necessary for the mining. removal, extraction. or benefication 

of the mineral deposit. The conferees note that these provisions 

apply to all mining claims. both patented and unpatented. (6) In view of the fact that the lands within the )lann~ement 

Zone comprise critical habitat for si1Z11ificant numbers of b1ghorn 

sheep, language is added prodding that consistent with the foregoing provisions. the Secretary of Asrriculture may take all rea- sonable measures to insure that cobalt (and associated minerals) 

mining and processing acth·ities within the )Ianagement Zone do 

not significantly impair the oHrall habitat of the bie;horn sheep within or adjacent to the Zone. It is the intent of the conferees 

that suc.h measures shall not prevent the recoYery of cobalt and 

associated minerals. 

7. M.us AXD LEGAL DESCRil'TJO!\S 

Both versions contain identical sections comm()n to most wilderness 

bi::lls pertaining to the filing of maps and legal descriptions. 

8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 

Both the Senate bill and the House amendment contain identical 

provisions ~rding aircraft landing strips, commercial services, wild· 

life and fish Jurisdiction, and the impact of the wilderness designation on state water laws. In addition, the conferees adopted a provision of 

the House amendment which authorizes the possible future construction of small hydroelectric and domestic water supply facilities in the 

lower reaches of Threemile and Jersey Creeks along the main Salmon 

River. 

The two bills also had somewhat different provisions pertaining to 

livestock grazing within the wilderness. The conferees agreed to adopt 

the Senate language which reiterates the provisions of the Wilderness 

Act but to supplement that statutory provision with the following 

discussion. 
320 

21 

Grazing inN ational F(}1Ut W ildernes8 Are<U 

Section 4(d) (4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: "the grazing of 

lh·estock. where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall 

be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretarv of Agriculture." 

The legislative history of this language. is very clear in its intent 

that livestock grazing, and activities and the necessary facilities to 

support a livestock grazing program. will be permitted to continue in 

National Forest wilderness areas, when such srrazing was established 

prior to classification of an area as wilderness. Includine- thoRe. areas f"stablished in thf' Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Conllr8SS has designated some 188 areas. coYering lands administered 

bv the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Park 

Service and Bureau of Land Management as components of the National Wilderness Preservation Svstem. A number of these areas contain active ~azing programs, which are conducted pursuant to 

existing authorities. In all such cases, when enacting le~slation classifying an area as wilderness, it has been the intent of the Con~ss, 

ba.<;('d on rolid el"idf'nc.t' df'n~lopPil hv tf'stimony at public hParings, 

that the practical language. of the Wilderness Act would applv to 

AT&Zing within wilderness areas administered hy a.U Federal agencies. 

not iust. the Forest Service. In fact. special language appears in all 

wilderness legislation, the intent of which is to assure. that. the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act. including- Section 4( d) ( 4) (2). 

will apply to a1! wilderness areas, regardless of a~ncv juri~iction. 

Further, dunng the 95th Congress, Con~ss1onal comm1ttees be- came inc!'l'asingly clic;tnrbed that, despite the languag-e of section 

4(d) (4) (2) of the Wilderness Act and despite a history of nearly 

15 years in addressing and providing guidance to t-he wilderness man- a~ment a!l!ncies for development of wilderness mana~ment policies, 

Xational Forest administrative regulations nnd policies were acting 

to discourage ~zing in wilderness, or unduly restricting on-the.-

Jn'Qund acti"l'ities necessary for proper grazing mana~ment. To address this problem, two House ('_,ommittee on Interior and Insular 

Affairs Reports (9~20 and 95-1321) specifically provided ~idance 

as to how ~tion 4-(d) (4) (2) of the Wilrlf'rness Act should hE' interpreted. This guidance appeared in these reports as follows: 

Section 4( d) ( 4) (2) of the Wilderness Act states that wazinl!' in wilderness areas, if established prior to designation 

of t.M area as wilderness. "shall be permitted to ront.inue 

subjert to !'nch reasonablt>. re#!nlations at:: are deemed neces- san- bt" thf'. Secretary of A.l!l'irulture.". To rlarifv an\'" lingering doobts. the committee w-ishes to stress that this language meim~ that there shall he no curtailment of grazing permits or prh-ile'!I'S in nn aren. t::impl~· hf.<-nn!'ot' it is de!=i~ated 

ns willWrne!'s. As Ftntc-rl in thr Fort>st SE>n;rf" l'f':!lllntions (!lfi 

CFR ~3.7). grazing in wildernes.c; areas ordinarilt' will be 

controlled under the ~neral re#!'Ulatiom~ !!0\·erninf! ~zing 

of Ji~ock on National Forests • • •. This includes the es- tablisllment of normal rangt' allotments and allotment man- agenat plans. Furthermore. wil~el'!less designation sh~uld 

not p~vent the maintenance of t>x1stmg fences or other hve-
321 

22 

stock management improvements, nor the construction and 

maintenance of new fences or improvements which are oon- sistl'nt with allotment mana!!l'ml'nt plan~ and or \t"hich are 

necessary for the protection of the range. 

Despite the lanj!Uage of tlH•S<' two reports. R.\RE II hraring~ anti 

field inspeetion trips in thr 96th Conrrrr~s han re,·ealrLI that XationaJ 

Forest admi.nisrrat.ivr policies on g-razing- in wilclrme.-.., are mhjl'ct to 

varying interprrtations in the field. :mel are fraught with pronouncements that simp I~· arr not in accordance. with srction 4( r]) (4 ){2) of 

the 'Wilderness .\ct. Thi~ had led to rlrmands on thr part of l!fliZingpermittees that ~ection 4 (d) ( 4) (2) of the Wilrll'rnr•:: "\t:"t lw amended 

to clarify the inte.ntionl' of Congre~s. HoweYrJ". hrt!lm<' of thr !!reat diversit~; of conditions under which grazing uses (including- different 

classes of livestock) are manag-ed on thr public lands. the Conferees 

feel that t.he ori2inal broarl lang-ua!!'e of the Wildernr:'s Act is best 

left unchang"ed. Any attempts to draft specific statuton· language CO\"· 

ering g-razing in the entire wildernrss s~·stem (present]~, ndministered 

by four separate agenciPs in two differPnt Drpartments) miJrht pro\"e 

to be undulv ri2"id inn specific. arrn. nnd deprive the lnnd management. 

age.neirs of flexible opporlnnitil's to manage grazing in a crPative and 

realistic site sp<>cific fashion. · ~ · 

Therefore, thP conferpp;; dl'clined to amend S('ction Hd)(4)(2) of 

the '\VildHness Act. agreeing instl'ad to reaffirm thl' l'xisting language 

and to inclnde the follo-n-in$! nationwide g-uidelinl's and specific statem('nts of legislative policy. It is the intention of the conferees that the 

guidelin('s and policiPs hl' consiflered in the overall context of the purposE's and direction of the Wildernt>ss Act of 1964 and this Act. and 

that. they be promptly. fully. and diligentlv imniPmPnted and made 

available to Forest Senicr pt>rsonnel at all l~>nls and to all holders 

of permits for !!razing in ~ ational ForPst 'VildPrne::s arPas: 

1. There shall hl' no curlailml'nts of grazing in -n-ilderne"s arPas simplv hl'cansl' an area. is. or has been dl'SignatPd as wildPmess. nor shonld 

wilderness designations be nsed as an excnsr bv administrators to 

slowly "phase out" grazing. Anv adjustments in the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness areas should hl' made as a rPsult 

of revisions in the nonnal grnzi.ng and land manag-ement planning and 

policy sett.in~ process, g-i vin~ consideration t() !ega 1 mandates, range 

condition. and the protection of the rang-r resource from drterioration. 

It is anticipated that the numbers of livestock permitted to graze 

in wilderness would remain at the approximate levels rxisting at the 

t.ime an area enters the wilderness svstem. If land management plans 

reveal conclnsivelv that increased livestock numbers or animal unit m~:mths (Al~s) could be made available with no adverse impact on wilderness values such as plant communities, primitin~ recreation. and 

wildlife populations or habitat, some increases in A l~s may be permissible. This is not to imply, however, that wilderness lends itself 

to A UM or livestock increases and construction of substantial new !acilities.that might be appropriate for intensive grazing managempnt In non-wiidernl'ss arPas. 

~- The maintenance of supporting facilities. exist in.!! in an area prior 

to Its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, -n-ater 
322 

23 

wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible in wilderness. Where 

practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may 

be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. 

This may include, for example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock 

ponds, pickup trucks for maJor fence repairs, or specialized equipment 

t.o repair stock watering facilities. Such occasional use of motorized 

equipment should be expressly authorized in the grazing permits for 

the area involved. The use of motorized equipment should be based on a rule of practical necessity and reasonableness. For example, motorized 

equipment need not be allowed for the placement of small quantities 

of salt or otlu•r acth·itit>s where such acth;tit>s can reasonabl;\' and 

practically be accomplished on horseback or foot. On the other hand, 

it may be appropriate to permit the occasional use of motorized equipment to haul larg"e quantities of salt to distribution points. l\Iort>over, 

under the rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized equipment should he permitted where practical alternatives are not available and such use would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural environment. Such motorized equipment uses will normally 

on!:- be. permittPcl to thoSl' portions of a wi!rlf.'rnf.'ss area wht>re they 

had occurred prior to the area's designation as wilderness or are established by prior agreement. 

3. The replacement or reconstruction of deteriorated facilities or improvements should not be required to be accomplished using "natural materials". unless the. material and labor costs of usin~ natural 

materials are such that their use would not impose unreasonable additional costs on grazing permittees. 

+.The construction of new impronments or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with those 

guidelines and management plans gon•rning the area involved. How- ewr. the construction of new impro,·emPnts ~honld he primarily for 

the purpose of resource protection and the more effectin management 

of thesr resources rather than to accommodate increased numbers of liw~tock. 

5. The nse of motorized equipment for Pmerg-ency purposes such as rf.';:cuin~ sick animals or the placPment of feed in Pmer,gency situations is also pHmissible. This privilPge is to h<.> <.>x<.>rcised only in true 

eml'rl!enci<.>s, and should not be abus<.>d by permitt<.>es. 

In summary. subject to the conditions ancl l}l)licirs outlined nbo\·e. 

thf.' gen<.>rnl rnl<.> of thumb on I!I"flzinl! mnn::tgenwnt in wil<l<.>rness 

should he that actirities or facilities l'stnb!i~hrd prior to thr date 

of an arra\ drsi~nation as wildrrnl'~s should he allowed to remain in 

placr :llld may I><' rrplarrd whl'n necl'ssar~· for rhr p<.>rmittre to prop· ~·rly aclmini;.;trt· tlw g-razin~ prog-ram. Thus. if li,·e::-toc.k g-razing- ncti,·-

tties and fncilitiPs 1wre estahlislwd in an nr<.>a at thP time Cong-rpss 

detf.'rmined that thr area was suitahlf.' for "·ildrrnrs;:; and placed the 

snerific arl'a in thr wildrrness svstPm. tlwv ~honld lw allowed to ron- tinur. "-ith rp,;rwct to arras 1lrslgnatrcl a:-: "wi!df.'rnes~ prior to the rlate 

of thi~ .\ct. thP!Oe guidrlines shall not he ronsirll'rrd a;: a dirl'tcion to 

N>-e;:;tahlish uSPs ":hl'rt' such IISl'S ha,·f.' b!>en di~rontinHE'd. 

The confrt'!'!'S notP that thl' Drpartment of _\a-ricultllrl' hns carPfully re1·iewed thl' abow J..TUiclelines and has indicatt•d it will apply 

the guidelines as described in the following letter: • 
Hon. JoB!'< F. SEmERLING, 

323 

24 

DEPARTMENT O.F AGRICULTURE, 

0F.FICE OF THE SECRETARY' 

lV tUJhington. D.C., May 1~, 1080. 

Clwir~rum, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and 

Insular A.Jfairs, llou8e of Representatit·cs, lFtUJhington, D.C. 

DEAR ~ln. Cn.<~.IR.llAX : In the meeting on Xo,·embcr 1, 1979, concerning the propo:;ed committee guidelines for grazing in wilderness, we 

indicated the need to evaluate the guidelines for consistency with the 

specific statutory language and legislative history of the Wilderness 

.\ct of 1D6.J: (Public Law ~8-577). 

We ha,·e examined the propose<! grazing guidelines and policies contained in Committee Report X o. DG--617 to determine if authority exists under the 'Wilderness .\ct to enable the Forest Service to im. 

plement those guidelines and policies. As part of our review, we made 

a comprehensin search of the .\ct's legislative history. The Depart- ment's Office of the General Counsel has assisted us in this effort. 

We have had discussions with you and others on the legal aspects of 

the proposed guidelines. As a result of these discussions and our review, the following information is provided you. The concerns w1th the grazing guidelines contained in the House 

Report on H.R. 5487 han· stemmed from the relationship of section 

4(d) (4) (2) and section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Section 

4(d) (4) (2) clearly provides that livestock grazing operations established prior to the date of the act shall be permitted to continue, but 

this provision must be read in conjunction with the prohibitions in 

section 4( c). In the administration of the Wilderness Act. the responsibility of 

the administering agency is to carry out the direction of both sectfons. 

We l>elieve the guidelines are consistent with these provisions. We will 

apply them so as to permit activities and facilities identified in the 

guidelines to the extent they are necessary for the continuation of livestock grazing operations. ·we note that a number of areas proposed for wilderness in Colorado 

and other States contain existing activities and facilities that are in- com~atible with the wilderness environment. However, sections 4(d) (4) (2) and 4(c) provide for the continuation of livestock grazmg operations under certain conditions. Therefore, it will remain our 

policy, and we believe this policy is within the intent of the proposed guidelines, to phase out such acti,·ities and facilities that are incompatible with wilderness where they are not necessary to the continuation of livestock grazing operations. 

The determination of what is necessarv will be considered on a case 

by case basis. The House Committee Report provides guidance and 

interpretation to help assure that our wilderness management is consistent with congressional intent. Our field staff will be informed ap- propriately to assure consistent implementation of the policy. 

We believe it is unnecessary to repeat policy direction in each wilderness bill and report that comes before the Congress. 

Because Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kogovsek participated in the meeting of last November 1. we have also provided them the results of 

our evaluation in similar letters. 

Sincerely, 

M. RUPERT CUTLER, 

Assistant Secretary for Natural Rcsou7·ces and E111Vironment. 
324 

25 

It is also the understanding of the conferees that the authorizing Committees intend to closely monitor the implementation of the guidelines through subsequent oversight hearings to insure that the spirit, 

as w~Jl as the letter, of the guidelines are adhered to by the Forest 

Service. Of course, the inclusion of these guidelines in this Joint 

Statement of Managers does not preclude the Congress from dealing with the issue of grazing in wilderness areas &atutorily in the future. 

9. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOCRCES 

The Senate bill and the House amendment contain essentially identical provisions regarding the protection of cultural resources in the 

nrea and the preparation of a cultural resources management plan. The 

conferees adopted the House version because it clarifies the intent of 

the Senate bill that the archeological and historical inventory, the cultural resources management plan, and the cabin and historic structure 

interim protection provisions apply to the Salmon River corridor from 

the confluence of the North Fork of the Salmon to Long Tom Bar as 

well as to the River of No Return Wilderness. 

10. PROTECTION OF TilE SAU£0X RIYER 

As passed by the Sena.t~, S. 2009 designates 125 miles of the Salmon River as a component of the National 'rild and Scenic Rh•ers 

System. The 46 mile portion of the river from the confluence of the 

North Fork of the Salmon downstream to. Corn Creek would be managed as a "recreational" river and the 79 mile segment from Corn 

Creek to Lon~ Tom Bar as o. "wild" rh·er. Both segments would be 

administered In accordance with the provisions of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act even though . portions of both stretches run through the 

new River of No Return Wilderness and the Gospel-Hump Wilderness. The Senate bill also insures that existing jetboat use of these 

segments would be permitted to continue at not less than the level 

of use which occurred during calendar year 1978. The House amendment to S. 2009 contains idrntical provisions. but adds the 53 mile 

segment of the river from Hammer Creek to the confluence of t.he 

Snake River as a componl'nt of the system. The House amendment also 

bans dred~ and placer mining in the wild and sct-nic stretches of the 

Salmon Rh·er and on thp Middle Fork of thl' Salmon and its tributaries in thl'ir entiret.v. Althonl!h th~ !'tnd~- conducted b~· the Forn<t ~rn ice pursuant to 

thP. 1968 1Vild and Scenic Ri,-l'l"l' Act led ton Prl'Siclential recommendation that. thf' 2.~7 miles of thl' Salmon Ri,·l'r from ~orth Fork 

down!'tr<'n.m to the. c.o-nflm•nc.e of the Snake Ri,·er be added to the 1Vild 

a!lcl Sc-Pnic ~ivl'rs S~·!'tem. _thl' ronfE're~s a~opted the ri,·p.r dl'signa- hons of thE' ::"'rnntP btll. whtch total 12:~ milE's. The confE't'l'(>!' bPhl'''C 

that the Pl'E'sidl'nt'!' additional rPcnmmendations for thl' ii3 mil<' Hammer f'rPl'k-Snab Rh·E'r Bl'l!lnrnt containE'd in thP HonsE' amendment 

and the :"i!l milr Lon~ Tom Bar-Hammer f'I'l'l'k ~J!'lllrnt. which is not 

nddrei'Sl'd in eith<'r hill. hn'·<' t'Onsidt>ra.blr merit. Howp,·pr. it. was 

deemt>d dl'sirnblP. to defer action on nddinJ! these t.wo segments to the 

system until further public hl'arinJ!S can bl' held. The confl'rl'P.c> did' 

agree to apply the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act which 
325 

COMMENTS OF ALEXANDER H. JORDAN, PRESIDENT 

UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REGARDING H.R. 1745 

THE DESIGNATION OF UTAH WILDERNESS LANDS 

SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1995 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: 

I am speaking today on behalf of the Utah Mining Association 

which represents the mining industry in Utah. This is an issue 

about lands of beauty and great value for many reasons, and 

it is also about people's lives and their ability to make a 

living in this State, and provide for their families. 

In some rural areas of Utah, families who have lived here for 

generations know that good jobs are not a given, they are a 

privilege. 

For the past two decades the 

actively involved in the BLM 

designation process in Utah. 

contentious issue in Utah and 

will be managed as wilderness 

for multiple use. 

mining industry in Utah has been 

and Forest Service Wilderness 

It is critical we resolve this 

appropriately address lands which 

and those which will be managed 

Utah is known as the treasure house of the nation because of 

its tremendous and diverse coal and mineral wealth. This is 

a result of the unique geology and large scale volcanic activity. 

The mineralization which took place over millions of years in 

this geological area is no less than extraordinary. There are 

minerals found in Utah which only rarely exist elsewhere in 

the world. Red barrel (similar to jade) used for jewelry and 

bertrandite refined to produce beryllium are examples of this. 

It is this mineral abundance which has allowed the United States 

to develop a strong robust economy and protect itself from 

international predators as the incredibly pure grade Mesabi 

iron ore of northern Minnesota allowed the United States to 

triumph in World Wars I and II through the domestic production 

of steel, so the uranium and other rare mineral mines of Utah 

allowed the u.s. to prevail in the cold war and more recent 

periods of our international history. This contribution 

continues today through many technological inventions which 

provide for our security, both physically as a nation and 

economically. 

Unfortunately, today in the United States many citizens have 

lost touch with the concept of the origination of many of the 

materials used in their daily lives; materials produced from 
326 

the earth by mining. We are a country that has forgotten what 

allows us to function as a viable economic nation and maintain 

a standard of living second to none. The ability to responsibly 

extract natural resources is crucial. This includes both 

minerals known and those for which a purpose has yet to be 

discovered. A nation that has to import raw materials and 

finished goods may suffer a considerable economic disadvantage 

because of its dependency on other geographical sources. 

Where geological conditions warrant it is imperative to have 

access to land areas for coal and mineral exploration and 

extraction, UNLESS, there are extenuating circumstances which 

outweigh such natural resource development. An example of this 

is the phenomenon of one of the last genetically pure buffalo 

herds in the United States located in Utah's Henry Mountains, 

which also have a very rich coal reserve under them. Because 

of the potential disturbance to the herd by m1n1ng, Utah coal 

companies have agreed to never mine in this area. 

There is a need for access to natural resources for u.s. economic 

purposes. Mining companies today are held to extremely high 

standards for environmental considerations and reclamation. 

And it is in the interest of local mining employees to pay 

attention to their surroundings since these people live in those 

same locations. This economic necessity also provides jobs; 

good, well paying jobs which allow citizens to make a livelihood 

for themselves. Many rural Utah citizens and their families 

are dependent upon these jobs. 

Exchange of School Trust Lands 

It is imperative that an exchange is completed for school trust 

lands adjacent to and within wilderness areas for other federal 

lands containing a diversity of natural resource development 

opportunites. School trust lands are a crucial revenue source for the State of Utah. There must be adequate provision for 

school trust lands near designated wilderness areas to be used 

for the purposes for which they were granted, and activities 

taking place on those lands not be affected by their proximity 

to wilderness areas. 

In conclusion we urge that this wilderness issue be resolved 

in order that citizens of utah may go forward with their lives. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to make comments 

on this issue before your Subcommittee. 
327 

STATEMENT BY 

SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH 

ON 

H.R. 1745, THE UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1995 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

HOUSERESOURCESCO~E 

FIELD HEARING 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 

JUNE 24, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a statement in support ofH.R. 1745, the Utah 

Public Lands Management Act of 1995. This bill will settle once and for all the long-standing 

issue of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness in Utah that has confronted our state for 

over 15 years. 

I welcome the House Subcommittee to Utah to conduct these two hearings on the subject 

ofBLM wilderness in Utah. I would especially like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

diligent work on this issue throughout your tenure in the House. Over the years, you have been a 

leader in addressing the myriad of issues related to the proper management of our nation's public 

lands and natural resources, especially those located in Utah. You played the pivotal role in 

passage of the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, designating almost 800,000 acres of Utah's forest 

lands as wilderness; and, now, once again, you are helping to lead our effort to designate some of 

Utah's BLM lands as wilderness. I applaud you for your work, and I am proud to associate with 

you on this issue. 

Obviously, I am a strong advocate ofH.R.l745. Along with Senator Bennett, I have 

introduced an identical measure in the Senate, S. 884, which has been referred to the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I intend to work with Senators Murkowski and 

Craig, the leaders of that committee, toward scheduling a Senate hearing on S. 884 prior to the 

August recess. I hope that the Senate committee will be able to move as quickly and 

expeditiously as this subcommittee to consider this legislation. 

As the chairman knows, this legislation would designate approximately 1. 8 million acres 

ofBLM land in Utah as wilderness. The bill will also release 1.4 million acres from any further 

BLM study or management policies as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). H.R. 1745 is the 

culmination of a process of consideration that included local county meetings, written comments, 

and regional public hearings. All of this input has been reviewed by the congressional 

delegation, and the resulting product is the legislation now before the subcommittee. 

It may be an understatement to say that there are many conflicting views in our state on 

the issue of wilderness, particularly on the number of acres that should be designated as such. 

The acreage figure contained in H.R. 1745 is 80 percent greater than the amount recommended 

by the impacted counties, and 70 percent less than the proposal supported by the Utah 
328 

Wtlderness Coalition. This bill represents an effort to find a final reasonable resolution to the 

issue ofBLM wilderness in Utah. After 17 years, at a cost of$10 million of taxpayer funds and 

over 2200 workmonths for BLM employees, we believe we have put forward a good and 

workable compromise, which we hope can soon be passed by both houses of Congress and 

signed into law. At that point we can finally stop talking about wilderness and start enjoying it. 

Once again, I want to publicly thank and applaud all those who have provided input or 

assistance into its development, especially the impacted counties. These counties undertook the 

challenge to develop a recommendation for their particular county and to submit it to the 

delegation by April I. Each county conducted public meetings, on-site visits, and other pertinent 

activities in order to comply with our request. They made concise presentations at the five 

regional meetings, and we are indebted to them for their fine work. 

In regard to H.R. 1745, I am proud to add my name to this bill that will protect and 

preserve what I refer to as the "Crown Jewels" ofBLM land in Utah. They are priceless pieces 

of property that, in my opinion, meet the definition of wilderness. These "Crown Jewels" 

include the Grand Gulch; Desolation Canyon and the Book Cliffs area; the Little Grand Canyon, 

the Black Box, and Mexican and Sid's Mountains of the San Rafael Swell; the Dirty Devil 

canyon area; and the Escalante Canyons. The bill also includes numerous ecosystems that are 

represented in the form of the high mountain ranges of the Deep Creek and Henry Mountains; 

the canyons through which the Colorado, the Green, the San Rafae~ the Dirty De~ the 

Escalante, and the East Fork of the Vugin Rivers flow; the red rock character of Red Mountain, 

Canaan Mountain, and Crack Canyon; and the west desert area of Utah represented by Notch 

Peak, Fish Springs, and the Cedar Mountains. 

The legislation does not include any BLM lands that are high in resource development 

potenti~ and we have attempted to craft boundaries for these areas that are manageable and that 

move away from or completely avoid intrusions. · 

Some may claim that the bill does not include all of the land that could be construed as 

eligible for wilderness designation. It is true that we have made some choices. We have chosen 

to put forward legislation that achieves a necessary balance between the need to protect nature's 

legacy and the need to provide economic prosperity to communities surrounding designated 

areas. The legislation may not be perfect from any one side's point of view, but it does reflect 

an honest and concerted effort to resolve this issue fairly and.in a way that takes the opinions of 

all sides into consideration. 

While the 49 WSAs contained in the bill form a major portion of this propo~ the 

language accompanying the acres that effectuate their designation is just as important to the bill's 

overall objective. The bill includes language that in my opinion is critical to protecting Utah's 

short- and long-term interests. For example, H.R. 1745 will protect existing water rights and 

prohibit the establishment of any federal reserved water right; allow grazing to continue where it 

has been established; prohibit the reclassification of an airshed due to a wilderness designation; 

release for nonwilderness multiple uses those BLM lands not designated as wilderness by the 

bill; and provide for a direct exchange of approximately 140,000 school and institutional trust 

lands captured, in whole or in part, by wilderness designation. 
329 

I am solidly behind the inclusion of this language in any final bill. While it may be 

necessary to make modifications in the language during the legislative process, I believe it is 

essential that these key concepts be included. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing and for your 

leadership on this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to provide brief comments in support of 

H.R 1745. 
330 

UTAH WILDERNESS SUMMARY 

HISTORY OF nil! UTAH WtLDl!llNBSS DEBATE 

1978 Following lhe passage of FLPMA, BLM, under the Carter Administration, began the 

Inventory n:vic:w of public lands for wilderness suitability. Intent was to identify lands 

that might have wilderness character as dcfmed in Sec. 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 

1964. Inventory guidelines were based on the BLM's Wilderness Inventory Handbook 

first published September 27, 1978. 

1980 

and 

BLM 

designated 

identified 

these 

2.6 million 

lands as 

of 

wilderness 

Utah's 22 

study 

million 

arcns 

acres 

(WSA's). 

as having wilderness ~ 

1985 After a series of appeals to IBLA, 600,000 additional acres were added to WSA status. 

WSA's then totaled 3.2 million acres. Subsequent appeals were rejected by IBLA 

1985 Utah Wilderness Coalition, an organization of enviroruncntal groups announced a 5.1 

million-acre wilderness proposal. 

1986 BLM released a Statewide Draft EIS on the wilderness suitability of the 3.2 million 

acres in WSA's. 1.9 million acres were recommended for wilderness designation. 

1989 Congres;man Wayne Owens introduced UWC wilderness proposal as H.R. 1500, 

calling tbr 5.4 million acres as wilderness. 

1991 The Bush Administration forwarded BLM 1.9 million acre proposal to Congress for 

consideration. 
331 

TBSTDlOIIY 0., llBPllBSDTATriB BJIXD G. 1fALJ)JIOLTZ 

BBI'OJlB TIUI 

BOUSB JlBSOURCBS SUBCOJIIUTTBB 

OR JIATXODL PUJtS, .,OJUISTS ABD LABDS 

JUJIB 24, 1tt5 

Chairman Hansen, Congressman Richardson and Members of the 

subcommittee, thank-you for the interest you have shown by 

traveling to our State. I commend you for your willingness to 

listen to those who will be most directly impacted by this issue. 

As you will hear today, Utahns feel a deep respect and 

concern for our natural heritage. Since Congress passed the 

Wilderness Act in 1964, Utahns have been struggling to develop a 

wilderness plan that complies with the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act, and will protect Utah's unique beauty for future 

generations, while also acknowledging the importance of our 

state's economic well-being. The final legislative product of 

that decades-long effort is H.R. 1745, the Utah Public Lands 

Management Act of 1995. 

As a part of this process, my staff and I have spent a great 

deal of time studying each individual Wilderness study Area 

(WSA). Along with the Utah congressional delegation, I 

participated in a review process that included more than 35 

public meetings, and 5 regional hearings. We heard testimony 

from more than 600 individuals and received petitions signed by 

over 16,700 people. In addition, the Governor's office logged in 

2,311 letters regarding wilderness representing a wide range of 

opinions. All of this information was then combined with all the 

debate and research done on this issue over more than 20 years. 

During this process two principles were reaffirmed to me: 

First, wilderness is an appropriate, critical component of our 

federal land management policies necessary to protect certain 

irreplaceable, fragile lands in their pristine condition, and 

second, the Wilderness Act neither requires nor allows us to 

sacrifice our rural communities in the pursuit of that goal. The 

Utah delegation legislation provides safeguards regarding water 

rights, buffer zones, cultural and paleontological resources, and 

Native American cultural and religious uses along with provisions 

requiring the exchange of Utah school trust lands necessary to 

protect the rights and interests of Utah school children. This 

bill also allows the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to engage in 

long-term planning and releases those lands not designated as 

wilderness to be returned to the BLM multiple use inventory. But 

let me make it clear that this Congress has no authority to bind 

future Congress' ability to revisit this process, and we have not 

attempted to do so in this bill. 

There are those who contend there can be no compromise, or, 

that there has already been too much compromise on wilderness 

areas. But Mr. Chairman, the 1964 Wilderness Act was never 

intended to become a catch-all for wholesale designation of 
332 

public lands. It was intended to protect lands that met certain 

criteria, while other lands, meeting different criteria, would be 

managed under a range of designations and management plans 

including conservation areas, primitive areas, semi-primitive 

areas, parks, recreation areas, etc. Some of the lands not 

designated as wilderness under this bill undoubtedly fall under 

these other classifications, which we should pursue. But first, we need to decide which lands meet the more restrictive 

definition of wilderness. I believe H.R. 1745 represents a substantial and credible piece of legislation that fulfills both 

the spirit, and the letter of, the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

I support this bill and am an original co-sponsor. I 

believe however, that there are additional lands that should also 

be included as wilderness areas to make this bill complete. They are: 

'l'ti'RTLB CAIIYOif 

DBSOLA'l'IOif CAifYOif (BXPAifSIOif) 

BOOK CLIPPS (BXPAifSIOif) 

SIDS MOUif'l'AIIf (BXPAifSION) 

PARIA-IIACUBRRY (BXPAifSION) 

PISB ' OWL CRBBK CAifYOif 

ROAD CRBBK CAIIYOif 

GJUUl!) GULCH CQKPLIX (BXPANSXOifl 

36,430 acres 47,22' acres 

65,070 acres 25,,55 acres 33,,36 acres 43,080 acres 53,,11 acres 57,762 acres 363,373 acres * All acreage amounts are approximate 

Each of these areas was recommended for wilderness 

designation by the BLM in its statewide wilderness final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with the exception of the 

Book Cliffs and Desolation Canyon expansions. The Book Cliffs 

expansion was recommended for inclusion as wilderness by the 

Grand County Commission. At the time of the BLM inventory there were oil and gas leases along with a road in the Desolation 

Canyon expansion area, since the inventory was completed those 

oil and gas leases were abandoned and the road reclaimed. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just say a word about the people of 

Utah's view about wilderness. I know there are a great many 

polls being bandied about, and more claims about the meaning of 

those polls. so that I could have some bench mark, I 

commissioned a poll that was done by Dan Jones and Associates on April 26, 1995, with a sample size of 600 solely in my Congressional District. The results of that survey: 

23% supported approximately 5.7 million acres of 

wilderness, 

36% Supported approximately 1.2 million acres of 

wilderness, from an earlier proposal of 

Representative Hansen, and 

24% Supported approximately 2.0 million acres of 

wilderness, from the BLM's proposal. 
I am not offering this information as definitive on this 

issue. However, I am offering it to demonstrate the wide range of survey data on this issue. In view of this wide range of 

opinion, I believe our duty is to apply the 1964 Act as written 

in the most careful, considered way we can. I believe that is 

exactly what our leqislation does. We did not start with a preconceived target for acreage; we reviewed each area of land 

individually and applied the law, and our conclusions are represented in the bill before you. 

Mr. Chairman, it is important for our State that we resolve 

this divisive issue. This single issue has spanned over 20 

years, consumed endless manpower hours and expended critical resources. Sadly, it has bitterly divided many communities in our. State. It is time to make a decision, and H.R. 1745 is the 

legislation needed to move this issue to resolution. Again, Mr. 

Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. Thank you. 

UTAH WILDERNESS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

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

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands will come to order. I would like to explain to the folks here 

that the Members of the House are a little bushed right now. We 

worked all through the night nonstop, and we just walked out of 

there just a minute ago. I was in the Chair for 18 hours, and if 

I go to sleep here, you will understand; not because you are boring, just that I don't have the capacity to stay awake. 

We are waiting for Governor Leavitt to come in, and my colleague, Maurice Hinchey, I admire him for being with us. He had 

to sit through that whole thing and as other members did, and I 

think that explains why Representative Orton and Representative Waldholtz are not here. Everyone is so tired they can hardly keep their eyes open. That is one of the longest nights-I think the longest night-we have had in the 104th session of Congress, but we knew how important this meeting was and this particular hearing that we are 

having today. So we wanted to hurry over here as rapidly as we 

could and get this meeting underway. We are honored to have with us John Seiberling. John is the past Chairman of this committee. When I came in here 15 years ago, Mr. Seiberling was the Chairman of the committee, and it was an 

honor to serve with John for the many years that we had. And I 

have enjoyed the many number of field trips that I had the oppor- tunity and privilege of sharing with Chairman Seiberling. We don't want to hold people up. We are always honored to have 

with us our Senator from Utah, Senator Robert Bennett, and I will 

give my opening comments, then tum to my colleague from New 

York. And then we will tum to Senator Bennett. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands convenes for the third time on Utah BLM wilderness; namely, H.R. 

1745, introduced by myself, and H.R. 1500, by Mr. Hinchey. The 

(335) 
336 

subcommittee conducted field hearings in Cedar City and Salt Lake 

City, Utah, last week. We received testimony that was useful to 

this process and received some testimony that provided no useful 

information. I guess that always happens. I am hopeful that today's testimony provides valuable comment on the legislation before us. 

This is an issue that has faced the State of Utah for over 15 

years. I have personally spent the past 15 years visiting virtually 

every wilderness area, talking to hundreds of individuals, and 

spending hundreds of hours studying maps and data. 

During my_ tenure in Congress, I have worked with Congressman Marriott, Nielson, Monson, Owens, Orton, Congresswoman Shephard, and now Congresswoman Waldholtz. I have had the 

privilege of working with Governors Matheson, Bangeter, and now 

Governor Leavitt on BLM wilderness. This is not a new issue. It 

is time to protect what qualifies as wilderness and to release the 

remainder back to multiple use. 

In 1978, the Utah State Office of the BLM began an exhaustive 

process to develop a Utah BLM wilderness proposal in compliance with section 603 of FLPMA. BLM professionals scrutinized 22 million acres of Utah BLM lands for their wilderness characteristics. 

After numerous legal challenges and app~als, the BLM found 3.2 

million acres suitable for wilderness designation but recommended 

1.9 million acres be designated as wilderness. 

The BLM professionals spent over $10 million between 1978 and 

1992 and approximately 2, 777 work-months has been officially charged to the Wilderness Program. The BLM recommendation is 

sound, it lives up to the mandates of the 1964 Act, and has withstood Court challenges. Although this Administration is trying to 

run from their own recommendation, this Congress should take 

very seriously their recommendation. 

H.R. 17 45 represents the culmination of a process initiated by the delegation and the governor that involved over 45 public meetings, over 550 personal testimonies, and over 22,000 written comments. The delegation has made every effort to take this issue to 

the people of the state, to hear their concerns and, more impor- tantly, to hear testimony regarding the land and its wilderness 

characteristics. 

H.R. 17 45 proposes to designate about 1.8 million acres. 

Governor Leavitt, we welcome you. Please join us. It is a pleasure to have you with us. 

Governor LEAVI'IT. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. H.R. 1745 proposes to designate about 1.8 million 

acres of lands including great places such as Desolation Canyon and the Book Cliffs, Escalante Canyons, the Kaiparowits Plateau, 

the Grand Gulch, the San Rafael Swell, the Henry Mountains, and 

the list goes on. H.R. 1745 would designate a wide variety of landscapes, ecosystems, and habitats. Whether it be slick rock, fluted 

sandstone, desert canyons, the steep and rugged peaks of the West 

Desert, high plateaus, or canyons cut by great rivers, this legisla- tion protects something of everything. Equally as important is the manner in which H.R. 1745 would 

manage these wilderness areas. The language protects the grazing of livestock, fish and wildlife management by the State of Utah, 

Native American uses, military overflights, while prohibiting buffer 
337 

zones and Federal reserve water rights. State school trust lands 

will be traded out for better funding of Utah school children. Lastly, H.R. 1745 contains tough release language that will pennit rural Utah to go back to work on the lands necessary to sustain 

our economy. 

H.R. 17 45 is not perfect, nor will it ever be. I don't expect everyone to be happy with this legislation, and we have not attempted 

to please every side of this debate. I am dedicated to doing what 

is best for Utah, and that will involve making positive changes to 

the bill. H.R. 1745 enjoys the co-sponsorship of every Republican member of the Resources Committee, and I than}{ my colleagues for 

their support. Our governor, Mike Leavitt, Governor of Utah, joins us today, and I want to thank him and his staff for their diligent efforts during this process. Likewise, I want to thank the county commissioners of Utah who spent thousands of hours examining the lands 

within their jurisdictions and making recommendations to the delegation. I want to recognize Wayne Owens, fonner Congressman from Utah, and former Congressman John Seiberling from Ohio, and welcome them to the subcommittee. I welcome our witnesses 

from Utah and appreciate their testimony. As I stated earlier, I 

will now turn to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, for 

his opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing and for being so remarkably bright-eyed in view of the fact 

that you chaired that entire session last night. I have great admiration for your stamina. It is a pleasure also to welcome Governor 

Leavitt and Senator Bennett. It is an honor to have you gentlemen here with us. 

The issue we are considering today is of monumental significance not just to Utah but to all Americans. The lands owned by the peo- ple of the United States and managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Utah include some of the most spectacular and excep- tional landscapes anywhere in our country. The question before us 

is what portion of those lands should be permanently protected in 

their wild state and what portion should be open to other uses. 

As a sponsor of H.R. 1500, one of the bills we are reviewing today, I believe that a larger proportion should be protected as permanent wilderness than what you proposed, Mr. Chainnan. I also 

believe that whatever areas we do decide to protect should not be 

compromised by exceptions to wilderness law, exceptions allowing roads, dam constructions, or other exceptions, or compromised by unusual restrictions on how the BLM manages the remaining lands. 

I should say that we are in agreement on some points. We both 

agree that at least some lands deserve permanent protection, and 

I know that we both agree that the exceptional beauty of southern 

Utah is part of our common American heritage. What makes our job so significant today and so difficult is that 

we are not making a decision just for today. Congress is usually 

most comfortable making decisions for the immediate time, deci-
338 

sions based on today's economic statistics, today's trends, today's 

goals, today's headlines. 

The appropriation bills that we are considering this month and 

next are good examples of that kind of decision. They last only a 

year, and then we begin all over. But what we are doing here is 

trying to see what is the best use of these lands for all time. True, 

some future Congress might alter our handiwork, but our aim is 

to make a permanent decision. The release language of H.R. 17 4!5 

underscores that fact. 

None of us can say how our work will be judged a century from 

now, but we can look back at public land decisions made 50 or 100 

years ago. I think it would be only a small minority of Americans 

who would say Congress made a mistake in designating Yellow· 

stone as a national park in 1872 or that the area designated then 

was too large. A few people might have regrets that the law did 

not make exceptions for mining or development of Yellowstone's fa·· 

mous geothermal resources, but I don't think that many would. 

Conversely, we would find many Americans who regret that a 

later Congress decided not to protect the Hetch Hetchy Valley in 

Yosemite and decided instead to allow a dam there for water sup· 

ply. Would they be in the majority? We don't know because the rna· 

jority has no idea of what was lost at Hetch Hetchy. 

Back in my home state and in many other parts of the North-· 

east, we have had to live with some bad decisions made 100 years 

or more ago. Forests were cut that shouldn't have been. Mountain 

scenery was permanently marred by inappropriate development. In 

many cases, it is hard to see now what was lost. People have accus·· 

tomed themselves to it. Even now, no one knows what wildlife may 

have been lost forever there since no one knew what was there in 

the first place. 

In most cases, the temporary advantages that were gained from 

mining, from timbering, from recreational development of some 

kinds has already long passed. Profits from those activities went to 

Wall Street or to London. The little towns left behind are not ghost 

towns, but they are not bright and prosperous either. Their heritage, which although these lands were not owned by the United 

States, was sold for a mess of pottage. 

We are trying to correct some of those mistakes today to the extent that we can. Let us not make the same mistakes in Utah, in 

one of the world's truly great landscapes. As we debate this issue, 

let us try to keep our eyes on the future. And, again, I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I welcome 

the first group here. We will start with Senator Bennett. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM UTAH 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had the opportunity of testifying in Salt Lake City, and I will try not to be duplicative of that. I appreciate your attendance there as well as Congressman Hinchey's and felt we had a good exchange. I will repeat 

the basic core of my position on this that I said in Salt Lake City. 

Protection of these lands is not the issue. I believe that protection of these lands is paramount, it is essential, and that we will 
339 

indeed fail future generations if we do not take steps to see to it 

that vast areas, and I stress vast, of Utah's pristine lands are kept from future development in ways that would deprive future genera- tions of the o~portunity to enjoy these lands in what has come to 

be known as' a wilderness experience." 

I find it somewhat interesting from a historic perspective to realize that the Wilderness Act of 1964 was originally supported by mining interests and cattle interests because the language of the 

Act says that someone who is involved in mining and cattle oper- ations in a land that is subsequently declared to be wilderness can 

continue with that cattle operation and can continue with that 

mining lease. 

That language was cited to us during the field hearings that we 

held, we being the members of the delegation and the governor, as 

we went around the state by people who kept saying, ''Why are you concerned about this all being designated wilderness because mining and cattle activity can continue?" 

Then, of course, when you get to the specifics in every case, the 

people who say that to you say, "But mining can't continue here 

and cattle can't continue here." As I said in Salt Lake, the vast majority of the land under consideration here when we talk of multiple use will see the multiple use of cattle. The opportunities for 

mining are very, very few, and cattle are primarily the issue. 

I believe that cattle grazing in lands that are administered as 

buffer lands around the crown jewels, to use the Chairman's term, 

of wilderness scenery do not detract from the wilderness experience. I believe that it makes it possible for the rural communities 

to survive to say that these lands will be administered as the BLM 

has responsibly administered them in the past, that the basic character and nature of the land will not change under BLM's stewardship. The BLM becomes increasingly sensitive and increasingly effective from my observation in dealing with these lands. 

I would put up the map that you have seen many times before, 

but one more time for emphasis on this basic question of how many 

acres. If you look at the map, I call your attention not to the colored areas but to the white areas on that map. And it is a little 

bit misleading because over in eastern Utah where you have the 

salmon color with a great deal of white, that is Indian Reservation. 

The white in the Indian Reservation stems from the fact that the 

tribe in that particular area has parceled up the land and deeded 

it to individual Indian families and so it now is carried as private land. But that was set aside by the government as Indian Reservation. 

The white area which you see on that map is private land. All 

of the rest of the land in which there is any color is land that is 

under some kind of government control. And, as I say, for the most 

part, the government control has managed the land in such a way 

as to preserve its character for future generations. When we talk about saving 10 percent of the state for the future, 

we really distort what is actually going on and what exists in terms 

of ownership. As I said in Salt Lake, all of the green you see which 

is over 8 million acres have been set aside as national forest. And 

my personal wilderness experiences at my age take place in the national forest. 
340 

As a Boy Scout, les, I hiked the High Uintas. I have been in the 

wilderness area o the national forest that is set aside for that 

unique character. But if I want to get away from the hustle and 

bustle of urban life in the beautiful lands of Utah, I know that I 

can do that in the national forest and do it in such a way that is 

not intrusive upon the land-indeed, the foresters who supervise that land make sure that is the case-and, frankly, because I am 

not a biologist, when I come across some kind of animal dropping, 

I am not smart enough to know whether a cow left it there or an 

elk left it there, but it does not offend me that it is there. 

The last time I was in a national forest circumstance under that 

kind of wilderness experience, I saw cows and elk together in an 

area where they had been grazing together and sleeping side by 

side, and it, again, did not bother me. I know there are some 

purists who find that offensive, who somehow find it uplifting and 

ennobling to see an elk but terribly offensive to see a cow while 

they are on that experience. I simply don't relate to that kind of 

concern although I recognize there are people who have that. 

I share with you this comment that was made to me when I first 

got into this issue. It came as a result of my decision to run for 

the Senate. I was down in southeastern Utah on a campaign tour 

meeting with the various people in that town and trying very hard 

to cover up the fact that I was a city slicker and a little ill at ease 

with these people in this part of the state. 

As we came out of our political meeting, one woman who was 

very much aware of the fact that I was the city slicker and wanted 

to impress something upon me took me by the arm and waving to 

the land around us she said, "Bob, look around. What do you see?" 

And I had to confess I didn't know what answer she wanted and 

was hoping· she would quickly fill in the blank before I said something stupid. She said, "This land is pristine," and I said, ''Yes,'' quickly. I 

could see that. It was pristine and it was magnificent. Then she 

looked at me and she said, "Bob, my family and I have been earning our living off of this land for five generations. Don't let anybody 

tell you we do not love it and that we are not capable of taking care 

of it properly. Don't lock us out of it." She was speaking entirely of cattle operations. 

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, without going into the details 

that I went into in Salt Lake and repeating that, that however difficult it is for the Congress to deal with this issue, it needs to he 

dealt with. Of all of the things I have come across since my public 

service, none has been more divisive among the people of the state 

than this one; none has given rise to more abusive language; none 

has given rise to more heated passions; none has f.·ven rise to more 

deeply felt misunderstanding bordering, if you wil , on hatred. 

The easy thing for us to do in Congress would be to simply let 

it fester and let some future Congress take care of it and thereby 

avoid the electoral backlash of making one side or the other unhappy. I don't think that is what we were elected to do. We were 

elected to deal with the problems as best we can, in the best faith 

we can, with the best good will we can, and then take the heat 

from either side or in H.R. 1745 both sides, many sides, but do the 

responsible thing. 
341 

I salute the members of this committee for their willingness to 

tackle this. I salute you, Mr. Chairman, knowing the abuse you are 

receiving from a variety of sides. I salute my colleagues in the delegation who are willing to put their names on bills that subject them to this kind of attack. And I salute the governor for his leadership in pulling us all together and saying it is time we get this 

issue taken care of and put behind us so that the divisiveness can 

begin to heal. 

I would refer to the experience which the Chairman knows of the 

divisiveness that occurred over the Forest Service wilderness and 

those who demanded many, many more acres of Forest Service wilderness at the time. That seems like a long time ago, and the 

hatreds that were generated in that circumstance seemed to have 

faded, and the Forest Service lands that were not designated wilderness continue to be some of the most magnificent lands in the 

State of Utah but more accessible to more people in ways that have 

not degraded the lands. 

I am hoping that the Forest Service experience can be the same 

one we can see over the next decade or so with BLM lands, and 

Utahns can stop hating each other over this issue and get on with 

planning for our future which, in my opinion, is outstandingly bright. I thank the Chair and the committee for their attention. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator Bennett. We appreciate your testimony. We appreciate you being with us. Governor Leavitt, we 

consider it a personal honor to have you with us today. We appre- ciate your presence with us. We will now tum the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MICHAEL LEAVITT, STATE OF 

UTAH 

Governor LEAVITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a delight to 

be here. I have submitted for the record a formal statement that 

I would like to depart from some in my--

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. It will be part of the record. 

Governor LEAVITT. Thank you. I would like to echo what Senator 

Bennett has suggested with respect to the divisive nature of this 

issue. This is an issue that has been with us for 17 years. During the course of the last five months, much discussion has been made 

about the process and whether it was adequate or inadequate. I 

would just like to review momentarily what that process has been. 

For 17 years now, we have been through inventorying, inspect- ing. We have literally inventoried, catalogued, and walked every 

acre of this many times. It is an issue that it is time for us to resolve. I would like to acknowledge first off that I as the governor and I think our people feel a deep stewardship for this land, not 

just because we live there, but because it is clearly a treasure 

unique to the earth. We want to protect it. 

Clearly, a large percentage of our land is managed publicly. Not 

only do we have Forest Service wilderness, but we also have national parks, we have national conservation areas, we have areas 

of critical environmental concern, we have state trust lands, all of 

which are managed in a way that we believe focuses on that stewardship. 

The difficulty of this debate is that it has come to revolve around 

extremes and extremes that have become symbols. Recently, I had 
342 

a conversation with a young high school student who said he wanted 5. 7 million acres of wilderness which was Mr. Hinchey's bill. I 

asked him what was the basis of that concern, why he wanted that 

many. 

He said, ''Well, look upon the mountain," and he pointed to me 

a place where there was a large gravel quarry that had been 

carved out of the mountain, and it was a beautiful mountainside 

near one of our urban areas. And he said, ''We should never have 

that happen," and he is right. It is an ugly scar on that land, and 

I think given the opportunity for that not to occur, most people in 

that community would choose for it not to happen. 

But he was equating 5. 7 million or some large amount of wilderness with the desire not to scar the land. We all feel that. And to 

the extent that that is a symbol of what we are trying to protect, 

I accept that, but that is a point of view that goes beyond the rE!-

ality of what we are trying to achieve. 

On the other hand, we are a state that has substantial public 

ownership of land. Our state is 68 percent owned by the national 

government. To give just a little perspective to that, here in the 

Federal city, 37 percent of the land is owned by the national government and the balance in private ownership. Our entire state is 

owned 68 percent by the national government, and there is a sense 

that the national government has overstepped its legitimate role in 

our lives. 

Any wilderness has become to some people a symbol of that. So 

we have symbols on both extremes, neither of which represent rE!-

ality. The reality is we want to have wilderness, we want to protec:t 

the crown jewels of not just our state but of America, but it needs 

to be done in a way that is not driven by symbols but is simply 

a rational, clear-thinking approach to how best to manage this 

land. 

Now, you will hear during the next hours of hearings I think arguments on both extremes. On one extreme, you will hear that wilderness will destroy the economy of some of our areas. That is not 

true unless it is carried to an extreme. If it is carried to an extreme, it could have a substantial impact on our economy. However, protecting the crown jewels will have a positive impact on ou.r 

economy, and if we were to fail to do that in the other extreme, iit 

could also damage our economy. So either extreme I believe would 

be hurtful to our economy. 

It will also be stated that passage would eliminate things such 

as grazing. I don't believe that is true unless we carry it to eithE!r 

extreme. If we carry it to an extreme, it could damage grazing. If 

we don't do enough, it could also damage grazing because ultimately the people of this country won't stand for lands to be 

abused. 

It will be said that there is very little of wilderness value in certain areas. Again, that is a matter of distinction. If you were to literally go by the spirit or by the letter of the 1964 Wilderness Act, 

you would have a hard time finding more than a million or so acres 

of land. And, yet, there are areas that may have had some influence by man that would be worthy of wilderness distinction. 

The point is that if we end up with 1.8 million acres, as we have 

in H.R. 17 45, there will be I believe some lands in that numbE'r 
343 

that someone will call a road or will point to the fact that there 

has been some influence of man. It is very difficult if you deal with 

this in the exacting form that it is intended to be able to make this 

work. 

On the other hand, you will hear people say, ''Well, if you lock 

this up, it will be lost forever." That is simply not true either, this 

so-called hard release language. Mr. Chairman, you know and I 

know and members of this committee know that Congress can act 

on this anytime they choose to. Now, this is not an issue. We can 

find language that will protect these lands and will allow us to get this decision made and move on with our lives. Seventeen years is 

long enough. 

There will be those who will say, ''Well, the exchange that is pro- posed is unfair." Frankly, I find some irony in that. On one hand, 

we call these irreplaceable, that they are crown jewels. On the 

other hand, when it comes down to making an exchange for those, 

we are not prepared to put any fmancial value on them. Neither 

of those extremes are correct. There is substantial value to these 

lands. They are remarkable lands. They have great value, and we 

need to come up with an exchange that is balanced. 

Many will say that we are blazing new trails with respect to development rights. As I read H.R. 17 45 and as it was drafted, it was 

designed simply to identify those where a distinction needs to be 

made under existing law and makes them. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have my name attached to 

this bill as a supporter as the governor of our state. I believe it is 

a balanced proposal. It does not meet either extreme, but I believe 

it does have the support of the majority of our citizens in their desire to have balance. And I believe and appeal to the members of 

this committee for help in resolving this very divisive issue. Thank 

you. 

[Statement of Governor Leavitt may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Governor. We appreciate your testimony. The gentleman from the 3rd Congressional District. Let me 

again say I aypreciate the members being with us. I know the 

struggle we al went through. If you look at these members here, 

nobody has had any sleep for over a day now. I sat in the Chair 

for 18 hours, and I am still numb over that. So the gentleman from 

the 3rd District. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ORTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM UTAH 

Mr. ORTON. I thank the Chair and the committee for the oppor- tunity of being here. And before beginning my testimony, I would 

like to commend the Chair with whom I spent the night along with 

434 of our closest friends. It has been a long night, and as Chairman Hansen has indicated, he presided for over 18 hours as Speaker Pro Tern, and through sometimes rancorous debate conducted 

the business of the people's House in an exemplary manner, and 

I thank him for that work. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you. That is very kind of you. 

Mr. ORTON. And commend him for not only the fine method in 

which he has conducted that business and his stamina but also for 

the method in which he has conducted the hearings in Utah, the 
344 

committee hearings. I believe you are to be commended for the fair 

way that you have listened to all sides. 

Also, having spent the night awake with you and others, I will 

be mercifully brief and not repeat all of the things that I said in 

the Utah hearings, but I would ask consent of the committee that 

following my brief, oral remarks that my full written statement b«~ 

included along with a copy of the draft proposal which we will be 

submitting as legislation once certain issues are cleared up, as well 

as a copy of a statement from the Navajo nation with regard to 

Utah wilderness. I submitted in Utah a statement from the Utah 

Navajo group. This is from the entire Navajo nation. So I would 

ask unanimous consentMr. HANSEN. All of your material will be included in the record. 

In fact, all of the material from all of the witnesses will be included 

in the record. 

Mr. ORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. AB you know, because 

you one time represented much of my district, the bulk of th«~ 

lands-in fact, almost 90 percent of the lands under consideration 

for wilderness in Utah are located within the 3rd Congressional 

District which it is my pleasure to represent. I, like you, have spent 

many years, not as many as you, but ever since being elected I 

have spent over 1,000 hours of my own time and thousands of 

hours of my staff time on this one issue. I have been out, around, 

over, between, through, across every area under consideration for 

wilderness by the BLM and the Utah Wilderness Coalition. 

The decisions and recommendations and proposals which I have 

made are based upon both empirical evidence discovered out on the 

lands as well as objective decisions as to the highest and best use 

of public resources and the management techniques which are I believe in my opinion best designed to manage those public resources 

for the highest and best use. 

It has been noted that in order to move a wilderness bill from 

a particular state, unanimity among the congressional delegation plays a very key role, and it has been noted that I am not a cosponsor ofH.R. 1745. I would like to simply say I commend the delegation and the governor and all of our staffs for the time and th«~ 

effort and the work which they have put forward. I believe they 

have created a good work product. I have never stated that I would 

not support that legislation, but I do have some concerns with th«~ 

legislation substantively as well as procedurally. 

Substantively, my concerns are principally in two areas. First of 

all, I believe that there are some areas included in the recommendation, in the bill which do not meet the statutory requirements for wilderness designation. AB our governor stated, it would 

be hard to find more than about a million acres which meet that 

strict statutory definition. 

But, secondly, I believe that an error is made and, in fact, perpetuated by our process, an error which has been made from the 

very beginning 17 years ago of the wilderness debate in the State 

of Utah. I think that error is the assumption that wilderness is the 

only management technique which may be employed to conserve or 

adequately utilize natural resources. 

Clearly, that is not the only management technique and oftentimes not the most effective or appropriate management technique. 
345 

But I believe both sides on this issue have made the same problem 

only coming at it from different directions. The result of that assumption is that on one side we have advocates who are proposing 

an all-wilderness bill. 

On the other side, we have land users, communities, the state 

proposing a fairly minimal wilderness bill, even though the wilderness in the bill is more than I personally would propose as wilderness. I believe there is a great gulf between those two proposals, 

and I am not certain whether that gulf can be crossed in this legislative process. 

But I am concerned that we actually pass a wilderness bill, a 

land use bill in the State of Utah which can be not only passed by 

the House and Senate but signed into law and resolve the issue. 

It is for that reason and that reason alone that I have withheld my 

co-sponsorship at this time from this legislation. It is not that it 

is a bad work product. I believe it is a good work product. It represents compromise, it represents a lot of work, but I believe it is 

deficient in that it does not examine alternatives. 

As Chairman Hansen knows, since he and I traveled throughout 

the entire State of Utah together holding hearings almost four 

years ago right after I was elected to the House. He had held hearings himself before I was elected to the House. 

Together we went around in every county in the state wherein 

there is wilderness being considered, and we listened to all sides. 

We went out and looked at the lands. We talked to the people. We 

considered all of the evidence. And in so doing, we came up with 

a compromised proposal which included not only wilderness but alternative designations. 

We found within the statute a designation or the possibility of 

designation of national conservation areas on BLM lands. We studied that. We concluded that that may be a viable alternative to resolve both the concerns of land users and local communities about 

the impact of Wilderness designation under the 1964 Act, as well 

as the concerns of wilderness advocates concerned about no management consideration or no special designation on certain lands 

which not only are pristine or semiprimitive but are lands which 

are, in fact, subject to significant degradation. 

And so in looking at that, in analyzing alternatives, the Chairman and I discovered that, in fact, certain types of degradation which are evident on some of the lands under consideration could, 

in fact, be resolved by alternative forms of management and alternative forms of designation other than wilderness. 

That conclusion and that work product I believe was validated 

throughout the spring as first of all the counties throughout the 

state held a series of hearings on the issue, and the delegation 

along with the governor went out to these county hearings and listened. Our previous information was validated in that many of 

those counties recommended some core wilderness in those areas 

which, in fact, meet the statutory requirements and came up with 

a recommendation of approximately a million acres. 

But they also recommended alternative designations to deal with 

the larger areas which do not meet the statutory qualifications and 

would not be recommended as wilderness. And so the proposal that 

I am submitting is that very proposal, that we designate wilderness 
346 

in those areas that meet the statutory requirements, and under my 

bill that is approximately 1.3 million acres that is very close to the 

recommendation made by the counties in the state, as well as national conservation areas. There would be six in total. 

The national conservation areas would include a little over 4 million acres of lands or a little over 3 million acres, excuse me, for 

a total of 4.1 million acres under special congressional designation 

and specific management plans designed directly to deal with and 

balance the concerns of ecological conservation, as well as local 

communities and land use. 

I think that is a compromise approach which the committee 

should have the opportunity to consider because that is the very 

approach which many in the State of Utah have recommended. 

And so that is the purpose for submitting this alternative. I am 

under no delusion that the committee is going to suddenly be visited on high or have an epiphenomenal experience that tells them 

this is the bill that they should substitute and pass without amendment. 

I do, however, have a serious concern that the legislation the dell- egation is submitting may not be able to pass through the Senate 

and be signed by the President. In the event that does not occur 

and in the event the conservationists discover that waiting further 

and postponing the decision into the future does not adequately rElsolve the issue or is not in the best interests of the people and the 

lands they are concerned about, then I believe there may be an opportunity to come back and sit down and look at an alternative, 

and I believe this can be a good starting point for that alternative. 

And so it is for that purpose that I am submitting it to the committee for your consideration and analysis in hope that if the delegation bill which, by the way, I will vote in favor of-if the delegation bill does not pass the House and Senate and become law, I 

would hope that we could, if not using the alternative I am propos- ing, come back and resolve this issue once and for all because I 

think the one thing that all that unites all of the delegation and 

most of the people in Utah is the conclusion that this issue ha.s 

been studied long enough, we have the information, it is time to 

make the decisions, and it is time for congressional action. So I thank the Chairman very much for his patience, for his 

work in this, and thank and commend the delegation and the governor for their cooperation and work in this, and hope that working 

together we can finally come to a resolution. 

[Statement of Mr. Orton may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I recognize the gentlelady from the 2nd Congressional District. You look 

very much awake and alive. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ENID G. WALDHOLTZ, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Mrs. W ALDHOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for an opportunity to talk about this issue for a few moments with you. I regret that the business of the House from yesterday became the business of the House today, and that more of 

our colleagues were unable to be here. 
347 

I understand why they are not, but I think it is regrettable that 

we don't have an opportunity to present this to them personally, 

and I will look forward to an opportunity later to talk with them 

individually about what I think is an issue of very critical importance to our state. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of you in Salt Lake 

City, and I won't go through my testimony there. I will go ahead 

and submit for the record my written statement and a map that 

reflects additional areas that I suggest need to be added onto the 

delegation bill to make a good bill better. 

Let me just stress a couple of areas. First of all, I want to emphasize that while I believe that there are approximately 363,000 

additional acres that should be added to this proposal, I nevertheless am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. It, as you have 

heard, was the product of great discussion and work among the 

members of the delegation and the governor, and I think it is time 

that we move this issue forward to a decision. 

The other areas that I have suggested for inclusion are all areas 

that were recommended for wilderness designation by the Bureau 

of Land Management in its statewide wilderness final environmental impact statement with the exception of two expansions in 

the Book Cliffs and in Desolation Canyon. The Book Cliffs expansion has, in fact, been recommended for inclusion as wilderness by 

the Grand County Commission, the commission in which this area 

is located. 

And as for the Desolation Canyon expansion, at the time of the 

Bureau of Land Management inventory process, there were oil and 

gas leases along with a road in this area. Since that environmental 

impact statement was concluded, those oil and gas leases have 

been abandoned and the road to them reclaimed. 

So I would suggest strongly to the committee that in order to 

provide for large, contiguous areas that provide wildlife habitat, 

that provide better management opportunities, that we add approximately 363,000 acres in eight areas in expansion in Sids 

Mountain, in the Book Cliffs, in the Paria-Hackberry region, Fish, 

Owl, and Road Creek Canyons, Turtle Canyons, and Desolation 

Canyon expansion, and the Grand Gulch expansion. 

Each of these areas I believe fit the criteria under the Wilderness 

Act, and they would add to our ability to manage and enjoy these 

areas that they are contiguous to which have been agreed on in the 

delegation legislation are core, critical wilderness areas. 

I just want to share in closing a personal thought that I have 

had as I have gone through this experience in working with the 

delegation on trying to resolve this issue. And forgive me if it is 

a bit personal, but I think it reflects why it is important that we 

examine not just wilderness but that we also consider other alternative means of managing these particular lands. And I think 

there is a wide spectrum of opportunity for us here to be able to 

do that in an appropriate way. 

As many of you know, I am expecting my first child in September. And so by the time the snow cleared this spring, I was not able 

to find a safe means of going out and personally inspecting all of 

the wilderness study areas. As a private citizen, I have been in 
348 

many of these areas. I have camped. I have hiked. I have enjoyed 

wilderness areas, nonwilderness areas, national parks. 

But, as I said, by the time the snow cleared and we were wen 

into the hearing process, there wasn't a safe way for me to be able 

to go in and physically inspect these areas other than walking in 

which, unfortunately, with my congressional duties, while it would 

be wonderful to spend a couple of months walking over each of 

these areas, that wasn't feasible. 

I raise this because while I am looking forward to the birth o:f 

my child in September and taking him or her to these beautiful 

areas as they grow up in the State of Utah, there are a lot of peo· 

ple who would not be able to have the same opportunity, whether 

it is for their recreation because through disability they can't enjoy 

these wilderness areas, whether it is through grazing operationn 

that they are currently using as a means of livelihood, and so I 

think it is important and it makes sense that as part of our land 

management policies, we have established a host of different ways 

to manage the land. 

We have virtually every designation of land management that 

you can think of for Federal lands in the State of Utah, whether 

it is parks, whether it is primitive, semiprimitive areas, wilderness, 

and it is very appropriate and important that we designate more 

wilderness on BLM lands in our state. But at the same time it in 

also important that we examine all of the other management tools 

at our disposal and have an opportunity to appropriately manage 

each particular piece of land consistent with its characteristics and 

the best possible use or management that we can make of it as nat·-

ural resources for the entire nation. 

I believe that we need to settle the issue of wilderness first, however, and in this case, I am in agreement with the statement of Ad·· 

ministration and the Bureau of Land Management that in order to 

be able to move forward, we need to determine first which of these 

areas are wilderness. And then hopefully once we have made that 

determination, we can move forward in deciding how we can best 

manage the lands that are not designated as wilderness. 

In closing, I would simply say it is time to decide this issue for 

the well being of our state. I have to concur with Senator Bennett 

and say that it is regrettable that this issue as to how we can use 

these magnificent lands, something that provides us so much enjoyment and so much opportunity and so much beauty in our state, 

is such a divisive issue. 

And I believe that we have done all of the inventorying and hearings and all of the various information gathering over the past 

nearly 20 years that can be done, and it is time for us now to tak«~ 

that information and make a decision. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mrs. Waldholtz may be found on page 

331.] 

[Statement of Mr. Bill Richardson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I was glad to see that both H.R. 1500 

and H.R. 17 45 were on the agenda for the recent field hearings in Utah, as well as today's hearing. Both bills are important measures that deserve to be part of a fair and open debate on the question of Utah wilderness. 
349 

There is significant interest and concern, not only in Utah but across the country on just what will and what will not be done regarding the designation and management of wilderness on public lands within the borders of Utah. Wilderness is and 

should be an important aspect of public land management. Utah is blessed with a rich and varied landscape. It is important that we preserve an adequate portion of 

the 22 million acres of public land in Utah as wilderness, to be maintained in its 

natural condition as an enduring resource for present and future generations. We will debate how many acres of public land in Utah should be designated as wilderness. That is appropriate. What really concerns me though are the provisions that we have before us that chip away or undercut the very essence of what a wilderness is by allowing roads, towers, dams, and pipelines, either singly or in com- bination within designated areas. Such developments are degradations of a wilder- ness area. I doubt that within or outside of Utah there are many people who when 

they think of a wilderness would accept the notion of roads, towers, dams, and pipe- lines dotting the landscape. I am also concerned about the question of release lan- ~age as well as water rights. I hope we can get some satisfactory answers on these 

1mportant matters. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the field hearings in Utah were quite inform- ative. I hope that will continue to be the case today. The question of designating public lands as wilderness in Utah is not a parochial issue but rather national in 

scope. I want to welcome our witnesses who are here today, especially our former 

colleagues, Wayne Owens and John Seiberling, both who have been personally involved for many years with this issue. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. The gen- tleman from New York, do you have questions for any of the members of the panel? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Actually, I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to just recognize and thank the panel, each of 

them, for some very thoughtful and reasoned testimony. We have 

some disagreements about some particulars with regard to how to 

approach this problem, but I certainly appreciate your perspective, each of you, and I want to thank you for a very thoughtful and 

well-reasoned presentation. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's comment. 

We are fortunate to have with us Bruce Vento, the gentleman from 

Minnesota, who is the institutional memory of this committee since 

John Seiberling left. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I better be careful today, Mr. Chainnan. John 

Seiberling is here. 

Mr. HANSEN. I know. We have got both past Chairmen here. 

Mr. VENTO. And Wayne Owens both who represent a lot of memory with regards to this issue. But I know who represents the 

state-Senator Bennett, governor, and the two representatives and 

yourself, Mr. Chairman, and who has the votes in the committee. 

So I hope that we can work. I mean, I hear some reasoned response in terms of why the bills are as they are, and my good friend and 

colleague who-we have been spending the last three weeks together on the Banking Committee trying to write some legislation. He has been very helpful there. So I am glad to get back and escape from the Banking Committee to the Resources Committee 

where we are dealing with more tangibles than intangibles I think. 

But, governor, we gave your witness and your land manager a 

warm reception in Utah with regard to questions. There is no need 

for me to repeat that. That is why you have assistants so that you 

can send them forward as your heat shield. 

Governor LEAVITT. To get to the warm reception. Yes, thank you. Mr. VENTO. In any case, I mean, if there are differences and departures I think in terms of land exchanges or wilderness language 
350 

specifically in this bill from the Act or for exchange if we are not 

going, then there has to be a reason for that. And if you can't support that with the information, then I don't think . we should depart from it, for instance, for fair market value. Yes, they are priceless all right, but we get down to putting a price on and we can do it. 

And I think we want to treat you all fair with regards to that, and I hear the discussion about the grazing and obviously the wilderness we see as being compatible. And, Senator Bennett, I can't 

quite believe that you couldn't tell the difference between cows and 

elk, but I am sure by the time you left you were able to because 

you said you saw both droppings. Senator BENNE'IT. Well, I can understand the difference between 

the animals, but the droppings still confuse me. 

Mr. VENTO. It is a little unbelievable. It reminds me of my former Senator from Minnesota that had this problem, and he 

walked into a cow barn, and he was very curious about everything. And he grabbed a hold of the cattle prod when it was wired and 

so he found out what that was all about. Some say he walked out 

into a pasture and stepped into one of the cow things and was concerned about that he was melting. But, in any case, Senator, I know that, you know-it is obvious 

that all of you are very concerned about this. I think the thing is 

that we can agree on wilderness. Obviously, one of the solutions in 

the 1984 Act that John Seiberling and my colleague Jim Hansen 

worked on was to agree on the designation and then to try to at 

least put some parameters on in terms of study and not providing for the entire release. 

There is a big controversy in this bill over how much actually 

was studied or included. Obviously, you want finality in terms of 

what you do, and I don't know how-l mean, once we--as you said, 

I agree that much of it would not be--it was turned back to general management. This is something we fought all the time, that we 

have to have confidence in the BLM and the professionalism and 

the people on the ground. Sadly, one of the things that has happened in the last decade iH 

there are fewer people on the ground. I think it is a major factor 

in terms of the lack of communication that has gone on and misunderstandings that have developed because if we don't have the 

folks there and no matter how pristine and wonderful the policy is 

we have that we develop in Washington, if there is no one there 

to carry it out, it is a big problem in terms of misunderstanding!! developing I believe. 

And, of course, we have much delayed land plans and a lot of 

other new information coming down that has to be integrated in 

terms of what we do in terms of public policy with landscapes. And 

that is inescapable. That isn't any of our fault. It is just the fact 

that we are living in that type of an era where we are gaining those new types of understandings and concerns. And you hav{l 

more to lose by virtue of this in your proximity and concern for thh; than most of us that might live further away, but certainly we represent sort of a national perspective with regard to this. 

And as Congressman W aldholtz has said, we have had a lot of 

laws in the land, but there is obviously a lot more demands today, and they are not all the same demands that were there yesterday. 
351 

You can look at the profile and the complexion of your states and 

the demographic and makeup and that is evident. We are trying 

to reflect that, and as we do that, we craft policies that will meld 

together and work so that the culture and the community and the 

comity within a state remains. 

It is not an easy task. We fail in many instances as obvious by 

the controversy that has gripped this issue, but we all have to work 

together to try and resolve that, resolve what we can, decide to try 

to resolve tomorrow what we can't resolve today, not to try to cram 

this down or to do something that is going to backfire. 

I don't think there are many good agreements that come out of 

one side of the aisle or the other here. They are bipartisan. And 

so if we can do that, I think we will find a solution that is long lasting, by the least amount of political pain, and a practical solution for all of us. So I hope that that is possible. We will see what 

happens. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vento. We are grateful that our 

friend and colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, could be with us. 

Mr. Allard, do you have any questions for this distinguished panel? 

Mr. ALLARD. No, I don't. I just want to wish you well on working 

with this. We had a Wilderness Act in Colorado, and I am familiar 

with the complexities of it and am familiar with what you are trying to do in Utah. I am very comfortable from a perspective of a 

member of Congress who is fighting to protect property rights and 

protect local control on water and some of the other issues that frequently come up with these and, yet, set aside some wilderness 

area that also helps protect the resources of the state. So I just 

want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the Utah delegation for moving forward with this legislation. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. ALLARD. I know it is not easy and particularly today when 

you spent almost all of yesterday in the Chair up till this morning, 

and then you are Chairing this committee. I don't know how many members of the Congress realize, but he hasn't slept all night. 

Now, he is Chairing this committee. I don't know. You must feel 

pretty well drained right now, but you are doing the work of three 

workhorses here today. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I agree with what Congresswoman 

Waldholtz said. I apologize to the committee. We normally have 

more people here, but I think everyone is trying to catch up with 

a little sleep. 

Mr. VENTO. I told him I would be happy to relieve him. 

Mr. HANSEN. It took me 14 years to relieve you, Bruce. Now, let 

me just say if I may that I think some people in our great state, 

understandably so, have a mistaken idea of how much time has 

really gone into this and how much input has been put into it. I 

have to say as I looked at the crowds that we had last Saturday 

at the State Office Building and also in some of our hearings that 

we have had, some of those people weren't even born when we 

started hearings on these areas. 

And as Congressman Orton can tell you, years ago when he first 

came to Congress, we started hearings around the state. I am sure 

Congressman Wayne Owens can comment on that-Congressman 

Marriott-where we went all over both districts when there was 
352 

just two district~id exactly the same thing and then Howard 

Nielson. 

And it is not like it is a new idea. I think of the thousands and 

thousands of comments we have had, the thousands of letters that 

have come in to us. In fact, having worked on a lot of wilderness 

bills, I really don't know of anyone that received as much attention 

as this one. I agree some people don't feel it is adequate, but it 

happened. I know that you, Governor Leavitt, have taken a little heat on 

that as kind of the position that you get as we get also. Do you feel 

we have adequately given the people of the State of Utah enough 

opportunity to review this measure? 

Governor LEAVITT. Congressman, it is time for us to decide to decide. This issue has been debated. The lands have been researched. 

They have been categorized and catalogued and analyzed and 

walked. There will never be a bill that will make either extreme 

of this debate happy, nor will there be a bill that will forever remain the same. 

This will continue to be, I am sure, a matter of some discussion 

for generations in the future, but it is time for us at this point to 

lay a marker and say, "Let us get on with the management of these 

lands in the way that is best for the lands." I believe we have had 

enough discussion. It is time to move forward. 

Mr. HANSEN. For the benefit of the members of the committee, 

I am sure you all know this, but I will reiterate it anyway, Governor Leavitt led a Utah delegation to Europe and recently was the 

recipient of hearing the good news that the State of Utah will be 

the Winter Games in the year-Olympic Games in the year 2002. 

If we can keep our military bases the way we think we are and we 

get this BLM done in one year, it will be a triple dunk for us all, 

and the governor has done an exceptionally fine job on that. 

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I respond--

Mr. HANSEN. Sure. 

Mr. ORTON [continuing]. to the question that you asked about, 

whether the people in Utah have had an adequate opportunity to 

be heard? 

Mr. HANSEN. I would appreciate it if you would. 

Mr. ORTON. I don't believe there is any wilderness bill or land 

use bill that has been passed by this committee that has had more 

time, more hours, and staff resources spent in developing information and listening to people than Utah wilderness on BLM lands. 

Seventeen years and the hearing frocess which you have alluded 

to has, in fact, developed a series o volumes by the BLM on these 

lands, books by the Wilderness Coalition and advocates, scores and 

scores and reams and reams of documents and analysis, and millions or at least hundreds of thousands of comments. It has been 

polled and researched and analyzed. Hearings have been held. 

In my opinion, the information-gathering phase has been successfully concluded. Anyone who wishes to comment either to gather information and study what has been developed or to comment 

on what has been developed or provide additional information has 

had adequate and ample opportunity to do so. 

So I would suggest that that information-gathering phase should 

now be concluded, and we should now move through the decision-
353 

making phase, and I believe these hearings are the first step in 

that, and I commend the Chairman for doing that and believe the 

answer to your question is a resounding yes. We have done the 

work necessary to gather the information, to hear from all of the 

people, and now it is time to move forward. Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and I guess 

out of all the meetings that we have held, that is the one thing that 

seems to come out of most of the people who appear before us. This 

is the time to get the thing behind us, get it laid to rest, and let 

us get any divisiveness that there is behind us at this point. We 

are grateful to have our friend from Idaho, the gentlelady from the 

district of Idaho who is a good member of our committee. Do you have any questions for the governor, the Senator, or our two colleagues from the House? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I do 

want to extend my congratulations to Governor Leavitt and to all 

of the delegation. You have made us in Idaho all very proud for 

being able to land the Winter Olympics. Congratulations. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I am sure it will benefit the entire 

West. Senator Bennett, everyone looks at H.R. 1745. We have a 

companion bill over in the House of Lords. We just wondered how 

it was moving along at this stage. Maybe that is an unfair question, but I would be curious to know what is happening with your bill. 

Senator BENNE'IT. I no longer sit on the corresponding commit- tee. I had to give that up in order to get a seat on the Appropria- tions Committee. I find I get a little more respect as a member of 

the Appropriations Committee. But I have talked to my former colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

Senator Craig from Idaho is the Chairman of the relevant subcommittee and will be scheduling hearings on the 13th of July, and 

he is committed to moving the bill through as quickly as he can. 

Even though, as I say, I am no longer a member of that committee, I think I retained friendships on both sides of the aisle of the 

committee and have talked to members of both parties on the committee about this issue and believe that it will receive an appro- priately balanced hearing. At the moment, the lines in the sand do 

not appear to have been drawn too strongly on that side. 

And both my Democratic colleagues with whom I have spoken and my Republican colleagues with whom I have spoken seem to 

believe that a bill can move through that if not identical to the 

House-we never do anything that is identical to the House-is 

hopefully compatible with the House. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your comment. We thank the panel for 

being with us this morning. I appreciate your testimony. We will 

excuse the panel, and we will ask you if you are so inclined to join 

us. Our next panel will be Sylvia Baca, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Land and Minerals Management, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. Thank you so much for your testimony. May I ask how much time your testimony would take? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the interest of time 

I think that I can get my testimony done here in about eight to ten 

minutes, if that suits the committee. 
354 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. We kind of like to keep people on schedule 

here so you will notice iri front of you there are three lights. We 

are going to give you 10 minutes. And if you say eight to ten, would 

that be adequate? 

Ms. BACA. That would be plenty. 

Mr. HANSEN. If you need more, let me know. When you see the 

green light go on, that means you start, the yellow light you wrap 

up, and hopefully on the red light you are through by then. We appreciate you being with us, and we also appreciate Mat Millenbach 

being with us who has been recently in the State of Utah as our 

BLM Director in the state and a very fine addition to our state. I 

understand he has drawn duty back here for a while, and maybe he did something wrong and they are testing him, or he is repent- ing for his sins or something. But we will turn to you for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SYLVIA BACA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY MATHEW 

MILLENBACH 

Ms. BACA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us to be here today to testify on H.R. 1745, the Utah 

Public Lands Management Act of 1995. I had the privilege of visiting your very beautiful state recently, and I concur with all of the 

previous remarks that the lands we are here to discuss today are 

truly magnificent. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department understands that this legislation 

follows five months of intensive activity including meetings; field 

visits, and public hearings held throughout Utah by Governor 

Leavitt and the Utah congressional delegation. We know a great deal of time and effort have gone into preparing this legislation, and the Secretary congratulates all concerned for taking a major 

step toward addressing the longstanding and nationally important issue of protecting Utah's wilderness values. The issue is highly controversial, and we know there are strongly held views on all sides. We recognize there is opposition in some 

quarters to the designation of any Bureau of Land Management lands in Utah as wilderness. We also understand that many Utahns have expressed their strong support for sizable wilderness 

designation. There is also a great deal of support outside of Utah 

for strong wilderness protection. 

The Administration cannot support this bill as presently written. 

The unprecedented hard release mandate, the new wilderness 

management language, and the number of unprotected areas and 

acres are each a major problem. While the Secretary has expressed the hope that the Congress might pass Utah wilderness legislation that the President could sign, this bill is far off the mark. If the 

bill were presented to the President in its current form, Secretary Babbitt would have to recommend that the President veto it. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the controversy generated by the 

inventory decisions and the intensity of the pro- and anti-wilderness has led all sides and this Subcommittee to conduct oversight hearings that identified serious concerns regarding the criteria 
355 

BLM used to exclude acreage from wilderness study status. The 

Utah inventory and the subsequent recommendations were the 

most controversial of the entire BLM wilderness review process. Pitched debate over the validity of that work and those actions has 

continued to hamper the Utah wilderness process to this day. Other proposals for resolving the Utah wilderness debate, including H.R. 1500, have also been made. We are pleased that H.R. 1745 

recognizes some areas outside the wilderness study areas that deserve consideration for wilderness designation. But we are sure 

other areas, both inside and outside of the existing wilderness 

study areas, deserve such a status. 

We come before you today, Mr. Chairman, ready to work with 

you to design a bill that could become law. We think it will take 

time and a more deliberative and careful look at what areas and 

what protections are appropriate. We do not come with a specific 

area or acreage proposal. We have drawn no line in the sand concerning any particular number. 

However, we are not bound by positions developed and taken by the previous Administrations. Specifically, the Bush Administration's recommendation of 1.9 million acres is simply inadequate to 

protect Utah's great wilderness resources. We hope that when you consider all of the testimony, public input, and the intent behind 

the 1964 Wilderness Act and the spectacular lands found in Utah, 

you will modify this legislation in a way that we could support. The Department of Interior's concerns regarding the bill's provi- sions include the hard release language, insufficient acreage protection, mandated unequal exchanges, automatic approvals of new development in wilderness, and the use and construction of roads in 

wilderness areas, failure to protect archaeological and paleontolog- ical resources, and several other issues. 

Lands designated wilderness under H.R. 17 45 would be managed in a manner inconsistent with the mandates of the 1964 Wilderness Act. H.R. 1745 mandates that roads and routes in wilderness 

areas remain open to use by motorized vehicles to a much greater 

extent than that provided for in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Unrestricted vehicular usage as allowed in H.R. 17 45 is not permitted 

on lands now managed by the BLM, whether or not they are designated as wilderness. 

Management of cultural and paleontological resources inside wilderness designated by this bill could be compromised. This bill appears to allow anyone to go into a designated wilderness to obtain 

these resources and to use backhoes, bulldozers, or any other mechanical means to do so. The bill would explicitly permit construction, maintenance, or expansion of reservoirs, transmission lines, 

communication-sites, and even natural gas line pipelines inside 

wilderness areas without regard for impact on wilderness values. 

In general, we are troubled by the possible implication of the 

term "nonwilderness multiple use" as used in H.R. 1745. The agency, the public, and other state and local governments are familiar 

with multiple use as defined in section 103[c] of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). We recommend the term be 

deleted from the bil1 and replaced with multiple use as defined in 

FLPMA. 
356 

H.R. 17 45 would mandate that state lands within or immediately adjacent to the land designated wilderness areas be exchanged for 

BLM administered lands in other locations. The Department supports land exchanges as part of this bill. We strongly oppose, however, the specific provisions of the exchange as described in the bill, 

both in the text and on the map provided by the delegation. 

The bill states that the value of the lands to be exchanged are 

of approximate equal value, but this is clearly not the case when 

specific tracts shown on the map are reviewed. The tracts proposed 

by the state have high economic value from mineral, residential, 

and industrial development. The fair market value of these lands 

may be five to ten times or more than the value of those that would 

be transferred to the Federal Government. 

We emphasize that the Department would support a flexible land 

exchange authorization that would result in a fair and equitable solution for both the state and Federal interests. This bill, however, 

does not provide one. 

Perhaps our greatest concern is what would happen to those 

BLM lands with wilderness character not designated as wildernesB 

in this bill. For lands not designated as wilderness, the hard re·· 

lease provisions would forever remove the protection provided to 

the existing wilderness study areas. 

Furthermore, under the terms of the bill, no additional publie 

lands managed by the BLM in the state, including future acquired lands, could be managed for their wilderness values. Instead, they could only be managed for nonwilderness multiple use. The bill's 

language is very broad and conceivably could prohibit the BLM 

management action or technique that had the incidental effect of 

protecting any characteristics or quality of an area that resembled 

designated wilderness. Such a total and permanent release of all 

lands not designated within this bill is unprecedented and inappro- priate. 

More than 100 wilderness laws have been passed by Congress since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. Although hard re·-

lease language has been advocated by various industry groups in 

testimony on wilderness legislation for more than 15 years, to datE~ 

no law of which we are aware has included anything comparable 

to the hard release language of this bilL 

The precedent that would be established by hard release of lands 

with wilderness potential extends far beyond Utah. The majority of 

the BLM lands with wilderness potential have yet to be considered 

by Congress. Mandated, nonwilderness, multiple use of all BLM 

lands could severely and inappropriately constrain future management options. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, BLM Utah has begun an evaluation of several alternative wilderness proposals including the recommendations of the Bush Administration. Initial review of thesE~ 

lands indicates that many anticipated developments which led to 

the exclusion of some areas from previous wilderness recommendations have never come to pass. 

In addition, resource conditions on the ground have changed over 

the last 15 years, and some areas which might not have qualified 

then would qualify today. Previously, boundaries were drawn wherever possible to avoid inclusion of state lands even where the log-
357 

ical boundary based on topography would have included them. 

Today, both the state and the Federal Government agree that such 

exclusions are inappropriate. We feel it is important to deal with 

the resource conditions on the ground as they exist today. Only 

then can we understand whether wilderness values are present regardless of the current management boundaries. 

These are world-class lands. They encompass the very landscapes 

and the vistas of the Great Basin, the Colorado Plateau, and the 

Mojave Desert. The ancient remains of prehistoric animals and 

people lie in this country. The spectacular plateaus, the arches, 

bridges, slot canyons, mountain ranges, and badlands are crossed 

by a thousand small waterways feeding into the mighty rivers of 

the Colorado, the Green, and the San Juan. 

Given the permanence of Congressional action, the limited degree of protection this bill would afford to some of America's greatest treasures, and the other problems we have identified, the Interior Department strongly opposes the legislation in its present 

form, and Secretary Babbitt would recommend that the President 

veto this bill if both Houses of the Congress pass H.R. 17 45 as currently written. 

We and our wilderness staff are prepared to sit down with you 

and your staff to review in detail the full range of management 

concerns raised by this legislation. We stand ready to work with 

you, Mr. Chairman, if you feel there is a possibility to craft legislation which accommodates the concerns that we have expressed here 

today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are ready to respond toquestions. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank you also for your testimony and being here today. As you 

heard from some of the members of the ·previous panel, there are 

some recommendations with regard to other categories of protection 

other than wilderness. It is the feeling of some people apparently that significant protection of the lands can be afforded without specifically classifying those lands as wilderness but rather putting 

them into some other category. And I would appreciate your comment on that position. 

Ms. BACA. Yes. Mr. Hinchey, we believe that there are areas that 

are both inside and outside the wilderness study areas that have 

wilderness character and deserve consideration and protection. We 

are very concerned that those areas are looked at and seriously 

considered. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Does the Department have any position with regard to specific categories of designation other than wilderness? In 

other words, you are not taking a position in your testimony as to 

how much land would be designated into wilderness category, but 

do you have any position with regard to other categories? 

Ms. BACA. I believe in the previous testimony there was some 

discussion about national conservation areas, and I believe that the 

Department feels that a wilderness designation is probably the 

most appropriate means for a wilderness area. I think that we 

could look at what is being proposed for National Conservation 

Areas and review what sort of management tools are given to us 

to protect the resources. 
358 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I think the point here is that, you know, has 

the-we have got so much acreage in terms of wilderness or in 

terms of BLM. Do you have any ACECs, for instance, administratively designated right now? I know we talked about this, and my 

impression was at least in the district that I was in that there wan 

not very much. 

It might be well for you to give us some sort of if this has been 

held up by virtue of the fact that you have pending wilderness leg·· 

islation in the study areas which aren't complete, but that normally, for instance, if we were to refer to what is the plan-for instance, I know that you have withdrawn the 1.9, but the Adminis·· 

tration put in 1.9-whether the BLM lands have been updated 

since then or what the plan was for the use that-! guess what we 

would be concerned about is saying, "Well, you are only going to 

designate so much." 

So what happens with the rest of it? In other words, do you have 

ACECs? Do you have other types of restrictive land use which 

would result in mineral withdrawal or lack of water appropriation 

and so forth and so on? Maybe you want Mr. Millenbach to answer 

the question. I will be happy to yield to my colleague, but we are 

just on the same topic and I was going to ask a similar question. 

Ms. BACA. I am going to defer that question to Mr. Millenbach 

who is the State Director for BLM in Utah. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Thank you, Congressman. We do not have a lot 

of ACECs, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, designated in 

the state. I think one thing to remember is that the lands under 

the 3.2 million acre wilderness study area designation have been 

managed very similarly to the way they would be managed if they 

were designated wilderness areas. For the past 15 years, those 3.~~ 

million acres have been very carefully protected and managed ac·· 

cordingly within the state. Because of that BLM hasn't done a lot 

of work in these particular areas to try to recommend ACEC des·· 

ignations. 

The other thing that I think is important to understand in Utah 

is that because of the public interest in the lands recommended for 

wilderness designgation in H.R. 1500 over the years we have had 

a very conservative management approach in those areas. We don't 

manage H.R. 1500 lands the same way we do as wilderness study 

areas, but we do take a careful look at development proposals in 

those areas. We make sure that the public knows about proposals affecting H.R. 1500 lands and that they have an opportunity to 

comment on those proposals. 

Once we go through that careful process, then we decide whether 

to go ahead and approve the proposed action. I think the general 

consensus in the state is that we have a very conservative lancll 

management program. 

Mr. VENTO. I have used all my colleague's--

Mr. HANSEN. I don't know which one of the gentleman has thE! 

questions here, but go ahead. Between the two of you, you have got 

10 minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Oh, he yielded to me. I mean, the thing I would like 

to know is, of course, what are the plans or what were the plans? 
359 

Are the plans updated for most of the BLM in terms of under the 

FLPMA law there is a planning process you have to go through? What is the status of the plans, and what do they call for in these 

areas? 

I know that you have withdrawn the wilderness recommendations to Congress because the Administration has, you know, decided that, but what are the plans? Can you give us some sort of 

a thumbnail sketch and then maybe some more specifics for the 

record on both these questions? Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. We have ongoing resource management planning. I think the difficulty is that we have not planned for these lands into the future after the wilderness determinations 

are made, and I think that is one of the things that needs to be 

done. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, that represents a real problem for the committee because, obviously, if there isn't designation, we 

have got to know what we are throwing these lands into-you know, what is going to happen to them because, you know, if we 

don't get the Hinchey bill or we don't get something that provides 

some sort of predictable policy path, that causes problems. So his 

time has expired, Mr. Chairman, so you can recognize me on mine, and I will yield to Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Hinchey, do you want to recognize the gen- tleman from Minnesota? 

Mr. VENTO. Does the gentleman want me to yield to him? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, just briefly. In your testimony, you noticed a 

problem with the hard release language in H.R. 1745. In addition 

to that, the bill would allow certain activities to take place on designated wilderness land. For example, it allows water projects or 

pipelines be constructed over land that is currently designated wilderness. Do any of these, to your knowledge, have an existing right currently to operate or to develop on those lands as they exist 

today? Ms. BACA. I would also like to defer this question to Mr. Millenbach who knows the specifics of Utah. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir, some do. We have got some areas listed under the section 9 disclaimers part of the Act, some communication-sites and facilities and so forth in the Swasey Mountain, Fifty Mile Mountain wilderness, Mt. Ellen wilderness, and Deep Creek Mountains. What the bill provid.es for is maintenance and 

expansion of those facilities, and I think in cases like that we can 

work to come up with something that is reasonable for the manage- ment of those facilities in the future. 

Mr. HINCHEY. But there are no provisions currently for water 

projects or pipelines? Mr. MILLENBACH. You are talking about the new reservoirs and 

so forth mentioned in the section before that? 

Mr. HINCHEY. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. No, sir. That would be new development, and 

we believe those are inappropriate for inclusion within a wilderness 

area. Mr. HINCHEY. I am sorry. I didn't hear you. Mr. MILLENBACH. We believe that new developments of reservoirs and major transmission lines, for example, would be inap-
360 

propriate and inconsistent for designation within a wilderness 

area. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. I am happy to have yielded to the gentleman. You 

know, one of the provisions, Mr. Chairman and members, is the 

special trade that is set up in the bill of land exchange, and obviously we need to be fair to Utah and fair to the American public 

with regards to these. They claim that for 10 to 15 years these 

lands have been removed from being used for productive purposes 

so, therefore, it is impossible to put a value on them. 

Aren't there similar lands that could be used to arrive at a common value so that we would have fair market value? Of course, we 

use the words priceless and irreplaceable, and I note that the governor very artfully turned that around and said, "Well, since they 

are that, then anything we ask for couldn't be too much." I appreciate the honor but not necessarily the bill. Isn't it a common practice though-is there something unusual about these lands that we 

would have to legislate this, or couldn't we just say that there 

should be a fair market return? I can understand if you want to 

speed it up and get it done. I mean, I would be happy to work on 

that. I think we want to get the money back to them as quickly 

as possible. I _appreciate that. Mr. Millenbach or Ms. Baca? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Vento, first of all, we have not done any appraisals on the lands. Mr. Millenbach has consulted with his mineral 

appraisal experts in Utah. They have advised him that there is a 

wide disparity in the market value of the state and the Federal 

lands. 

Mr. VENTO. I know but there isn't anything unusual about these 

lands that would prohibit us from getting values any more than 

any other lands. Is that the point? Is that what you are testifying? 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, Mr. Millenbach or Ms. 

Baca, but I will if you let me. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. We understand that. No, there is nothing unusual about them. We would appraise them under the standard 

Federal appraisal practices. 

Mr. VENTO. Now, I mean, I think the case, Mr. Chairman, and 

I think I made it to your colleagues, that if there is something unusual, then we ought to be legislating on it. And if there isn't, then 

we ought to understand that it is a political-something that you 

want done. I am willing to work with you on it, but, on the other 

hand, I think we want to make certain that it is an equitable type 

of circumstance. Obviously, the suggestion here today is that it is 

not. 

One of the provisions in here is under the--there is some water 

language--special water language in here, and that presents special problems in terms of both the reserve rights that we might already have, but I think that this language seems to undercut that. 

And, secondly, it does not permit you to acquire at least for the 

purposes of wilderness a junior right in terms of interstream flow 

or in terms of use of wilderness. And I am concerned about that. 

I mean, you know, when we asked about this they said that the 

only way you could acquire it was for other reasons, not for wilderness. I mean, it is almost as if Utah would have to change its state 

law to, in fact, comport with what is in the bill. Yes, Ms. Baca? 
361 

Ms. BACA. Yes. Mr. Vento, that is our understanding. Under 

Utah state law, Utah does not recognize wilderness management 

as a beneficial use. Therefore, we may not be able to reserve water 

rights under this provision of the bill. 

Mr. VENTO. And it undercuts the McCaren Act on top of it. I 

mean, my concern here is sort of like, I mean, we are willing to accept and work on water language. We always say it won't be a 

precedent. Then we work out a different one whether it is Arizona 

or California or whatever. And, again, we are willing to work on 

that, but we can't be put in a box where you go to the state and 

then you can't acquire it because it is wilderness. 

I mean, we can't play this type of fudge game in terms of what 

goes on, Mr. Chairman, with that. You know, we have to be up- front about it, and I think that the testimony is and hopefully at 

this point solves a problem. I am certain that you didn't anticipate it so I know that you are all operating in good faith here, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, the gentleman from Minnesota. You 

stated that the 1.95 that was put in by BLM in 1991 has been 

withdrawn? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, the 1.9 million acre wilderness recommendation which was the Bush Administration's proposal is not 

supported by this Administration. 

Mr. HANSEN. But has it been withdrawn? You stated that it was 

and so did Mr. Millenbach. Could you give me the date it was withdrawn? 

Ms. BACA. I don't believe we have formally withdrawn the 1991 

Bush Administration recommendation. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think I said that it was withdrawn. 

If I misspoke, I don't know, but, I mean, that was my understanding of the practical effect, but I don't know if it was actually withdrawn. That was my words. I know I said that. I don't know 

that--

Mr. HANSEN. Did you talk to staff? Has that enlightened you at 

all? 

Ms. BACA. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the testimony doesn't say that the 1.9 has been withdrawn. What we have stated 

is that the 1.9 has been reviewed and that it is no longer a recommendation. It has never been brought forward as a recommendation. 

Mr. HANSEN. So it is basically you don't know? Is that right? Ms. BACA. No. After reviewing it, we just cannot support the 

former Administration's recommendation. 

Mr. HANSEN. You keep referring to the Bush Administration. 

This started under the Carter Administration. It was mostly done 

in that time, then the Reagan Administration. Are you a political appointee? 

Ms. BACA. Yes, I am. Mr. HANSEN. Is Mr. Millenbach? 

Ms. BACA. No, he is not. 

Mr. HANSEN. He is a professional BLM person up through the 

ranks. Is that right? 

Ms. BACA. That is correct. 
362 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we have in company here Mr. Parker who 

also had Mr. Millenbach's job. I understand Mr. Parker who will 

testify later is also a professional employee so really, frankly, there 

probably was no people in the Utah office that were political appointees. Is that right? 

Ms. BACA. I don't believe so. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have served in the state legislature. I didn't know 

any that were political appointees. If that is the case, then these 

people are professional BLM people. Is that correct? 

Ms. BACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. And trained as professional BLM people. Would 

that be a correct statement? 

Ms. BACA. Yes. That would be correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Then you are saying, in effect, that the work that 

they did as professional BLM people was political? 

Ms. BACA. No, sir, I am not stating that at all. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, then what is the distinction between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration? I mean, these 

people aren't political appointees. These people are basically professional BLM people. Isn't that a correct statement? 

Ms. BACA. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, then what is the difference between a professional under Bush, a professional under FDR, or a professional 

under Bill Clinton? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, we are not quarreling with the work 

that has been done in the past. 

Mr. HANSEN. But your entire testimony goes through that. Here, 

let me go back and refresh you. ''This Administration cannot support this present bill." This sentence goes on. In about five places, 

I have underlined here where you keep coming back to the idea. 

I maintain that the people who did that work were professional 

BLM people without regard to political affiliation or political pressure. Is that correct? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, our testimony reflects that we want to 

recognize that changes on the ground have occurred, and those 

changes have further--

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. Could you give me an example of the 

changes on the ground? 

Ms. BACA. Yes. One change that has occurred is that in the past 

state lands were not part of the process proposed for exchange. I 

believe that both the Federal Government and the state government now concur that the state in-holding lands should be a part 

of this process. There are also other on-the-ground changes that I 

could have Mr. Millenbach--

Mr. HANSEN. Well, state lands were there long before me or thee 

was born, and they were there either way. 

Ms. BACA. Well, I know that the state lands were there, but 

whether or not we were going to trade the lands or include them 

in the wilderness area is what was at issue before. Now the state 

and the Federal Government concur that these state inholdings 

should be a part of the process. 

Mr. HANSEN. You state in your testimony that you can't go along 

with it because it has certain existing things in it. Isn't it true that 
363 

the 1964 Wilderness Act allows for existing things like water lines 

and other things to remain there? 

Ms. BACA. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, that is all we are talking about so if it says it in the 1964 Wilderness Act, are you, in effect, telling us you are 

changing the 1964 Wilderness Act by what you have stated in your testimony? That is the only conclusion I can draw because what we 

are talking about-are you aware that the existing water rights that are held in Red Mountain-that is one you have referred toCanaan Mountain, Parunuweap, Cougar Canyon, they are all 

under the 1964 Wilderness Act? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, we know that the water rights are 

there. But there are provisions in H.R. 17 45 such as the cherry- stemmed roads and the at-will construction for various facilities 

that are not allowed in a wilderness area by the original 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Mr. HANSEN. Your statement really disturbs me when you talk 

about the idea that the Bush Administration-there are political overtones in this-all through your statement-the political overtones. I would like to know who has been influenced politically? Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that anybody has been 

influenced politically. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you this. Who has the right to make 

wilderness? 

Ms. BACA. I believe the Congress does. 

Mr. HANSEN. Does the BLM have the right to make wilderness? 

Ms. BACA. The BLM only follows the statutes passed by the Congress. 

Mr. HANSEN. BLM took it upon themselves as directed by Congress to do an exhaustive study of 22 million acres. Is that right? Ms. BACA. I believe so. 

Mr. HANSEN. And they came up with 3.2? 

Ms. BACA. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. And does this Administration say that is wrong? Ms. BACA. This Administration believes that we should look at 

the facts of the situation as they presently exist. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, you mentioned the state rights, but the land 

didn't really change. It has been there long before Brigham Young and company came in that area. So Congress is the only one to 

make 3.2. Is that right? 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield on that? 

Mr. HANSEN. Just let me finish my question please. The BLM 

came up with the figure of 3.2 million acres for the State of Utah 

that they considered to look at which are now WSAs. Is that right, Mr. Millenbach? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. And the 3.2 million acres are what you now treat 

as WSAs. Is that right? Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you treat any more than that as WSAs? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. No, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. You do not treat 5.7 as WSAs. Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. That is correct. 
364 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you have any of your people at all that work for 

you that would testify to me or tell me or call me or send me a 

letter that say that is different? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. I believe some of them did send you a letter, 

and I sent you a letter--

Mr. HANSEN. Quite a few of them, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you have the right to do that? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. I sent you a letter I think clarifying what our 

current management approach is regarding H.R. 1500 lands. 

Mr. HANSEN. Your letter was very ambiguous. I maintain only Congress has the right to bring wilderness in, and, frankly, I resent the idea of the Utah BLM treating any acreage other than 3.:2 

as wilderness. I see my time is up. I will defer to the gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you are remarkable for having sat in the Speaker's Chair for 24 hours 

straight and then conducting this hearing, but they raise them 

tough in Utah. Mr. Millenbach, how long have you been the Director in Utah? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. I went out there in September of '94. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And what did you do before you became director? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. I worked on the staff of the Assistant Secretary for Interior, Bob Armstrong. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. I am still a bit confused about what criteria has changed that would have altered the different approach 

between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration 

and Reagan and Carter Administrations. What criteria changed so 

that the acreage was increased and the 3.2 million acre recommendation for the set-aside was abrogated? What was the criteria? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. There are several I think. The 3.2 million acres 

of wilderness study areas has not changed. I will give you an example of the criteria that Ms. Baca is referring to. At the time that 

the BLM inventories were done and the 1991 recommendations 

were made for wilderness, the presence of state lands within the 

wilderness study areas were one of the stronger rationales for not 

including lands for a wilderness recommendation. 

Since then, the criteria the BLM uses has changed. The assump- tion would be that the Federal Government would acquire thos·~ 

state lands if they were included within a wilderness area and that 

is not as much of a problem as far as ultimate wilderness designa- tion. So if you consider that kind of a change in policy it would lead 

you toward a perhaps reexamination of those specific areas. We 

have not reexamined those areas in detail. 

I think another thing that has changed on the ground is a lot of 

the roads and the intrusions that existed back in the late 1970's 

are being reclaimed naturally. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Aren't those roads 24 77 roads? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Some of them may be but a lot of them are old 

mining roads that aren't being used anymore. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, but they are still2477 roads? 
365 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Well, some could be and some may not be. It 

depends on whether the counties want to maintain them. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are you familiar with the Shultz case that 

just came out of the Ninth Circuit Court? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. I haven't heard the final decision. Did they finally resolve that? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. The original decision still stands. There 

is not reconsideration. And so they pretty well define what a road 

is under 2477. So I hope you will carefully consider that. With regards to the McCaren amendment, I do want the record to show 

that any Federal agency has the ability to claim bona fide water 

right or whatever under the McCaren amendment in any water adjudication process carried on by the state. So I don't think that this 

bill will abrogate any Federal entity's ability under the McCaren 

amendment. Now, I also want to ask you are you familiar with 

H.R. 1500, Mr. Hinchey's proposal? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, why was Mr. Hinchey's proposal not 

dealt with more in your considerations? It is not a bad proposal. Ms. BACA. Mrs. Chenoweth, I would like to respond to that. First 

of all, in preparing our testimony, we were told that it was just for 

House Resolution 1745. We weren't notified until late Monday night that H.R. 1500 would be considered at this hearing. As you know, we have a very rigorous process prior to finalizing our testimony which includes sending it through OMB for clearance. By Monday night, our testimony had already been forwarded to OMB. 

We have a brief mention of H.R. 1500 in our testimony that was 

provided to the members of the Subcommittee. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. Baca, I did want to ask one final question. I have a lot of questions to ask, but I see my time is almost up. But if this Administration is so sure that H.R. 17 45 contains insufficient acreage, what is the Administration's specific recommendation for acreage? 

Ms. BACA. Mrs. Chenoweth, we have not come here with a spe- cific number and we have not drawn the line in the sand. We think 

the most important issue is that the BLM lands that have wilderness character be designated as wilderness. We have come here 

with a set of concerns about H.R. 1745 and also an offer to work 

with this Subcommittee to draft legislation that the President can 

sign. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you are aware that the BLM spent over 

$10 million--

Ms. BACA. Yes, I am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH [continuing]. just to do the original study? So 

are we. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Other questions? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong it. I see 

you have got a long list, and you have had a tough day. But I think 

the issue first of all with the McCaren Act is a waiver of sovereignty. It doesn't permit anyone to acquire a water right. You 

still have to go before the state. It is a waiver of sovereignty. It is 

an Act, not an amendment. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Absolutely. 
366 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, so obviously the gentlewoman knows then. So 

if you go before the state and they say you cannot set aside water 

rights for wilderness, and they may already have some water rights 

on those lands already-you would have to go through a map and 

look at it, and that is what we have to decide-often this wasn't 

important with headwaters, and there are some headwaters here. 

I understand about half of it is headwaters. 

The issue, of course, with the amount of land, and, of course, the 

gentleman, if you believe in all the professionalism of the BLM, 

then why would you put hard release language in which stops the 

BLM from actually going forward and managing it and restudyinH 

these areas as wilderness? So this compounds the issue because ob· 

viously the purpose of the hard release language is to say, "This 

is it. We are not going to have anymore. We are going to end this 

in 1995, and that is going to be the conclusion." 

I understand that, and I understand the sentiment behind it. It 

also, of course, means that you might have a much more difficult--

you are forcing decisions in a different way when you do that as 

opposed to when-you are drawing lines in the sand when you do 

that. So if it is the professionalism that we are concerned about, 

the bill itself that is the principal focus today is not. 

Now, the Interior Board of Land Appeals set asid~there is a 

2,000 page appeal, and they found that 90 percent of the lands that 

came before the Board qualified, but they didn't qualify becausE! 

they weren't timely filed in terms of what should be studied. And 

I understand the Chairman's concern that if something isn't under 

wilderness study should it be managed as such, and, of course, X 

understand the debate that is going on back and forth, and J[ 

don't-you know, that is your-1 will leave that in your court. But I do want to say that I think from the onset that there has 

been a disagreement about where the study went. In fact, of course, 

Chairman Seiberling, who is with us today, held hearings in thE! 

mid-1980's, and there is a congressional record we can look back 

upon and reflect on that particular debate. I need not repeat it for 

the purposes here. I couldn't repeat it. Maybe my good friend from 

Utah was at that hearing. As I recall, he was serving at that time. So I just wanted to put that in the record, and if there is any·· thing I have misstated with regards to this, Ms. Baca, I would, you. 

know, invite you to comment at this time to help me out and help 

me understand what I am talking about. Thank you, Mr. Chair·· 

man. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vento. I find it almost unbelievable 

in regard to the gentlelady from Idaho asked the question that you 

only refer to H.R. 1745. Actually, H.R. 1500 has been around a lot 

longer than this one. This one has only been introduced a short 

time. My friend from Utah sitting back here, Wayne Owens, intro·· 

duced that when, Wayne? Back in the 'SO's somewhere? 

Mr. OWENS. '87. 

Mr. HA:.'iSEN. '87. And yet you don't make any mention of it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman--

Mr. HANSEN. And Mr. Hinchey has reintroduced the bill. Excuse 

me. Go ahead. 

Mr. HINCHEY. My impression was originally that these hearings 

were to focus exclusively on H.R. 1745. And it wasn't until subse·· 
367 

quently that we appealed to the Chair to include H.R. 1500 in the 

hearings, and you graciously consented to put H.R. 1500 on the 

agenda. But originally the agenda was exclusively H.R. 17 45. 

Mr. HANSEN. Keep in mind that H.R. 1500 was in front of the 

BLM long before this H.R. 17 45 was even thought of, and we have 

had testimony on it in this committee long before. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Maybe we could have an exclusive hearing on H.R. 

1500, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think we should. Maybe it will be in Ithaca, New 

York. I don't know. That would be a good place to hold it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Wherever you want it. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. That is not a bad idea. Also, the gentlelady from Idaho asked a question about-you complain about the acreage in H.R. 1745, but you don't give us any alternative. Why is 

that? 

Ms. BACA. Mr. Chairman, again, we have not come with a spe- cific acreage recommendation. That is true. We think that there are 

lots of BLM areas in Utah that deserve wilderness designation. We 

want to work with you, and we want to work with your staff to 

come up with that correct wilderness designation for all of the 

areas that truly deserve it. 

Mr. HANSEN. In your testimony, on page two, you take a shot at 

areas such as cherry-stems. What do you have wrong with cherry- stems? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Congressman, we don't have any problems with the concept of cherry-stems. I think the concern is that there 

is other language in that section of the bill that allows the counties 

and other entities to come in later on with other road claims. We 

think that this would cause a lot of problems in the future management of these areas if other road claims were being established 

after the wilderness boundary was established. It would work better if the cherry-stems were delineated on the map at the time leg- islation is passed so we know what is a road and what is not a 

road. 

Mr. HANSEN. You know, if we didn't have cherry-stems in the 

West, we would probably dry up every third class city in the West 

as far as their water supply. I honestly think that the people who 

have culinary water supplies are very important. In 1984, when we 

did that bill with Mr. Seiberling, we put cherry-stems all over the 

place. If we hadn't done that, I can give you a list of 30 cities that 

wouldn't have water systems today. It was the only reasonable way that we could take care of it. 

Now, if you cherry-stem in a water system, a spring like in St. 

George, there is a spring in the mountain, and that is how they get their culinary water system. Tell me, how are they going to take 

care of it? Are they going to go in there with mules? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. No. That is not what we are saying. If there 

is going to be a cherry-stem or a culinary water system and a road 

that goes to service that, we would like to have that defined on the 

map so we know exactly where that is. We want to avoid people trying to establish rights and developments after the wilderness 

bill has been passed. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you another thing. Another thing you criticized here is multiple use designation. Are you, in effect, saying 
368 

that after Congress puts it in wilderness then BLM has the prerogative to designate areas as wilderness that hasn't been designated 

by Congress? Is that the only conclusion I can draw? What other 

conclusion is there? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. No, sir. Our comment on that is that the term 

nonwilderness multiple use is a new term, and what we would recommend is that we use the term multiple use that is presently contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Multiple 

use would be for the lands that are outside of the designated wilderness areas. BLM does not have the ability to designate wilderness areas. That is your prerogative. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me get this straight. You say that the term 

multiple use is a new term? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Nonwilderness multiple use is a new term. 

Mr. HANSEN. Nonwilderness is a new term? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Multiple use is older than anybody in this room. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. And we have practiced it ever since we have been 

in the West. 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. We agree with that. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I think the conventional definition is that multiple use includes, you know, preserving wilderness qualities. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. No. That is all. I just wanted to comment. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. I didn't mean to cut you off. 

Mr. VENTO. No, no. That is all right. I just wanted to comment 

on that. 

Mr. HANSEN. In 1984 when the wilderness bill went in, we put 

in whatever acreage it was. And then the Forest Service put in 

some of the areas that we did not put in wilderness in as stringent 

a management area as wilderness was. Is that what you want to 

protect? The BLM would have the prerogative to go beyond what 

Congress did and not call it wilderness but put it in a just as stringent and preserved area? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. The way we would see this work is that after 

this bill is passed, we would have to go back and review our land 

use plans and determine if there is any acreage out there that 

might qualify for designations of areas of critical environmental 

concern or something like that. To say that those areas that would 

be administratively designated would be as stringent as wilderness,. 

I guess I wouldn't know until we went ahead and did that. I don't 

think that is what we would plan to do. ACECs have a wide-· 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman--

Mr. VENTO. I don't want to break your thought. I just had an-· 

other question because one of the concerns that has come up from 

the governor and from Senator Bennett was the issue about graz·· 

ing in wilderness, and I would just like-is there a substantial dif.· 

ference in terms of when the lands are under wilderness study and. 

then they are designated wilderness, does that really change the' 

grazing practices on those lands or not? 
369 

Mr. MILLENBACH. It does not change the grazing practices, Congressman. The grazing practices that are going on there now would 

be continued. 

Mr. VENTO. OK I mean, my question is that this has been going 

on for something like 12 or 15 years since the-apparently under 

the 1976 Act, and has there been a lot of problems with that other 

than the normal problems of low water in drought years and so 

forth? Have there been problems that have come about that are unusual there that you know of, Mr. Millenbach? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. I am not aware of any specifically, but, you know, there are some proposals that can be made in wilderness 

study areas that may be inconsistent; for example, the development of new water resources and the development of roads. 

Mr. VENTO. But they won't substantially change-! don't know if 

there has been a big problem with it. I suppose there have been 

some, but, you know, I am just wondering because--

Mr. MILLENBACH. Well, I can't tell you for sure. Since I have 

been there there haven't been any. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. If I may ask another question. You say on page three management of cultural and paleontological resources inside 

wilderness designated by this bill could be compromised. Where do 

you draw that conclusion? That is on line 23 of the bill. OK Let 

me read it to you. ''The Secretary," you folks, "shall allow for the 

discovery of, shall protect, and may interpret cultural and paleon- tological resources located within areas designated as wilderness by this Act including through mechanical means when necessary." You, not John Q. Public, not the cattlemen. You. It says the Secretary may protect this area. How does that ever mean that that 

would compromise it? 

Mr. MILLENBACH. This is one of those sections of the bill, Congressman, I think that we could work very well with you on to try 

to make sure that the Secretary has the discretion to control those 

kinds of uses. We are concerned about the implications of mechanical means and how that would be used particularly for paleontolog- ical resources. 

Mr. HANSEN. We are saying that the BLM can do it. In other 

words, we want you to do it, give you the right to do it. That is 

what it says here. If you go back to line 24, the Secretary shall 

have the right to do it. We are not talking John Q. Public. So if 

you have got to go 20 miles, we don't really want you to do it on 

your foot if there is a road in there, and that is the idea behind 

it. 

Don't take this wrong, but I think you folks remind me somewhat of the BRAC Commission-excuse me-the Defense Department. We recently have gone through a BRAC thing, and I delighted in listening to those people when we got down to specifics- the Army, the Air Force, and the Marines all backing away from 

their position because they took it in generalities. Please don't take 

that personally. I just think you better go back and do more time 

on your homework on this issue, on this bill. Let me thank you for 

coming. We appreciate your time with us, and next time you come, 

we hope you are better prepared. 
370 

Our third panel will be Mr. Kent Petersen, Emery County Commissioner; Joe Judd, Kane County Commissioner; Dr. Scott Bean, 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction; John Haija, Vice Chair, Board of Trustees. If these gentlemen would all come forward, we 

would appreciate it. Mr. Petersen, good to see you again, sir. It is 

good to see all of you folks. We appreciate you being with us. How 

much time do each of you need in here? 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, we could probably each take all day, butMr. HANSEN. Well, maybe I asked the wrong person. Mr. PETERSEN [continuing]. you told us in our letter five minutes. 

I guessMr. HANSEN. Let me rephrase the question. Mr. PETERSEN. We probably can get by with five minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. If you need more, please let me know. We will 

start with you, Mr. Petersen, and just go right across. 

STATEMENT OF KENT PETERSEN, EMERY COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER 

Mr. PETERSEN. Before I start, let me just make one correction. 

Since I am a retired engineer, it is only fitting that technology grabbed me. We had our secretary typing this up trying to get it 

to you people in time, and she wrote on page three, a little under 

the middle of the page, talking about Sids Mountain, 400 megawatt generating units. It says maggot. I think spellchecker caught us on 

that. We don't really raise flies out there. We generate electricity, and I just wanted to point that out. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Petersen, you will notice the light is going to 

go on, and we will turn to you and go right across. We will hold 

our questions till all four gentlemen have given their testimony. Mr. PETERSEN. And I too appreciate the chance to be here. It i:; good to be here talking to you about something that has been on 

our minds for a long time and especially for the last few months. 

I have some prepared testimony, but I would like to deviate somewhat from it. 

There has been a lot of discussion on wilderness. We in Emery County went through quite a lengthy process. We talked to a lot 

of people, and I just want to echo the sentiments that wilderness 

is divisive, but when we talk about alternate means of protection, 

we can protect the land very well. When you get to the point that 

you want to talk about some of these other lands, we would certainly like to be a part of it. 

A couple of quick comments on some of the questions that have 

come out earlier. I think in all deference to Congress, it is really only God that can make wilderness. Not even Congress can do that. 

You guys can designate it as wilderness, but I don't think any of 

us can make wilderness. 

There was some question about the amount of protection that is 

already on the lands. I have a map here of the San Rafael that 

shows the layers of protection currently on the areas that are 

talked about as wilderness in the San Rafael. I think there are at 

least four layers of protection on almost all of them with ACECs 

of various kinds, primitive and semiprimitive. So there is protec- tion out there. 
371 

We might ask why those of us in rural Utah seem to be against 

wilderness when the reason that we like to live there is because 

the land is the way it is, and I guess there are two or three reasons. One of the reasons is because it is permanent. Once it is designated as wilderness, it stays that way. Congress has a hard time 

coming back and revisiting issues like this. If you make a mistake, 

we will be the ones who have to live with it. And it is kind of a 

nonmanagement tool. It really sets the land aside, and you don't 

do anything with it so you don't really get what you can out of that 

land. 

Number 2 reason: there is a tendency to ignore conditions that 

are out there. For example, the roads that are out there-in the 

San Rafael especially there are a lot of roads. Some of them started 

with our ancestors when they started running cattle and sheep on 

those lands. A lot of the other roads came in when-after World 

War II, everyone got a war surplus jeep. Then a few dozers came 

in. The uranium boom came on. Everyone was out there 

prospecting for uranium. 

Those roads are there, and they exist. They should be recognized. 

To say the roads are just ways and, therefore, are not there seems 

to us to be a complete falsehood, and it bothers us that you are 

generating a whole concept of management based on the roads that 

we have used forever, and you say they are not there. 

A third thing is that wilderness always seems to have big effects 

outside its boundaries. If the effect of wilderness could be limited 

to the boundaries set aside as wilderness, we could live with it. 

Buffer zones have been mentioned, and the Forest Service bill I 

think is a prime example. Right after the bill came in, they managed the land around it as wilderness also. This is the kind of 

thing we are concerned with. We have three 400 megawatt generating units eight miles from Sids Mountain or we have the Hunter 

Power Plant eight miles from the Sids Mountain Wilderness. The 

plant can be seen on most areas of that Sids Mountain Wilderness 

Area. 

We don't want, when maintenance has to be done or if they 

should think about expanding that power plant, to have someone 

say, "You can't do it because a wilderness area is eight miles away, 

and we can see it from that wilderness area." 

Our water rights are sacred, and there has been a lot of discussion about that. We do not want these wilderness areas to come in 

with an automatic Federal designated reserve water right. Any 

water right has to recognize state law and has to recognize existing 

water rights. Three of these wilderness areas in Emery County are 

downstream from the major water users in Emery County. 

If too much reserve water right is in there, this can have a big 

effect on any uses we are now putting our water to and any future 

development. We are scared of this, and it just bothers us. That is 

probably the thing we are the most scared of in all of this discussion. 

We in Emery County-well, we came out with some different recommendations. We can live with this bill if the language can be 

written to protect our existing rights, if you can protect our water 

rights, if you can eliminate the problem with buffer zones, if you 

can recognize the roads that we have out there, and if you hold the 
372 

acreage to where it is. This is the maximum acreage at least i.n 

Emery County that should be considered for wilderness. 

There are other areas that contain great pieces of land. We think 

they are worthy of some protection, but wilderness is not the protection to use on these lands. Semiprimitive-much of it is already 

designated semiprimitive, and this could be used on a lot of this 

land. We think that is an excellent method of protection. It allows 

you to get on the land but preserves the roads, allows you to drive 

on existing designated roads. We think that is a perfectly legitimate way to protect the lands. 

And, lastly, we would just like in Emery County to be a part of 

any proposal to take care of it. We think local control is important, 

and we want to be a part of protecting and utilizing these lands. 

[Statement of Mr. Petersen with submissions may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, commissioner. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Judd. 

STATEMENT OF JOE C. JUDD, KANE COUNTY COMMISSIONEit 

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, part of my comments I would like to 

enter into the record and a written statement by a city councilman 

in Kanab, a Roger--

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, all of your statements will be entered in their entirety in the record. 

Mr. JUDD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like also to say 

good morning, and I know it is for you after being up all night. My 

name is Joe Judd, and I serve as a county commissioner in Kane 

County, and I, along with my neighboring counties, discussed the 

effects ofH.R. 1745. 

Kane County has national parks, state parks, areas that are designated as BLM wilderness, and they compromise about 85 percent 

of our lands there as Federal, 10 percent are state, and only 5 percent is private land. This is a tremendous burden on our county. 

We regret that the choosing to introduce legislation which increase the aggregate wilderness acreage recommendations put 

forth by the 14 counties, the Utah delegation seemed to ignore local 

public recommendations and the very criteria the members were 

asked to follow. 

Kane County believes that Parunaweap, for instance, a propoSE!d 

wilderness bill contains an example of the area that fails to me•~t 

the criteria due to the existence of active, usable,. manmade roads, 

fences, and other facilities. We request that this area specifically 

be deleted. Wilderness, in our view, and most county residents will 

take the attitude that it will not aid nor support our minimum r1equirements necessary to enable us to survive economically in the 

future. 

People in our area are hardworking, law abiding who simp:ly 

want a chance to provide for their families just like anyone else. 

We found that selling hamburgers, pumping gas, and making beds 

simply will not do that. It will not provide for a healthy economic 

or social climate in our communities. In other words, as an elected 

public official representing Kane County, my colleagues and I cannot just sit back and concede our future to a low wage, seasonal 

economy based on tourism. Kane County must have an economy 
373 

that includes tourism but also a healthy, diversified, industrial 

economy based upon natural resource development. 

At present, we have 1,360 people, about 26 percent, who are on 

public assistance out of the total population of 5,169. We are not 

proud of this. Unemployment now stands near 15 percent, and due 

to a recent environmental group action against our timber industry, the jobless rate is increasing. We have before us an opportunity to improve the economic climate in our county in southern 

Utah by promoting responsible development of our natural resources. 

Kane County contains more recoverable, high-quality coal than 

any other county in the State of Utah. All of this coal can be recovered by underground mining methods which would virtually have 

no adverse effect on the environment. The Kaiparowits coal field is 

the largest untapped source of energy remaining in the continental 

United States and contains the equivalent of more than 20 billion 

barrels of Mideast crude oil. 

The proposed Smoky Hollow Mine in eastern Kane County is a 

serious attempt to tap this tremendous resource. While only impacting 40 acres of the surface, this underground coal mine holds 

the prospect of providing stable, high-wage employment for about 

500 people for the next 30 to 50 years. 

One of the innovative provisions of this wilderness bill now before us is the provision which takes scattered school trust land sections within proposed wilderness areas and exchanges them for 

lands encompassing the proposed Smoky Hollow Mine. This exchange would result in substantial economic benefits to southern 

Utah and would generate approximately $2.25 million per year for 

the school children of Utah for the next 50 years. 

The Smoky Hollow Mine Project alone will more than double the 

school trust funds benefited by the taxpayers and the school children of the entire state. All royalties for this will be paid by the 

sponsoring company, Andalex, Inc. 

I am pleased to report that Andalex has demonstrated a strong 

commitment to the protection of the environment in its operating mines in Utah. 

This wilderness bill is a restrictive bill; yet, with changes and 

modification it can still achieve a balance of protecting the environment, allowing responsible economic development, and valuable 

natural resources. As long as the buffer zones, Federal intrusions 

into state water law, and as long as lands which are released from 

wilderness study classifications are available from hereon for multiple use activities, that balance is arguably achieved. 

I cannot overemphasize the critical need for this legislation to be 

enacted in such a way as it will not irreparably damage Kane 

County's ability to provide economic stability for the future generations of our people through the development of its God-given natural resources. I trust that the delegation will work closely with 

Kane County to assure that specific concerns are addressed as it 

proceeds with the legislative process. I look forward to working 

with you, Mr. Chairman, and the group to help this come to a fruition. 

[Statements of Mr. Judd and Mr. Holland may be found at end 

of hearing.] 
374 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, commissioner. I appreciate your testimony. Dr. Bean. 

STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTI' BEAN, STATE SUPERINTENDENT 

OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 

Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, 

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in support of H.R. 

1745 which will impact almost one-quarter million acres of school 

trust lands. AB the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, I 

am here to provide a voice for the half million students currently 

enrolled and millions who will benefit from this in the future. 

In 1894, a bilateral compact known as the Utah Enabling Act established a trust for the support of the common schools. Utah 

schools still hold beneficial title to about 5 million acres of surface 

and mineral lands scattered within our state boundaries. These 

lands are the birthright of our children and an essential component 

of the present and future funding needed to educate our children. 

These school trust lands have been the focus of a six year reform 

movement led by the education community in Utah to ensure tha.t 

trust principals are firmly followed, revenues are optimized, and 

the lands are managed for the benefit of the schools. Education in 

Utah can no longer afford uncompensated use of these trust land!!. 

Historically, there has been no Federal compensation for trust 

lands that have been captured within national parks, national 

recreation areas, military installations, expansion of Indian Ree~­

ervations, and wilderness study areas. AB grantor of this trust, the 

Federal Government has a sacred obligation to protect the trust 

lands for the support of the educational institutions for which they 

were granted. 

The national parks have had 81,000 acres of school trust lands 

in-held for as long as six decades without the issuance of a single 

lease for the use of the land or the payment of a single dollar. Until 

recently, attempts to have the lands purchased or exchanged have 

resulted in no action because as one national park employee said, 

''Why should we buy the land? We already have them." 

Utah schools, in essence, supported national parks for decades 

and still do that. Capturing trust lands with no compensation is an 

affront to all educators and a travesty for the children of our state. 

The State Board of Education will not support wilderness without 

full compensation for all assets taken. This bill, H.R. 1745, provides 

for an exchange with knowledge of the assets to be acquired and 

certification of full value. 

If wilderness were established with school trust lands remaining 

within the boundaries, contradictory mandates from Congress will 

result in thwarting both objectives. School trust lands were granted 

for the support of common schools which requires development to 

meet the trust objective. On the other hand, wilderness is established to preserve roadless lands for nondevelopment. You can't do 

both at the same time. H.R. 17 45 provides for an exchange and 

avoids these conflicts. On behalf of the schools, may I commend our 

delegation and governor for addressing and resolving these concerns within this legislation. 

During hearings in Utah, we heard of the infinite value of wilderness and of solitude. Recently, from these same wilderness ad-
375 

vocates, we have listened to a disturbing contradiction. There are 

some who have argued that the school trust lands have little value. 

It is not rossible to be logical or honorable in arguing that wilderness is o great value but the land is not. The position of integrity should be that wilderness and solitude is of value to our nation, 

and our nation will provide full value through exchange for these 

captured school trust lands. 

I commend our delegation for addressing issues of water rights, release of nonwilderness lands, buffer zones, and access. We ap- plaud water rights being subject to state laws as they are on all 

other activities within our state. I would like to see the language 

on buffer zones tightened. 

Imposition of buffer zones would negatively impact millions of 

acres of school trust property since many of the designated wilderness areas are mountainous and vistas in Utah extend considerable 

distances. Any prohibitions of economic activities on trust lands exterior to wilderness would have enormous impact on school funding and would be viewed as a taking. 

An example of this was just made by the commissioner, and that 

is on the Kaiparowits Plateau Reserves. The school trust royalties estimated to be available in the Kaiparowits Plateau if all of that 

is fully developed are approximately $640 million. These mineral 

property rights should either be fully developed or fully compensated. 

The education community of Utah wishes to express our clear 

support for H.R. 1745 as modified. We support our delegation and 

governor in this wilderness designation and exchange of school 

trust lands. In H.R. 17 45, they have avoided costly legal battles 

over value. They have allowed for responsible management by exchanging. Wilderness areas can be protected. Newly acquired trust 

lands can be developed for the benefit of Utah school children. I 

commend you and thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Dr. Bean. I appreciate your testimony. John Harja. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HARJA, VICE CHAIR, BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES 

Mr. HARJA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am here representing the Board of Trustees of the School 

and Institutional Trust Lands Administration which has oversight 

over the trust lands Dr. Bean just mentioned. 

We support the exchange mechanism in H.R. 1745 specifically because it involves a determination that the lands themselves that 

are on our map are of approximately equivalent value, and then 

simply directs that an exchange will occur in an expeditious manner. The timeframe is to be adjusted I would think, but we think 

that is the most expeditious and cost-effective way to get this 

school trust land problem resolved. 

I would point out the Administration mentioned that they disagreed with this in the past. That was not the case. An exchange 

was always contemplated. What they were doing is purposely excluding along the boundaries-excluding trust lands, and we always disagreed over·that. 
376 

We ask that the Congress resolve the wilderness issue but also 

at the same time resolve this in-holdings issue. I would refer back 

to a bill the Congress passed a couple of years ago, Public Law 

103-93, that had to do with in-holdings in the national parks. And 

I would tell you a little bit of what has happened since then. 

We have been arguing over value ever since then. We have the 

appraisers working finally. It has been a long and complicated 

process about how to get an appraisal done of these lands. Thes'e 

are also crown jewels. These are also unique lands, and it has been 

very difficult. So we are here to ask you that let us have the discussion right now over the worth of these lands and ask you to support on a map the lands to be exchanged. 

We do have some amendments proposed, specifically one that 

concerns the royalty valuation. Ai3 you are aware, when Federal 

lands are developed, royalties come back to the State of Utah-already. We consider that, therefore, an asset not available to the 

Federal Government in this exchange, and we need to make that 

clear. So when the Administration says approximately five to ten 

times, I would immediately cut that in half and say it is at least 

maybe two and a half to five times. 

There are some Hazmat provisions that are not equitable. w.~ 

would just simply ask that you make it playable to both sides and 

would tighten some timeframes. 

The school trust land in this case, contrary to 103-93, is interested in land. We want to preserve our portfolio. We are interested 

in long-term development. We believe all of the targeted lands are 

long-term develoyment. There is nothing on the horizon immediately. They wil require investment of time and money in order 

to produce them, and if you consider all of the time value of money, 

that reduces their apparent value. 

There are about 209,000 acres covered in H.R. 1745, and we are 

looking for approximately the same amount of acreage because we 

believe we are proposing to swap the opportunity to develop minerals. Ai3 I just mentioned, the Federal minerals are not yet developable. They have got a lot of work to go on. 

That is also true of the trust lands inside these proposed wilderness areas as it was inside the national parks. They did have potential. They have been leased. There has been some development 

on some of them. I am speaking of the national parks now, not the 

wilderness areas. And we, therefore, think swapping the opportunity to develop is a fair thing to do. Fair value is being exchanged. 

Of course, we don't mind the question, ''What are these worth?" 

We don't mind discussing that. We are perfectly prepared to do 

that. I think they are unique. Congressman Vento mentioned what 

is unique about them. And we think that discussion is best taken 

and occurred here in Congress. 

The thing that I guess we look at, we have heard the word priceless mentioned a lot. I understand that that is a bit of rhetoric:. 

And how, in fact, do you put the worth on these lands? What we 

would say, and this is the reason we have had a lot of discussions 

over Public Law 103-93, is there is a way to put the worth on 

those lands. There are techniques out there that are being used, 

and we would like to use them. 
377 

We have had resistance from the Administration for various reasons. The paying for scenery is often mentioned, as if that was not 

something that is in the market. There is a fundamental difference 

there that I think we are presenting to you and asking you to consider. Mr. Chairman, I will just end there. 

[Statement of Mr. Harja may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. That was excellent testimony of all four 

of you. We really appreciate you being here. The gentleman from 

New York. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I will pass. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, if there are means to evaluate 

it and they are justified-! mean, I think the problem with the 

members of Congress is that as Mo Udall used to say, there are 

some members that don't know, and there are some members that 

don't know they don't know. 

And when it comes to some of these land values, I mean, if that 

is all we had time to do is to go back and forth-1 appreciate theyou know, I mean, I think Governor Matheson had it right. If you 

are trying to block up, you know, some of the lands, I think he had 

it right. And, of course, obviously, you know, others are suggesting maybe that there is a reason, that if you are going to manage it, 

you want to have a partnership or a collaboration that goes on with 

regards to it. You have a different mandate obviously. As you have said, many times we have scattered state lands 

within Forest Service wilderness in Minnesota, for instance, that 

are not providing. We don't trade them out. We just have them in. 

But I think the situation in Utah is different than ours. Ours are 

sort of scattered sites and lands that I don't consider, you know, 

high value; others I suppose that may. So we have had sort of a 

passive attitude, but I think that the fact that school districts or 

the school superintendent is here indicates the importance. But there should be comparables in terms of other lands. I mean, 

I know we have passed this legislation about a year ago. It prob- ably became-maybe a year or 16 months ago I guess we passed it and became law, and I understood that there were problems in 

terms of deciding what the cost of the appr~sals are. And if we 

want to look at that, I mean, that is the better model than-we 

gave a lot of guidance, but we still let some of the decisions be 

made by the professionals. Isn't that fair, Mr. Harja? Mr. HAR.JA. If the Congress and the trust were able to agree on 

specifically how that would work, that would resolve some of the 

issues. 

Mr. VENTO. What I am saying is we have got to maybe do something in terms of giving some guidance to help, but I think we don't 

want to-you know, we ought to at least leave this out there where 

we can get the fair market value issues established where we 

aren't, you know, completely, you know, foreclosing on it. I mean, 

obviously, I don't know how you deal with the state's mineral 

rights. I mean, the panel is obviously talking with regards to this. 

I was pleased, Mr. Petersen, that you talked about some ACECs 

in some of the areas that the BLM-that is why we ought to get the maps or we ought to be aware of where those are in terms of-
378 

there are not very many designated in some of these lands, are 

there? 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, I just happen to have the map right with 

me. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I know that but, I mean, that was on the one 

areathatMr. PETERSEN. Well, on the San Rafael there are a lot of ACECs. 

There are other methods of protection. We may be a little bit 

unique, but I think there are a lot of them out there. Maybe even 

the BLM in the state office--

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I mean, I know what an ACEC is, but you know 

the terminology and everything. It sounds as though you do. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, it is an area of critical environmental concern, and there are more than one reason to have them. It might 

be visual. It might be to protect the cultural resource. It might be 

to protect the habitat for game animals. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, one of the concerns I raised, of course, is with 

hard release. It just precludes further evaluation or protection for 

the wilderness qualities. I am concerned about that. Are you satisfied with the type of BLM management that you have had, that 

you would be satisfied? Obviously, only Congress can designate, 

and I appreciate your use of that word. I use it myself pretty regularly. But are you concerned that the BLM would not manage it 

properly? 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, I guess our position is we want it released.. 

We think that having it all in a wilderness study area is very restrictive, and we think that the controls that are out there right 

now are going to protect that land. There is just no way that someone-! have tried to get the BLM-to get permission to build a 

road in some spot. And the effort that I go through to do that--

Mr. VENTO. But this goes beyond that. This says you can't even 

study it anymore for that purpose. They might do that administratively, or they may just consider the wilderness values. The concern 

is that that makes it-you know, drawing the line in the sand :is 

a lot more difficult. If we wanted to designate it as study, or if they 

wanted to come back and do it administratively, that has a substantially different effect in terms of what is going on. 

You know, so just trying to look for some area where, you know, 

if you come out with hard language then obviously you want to gE~t 

a larger numbering. Do you think any of the proposals put forth 

by Representative Orton with regards to NCAs have some merit or 

some place in this issue of designation? Any of you? Mr. Judd, Mr. 

Petersen? 

Mr. PETERSEN. I think our proposal, our plan-we came up with 

some alternate designations, and we think that that has a way of 

providing protection over a broader range and eliminating a lot of 

the divisiveness. This is a wilderness bill. If you are just talking 

wilderness, then I think you need to deal with that. But the 

amount that is really qualified as wilderness is rather small. There 

is a lot of other land that could be protected with--

Mr. VENTO. Well, you know, the point is, of course, that much of 

this is subject to mineral appropriation and to other types of 

water-permits and other types of activities that would, in essenc•~. 

have a dramatic and to some extent a different and uneven impaet 
379 

on the land. And so there are different thing_!'! that could be done 

through NCA or national conservation area. Each of them are different. I assume we would be using one here that would have some 

restrictions. I know there is no timber on any of this land. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Very little timber. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thanks. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, the gentleman from Minnesota. Commissioner Petersen, I was kind of intrigued by your statement 

when you said you felt we should increase the state and local government in regard to wilderness and areas such as that. How do 

you think we would do that? That is something that we have 

talked in the western caucus which I Chair. We have talked about 

that many, many times, and we would like to have some input on 

it. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, Emery County has been going through quite 

a process as you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman. We dealt with 

a lot of different stakeholders. We think that if we can be at the 

table as an equal partner with BLM, we can help with these decisions. And the statement was made in this meeting that there 

aren't as many people on the ground with BLM, and I think that 

is true, and it is probably going to be even more so as we go along. 

If you develop a process where the people of Emery County on 

the San Rafael Swell are part of that process and feel like they are 

taking care of their land, you don't need as many people because 

we are there and we are part of it. We have gone through a big, 

comprehensive land plan, and we just think we should be part of 

that. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am getting the impression that there seems to be 

an adversary role between Federal people and sometimes our local 

people. That disturbs me. Am I getting the wrong impression, you 

two commissioners? 

Mr. JUDD. No, you are not. 

Mr. PETERSEN. It is definitely-- Mr. HANSEN. It is them and us rather than we are all in the 

same boat together. 

Mr. PETERSEN. And that is why we think that if we can be down 

there as an equal partner, we can eliminate some of that adversary. 

Mr. HANSEN. Commissioner Judd, dowp in that beautiful area of 

Kane County--

Mr. JUDD. You bet. 

Mr. HANSEN [continuing]. you would probably have as much impact from BLM designation. Let me respectfully ask you if H.R. 

1500 passed, what would it do to your county? 

Mr. JUDD. We would go away. We need an economic base to help 

the poor people in southern Utah, Kane County, just hold their 

heads up. We are not asking for welfare. We don't want that. We 

are ashamed of the fact that we have got these people on public 

assistance. We don't want anything other than the opportunity to 

earn a living, and we are concerned about the regulations that are 

in cherry-stemming roads, for instance, and we were not involved 

in how those were applied nor done. 

The people taking the pot shots and attitudes that are really detrimental to our economic base saying that "the coal mine is not 
380 

something that anybody should ever have." Go to the counties that 

have coal mines presently. You will find, for instance, that in Salina they probably have one of the highest per capita economic 

bases in Utah, and it is due primarily to that. Ask the people if 

they mind the trucks and/or the coal mining action that is going 

on. They haven't noticed them at all. 

We are not asking for anyone to rape the land. This one coal 

mine that we are talking about takes place 700 feet below the rim 

of the canyon and a canyon bottom that you can't see-40 acrElS. 

It is a portal mine. It is not an open pit mine. We would like to 

be able to provide jobs that would pay 30 to $50,000 a year for ap- proximately 150 to 300 people depending on how the mine is developed. We would like that opportunity. 

Tourism is not going to do it. We met with the environmental 

groups. We have met with the Economic Development Board. We 

have met with the Environmental Impact Board. And they have all 

told us tourism will not support the residents of Kane County. We 

are not asking for anything that we don't feel is necessary to keep 

our county viable. 

Mr. HANSEN. Dr. Bean and John Harja, you heard the comment 

of the two commissioners regarding the potential in minerals and 

in soft coal and what it would do for the schools. Do you agree with 

that? 

Mr. BEAN. Yes. There is no question about that. Again, the 

Kaiparowits Plateau contains the mine that the commissioner is 

talking about. And our estimates have been that on the entire 

Kaiparowits Plateau if all of the coal reserves are developed, that 

that would amount to about $640 million in royalties to the school 

trust fund. · But there are other problems that we do have, and that is with 

buffer zones. For example, the Alton coal fields where we have 

school trust lands right now we can't develop because you can s~ee 

the Alton coal field development I believe from Zions Canyon. That 

is a case where we can't develop it right now even though it is !~5 

miles away from the park, and so those types of things I think are 

taken care of in this bill. That is why I believe the bill is really responsible. 

Mr. HANSEN. John, would you like to comment? 

Mr. liARJA. 640 million I believe is the entire Kaiparowits which 

is more than the current mine site. But it shows that there are 

these valuable resources in the area, and what I sense is that the 

BLM tends to simply look at the trust lands and say they have little value because they are out there and nobody really wants them. 

People do want them. They can produce royalties, and you have to 

discount that for time. And they go in a permanent fund, and they help to fund schools. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me quickly ask one more question here. I see 

my time is up. But I have mentioned a number of times in this 

hearing this adversary role bothers me. Now, we are all working in the same organization. We all ride the same forum. We all 

should kind of be friends, so to speak, and it bothers me that there 

is always an adversary role. 

Little by little, I notice both commissioners talked about this, but 

I am noticing more and more of an adversarial role between local 
381 

governments and schools with our Federal people. And it is kind 

of sad. In just the last few years, I have noticed that really increase. Am I just being paranoid? 

Mr. JUDD. No, you are not, Chairman. I feel honestly that many 

of the meetings that are held to predetermine or to determine how 

the BLM should manage lands, the meetings are held at times 

when people can't attend, or they are not advertised as well. They 

are not actively engaging themselves in our realm of work. They 

have not come to the people and said that, ''We solicit your input 

as to whether or not we should cherry-stem a road," or how we 

think the Secretary should look at how these roads or these lands 

will be administered. 

And little by little, the people have taken this intrusion attitude 

and feeling that there is no hope, there is no way that we can adjust our schedules to meet theirs, and that we will never have an 

opportunity. The government is against us. We don't trust the government. This mistrust of government is something that has to be 

done away with by a bill like this one that will aid and abet the 

things that are going to be really necessary for us to keep our lives 

and our head above water. 

Mr. HANSEN. So when these folks come into your area and say, 

"I am from the Federal Government. I am here to help," that 

makes you nervous? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, yes. "And the check is in the mail, and I still love 

you in the morning," and all those things. 

Mr. PETERSEN. We think there is a way to solve it, and Emery 

County is certainly willing to volunteer to be a pilot county to try 

and work with the government, but we have to be an equal partner 

with them. If they come in and say, "We are going to do all of these 

for you," we hear, ''We are here, and we are going to do all of these 

things to you"--

Mr. HANSEN. Which way does it turn out? For or to? 

Mr. PETERSEN. And it turns out they--

Mr. JUDD. To us. Mr. PETERSEN. So we think if we can be part of the decisionmaking up-front, we can help to prevent some of that. 

Mr. JUDD. Amen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Petersen, I think they need to be more than just an equal partner. 

I think they need to be a good neighbor. It is your county. You have 

the fiduciary responsibility of providing funds for roads and schools 

and bridges and cemetery districts and on and on and on. And case 

law after case law after case law has established in the past that 

that cannot negatively impact it and yet be done. Has an economic 

impact statement been presented to you as to what this action is 

going to do to you in the county? 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, yes and no, and there are a lot of economic 

impact statements, and they are very good at that. We can get 

them that high. But what it really gets down to is just what we 

just talked about just a minute ago. The decision is always made 

either in Washington or at the very least in the local BLM office, 

and then they tell us what the decision was and what do we want 

to say about it. We want to be there when the decision is made. 
382 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Oh, I want you to be, believe me. It is your 

county. 

Mr. PETERSEN. It certainly is. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you are responsible for the people there. 

Their responsibility is clearly defmed in FLPMA, no more no less. 

You have a very broad responsibility. You are responsible for 

human beings and future lives. And, you know, I really would urge that you have your county attorney pull the latest case out of the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding 2477 roads, the Shultz 

case. Those are your roads. I mean, we have got to change the dynamics of the debate. And I am encouraging counties to do what 

you can do, and I know you men certainly can. 

The water rights are your water rights. It is the state's water 

rights. And there is no implied reserve water right. That was last 

established in the United States Supreme Court case entitled California v. the BOR. Idaho and Utah was admitted to the union with 

ownership of our water, and so I just want to encourage you. You 

are the boss down there, not us, and certainly not the agencies. And we are the ones who are supposed to be telling the agencies what to do, and they are not to be doing more than what we tell 

them to. 

And we are getting a little tough about that in this Congress because we know that government governs best that governs closest 

to home, and that is just not something that I say that easily rolls 

off the top of my head. I really believe it, and that is the only way 

we are going to save our western culture and our heritage-is by 

us having the respect for you you rightly deserve because it is a 

heck of a job that you have. And my hat is off to you. Thank you. 

Mr. PETERSEN. We appreciate those kind words. 

Mr. JUDD. Certainly do. 

Mr. PETERSEN. And especially the talk on the Ninth Circuit, that 

is the first time that I had heard that that was really settled. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Have them look it up through Lexus. I can't 

remember the entire name of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, but 

Shultz/24 77 roadways will get you the case. 

Mr. PETERSEN. We are aware of the case, but I hadn't heard it 

was settled. And I think we are both very active in the 24 77 road 

issues, and I think that is critical. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think there was a Petition for Reconsideration, and I think the Court said no as I understand it. 

Mr. PETERSEN. That is great. 

Mr. JUDD. Marvelous. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on 

the-of course, the multiple use councils were set up under the 

BLM law in 1976, but they have not been activated. They haven't 

been utilized so, I mean, while they may have been imperfect, they 

were never used. The grazing councils, of course, evolved into 

something else. And, of course, last year Secretary Babbitt tried to 

develop a theme in terms of those types of stewardship responsibil- ities-Secretary Lujan before him. 

Mr. HANSEN. To try to fix that, should--

Mr. VENTO. No, that is all right. I speak too much anyway. But, 

in any case, I think the point being that a stewardship role. But, 

of course, obviously the responsibilities the BLM has in terms of 
383 

what the laws are have to be then-you know, have to be shared 

in the sense that they would have to be carried out in that particu- lar manner. But I do think there is a place. What you don't need is more political subdivisions. I get concerned about commissions and more political subdivisions, and we 

have got this problem with trying to take new information that is 

developing very quickly and put it into effect on the ground in 

these landscapes. And, you know, we would like everything to be 

sort of stable and not change, but it keeps changing. That is the 

problem, and it comes across as bad faith, but it isn't necessarily I don't think on the part of what we are trying to do. 

Mr. HANsEN. We have a 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute 

vote. I thank the panel. You have been very helpful. We will excuse 

you. We will ask the next panel--

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a couple questions before we go just briefly? 

Mr. HANSEN. Surely. Excuse me. I apologize. The gentleman from 

New York, the time is yours. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say to 

Mr. Petersen and Mr. Judd, I think it is impossible I think not to 

be sensitive to some of the things that you mentioned in regard to 

the economic conditions that exist in your communities. And I 

think that Mr. Petersen made some recommendation about involving local people, and I think that, you know, that is something that 

makes sense, and we ought to try to do that. 

There is also the question of 5 million acres of state trust lands, 

and I just wanted to ask Mr. Harja if he could identify the revenue 

that comes from those 5 million acres currently? Mr. liARJA. 5 million acres of trust lands? 

Mr. HINCHEY. 5 million acres, yes. 

Mr. liARJA. We have only 3.7 million acres in the State of Utah 

that are trust lands. 

Mr. HINCHEY. How many? Mr. IiARJA. 3.7 million plus an additional--

Mr. BEAN. You have in total about 5 million acres that includes 

mineral rights and the actual surface lands. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I see. 

Mr. BEAN. And he is talking about the other part. It is 3.5 million acres of actual surface land. 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK. Well, I would like to try to clear that up. It 

says here that, "Utah schools still hold beneficial title to about 5 

million acres of surface and mineral lands scattered within our 

state boundaries." 

Mr. liARJA. There are 3.7 million of fee estate and an additional 

million of mineral estate only, totaling approximately 5 million. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Additional million of--

Mr. liARJA. Mineral estate. 

Mr. BEAN. Mineral. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So it is 5 million acres all told? 

Mr. liARJA. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. What is the revenue that comes from that currently? 

Mr. liARJA. 80 to 90 percent of it comes from mineral activitiesoil and gas. 
384 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, but how much is it? 

Mr. BEAN. How much is it? 

Mr. HARJA. 4 to $5 million this year. 

Mr. BEAN. I think it is. You need to remember, Representative, 

that we don't get a cent out of the national parks where we have 

81,000 acres and haven't gotten a cent ever. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, well, we would like to deal with that too, but 

I am focusing right now on the trust lands. 

Mr. BEAN. These are trust lands in the national parks. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So it is about $5 million a year. Is that correct? 

Mr. HARJA. It is 5-

Mr. HINCHEY. 4.25-it is between 4 and $5 million a year that 

comes in to you from the 5 million acres of land that you currently 

own? 

Mr. BEAN. OK. That is right. 

Mr. HARJA. OK. I apologize. I was thinking of something else. My 

fellow colleague informs me it is $22 million coming from the 5 million acres. 

Mr. BEAN. This past year. 

Mr. HARJA. This past year. 

Mr. HINCHEY. $22 million annually? 

Mr. HARJA. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. How is that money distributed? 

Mr. HARJA. If it is from a permanent disposition of the resources 

such as a sale or sale of minerals, it goes into a permanent fund. 

The interest of that fund is available for the funding of education 

every year. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Is it funded on a per capita basis? 

Mr. HARJA. The money goes into the Uniform School Fund which 

is distributed on a weighted pupil unit basis. Dr. Bean can give you 

more on that. 

Mr. BEAN. Actually, it just goes in as part of all of the school revenues that we have in the state. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So the legislature divvies it up? Is that the idea? 

Mr. HARJA. That is correct. 

Mr. BEAN. That is correct. 

Mr. HINCHEY. And they divvy it up on the basis of some formula 

that is constructed? 

Mr. BEAN. Yes. We basically use a weighted pupil unit in the 

state, and that weighted pupil unit is--

Mr. HINCHEY. Weighted average daily attendance, something like 

that? 

Mr. BEAN. Well, it is weighted on membership, and that amounts 

to $1,600 per year per pupil. 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate the input from the 

panel. We will ask the next panel to be seated. Mr. Booth 

Wallentine, Executive Vice President of Utah Farm Federation; 

Jim Parker, Former Utah State Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management; Don Peay, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife; and Bill 

Rigby, President of Utah Association of Conservation Districts and 

my neighbor in Davis County and longtime friend. So I would appreciate these gentlemen if you could l>e patient with us. We will 

run and vote. We will come right back. So we will stand in recess. 
385 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The committee will reconvene. I apologize to you. 

I just don't have any control over these votes when they go off. 

Where were we? Booth, if it is OK, we will start with you, sir. Now, 

you all know the rules. Is five minutes OK? If you need more time, 

let me know. I want to hear from you. So we will just put it there 

to remind you. OK. Mr. Wallentine, the floor is yours, sir. The rest 

of the members will be on their way. 

STATEMENT OF C. BOOTH WALLENTINE, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. WALLENTINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased to have an opportunity to speak for some of those user 

groups on public lands whose responsibility it is to provide jobs and 

much needed products for our citizens. We are also very pleased in 

the Farm Bureau that the wilderness issue appears to be finally 

moving closer to resolution. With some modifications, we can support H.R. 1745 as a balanced and reasonable compromise bill. 

Farm Bureau was here in this Congress or in this town supporting the Forest Service wilderness bill back in 1984. On two different occasions, we testified in favor of it because we were promised no restrictions on predator control and grazing and water 

rights and water structure maintenance and promised no buffer 

zones. Unfortunately, Forest Service regulations have not honored 

those promises. 

Designating BLM wilderness in Utah has been very divisive 

largely because of myths and misinformation about wilderness and 

these broken promises. Two examples of myths: one is that unless 

public lands are designated wilderness, they will somehow be destroyed. We know that is not true. There are numerous laws and 

regulations and Court decisions already on the books that protect 

these lands whether they are designated as wilderness or not. 

We know that BLM has the authority to do administratively everything that designated wilderness would do except for one thing, 

and that is permanently preventing mineral entry. But on that 

point, the BLM environmental impact statement says that only 1.8 

percent of the 3.2 million acres of WSAs would even be disturbed 

by mining and the associated roads and infrastructure, and that is 

if none of it were designated as wilderness. 

As you debate wilderness in this committee and in the Congress, 

we hope you will keep in mind the costs of wilderness designation. 

That is another big myth, that wilderness designation has no costs. 

There are very real costs to Utah and to the Nation when we lock 

up public natural resources. 

Moreover, BLM managers in Utah estimate it will cost about 

twice as much or about $1.50 per acre more to manage wilderness 

areas, and we wonder where that additional money might come 

from. The public interest demands these and other similar points 

be considered fully and realistically and we think on at least an 

equal par with recreationalists' demand for wilderness. 

We don't consider H.R. 1500, which is also before you, to be worthy of serious consideration because opinion polls show that most 

Utahns oppose that legislation. On the other hand, H.R. 1745 is a 

much more realistic bill. It is well researched, well thought out, 
386 

and has been refined by extensive comments and analysis. It deals 

in a responsible and balanced way with such critical issues as release language, access, water and grazing rights. 

Now, having said that, we have some concerns about the bill in 

some areas. We prefer a much smaller acreage figure than the 1.8 

million acres in the bill, and in light of the Wenatchee National 

Forest Court cases, the buffer zone language in section 3 should be 

strengthened to ensure absolutely that no Court or other entity can 

impose a buffer zone. Also, we have some concern about the road 

language in sections 3[g] and [h]. Of course, cherry-stemming roads 

into wilderness has been done, but many believe that it violates the 

spirit, if not the intent of the Wilderness Act. 

The language that apparently gives the Secretary authority to 

close county 2477 roads is inappropriate, we believe, and we would 

like to see that language eliminated. Also, we believe there should 

be setbacks for all 24 77 rights-of-way and not just the two categories listed. 

There are a number of provisions in H.R. 1745 which are very good. These include protection of state water rights, language protecting access, and critical infrastructure projects, and the language dealing with state control of wildlife. 

We certainly endorse the land exchange provisions in section 11 

dealing with Utah school trust lands. As Chairman of the Board of 

Trustees at Utah State University, I am particularly aware of the 

need for the revenue these trust lands could provide to Utah education. 

We like the provisions protecting grazing. As you know, that has 

been a continuing problem in the wilderness. Three suggestions on 

grazing to improve the bill. First, we urge you to put right into the 

bill at section 3[c][2] the specific wilderness grazing management 

directives contained in House Report 96-1126 which you have referenced in the bill starting on page 22 of that report. 

Second, we endorse language specifically prohibiting BLM from 

using wilderness in determining the suitability of grazing in any 

area it manages. And, third, we urge Congress to hold periodic 

oversight hearings on grazing in wilderness areas across the West 

to ensure these directives are followed in Utah and other states. 

And, in conclusion, with the changes that I have mentioned, H.R. 

17 45 is a good bill, but I want to emphasize again to the committee 

the absolute urgency of getting this 17 year long divisive issue resolved. And this endorsement today, Mr. Chairman, represents the 

users' organization's contribution to that process of compromise. 

Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Wallentine may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's statement. 

Mr. Parker, Former Director of BLM. We are grateful to have you 

with us. We will tum the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. PARKER, FORMER UTAH STATE 

DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to once 

again appear before this subcommittee. Although the points that I 

wish to emphasize today are based on my preretirement experience 

with the Bureau of Land Management, I certainly do not wish to 
387 

give the impression that I in any way am speaking for the Bureau 

or trying to represent their position. I represent only myself. 

I commend you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Waldholtz 

and other members of the Utah delegation and the members of the 

subcommittee and the governor, for attempting to finally resolve 

this very important issue. I know that over the years you have 

spent countless hours dealing with this issue. I also know from 

sometimes being there the hours you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Orton have spent out on the ground learning about the 

issue firsthand. Thank you for the time and effort that you have 

put into that. 

Based on my personal experience, I believe that H.R. 17 45 is a 

good bill and that the acreage involved is both credible and appro- priate. I would like to add my endorsement to the general concepts 

of the bill and the scope of the coverage. Certainly, there is room 

for discussion of some of the details and perhaps some alternative 

designations of some areas, but generally I feel that the bill is a 

good one. 

I also believe that it meets both the spirit and the intent of the 

Wilderness Act. Wilderness is an important component of public land management, but I do not believe that either the Wilderness 

Act or FLPMA intended that it become the predominant factor in 

the management of the public lands as Congressman Orton already pointed out. 

I believe the intent of both the Wilderness Act and the wilderness provisions of FLPMA is to protect those lands that meet a spe- cific set of criteria for wilderness designation. A determination was 

to be made through a very deliberate and careful public process. I 

believe that H.R. 1745 recognizes this prescribed process and captures the sense of how it was to be carried out. 

I commend you for cutting through the special interest smoke 

screens and the media-oriented counterproposals and focusing on 

the factual and on keeping the integrity. of the criteria and the 

process which was formulated in part by this very committee. 

There are some areas of the bill I would like to see fine-tuned. 

I won't go into those as they are discussed in my printed testimony. I would like to say a word about a major problem that I have observed regarding the public dialog and the discussion of this issue 

in Utah over the years. It is one that could impact the deliberations 

of this committee. This problem concerns the large amount of misinformation or as Booth said myths which continue to surround the 

wilderness debate in Utah. It was covered somewhat also by Governor Leavitt, I think. 

I noted that some of this misinformation was very much alive 

and passionately repeated in the field hearing last week. It can 

also be found daily in the public opinion pages of most of the newspapers in Utah. I hope that as the committee works through this 

legislation that it would not be unduly influenced by faulty information. 

In my written testimony, I go into quite a bit of detail regarding 

my experience and observations regarding the process BLM went 

through to complete its statutory mandates to inventory, study, and report on areas suitable for preservation as wilderness in 

Utah. I won't repeat the details here, but I include them to illus-
388 

trate that the process worked. The products were tested and retested. The work was reviewed and discussed before this very committee and in oversight hearings, and I assume that those criticisms at that time were satisfied as there were no new instructions 

or no change in legislation. Appropriate adjustments were made in 

acreage and land being considered as the process went on. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Parker, could I ask you to suspend? I have got 

a 5-minute vote, and I don't want to miss your testimony so we will 

start over. Let me just hurry over there. I will come right back. 

Mr. PARKER. Certainly. 

Mr. HANSEN. I apologize to you. My colleagues apparently stayed 

for that vote. I wanted to get this going. I will get right back. Let 

me apologize to all of you. 

Mr. PARKER. If anybody deserves a break, you do. [Recess.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Parker, I 

wonder if we could start you over again. Would you mind? I hate 

to ask twice, but I would really appreciate it for the benefit of all 

of us. 

Mr. PARKER. Certainly. I was mentioning, Mr. Chairman, that in 

my written testimony I go into a great deal of detail regarding my experiences and the observations that I made over the years on the 

process that BLM went through in the inventory and study and 

recommendation processes. I won't repeat that because that is in 

my testimony. 

During that period, this committee exercised oversight over those 

activities, and we discussed that with Mr. Seiberling and others 

several times. I assume that the results of that discussion were 

adequate because no changes were made in the way the process 

was running. The process was open to every citizen of the United 

States. It was well defined. The criteria was well documented. Ap- peals and protest rights were well publicized and used by groups and individuals on both sides of the issue, and extensive documentation was completed for all aspects of the process. 

In the later stages of the process, an environmental impact analysis was completed and issued and drafted for comments and then 

finalized. For the draft EIS alone, 16 separate hearings were conducted, over 700 people testified, and over 6,000 people commented 

in writing. The resulting environmental impact statement encompassed seven volumes contained in 10 large books, and the total 

cost of this effort by BLM in Utah has been estimated to be close 

to $10 million. That resulted in about over 4,000 pages of documentation. 

All the wilderness review process has taken some 15 years to 

complete and in some respects is still ongoing. Undoubtedly, this 

is one of the longest running, most intensive public involvement efforts in the history of Utah. It involved more than 16,000 written 

comments and more than 75 formal public meetings or hearings, and hundreds of face-to-face discussions and workshops. 

I am sure that it is no secret to you that despite all of the above 

the BLM efforts have come under a great deal of criticism. My 

printed testimony discusses my personal experiences regarding the 

review of the matter when I served as Associate State Director of 
389 

the BLM starting in 1981 and again when I became State Director 

for Utah in 1988. 

Each time, I came to the conclusion that while it was not a perfect process, it was carried out in a very open, a very professional, 

and an orderly manner with detailed criteria and processes followed, with a great deal of oversight and testing of the decisions 

by appeals and judicial challenges. 

Mter observing the issue rather closely for the past 17 years, I 

am more convinced than ever of the validity of BLM's efforts. Certainly, some things have changed on the ground, and some of the 

basic effort perhaps would have been modified had we been doing 

it today. I also believe that others who have objectively looked at 

the matter have come to the same conclusion. 

The criticism of the recent public hearings and meetings and the 

process that the Utah delegation and the governor conducted as a 

prelude to finalizing their legislative proposal has I believe fallen 

prey to the same special interest-driven criticism and media-oriented campaign of disinformation that has plagued the BLM process. 

I believe that the recent process used by the delegation and the 

governor was not only appropriate but was a gracious gesture given 

the extent of previous public involvement and the numerous opportunities that have existed over the past 15 years for individuals 

and groups to become involved in and to impact the process. 

As a final observation, may I suggest that it is time to put down 

the placards, banish the bumper stickers, silence the sound bites, 

and end the wilderness debate by moving ahead with legislation. 

In doing so, please remember how important the ability to actually 

manage designated wilderness is. Manageability of designated 

areas after they are designated is critical. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to offer some of my observations on this important issue, probably the most important public 

land issue of this decade in Utah. Your task, as you well know, is 

not an easy one. The issue has been and I am sure will continue 

to be a controversial one, but it is an issue whose time has come, 

and I am pleased to offer my support for your efforts to gain passage of legislation on this matter. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Parker may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Parker. We appreciate your statement. Mr. Peay. 

STATEMENT OF DON PEAY, SPORTSMEN FOR FISH AND 

WILDLIFE 

Mr. PEAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. 

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife represents several thousand 

Utahns who are conservation-minded sportsmen. They are in private lives doctors, lawyers, developers, engineers, electricians, good 

hardworking taxpayers. We are very concerned about wildlife, and 

we basically support this bill. 

There are a few pieces of language that we want to reemphasize 

why we feel it is important that they remain in this bill. Because 

of attempts to prohibit the use of modern wildlife management 

techniques in wilderness areas, both in Utah and in surrounding 
390 

states, we strongly recommend that the language regarding wildlife 

management in this bill remain. 

Let me just give you a couple examples. The High Uintas Wilderness Area was designated such in the Hansen/Garn bill in 1984. 

There has been some attempts to stop the stocking of fish in that 

area, and the interesting fact is that the Forest Service surveys show that 80 percent of the people who go there go there primarily 

to fish. 

Let me talk about some water development. In many of the arid 

western deserts, small, manmade water catchments called guzzlers often provide-mean the difference between life and death for 

many wildlife species in these areas. And conservation groups have 

gone and installed many of these guzzlers, and some wilderness advocates have requested that these water catchments be removed so 

that all things return to their natural state, and the natural state 

means no wildlife. 

Let me talk just a little bit about Bighorn sheep as a specific example. Fifteen years ago, Utah had one remaining isolated popu- lation of Bighorns, and I have heard throughout testimony that 

many wilderness advocates say that we have to designate land as 

wilderness to preserve Bighorns. But, in fact, the wilderness study 

area designation has actually prohibited or complicated the reestablishment of these animals to this magnificent landscape. 

Since 1980, Bighorn sheep hunting advocates have raised over $1 

million of private capital. We didn't come to the government and 

ask for money. We did this through fund-raisers, private donations 

to restore these animals. And for the last five years, I have had a 

great deal of involvement so I know just a little bit about what it 

takes to reestablish and maintain these wild sheep populations, the 

symbol of wilderness. 

There are now Bighorn sheep populations in the following pro- posed wilderness areas in this bill: the Fifty Mile Mountain, the 

Escalante River, Paria River, Dirty Devil River, Happy Canyon, Little Rockies, Westwater Canyon, Desolation Canyon, the Book 

Cliffs, Sids Mountain, and the entire San Rafael complex. Without using modem management tools potentially prohibited by wilderness designation, the very symbol of wilderness would not 

exist. Just this past January, I had a chance to be in a helicopter for a couple hours where we restored Bighorn sheep to the Desolation Canyon area. And without the use of helicopters for a couple hours, these animals would not exist in this magnificent area. 

Another interesting point is now that Bighorns have been restored to these areas, some wilderness advocates do not want to 

allow hunting them. I think it is most interesting that those who 

have contributed nothing to the restoration of these animals now 

want to control the management agenda. You think that wilderness is controversial? Mention predator control. And I just simply will use an explanation. I took my threeyear-old daughter to the Walt Disney movie the "Lion King," and 

in that deal, the hyenas get out of control, and they nearly destroy the pride lands. And the first thing that the Lion King does when 

he returns to the pride is he starts removing predators. Some people feel that predators are out of control in the West. 

I think there is no coincidence between the fact that their numbers 
391 

are at an all-time low, and coyote populations are at an all-time 

high. For these reasons, we are very supportive of the language in 

this bill that allows the state to have the wildlife management and 

including the specific language of water development, predator control, transplanting animals, stocking fish, hunting, fishing, and 

trapping. And we would also ask that you add aerial surveys, 

transplants, and/or surveillance via plane or helicopter to that language. For just a short-term, one- or two-hour use of these instruments of man, we can do great things for wildlife. 

I appreciate this opportunity, and we feel that this language in 

the bill is very important and would just ask that you work very 

diligently to make sure it stays in the bill. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Peay may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Peay. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Bill Rigby. Bill? 

STATEMENT OF BILL RIGBY, PRESIDENT, UTAH ASSOCIATION 

OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Mr. RIGBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify. My name is Bill Rigby, and 

I am a farmer, and I currently serve as President of the Utah Association of Conservation Districts. I represent Utah's 195 locally 

elected supervisors from our 39 soil conservation districts and the 

approximately 14,000 private agricultural landowners we represent. 

It is our vision to have a productive Utah in harmony with a 

quality environment. The perception that wilderness designation is 

required to protect our wildlands is unfounded. We do not see a 

widespread evidence of serious environmental problems on Bureau 

of Land Management lands. 

Rangeland trend is improving, and the number of wildlife are increasing dramatically. Existing Federal laws provide ample opportunity for public input on management policies on public lands. 

These lands belong to all the people, and their use should not be 

restricted to certain segments of the public. 

Wilderness designation is an economic loss to local economies. 

Some counties will have one-third of their lands in wilderness if 

the 5.7 million acres are designated. We also strongly support the 

hard release language in whatever bill is passed which will prevent 

later reconsideration of released areas for wilderness designation. 

The January 1995 Research Report 151 by five professors from 

Utah State University concludes: the economic gains from recreation which is one of the major uses consistent with wilderness appear to be inconsequential and probably would not offset the economic losses associated with a wilderness designation. The major 

beneficiaries of wilderness designation appear to be relatively to 

the young, the healthy, and the wealthy. 

The recommendation of 1.8 million acres or less of designated 

wilderness on Utah's BLM land is strongly supported by a majority 

of the people of Utah. A survey conducted by Dan Jones and Associates during the week of May 10, 1995, show that 48 percent 

wanted less than 2 million acres of wilderness and only 36 percent 

wanted the 5. 7 million acres. In addition, the public approved by 

a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent the process which arrived at 
392 

the 1.8 million acre alternative. There is already more land in Utah 

under Federal management and accessible to the citizens to experi- ence solitude than the entire state areas or land areas of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont combined. 

Only 20 percent of Utah is privately owned. No state in the 

union has as much national parks, national monuments, and wilderness area as does Utah with the exception of Alaska. Utah already has .08 million acres of national forest land designated as 

wilderness. Combined with the 1.8 million acres in the Utah delegation bill, the designated wilderness areas in Utah would exceed 

the entire land area of Delaware and half of Rhode Island. An option might be to auction public lands to the wilderness 

groups who could then manage them according to their own standards. This way the users can pay for the exclusive use of these 

areas through taxes to reimburse the counties. No sacrifice, it has 

been said, is too great for someone else to make as long as it is free 

to you. 

We believe the best management decisions are made closest to 

the resource base. Consequently, we strongly support the 1.8 million acres of wilderness designation recommended and developed by the Utah congressional delegation and Utah Governor Michael 0. 

Leavitt in concert with the 29 Utah counties as contained in House 

Bill1745. 

I attended the wilderness hearing at the University of Utah this 

spring which was attended mostly by young people advocating des- i~ation of large amounts of wilderness. I was unable to obtain a 

time slot to testify so I visited with 26 young people in groups of 

three or four in the hallways and talked about how we conservationists · have preserved and used and enhanced the natural resources and have in the process provided food and fiber for all 

America. 

I gave examples of the Heber Valley water story, the Burning· Creek watershed, and others. After explaining the principles of 

multiple use to them, not one was convinced that multiple use was 

the wrong way to go. New York City, faced with the prospects of having to build a $5 

billion filtration system for their culinary water supply, chose in-· stead to spend a tithe of that money to help the agricultural owners of the watershed install conservation plans on their farms 

which protect the water supply and save billions of dollars as well 

as conserve the food supply for that city. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again and members of the 

committee for allowing me to testify. We have faith in you, our 

elected representatives, to make the right decision once you have 

heard the true evidence of this issue. 

[Statement of Mr. Rigby may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. We appreciate your com·· ments. The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank the panel for some very interesting testimony. Mr. Parker, 

there are some land exchange provisions in H.R. 17 45. Are you fa-· miliar with those provisions?" 

Mr. PARKER. I have read them, yes. 
393 

Mr. HINCHEY. Are you familiar enough to describe the impact of 

the change, the Federal lands vis-a-vis the state lands, and what 

the impact would be, and are there any coal or gas leases on any of those Federal lands to your knowledge? 

Mr. PARKER. On the Federal lands that would be exchanged? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PARKER. I haven't seen the map so I am not familiar with 

where those specific lands are that are proposed for exchange. There are obviously some-probably some leases on state lands and 

probably on the Federal lands because there are extensive leases 

throughout Utah. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. That is true. I just thought that you might be a little bit more familiar with it. 

Mr. PARKER. I haven't seen the actual map so it is hard to tell 

from the language. I think the exchange issue is a problematic one, 

however, and takes a great deal of time and negotiation to do an 

exchange and particularly trying to determine the values, that even 

professional appraisers have a hard time trying to do values on 

those areas because they are very large, and sometimes the mineral estate is unknown. That is very difficult. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. I appreciate that. It is very complicated. 

Mr. PARKER. There is, however, some precedent for doing an 

acre-to-acre kind of exchange. That was done in grants. It was done 

in loose elections and so forth so there is some precedent for that 

kind of language. 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK Thank you. You mentioned in your testimony the problem of management which is something that you are familiar with as a former person who ran the BLM in that region. Axe 

there any aspects ofH.R. 1745 or H.R. 1500 that would make management more difficult or more complex? 

Mr. PARKER. I think there are many. The more cherry-stemming there is in an area, obviously, the more difficult management becomes. If you put a boundary on the edge of a road where people 

can drive off of that road, it is much easier to do an intrusion than 

if you put the boundaries, say, at the top of a cliff or in an area 

where it is not accessible to drive to. 

For example, one time the salt flats were considered as a 

roadless area which basically they are although cars drive on them 

all the time. But manageability would be impossible there because 

it is difficult to mark the boundaries, difficult to manage that. 

Some of the areas in H.R. 1500 I know would be very difficult 

because they include other agency lands in some instances if I understand them right. They also include cultivated fields, houses, 

other intrusions. So that would need to be looked at very carefully. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Cultivated fields and houses in the wilderness 

areas? 

Mr. PARKER. In those proposed in H.R. 1500 or at least in the 

coalition's book, ''Wilderness on the Edge." 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Peay, you talked about the management of 

wildlife which I think is very important. I was just wondering if 

there is a cooperative relationship between BLM and the state division of wildlife, whatever that might be, within the environmental 

conservation department or whatever it might be called in Utah? 
394 

Mr. PEAY. Yes. There is cooperative agreements, but when it 

comes down to final decisions, as I understand the law and the protocol, the state manages wildlife and the Federal agency manages 

the land. 

Mr. HINCHEY. And the twain never meet? I mean, do they get together and talk? Axe they able to work things out from time to 

time? 

Mr. PEAY. Oh, I think in general there is an attempt, but there 

is definitely times when there is a differing opinion. 

Mr. HINCHEY. And the differing opinion is of such a magnitude 

that it is a serious impediment to cooperative relationships for 

wildlife management purposes? 

Mr. PEAY. We would like to see the language in this bill so that 

wildlife can be managed, and that is why we are encouraged about 

the language in this bill. 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Parker, we appreciate 

you coming and offering your advice and insights on this process. 

Now, in 1980 or '81, you were in Washington working as an Assistant Deputy to the then BLM Director Mr. Buford. Is that right? 

What was your role? I didn't--

Mr. PARKER. I was the Associate Director. 

Mr. VENTO. But what was your experience in Utah before that? 

Mr. PARKER. I had never served in Utah. I had served in the 

Washington office, in Idaho, and in Colorado. 

Mr. VENTO. But you weren't in Utah? 

Mr. PARKER. I have never been in Utah. 

Mr. VENTO. But you are familiar with the process? 

Mr. PARKER. I grew up in Utah, but I, you know, hadn't worked 

for BLM. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I was just wondering because you seemed to be, 

you know, testifying to some of the specifics with regards-but then 

in '88 you went there and served as the State Director. I note in 

your testimony, and, of course, you dealt with the appeal process 

in the lands that were included. One of the things that came out 

in the testimony was were the rules at that time in Utah such that 

they precluded the inclusion of state trust sections in terms of consideration for wilderness because there was a mixed ownership pattern? Was that the policy at that time? 

Mr. PARKER. No. The policy has never changed as far as I know, 

and that policy was developed in--

Mr. VENTO. Well, is the policy correct? 

Mr. PARKER. The policy was that if, as I understand it, there was 

a state section on the boundary of a wilderness area that it would 

be excluded; meaning that you would come up to that and then exclude the state section. Those that were inside were left inside, but 

if it was on the boundary, then they would be excluded. 

Mr. VENTO. But there was a disparate effect of that in terms of 

administration, wasn't there? I mean, the question about administering those particular sites would make it extremely difficult 

without a natural land form type ofboundary, wouldn't it? 

Mr. PARKER. That is correct. 
395 

Mr. VENTO. I mean, from a management standpoint, it would 

make sense. 

Mr. PARKER. That was an arbitrary decision to try to avoid as 

much conflict as possible. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that policy has changed so it is something we 

could look at. From a good management standpoint, it would make 

more sense to follow the watershed or follow the ridge. Right? 

Mr. PARKER. Yes. The state is in a little different position at this 

time. The State of Utah had taken a position they would not exchange out any of those lands. They wanted to hold onto them. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I know. We had the Scott Matheson version of 

consolidation. Then we got a different version of confrontation. 

Mr. PARKER. Well, and that has gone back and forth over the 

years depending on--

Mr. VENTO. Well, you are more of an expert and Mr. Hansen is 

than I on that. But, in any case, the situation in Utah is unique 

with regards to these state sections pretty much, isn't it; I mean, 

in terms of the breadth and the number of them and so forth? 

Mr. PARKER. There are four states who were similar to Utah 

when they received four sections per township so there are four 

other states, New Mexico, Arizona--

Mr. VENTO. But they have actually resolved much of that, have 

they not? 

Mr. PARKER. They have worked through that. 

Mr. VENTO. And Utah is unique in not working through it? 

Mr. PARKER. And Utah is a little bit unique because they didn't 

dispose of the state sections perhaps on the scale that some of the 

other states did. 

Mr. VENTO. I note that, Mr. Peay, you are now managing those 

guzzlers in those water sites in some 3.2 million acres of wilderness 

study areas. Is that correct? 

Mr. PEAY. There are some there. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. And have you had a problem? 

Mr. PEAY. Yes. If you look and attached to my testimony there 

is an article from the Arizona Wildlife Review where it talks about 

they actually request to come and have those removed. I know in 

some other states such as Nevada it has been very difficultMr. VENTO. I mean, in Utah have you had a problem with these 

3.2 million acres? 

Mr. PEAY. I can't think of a specific one, but I do know that--

Mr. VENTO. OK You know, you might want to share it with us 

at some point if it comes. You know, the point is, of course, and 

I think Jim Parker pointed out that they have problems with the 

language because they want to be able to-you know, as the manager that is responsible for the land, they w6uld like to have a 

voice in this, working with the state and working with-and, of 

course, working with the state is what your preference is. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. PEAY. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean, they had the game and fish, but they just 

want it when they are dealing with the mechanized or other types 

of use, how they are going to service those guzzlers and so forth. 

That is important. 
396 

Mr. PEAY. In the case of Nevada, they wanted them removed just 

because they said it was a visual problem. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I don't know. I mean, there may be alternatives to that. Some of this is preexisting and some of it-you 

know, so I don't know. The situation in Nevada is with wilderness 

study areas too because we haven't designated the BLM lands 

there yet. But you haven't had that problem at least to your knowledge right now that you can point to in Utah? 

Mr. PEAY. No. 

Mr. VENTO. OK Mr. Parker, I notice a few other concerns here. 

You talked about, you know, the cherry-stemming went on. Did you 

look at the provisions in the bill which widen the rights-of-way in 

a way that would be unique here, where they are widened 100 and 

300 feet in some instances in terms of the rights-of-way? 

Mr. PARKER. Setbacks-the policy of the Department has normally been a setback always from a road. The real question there 

is is it a right-of-way or isn't it? And that has never been resolved.. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the points you pointed out in the wilderness 

study area is that the R.S. 2477 issues were already settled. 

Mr. PARKER. They were settled administratively. The only way 

they can be eventually settled is through the Courts. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we got some ideas about doing it differently, 

but it created a lot of uncertainty when we wanted to get into recordation of those. Of course, it caused a major hullabaloo because 

it is never enough time and it is never the right criteria. The provisions here with regard to land, I also notice that you were concerned about those provisions for land exchange and that they 

ought to be on an equal value basis with the BLM lands. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. PARKER. Well, I was just pointing out that land exchanges 

are a very difficult problem, and to get that kind of agreement--

Mr. VENTO. Well, you pointed out the legislative solution was not 

a very good one or you didn't think it was. 

Mr. PARKER. Well, based on my experience over the years with 

this committee and watching legislation. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know. 

Mr. PARKER. It has been very difficult to get that kind of thing 

through. 

Mr. VENTO. We want to get a professional view here for my colleague who is very interested in your professional views so I hope 

that-you know, I am willing obviously to try to work on this, but 

I think at some particular point we have got to get bench marks 

that are, you know, calibrated properly, Mr. Chairman, in terms of 

that. I understand the concern in the issue. 

Incidentally, when I was talking to the school superintendent, he 

said $1.8 billion a year is spent on schools of which $22 million apparently comes from the state trust lands. So you can see it is a 

small part of a bigger funding picture but, nevertheless, a very essential one if you are the school district that happens to be getting 

some of that money. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 

Mr. Wallentine, you have been Executive Director of the Utah 

Farm Bureau for many years, very knowledgeable about the statE!, 

and I would like to ask you and Mr. Bill Rigby, who I know has 
397 

a vast knowledge in agriculture, both of you, how would you assess 

the impact of H.R. 1500 if that should be passed in its present 

state as far as the economy of the State of Utah? 

Mr. W ALLENTINE. I think the best way to respond to that, Mr. 

Chairman, is to say that any problem that is created for grazing 

or water development or maintenance that would be created by a 

wilderness designation, and there are some that would naturally 

occur, would be severely exacerbated by H.R. 1500 because it expands so dramatically the number of acres that are involved. 

And in Utah, whether you are in a city or on a farm or in an 

industrial application, almost every drop of water originates on 

public land. And I include the water drawn from underground 

aquifers which originates on those higher mountain areas or those 

lower lying BLM lands. And so I just have to say that those numbers of acres that are involved in H.R. 1500 would dramatically exacerbate those kinds of problems. 

I have to say, if you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, that while 

this language of your bill and I think the honest attitude of the 

members of this committee who are supportive of H.R. 1500 is that 

grazing should continue in a wilderness area, nevertheless, the 

hearing in Richfield, Utah, held last year by the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee clearly demonstrated that the 

proponents of H.R. 1500 in some measure absolutely believed livestock should be excluded from grazing on public lands and certainly within wilderness areas. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Rigby, would you want to respond to that same 

question? 

Mr. RIGBY. I sure do. You know, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this 

opportunity because these wilderness areas, even in the smaller 

ones and the bigger ones would be even worse, are subject to lightning and other forms of fire being set in those areas. 

A couple of years ago, we had a serious fire 1:!-t the head of Upper 

Immigration Canyon which part of that fit into the wilderness 

area. And we had a hard time going in and repairing those riparian 

areas that flooded Salt Lake City and would have flooded it a great deal worse if our conservation groups hadn't been allowed in there. 

The cost of going into these areas is tremendous when you have to 

do it all on foot. 

And so, yes, we are really seriously hurt, and the conservation 

issues are hurt, and the people of the state are hurt because the 

floods come down and they don't care where they go. They take the 

farmers as well as the city people with it. So we see it as a greatit just influences for the worst. 

And these riparian areas out in the other areas-for instance, we 

just read in the paper the other night where these conservation 

groups in the Southwest Utah Alliance was complaining about 

jeeps running up and down the creeks. We go in there, and where 

we have cattle grazing, we don't allow that. We keep those out as 

much as we can. We don't have complete control, but most of the 

conservation work done in this areas is done by the Utah Association of Conservation Districts, and this helps enhance the income 

of those farmers and the recreation of the people involved. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Peay, as you know, the wilderness 

bill per se does not talk about wildlife. A lot of people try to get 
398 

it to do it, but it doesn't. It talks about reserving certain lands. But 

there is an inherent thought, and it may be a good one, that wilderness would be good for wildlife, that it would perpetuate wildlife; untouched, man doesn't manage it, no cutting of timber, no 

water, no things such as that. 

However, as you know, Utah State University is a land grant college, and many of our experts that work for BLM, Forest Service, 

Park Service, Fish and Wildlife come from schools such as that. w.~ 

have heard testimony many times that in those areas where it is 

not managed that it does not perpetuate wildlife. Do you agree with that conclusion? 

Mr. PEAY. In general, yes. A lot of the wildlife groups that I deal 

with spend a great amount of money to go in and do some habitat 

manipulation, some water development to help perpetuate wildlifi~ 

over the long-term. So I would agree that just wilderness on its 

own designation isn't the best thing in all cases. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the Chairman yield? 

Mr. HANSEN. I stand corrected. I know it does talk about wildlif1~ 

in there somewhat. I knew I would get corrected by the institutional memory of the committee. 

Mr. VENTO. "Nothing in the Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction and responsibility of several states with respect to 

wildlife and fish in the national forests." Of course, this is the Wilderness Act. I don't know why it says national forests. Maybe we 

have to amend that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. We could. Referring to cutting of timber, the people from those schools tell us that there is more elk calving, there is 

more possibility of wildlife in an area that is managed than an area 

that is not managed. And do you concur with that? 

Mr. PEAY. I have spent a fair amount of time on the north slope of the Uintas which is right on the edge of the High Uintas Wilderness Area, and there is definitely a problem there. And I have sat 

there with one professional wildlife manager who said the best 

thing that could happen would be to torch a fire in there and clear 

out some of the habitat that would perpetuate more grass and 

more opportunity for elk and moose and Bighorn sheep. And, in fact, on the outside edge of the wilderness, the Forest 

Service has gone in and has done burns to make more habitat 

available for the Bighorn sheep population and the elk population that is there. So I guess our school of thought is a firm believer 

in some manipulation by man. 

Mr. HANSEN. If the committee will permit me, Mr. Parker, you indicated that you have worked in various areas for BLM. Has this 

been your life's work, working for the Federal Government and the 

Bureau of Land Management? Mr. PARKER. I have spent 33 years with the Federal Government. 

I have been also on the outside during some of that time. 

Mr. HANSEN. And, Mr. Parker, your last position with BLM was 

Director of the BLM in the State of Utah. Is that right? Mr. PARKER. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. How long did you serve there? 

Mr. PARKER. I started in 1988. I retired last June. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Parker basically is a modest man, but he is re- puted to be one of the experts, and we have always held him in 
399 

that esteem, as a true land manager and worked with BLM, considered a professional. You were not an appointed person politi- cally? 

Mr. PARKER. During the time that I served as Associate Director 

of the Bureau, I was a political appointee. Mr. HANSEN. They all are. 

Mr. PARKER. And I left the career service and then returned back 

to--

Mr. HANSEN. In that position but they were taken from profes- sional people and put in those positions. Is that right? 

Mr. PARKER. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Now, you were there when the BLM made their 

designation of 1.9. Is that right? Or 1.95, whatever it is. 

Mr. PARKER. By there do you mean in Utah? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. You were director at the time that was made? 

Mr. PARKER. No. That was done under Roland Robinson. 

Mr. HANsE.N. That is when Rolly Robinson was there. Roland 

Robinson has basically spent his life in the same type of thing as 

I recall. Do you feel there was any political persuasion on that, or 

was that done strictly on professional criteria? 

Mr. PARKER. As far as I know, it was done strictly on profes- sional criteria. I think there was an effort to protect, in fact, the 

political influences from pushing too much. At that time, Secretary Watt was Secretary. He had some very strong opinions, as this 

committee knows, on certain subjects, but I think there was a concerted effort to let the professionals make a professional decision 

there. 

Mr. HANSEN. I surely agree that Secretary Watt had strong opin- ions. Let me ask you this. In your experience with all of the people that worked for you in the State of Utah, were they professional people? 

Mr. PARKER. Yes. I think they tried very hard to be. 

Mr. HANSEN. You would trust their conclusions? 

Mr. PARKER. Yes, I would. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you feel that the criteria that they came up with 

when they inventoried the 3.2 was done in a professional manner? 

Mr. P AP..KER. Criteria that was used, and I think on page three 

or page four of my testimony talks some about that, it came out 

of a national level handbook that was developed starting in 1978. 

It was done with a great deal of public input, some 60 meetings, 

a lot of consultation with the Forest Servjce and others who had 

had experience in doing that before. There were 5,000 written comments. So that criteria was a national criteria. 

Mr. HA..N"SEN. To the best of your--

Mr. PARKER. I believe it was applied in Utah in a professional 

manner. 

Mr. HANSEN. To the best of your knowledge, was the 1.9 what 

you feel would fit the criteria of the 1964 wilderness bill? 

Mr. PARKER. Yes, I think so. You have to understand what the 

BLM professionals were doing. They weren't making a recommendation. They were identifying lands that were suitable to be 

considered for wilderness. The Secretary was required then two 

years after that point to make a recommendation, and the President made a recommendation. But the BLM professionals were 
400 

only inventorying, studying, and identifying what could be considered for designation as wilderness. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, of course, we have 22 million acres of BLM. 

The professionals found 3.2 that would maybe qualify as wilderness 

that cost thousands of man hours, $10 million, and they tell us it 

was 3.2, and of that they pulled it down to 1.9. You have heard the 

testimony of the lady from BLM now saying that she had questions about it. What did you glean out of her testimony? Mr. PARKER. That is a difficult question. Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Parker no longer works for BLM. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you want to yield to me? 

Mr. HANSEN. I would be happy to yield. Mr. VENTO. Well, 1.9 was a political decision that was made by the President. It wasn't made by the professionals. Is that right, Mr. Parker? 

Mr. PARKER. The 1.9 decision was a decision made by the state 

director that 1.9 million acres qualified to be considered for wilderness. 

Mr. VENTO. And then it goes to the President. 

Mr. PARKER. There was a series of screens that thoseMr. VENTO. Well, 1.9 was actually raised to 3.2, but I am not 

talking about that. We know that it w~s 3.2 million that was actually studied because on appeal some went back in. 

Mr. PARKER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. But I am talking about once the 3.2 was studied, then it went to the President. That was a political decision for the 

President to send the 1.9, wasn't it? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, if the gentleman would yield back? I reclaim 

my time. I would appreciate it. 

Mr. VENTO. Sure, sure. 

Mr. HANSEN. The 3.2 was what the professionals assumed was 

the most amount of the 22 million acres that would qualify as wilderness? 

Mr. PARKER. For study. Mr. HANSEN. For study, right. Mr. PARKER. They started with 22 million acres, inventoried 

that. They immediately threw out of that what obviously didn't 

qualify for wilderness. That was--

Mr. HANSEN. The professionals said 3.2. 

Mr. PARKER. That went down. There was a 5 million figure that 

was looked at, and then that eventually got down to 3.2 that was 

intensively studied. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, isn't it true that there was a number of areas 

that they looked at? As I recall reading volumes of it, they had one 

designation they called 1.4 which is referred to as the Paramount 

Plan. Is that correct? 

Mr. PARKER. That was an alternative in theMr. HANSEN. And they said that was the most pristine of all of 

it that would qualify-the Paramount. Then they had the 1.9, and 

there were four or five plans as I recall reading. Mr. VENTO. Well, I think though-- Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman. 
401 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I appreciate it. I think the point was that the 

study actually appealed a lot. There was 30 days and some that 

didn't get done. I mean, that was a problem. In spite of all of the 

efforts to be inclusive, there were areas that were-because of the 

30-day period, but the appeal board did include up to 3.2 million 

acres. Then they studied that intensely. Then it went to the then 

either Bush or Reagan Administration and made a political decision that recommended the 1.9. And then, of course, you received 

it, and you made a decision that put forth 1.8, and you had some 

areas that are outside the WSAs in your--

Mr. PARKER. That is true. That is true. 

Mr. VENTO. So, I mean, there is nothing wrong with making political decisions. I guess the Clinton Administration said that they 

wanted to do something different. Now they are making a political 

decision. 

Mr. HANSEN. But the decision was predicated on the advice of 

the experts from the BLM is what we qualify and not so much that 

the President of the United States or the Secretary of Interior said 

this is what it will be. They just rubber stamp what they receive 

from the BLM experts. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know if that was the-I don't know what they 

had received. My impression was that they gave him the 3.2 million and then a political decision was made after the study was 

done. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VENTO. The Chairman has the time. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would be happy to yield. I think I pretty well exhausted my time. We can go around again with these folks. I will 

recognize the lady for five minutes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I just simply wanted to state that I 

think that what Mr. Parker is stating is that they followed precisely what the FLPMA law requires. I mean, it requires that the 

Bureau of Land Management go out and access those areas that 

may have characteristics of wilderness; report back to the Secretary; the Secretary makes a decision or the President. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. If the gentlewoman would yield, there is an appeal process that provides where there is a contested or concern 

where you can bring it back before an appeal group, and then that 

becomes part of-if this objective group makes a decision, then they 

can include that in the WSAs. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is after the Secretary makes their decision? 

Mr. VENTO. No. That is prior to. That is part of the professional 

part. There is no political involvement. The Secretary, of course, is 

a political appointee as was Mr. Parker at one time when he 

worked for the director. So it is not a process I was-I mean, we 

are going through-! am sure we will hear more about it from the 

next panel, but I just wanted to make the point that there is nothing wrong with making political decisions. That is our job, and that 

is the job of the Secretaries. They are political appointees, and they 

make them. They recommend it. This Administration has done it. 

The previous Administrations have done it. That is their responsibility and right. 
402 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I did want to ask, 

Mr. Parker, I was very interested in a statement-well, actually 

two statements that you made. Number 1 was that you spent some 

time in Idaho, my state, and I hope you enjoyed it. Where were you. located there? 

Mr. PARKER. In Boise. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In Boise. 

Mr. PARKER. We enjoyed it very much. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. Good. I do too. You mentioned that the 

trust lands or school endowment lands were disposed of in a manner that was unlike the disposition in other states. 

Mr. PARKER. I believe I said I think that the State of Utah did 

not dispose of their trust lands to the extent that some other states 

did such as Arizona where they were sold off into private ownership. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I see. 

Mr. PARKER. Those that were scattered throughout the areas 

that we are talking about, most of them are still there as school 

trust lands. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So were they set aside on every 16th section 

or something like--

Mr. PARKER. There were four sections per township. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I see. 

Mr. PARKER. The states that came in toward the end got a better 

deal than those that started out earlier. They got two sections or 

started with one but then two, and then finally the last four got four sections. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Peay-- Mr. PEAY. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH [continuing]. I enjoyed your testimony in large 

part because in Idaho about 20 years ago we brought in about six 

breeding pair of California Bighorn sheep. And because there was 

a good working relationship between our Federal land managers and our ranchers, that population of Bighorn sheep has expanded 

to the point that two years ago they counted 1,800 in Idaho. And 

then there is another big herd that has moved over into eastern 

Oregon. So it worked out so well, what you envision. And, in fact, 

last year they moved a number of breeding pair into other states. 

So you are so right, sir. 

You know, it is just like what happened when Lewis and Clark 

came over the Lolo Pass. Without management of a resource, there 

was no game there although there was lots of forest. There was no 

game, and that was the only time Lewis and Clark nearly starved 

to death. And so we do have a place in the puzzle here. And I was 

amused at your comment that they were taking the guzzlers away because they are not a natural state, but neither are clothes or cars 

or medicine or a lot of things. So I think that in reading the attachments that you put on your testimony which were very good and very interesting, one of the 

most frustrating things that you experience as well as us is there 

is no middle ground once we get into the wilderness mode. There 

is no middle ground in working with the experts. And I thank you for bringing those points out. 
403 

I did want to ask, Booth, which predators are listed as predators in Utah? Is the coyote listed as a predator in Utah? The wolf? 

Mr. WALLENTINE. Well, yes, the coyote. We don't have a wolf 

problem yet, although I think you will be sending that to us soon 

from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Oh, but to anybody. Mr. W ALLENTINE. And we have cougars-coyotes and cougars. Mountain lions are our primary predator problems. Mrs. CHENOWETH. And I found it interesting that in your testimony you said the Utah Farm Bureau supported the legislation because you were promised no restrictions on predator control, graz- ing, water rights, and water structure maintenances, and no buffer 

zones. And then the Forest Service rules and management decisions have not honored those promises. 

Mr. WALLENTINE. Very soon we found the Forest Service managers in the Wasatch Cache Forest, for example, placing a threshold which we found no basis for in law saying that a rancher would 

have to lose four percent of his sheep herd-of his lamb crop before 

predator control in any manner could be applied, and, further, aerial control of predators which was existing prior to the wilderness 

designation was outlawed completely. And this committee heard testimony from one of the ranchers in 

Utah while the committee sat there last weekend who has suffered 

very severely from that. Those of you who are aware of it realize 

we are losing 580 sheep operations per month in this country, and 

that isn't all because of predators by any means, but predators add 

to that problem. And that is why we made that comment. 

We did. We supported vigorously, the Farm Bureau did, the 1984 

Forest Service Wilderness bill. We believe wilderness and grazing operations can be compatible. The problem comes when land managers are appealed again and again and again on their decisions, 

and the appeal process has been so extended and stays have been 

issued that it has just become very uneconomical in many instances to survive with grazing operations in wilderness areas, and 

predator control is one of those, Mrs. Chenoweth, that has been a 

particular problem to us. 

I don't wish to characterize all the land managers as being antigrazing, but there certainly are some, and those who are in 

those kinds of positions who team up, as it were, with the avowed 

determination by some wilderness advocates to eliminate cattle 

grazing and sheep grazing in wilderness areas find a receptive 

manager, and that has been some of the problem that we have experienced. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, and I do see that my time is up, and I respect that, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to make one 

comment that in large part because we are beginning to move the 

grazers off the public lands, not only out of the wilderness areas 

but off some of the multiple use land areas, that is in large part 

one of the main reasons why we lost 8.124 billion board feet of timber to fire-is because when we had grazing in the forest, we were 

able to keep the understory down to a manageable quantity, and 

it didn't dry out. So you indicated in your testimony that you urged that we put specific management directives in the guidelines in 

this law? 
404 

Mr. WALLENTINE. Yes, ma'am. And the bill references the report language from the 1980 Idaho colloquy that was there, and we are 

just saying in order to make sure that land managers don't just pull out the new public law if this Congress passes H.R. 1745 and 

refer to it and fail to go to those directives, we say put her right in the law. Make it very clear. The Forest Service had to put out 

some management directives after that 1980 report language that 

said, ''You will allow grazing." 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And I do appreciate the fact that you have 

suggested that Congress hold periodic oversight hearings on graz- ing in wilderness areas across the West, and I thank you for that, 

and I personally would like to make sure we follow up on that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the issue of graz- ing, Mr. Wallentine mentioned that some people are opposed to 

grazing, and I am sure that that is correct. But I just wanted to 

stipulate for the record that--

Mr. VENTO. With or without wilderness. 

Mr. HINCHEY. With or without wilderness. That is right. I just wanted to stipulate for the record that H.R. 1500 doesn't restrict 

grazing or doesn't prevent grazing. The bill, in fact, allows grazing, and I think that is appropriate. So I just wanted to stipulate that 

for the record. I think you know that. 

Mr. W ALLENTINE. Yes, sir. I am aware of that. I know that in 

this room I testified before the Honorable Mr. Seiberling, and I 

think he as Chair of this committee and the members of the committee honestly believed that their legislative language provided for grazing to continue. 

The problem, sir, is that the language of this bill needs to be 

highly specific about that so that it makes it very clear to the land 

managers they have no choice but to say no to these wilderness activists who say, "Let us get rid of the livestock." And let us stop them from painting signs or painting over the signs on wilderness 

areas that say horses are allowed, for example, and that type of 

thing. 

Now, I know that this committee can't manage the behavior of 

all people. I understand that. And neither do I wish to characterb:e 

all wilderness proponents as of that mind-set. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Right. Well, that is very true. There are people 

who will act up, you know, in various ways that are unpredictable 

and sometimes unpalatable. But the fact is that grazing is per- mitted in wilderness areas, and it is permitted in this bill. And I 

think it is important to state that for the record, and I am happy that it is on the record now. 

I just wanted to ask Mr. Parker, H.R. 1745 allows certain 

nonwilderness activities such as cherry-stem roads in the 1.8 million acres of wilderness area. If those activities had been observed 

on that wilderness area prior to the designation, would that have 

been an impediment to its being found as wilderness for study or 

for designation purposes? Mr. PARKER. The definition of roads has been very problematic of what was a road, what was a way. Administratively, it was decided if it is inside of a WSA, it is a way rather than a road. I 
405 

thought that was a rather arbitrary decision. You could look and 

see a road that continued on into a WSA that looked like a road 

but was really a way. Mr. HINCHEY. But if you are starting from scratch and you are 

just making a determination whether or not acreage should be either designated a wilderness or put in a wilderness study category, if you found those cherry-stem roads out there, that would be an 

impediment, I assume, to either putting it in the study category or 

subject for designation? Mr. PARKER. I mean, the reason for cherry-stemming is to get it 

out of the designated wilderness or out of the WSA, either one, so 

it wouldn't be there. But those kind of intrusions obviously invite 

other problems from a management standpoint. Mr. HINCHEY. It wouldn't be there? What do you mean? What 

wouldn't be there? 

Mr. PARKER. The definition of wilderness-part of it is roadless. 

So the reason--

Mr. HINCHEY. No. I guess I am not making myself clear. 

Mr. PARKER. The reason you cherry-stem is to avoid that issue 

so you draw a line around that road. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Excuse me, sir. I am not making myself clear ap- parently. There is an area that is BLM land. BLM is now studying it to determine whether or not some portion of it should be determined wilderness or put into the wilderness study category. If you 

go out there as the BLM employee who is engaged in that activity and you find cherry-stemmed roads, is that going to act as an impediment to your putting it into the study category for wilderness 

or designation? 

Mr. PARKER. There was no such thing as cherry-stemmed roads 

until the inventory was completed. Basically, BLM used the maps that had been prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, and if there 

were roads shown on those maps, they identified them as roads. 

The problem with roads particularly in Utah under 2477 is that 

they are undocumented. So there is nothing on paper that tells you who owns that road, how wide it is, other than whatever factual 

information you can collect. Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I know that, but I guess-- Mr. PARKER. In the inventory process. Mr. HINCHEY. I can't get you to answer my question. Mr. PARKER. In the inventory process they used the USGS maps. Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I mean, I know all that. I know all that. But 

if you are out there and you are looking at a piece of land, and it 

is your job to make a judgment as to whether or not it should be 

put into study or designated wilderness and you find some roads 

on it, is that going to be an impediment to your putting it into the 

study category? 

Mr. PARKER. It would, certainly. 

Mr. HINCHEY. It would. Mr. PARKER. A good example of that, and this is one that has 

had a lot of criticism, is Labyrinth Canyon and the river goes down 

the middle. Half of that is in a WSA, half isn't. The reason the 

other half isn't is because there are roads that are maintained by BLM on the other side of the river so that would have gone out because of the road issue. 
406 

Mr. HINCHEY. OK. Well, thank you. 

Mr. PARKER. Because that was one of the basic parts of the inventory was to determine is it roadless or not. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you want to move along. I just had a question of Mr. Wallentine. Obviously wilderness is a 

nonconsumptive use of water. I understand that there are certain 

restrictions in terms of maintaining structures or establishing new 

structures where they may be a use of water such as for grazing. But insofar as it is nonconsumptive and you were concerned about 

recharging aquifers, how can a nonconsumptive use prevent the 

recharging of an aquifer? I mean, it seems to me that the watershed itself and the areas sometime we refer to as fossil water 

would be, in fact, enhanced by nonconsumptive type of an allocation of water to wilderness. 

Mr. WALLENTINE. Well, I don't think I said, sir, that wilderness 

impeded the recharge of underground aquifers. The problem is I 

was pointing out that in Utah the water rises basically upon public lands, and increasingly with our rapidly growing population it becomes necessary for municipalities and industrial users to acquire 

water from agricultural land users, and that frequently involves a 

change in the point of diversion, and that usually means they need 

to get on to the--

Mr. VENTO. You know, I mean, the point is, of course, what we 

are really saying in a nice way is that you could dewater-you know, it might dewater these areas, and you would be impeded from dewatering it. But obviously since it is nonconsumptive, it 

just finds a different source or point I guess to try to do it so it 

doesn't adversely affect those lands. I mean, we have got to find a 

solution to this. We are going to try, and I just want to make sure 

I understood, and I am sorry if I misunderstood or misstated your position. 

The other issue with regards to, of course, grazing is that very often these areas are hot desert areas in terms of grazing. And, for 

instance, some of the testimony that we had at Cedar City, which 

was very good, but I think it didn't-afterwards it was called to my attention that actually there was a change in terms of the conditions of the forage during the late 'SO's when the changes occurred. 

Indeed, the letter that was sent to the witness talked about an 

overall change. He only had part of his area in wilderness, and it 

talked about an overall change in terms of the number of AUMs 

on that land. And only part of it was in wilderness, and obviously he was giving a lot more credit-he was giving all the credit to that 

particular problem. So, you know, it differs from manager to manager. 

We hope there are all those good professionals like Mr. Parker 

here working there, but, you know, in these hot desert areas, these 

permits, as we get new information and we find out what the impact is, you know, you have got different responsibilities, if you have got tortoise-incidentally, when someone commented about 

the fact that forests were-I mean, actually the problem in these 

hot desert areas is that the cows take up most of the natural for- age, and, you know, you end up with cheat grass, tumbleweed, and 

mugo pine. And so then you have got to chain it, don't you, Mr. 

Parker? Something which I had some concerns about. And so the 
407 

case here is you get the wood, and then they have to do something 

to modify it in those hot desert areas. That is the cycle that occurs 

there, and you would lose the sagebrush, and the other things are 

also, of course, chained out at that particular point. Mr. W ALLENTINE. Mr. Chairman, may I comment about the 

witness's testimony in Cedar City? Mr. Iverson was approached by the forest ranger and specifically told that he, the forest ranger, 

was receiving pressure from wilderness advocates about cattle 

being in the wilderness area and would they cut back. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean, my point, Mr. Chairman, is, I mean, you are 

going to get pressure from anyone if they don't-you know, there 

is going to be a dynamic here in terms of dealing with the per- mitted use and grazing permits in certain areas. That is going to 

be an issue, but wilderness itself may or may not. 

You know, maybe ACECs or NCAs would or any type of use 

would where it is a highly, you know, used area that there be concern, just like there is concern about horses, as you mentioned. 

From time to time if you have to walk on those paths where the 

horses have gone, you might have some different-you know, I 

have some different thoughts once in a while on the horses. When 

I am riding, it is different than when I am walking through it. Mr. 

Chairman, I will cease and desist at this point. I am sorry. Mr. W ALLENTINE. Mr. Chairman, may I say one moreMr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from Idaho had another question. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I was sort of fascinated 

with my colleagues' comments, both Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Vento. 

They have sat on this committee, have a..r1 awfully lot of knowledge, but I think that the one point that I wanted to make that I hear 

from our witnesses and that we are certainly experiencing in both 

Utah and Idaho is without regard to what H.R. 1500 may propose 

or FLPMA may already state or the Wilderness Act of 1964 may already state. 

The real facts are that we are no longer able to graze as the law 

allows us to graze, and it is not a matter of the condition of the 

range or the condition of the forest. It is driven by political decisions. And I so much want to be able to convey that because that 

is the frustration that we are all feeling. Mr. HINCHEY. When did that happen? Mrs. CHENOWETH. The law says one thing, and like Mr. 

Wallentine said on page seven of his testimony, "The problem appears to be getting the agencies to do what the Congress intends." 

And that is our bottom line problem. We could write laws till--

Mr. VENTO. If the gentlewoman would yield to me? I mean, we 

have given them a lot of tasks and that they have to work with. 

It is a much more complex equation today than it was in the past because you have problems like the-you know, we talk a lot about 

the Endangered Species Act, and I don't want to put it all on that, 

but I think that our knowledge and understanding of what goes on 

is a much more complex equation than it once was in terms of 

what the impact is, whether we in hot desert areas know we are 

permitted grazing, thousand acres per cow or more in some areas, how that fits in and what that does to the landscape. And so you 

may want to have a lighter touch, a lighter hand on the range in 
408 

terms of what you do. And it is hard to manage that, and with 

fewer people it is harder yet. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And I think the Taylor Grazing Act and even 

FLPMA manage that very well, and even today the permit is a private property right that people pay taxes on. And so the only 

changes in the number are the AUMs that are allowed out on the 

range based on the condition of the range. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, it is a permit with certain-and I understand 

the cultural and the importance of it. I also don't want to make it 

something it isn't, but I think that it is a permit and a privilege, 

and there is a lot of problems. And I think that Secretary Babbitt 

was working toward that in terms of trying to bring about how you 

find the right structure to, in fact, get those policies so that they 

are understood and so we don't have the type of confrontation. 

Here we are dealing with really something that we can't deal 

with on this committee. We can set in place policies. We have tried 

to do it, and they are working imperfectly, and I hear that, Mrs. 

Chenoweth. I appreciate your--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I just 

want to close by saying a driver's license is a privilege, and I don't 

pay taxes on that driver's license. But a permit to graze is a private property right, and it goes with the place, and they pay taxes 

on it as an equity value. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we can further discuss this particular philosophical point. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am sure we can have a very interesting debate 

on that particular issue. Let me just quickly hear from Mr. Rigby, 

and I want to ask Mr. Parker two quick questions and go to our 

next panel. Mr. Rigby. 

Mr. RIGBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to complete 

your question. When you said the impact on farm ground and farmers in Utah if we had the H.R. 1500 enacted, the farm land that 

is flooded by water from wilderness areas would be greater and 

more difficult and costly to repair and to prevent from flooding 

again. And then there is another thing that really comes into 

play-the weed problem. Weeds would be protected in these wilderness areas. We would have no way of controlling them. Weeds take 

away from the productivity of any property and especially the 

downstream users. 

Mr. VENTO. Why is he looking at us when he is telling us that, 

Mr. Chairman? You know, it is interesting because the OTA did a 

study on this, and they found-you know, we are trying to work for 

the biological survey last year, and that no one ever thought about 

the noxious weed type of problem and the fact that we have got 

nearly a trillion dollars worth of losses from noxiousnonindigenous plants and animals. That is one of the reasons that 

the OTA can do us some good, and a biological survey could do us 

a lot of good. How we deal with those types of problems in wildernesses is an important problem. 

Mr. HANSEN. How come you are so bright-eyed and the rest of 

us are so tired? Did you go back to your office and catch a nap occasionally during--
409 

Mr. VENTO. I went swimming last night, Mr. Chairman, for an 

hour. 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, OK. Mr. Parker, let me quickly ask you a couple of questions. We have held you too long, and I am sorry to keep 

our other witnesses waiting. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about 

H.R. 17 45 rewriting the Wilderness Act. Yet, you state that this 

legislation sets no new precedent in respect to other wilderness legislation or the Bureau's own regulations. Can you explain that a 

little further please? 

Mr. PARKER. I think you would find in other similar legislation 

acts that have been passed and in legislation that has been proposed wording that would be very similar at least in my recollection and my experience to what is in this bill. Perhaps the release 

language is a little bit harder, but hard release language isn't anything new. I didn't see any major precedents or any major departure as I read it at least from what I have seen in other bills and 

in other legislation. 

Mr. HANSEN. Like Federal reserve water rights, buffer zones, existing permits, things such as that? 

Mr. PARKER. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. I cut you off before, and I didn't mean to and I 

apologize, when I had asked you the question about H.R. 1500. You 

know, after your many years as State Director of BLM, what is 

your professional opinion of the lands included in H.R. 1500? 

Mr. PARKER. I think the main problem with H.R. 1500 is the lack 

of intensive review and study of those lands, and sometimes they 

were just drawn because they were beautiful. And the criteria was 

not applied against those lands. For example, one that just comes 

to mind is the Beaver Creek area, which is proposed by the coalition and I assume is in H.R. 1500, down north of the La Sal Mountains, kind of on the Colorado border there. 

As it is outlined at least in wilderness on the edge, that particu- lar area has 500 acres that has been rollerbladed and chopped, kind of a form of chaining. It has part Forest Service lands in it. 

On the Dolores River, there is a house. There is a road. There are 

roads on both sides of the river. There are alfalfa fields and other 

cultivated crops. That is the kind of problem I think without intensive study and without really looking at what is on the ground that 

you would run into. 

Mr. HANSEN. An interesting question that you could look at is we 

have talked about how the 3.2 came about", the 1.9, the 1.4, the $10 

million, the thousands of man hours. None of that was included in 

H.R. 1500. 

Mr. PARKER. They did a very good job I think in putting together 

a slick, kind of coffee table presentation of lands and using pictures 

and so forth. But the intensity of look on the ground and the application of criteria in terms of manageability particularly is not 

there. That is the problem. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the panel. You have been very patient 

and very good, and we appreciate you. And we will ask our third 

or last panel to come forward, and that is the Honorable Wayne Owens, Former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance; the Honorable John F. Seiberling, 

Former Member of Congress and former Chairman of this commit-
410 

tee; Dr. Tom Power, Professor and Chair, Economics Department, 

University of Montana; and Dr. Diane Davidson, Committee for Biological Commentary on Utah Wilderness Issues. If those folks 

would come forward, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say while they are 

coming that all of the lands had been studied. There is information 

on all of them. Whether the information was used in the proper 

way I think is a very good point. But all of these lands have been 

studied so we have the information. Whether or not what we do 

with it, of course, is-so somewhere specifically when they were 

being studied were protected for wilderness values, all of them, so 

the information is available. 

Mr. HANSEN. To a certain extent, all of the lands in the West 

have been studied. 

Mr. VENTO. No, no. I meant intensively. 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, yes. Well, remember last year when we went 

through the California wilderness bill, we went through how much 

of that had been studied and had not and what part. But I agree. 

Utah has been studied ad nauseam really since the days the pioneers walked in the area. I am almost embarrassed to keep Mr. 

Seiberling waiting. I had to sit there and have him school me for 

many years, and to keep him waiting is I felt-I was embarrassed 

to do that because I know of his standing and the legacy that he 

has left in this committee. Wayne, we will start with you and just 

go across. Is that all right? 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the last 

word. You know, when you leave Congress, it is very frustrating 

because you have so many opinions and nobody cares. That is a little like being the last panel in the late afternoon. It is just a coincidence, of course, that our lot fell last, and that everybody who 

cared in terms of the media is gone. So we will try to make up for 

it in substance and hope our message can get through. 

Mr. HANSEN. Remember what we used to say as a kid, "First the 

worst, second the same, last the best of all the game," or something 

like that? 

Mr. OWENS. Well, perhaps the more applicable formula was the 

one that says, ''What goes around comes around," and I have seen 

this same thing happen on the other side when the other party was 

in charge here. Mr. Seiberling has to catch an airplane, Mr. Chairman, so with your permission, we might let him go ahead. 

Mr. HANSEN. By all means. John, we are flattered to have you 

with us, and it is a personal honor to see you again, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SEmERLING, FORMER MEMBER 

OF CONGRESS 

Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate 

being here, Mr. Chairman, and seeing you and my former colleagues whom I spent so many interesting and many happy days 

with. I have the unique opportunity and privilege, Mr. Chairman 

and colleagues, to appear before you not just as a private citizen 

but as a representative of the Utah Wilderness Coalition which is 

an umbrella organization that covers or that includes many conservation organizations such as the Grand Canyon Trust, Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club Wilderness Society, et 
411 

cetera-34 organizations as diverse as the Colorado Outward 

Bound School and the Wasatch Mountain Club. 

But we all share one thing in common, and I think I share it 

with you, Mr. Chairman, too which is a profound and 

undiminishing love of Utah's Red Rock Canyon country. During my 

time on this subcommittee, I had the thrill of visiting, sometimes 

with you, some wonderful places of high deserts and deep canyons 

and isolated mountain ranges and high plateaus that really are 

unique, unlike anything anywhere else on earth. 

And I say that advisably having been to most of the other great 

places in the United States, including Alaska. And I certainly remember two field trips I took with you, Mr. Chairman, and they 

were really some inspiring places to visit. 

I can understand how much time and effort must have gone into 

drafting this bill, but I have to say that in the opinion of the groups 

I am representing today, it protects too little of Utah's existing 

wildlands, and even those that are designated wilderness are protected with a lesser standard than wilderness deserves or that the 

Wilderness Act provides. 

I was sorry to see, in fact, that this bill abandons many of the 

principles we used in the 1970's and 1980's to guide us through the 

task of sorting through dozens of wilderness bills after the Rare II 

studies of the Forest Service lands. These were principles that you 

and I followed in drafting the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, and I 

think we should revert to them and adhere to them in 1995. 

I will try to summarize the specific concerns that we have with 

H.R. 1745 and which are elaborated on in my prepared remarks 

that I have submitted. First, let me say that there is a strong feeling by members of the coalition that the process by which this legislation was developed was flawed and unbalanced. I personally 

was not involved in any part of this process except for what may 

have incorporated some of the earlier work that we conducted on 

Utah. 

But the coalition members feel that the drafting process was actually biased against wilderness designation, and I don't mean to 

say that you or this subcommittee were, but with the sort of closed 

meetings that counties had and with some of the other ways this 

process encompassed. It ended up being based on incomplete or inaccurate information and seemed to ignore the sentiments of a majority of the Utahns who participated in the five regional hearings 

and who provided written comment during the process. 

They point out that nearly 70 percent of the written and oral testimony compiled by Governor Leavitt's Office endorsed the proposal 

to designate 5. 7 million acres of wilderness in Utah. I agree with 

the governor, that if that is the feeling of a large segment of the 

people who were concerned about this, then it is important that 

they, along with the other groups who are concerned about different aspects-that these concerns be addressed. 

The second point that I would like to summarize is that the acreage proposed for wilderness is inadequate. The BLM inventory, 

with all due respect to Mr. Parker and the others who were involved in it, was, in some respects, unlawful and excluded several 

million qualified acres from wilderness consideration. And H.R. 
412 

17 45, of course, recommends even less than the BLM recommendation. 

When we were flying over the BLM lands and walking through 

them and looking at them, we carne across a number of placeB 

which were about as isolated and really wild as you can possibly 

imagine, and I was astounded to see that the BLM had categorized 

them as imperfect opportunities for solitude. There was nothing 

but solitude on the slopes of Mt. Pennell, for example. And, yet, the 

BLM in the areas around there, and incidentally in other areas 

where by coincidence there were supposed to be mineral deposits, 

held that there were insufficient opportunities for solitude. So that 

is our second concern. 

The third concern, and this is where I really have some personal 

concern, the release language is unprecedented and unacceptable. The bill contains language which deals with roadless lands not des·· ignated as wilderness. All prior wilderness bills have released un·· designated lands to multiple use management but have expressly 

permitted Federal land managers to review the wilderness quali· 

ties as part of the agency planning cycle. 

But the language in H.R. 1745 seriously deviates from that ra· 

tiona! approach because it says that any lands not designated as 

wilderness shall be managed for the full range of nonwilderness 

multiple uses even though the Organic Act say that wilderness is 

part of the multiple uses. 

And it goes on, of course, to say that, "They shall not be managed 

for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness and 

shall remain available for nonwilderness multiple uses," and that 

is a serious inroad in the principle of the Wilderness Act and wil:: 

be viewed as such not only with respect to the Utah legislation but 

all other wilderness legislation including Acts that have already 

been adopted. 

By singling out wilderness as the only multiple use which cannot 

be studied and evaluated in the future, the bill restricts the ability 

of land managers to protect natural values in a way unprecedented. 

on public lands anywhere else in the United States. By the way, there is a typo on page seven of our submitted statement where the 

letter D got removed from the word and and put on the word evalu-· 

ated so it changed it to devaluated, and I simply point that out for 

the record. 

The fourth point is that H.R. 1745 expressly denies a water right 

to wilderness designated by this Act. This, I believe, is another 

major flaw in this legislation. In the two most recent BLM wilder .. ness bills, for Arizona and California, Congress has reserved a 

quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the Act, and. 

that really means simply the natural flow. And to say that areas 

downstream from wilderness areas may have their water cut off, in 

effect, is a non sequitur. 

The only time it really becomes a problem is if there are 

nonwilderness areas upstream or if there is water upstream from. 

the wilderness areas that might be in nonwilderness, then there 

could be an argument about whether that could be impounded. 

And, finally, the fifth point that I would make is that the host 

of exemptions in H.R. 1745 with respect to the wilderness areas 

themselves would allow and even encourage new nonwilderness ac .. 
413 

tivities in designated wilderness areas, which goes far beyond what 

was agreed to by the Utah delegation itself in the 1984 Utah Wil- derness Act. 

Even the limited wilderness proposed in this bill would be seriously threatened by provisions that exempt such things as new construction of dams, reservoirs, waterlines, roads, pipelines. These 

strike at the heart of what is wilderness as defined by Congress in 

1964 and embraced by Congress and the country over the last 30 

years. 

This fact alone would make this bill a national issue, quite apart 

from the national interest in the unique natural wonders of southern Utah. The inevitable result will be legal challenges that will 

lead to years of bitter and costly court battles, uncertainty and dispute, a result made even more certain by the vague, ambiguous, 

and untested language in these controversial new provisions of the 

bill. I followed my motto, Mr. Chairman, of, "When all else fails, 

read the bill," and I must say it needs some drafting work done on 

it. 

Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Jake Gam and I worked out the 

acceptable release and other language in the 1984 Utah Wilderness 

Act, and I know no reason why it should not be followed in dealing 

with BLM wilderness. We urge you to take a serious look at H.R. 

1500. Undoubtedly, it could stand some scrutiny and possibly further drafting work. But with respect to H.R. 1745, I would like permission to submit a detailed analysis of it as a supplement to my 

testimony which we will have ready for you in a few days. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. We appreciate it.??? 

Mr. SEIBERLING. And I would also like, if that is all right with 

you, Mr. Chairman, to submit a packet of recent articles in the 

Utah press about the hearings and the process that we went 

through. You may want to decide whether as a matter of policy 

that you want newspaper articles. But here they are if that is all 

right with you and the committee. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate it. Mr. SEIBERLING. I would simply recall one other thing, Mr. 

Chairman. I believe you participated with us in 1981 when the subcommittee held hearings on the MX Racetrack Basing System. We 

held hearings in Salt Lake City. Remember, the Carter Administration wanted to put these MX missile bases in southern Utah. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. I flew all over southern Utah with you, and 

I remember going to dinner with you that night in Las Vegas. 

Mr. SEIBERLING. And I remember how uplifted I was and you 

probably too, when the President of the Mormon Church, Spencer 

W. Kimball, came out in opposition to that scheme and said that 

he did not want the land that the creator gave them as a sanctuary 

turned into a base for destruction. 

Mr. HANSEN. You may recall I carried the amendment on the 

floor with Paul Simon to take that out. 

Mr. SEmERLING. Right. And you did a good service to the country, Mr. Chairman. So I would simply say that it is time we rededicated ourselves to the preservation of that sanctuary. And I want 

to thank you for giving me this opportunity. 

[Statement of Mr. Seiberling may be found at end of hearing.] 
414 

[Packet of newspaper articles were placed in the hearing record 

files of the subcommittee.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being with us. It is 

always a pleasure to see you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that Mr. Seiberling's testimony is obviously in concurrence with some of the views that I 

have. 

Mr. HANSEN. He has a plane to catch, and we have got a vote 

to make. 

Mr. SEIBERLING. Oh, I don't have to go till about 3~30. 

Mr. VENTO. We will be leaving to go vote. We just really appre- ciate the work and dedication of the former Chairman and his continued interest in these subjects. I think it adds enormously to our 

hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for--

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman has created a legacy when he was 

here and is all by himself a man we look to that has great knowledge in this area. I always appreciate seeing you, John, and it is 

a pleasure to be with you. I think we are going to be pushed to 

make it over there, and I would hope we could call upon you for 

any information. And I appreciate all the things you have left with 

us. If no one has any statement, we are going to have to hurry, or 

we are going to miss the vote. But we don't want to hold you up. Mr. SEIBERLING. Old congressmen never die. They just come 

down to testify. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, why don't you give us the poem anyway that 

you used to give me on crocodiles and alligators about once a week 

on something? 

Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, are you sure you have time? 

Mr. HANSEN. I want to hear it. This is a classic. You ought to 

hear this. 

Mr. SEIBERLING. It is called, "The Purist" by Ogden Nash. It goes like this: "I give you now Professor Twist, a conscientious scientist. 

Trustees averred, 'TwiGt never bungles', and sent him off to distant 

jungles. Camped by a tropic riverside, one day he missed his loving bride. She had, a guide informed him later, 'Been eaten by an alligator.' Professor Twist could not but smile, 'You mean,' he said, 'a 

crocodile!'" So much for the experts! Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. There are three other members of the 

panel. Would you mind staying? We will try and hurry back just 

as fast as we can. I am sorry to ruin your day. We will be right back. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HANSEN. The committee will be in order. Dr. Power, Dr. Davidson, I appreciate both of you waiting. I understand you have to 

leave. Wayne says he can stay for three or four days. It doesn't 

bother him at all. And so if that is OK, we will turn to Dr. Power. 

STATEMENT OF DR. TOM POWER, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, 

ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 

Mr. POWER. All right. I think Dr. Davidson is on the same plane that I am supposed to be on, but let me proceed. I am a Professor 

of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at the 

University of Montana. And so it shouldn't be surprising that my 
415 

comments will focus on the economics of wilderness protection in 

Utah. 

Proposals to extend wilderness protection to significant additional lands in Utah are regularly criticized on economic grounds. This negative economic judgment is usually based on two assump- tions. First, wilderness is assumed to prohibit the ongoing expan- sion of Utah's economic base by locking up natural resources that 

are central to the state's basic industries. Second, it is assumed 

that the primary purpose of wilderness is the provision of free recreational opportunities to a relatively small number of primitive, back-country, users. 

Both of these economic assumptions are false as are the economic 

conclusions drawn from them. Once these errors in basic economic 

information are corrected, it becomes clear how it is that substantial, additional wilderness protection can contribute directly to the 

economic well being of Utah residents and to the vitality of their 

economy. 

Protection of Utah's wild landscapes has to be considered in the 

context of the economy that actually exists in Utah rather than in 

the context of the economy of the past as seen through the rearview mirror. Utah's economy has shown considerable economic vitality over the last decade and a half despite significant declines 

in the natural resource industries that have been assumed to make 

up the economic base in the past. 

Despite dramatic declines in mining and ongoing problems in ag- riculture, employment and income in the nonextractive sectors has 

expanded 50 percent. AB the economic report to the governor said, 

"The Utah economy is healthy, well diversified, and growing. The 

state finished 1993 with the highest job growth rate in the nation." 

The vitality of Utah's economy no longer centers on mining, agri- culture, and the manufacturing based on these. In addition, this 

traditional economic base has been the source of instability and decline in the Utah economy and can be expected to play a similar 

role in the future. 

The sources of Utah's economic vitality are found both in the development of a sophisticated and diverse modern urban economy along the Wasatch Front and in the attractiveness of Utah's many communities to in-migrants as places to live, work, and do business. Both of these are important in evaluating the economic importance of wilderness. 

If one seeks to protect and enhance Utah's attractiveness to both 

people and businesses, one has to ask what it is about Utah that 

makes it a unique, attractive location. In answering that crucial 

economic development question, it would be difficult not to mention 

Utah's srectacular landscapes and natural environments. These 

are Utah s signature. 

They offer new and existing residents world-class recreational op- portunities as well as an environmentally stable, inspirational, natural backdrop against which residents can live their urban, civilized lives. Protecting these attractive features of Utah amounts to 

protecting an important element of the state's economic base. 

Back country recreation is a relatively minor part of the economic value of wilderness. Wilderness is not primarily created to 

provide a playground for an affluent minority. If that were the pri-
416 

mary function of wilderness, we would have very little wilderness. 

The landscape protection provided by wilderness has economic impacts far outside the boundaries of those wilderness areas. 

Wilderness protection assures the quality of a broad range of valuable environmental services that flow to the surrounding country- side and human communities. These include recreational opportu- nities, scenic beauty, air and water quality, and wildlife. By grant- ing permanent protection to the core natural landscapes, wilderness protects the quality and attractiveness of the surrounding nonwilderness areas. 

This explains the economic vitality shown by counties adjacent to 

wilderness areas throughout the United States for over three dec·· 

ades. Rather than depressing economic vitality by locking up re--

sources, wilderness protection has provided an economic base that 

has allowed wilderness counties to outperform other 

nonmetropolitan counties by a factor of two to six depending on 

which time period is studied. 

To threaten Utah's unique, natural landscapes in an effort to en·· 

hance the state's economic dependence on extractive industry is to 

ignore the sources of the state's current prosperity and seek to re·· 

turn to the disruptive days of boom and bust. Such a policy threat .. ens the well being of Utah's citizens because it ignores the impor .. tant shift in the economic role played by the state's natural land·· scapes. 

Those landscapes are no longer primarily open warehouses from 

which commercial products can be extracted. Instead, they have be .. come the foundation of a high quality of life that is drawing and. holding people and businesses in Utah. That new economic role of 

the state's natural landscapes has to be a central consideration in 

any policy aimed at protecting the state's prosperity. Wildland. 

preservation has a major contribution to make in this regard. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Power may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Dr. Power. We appreciate your testimony. Dr. Davidson. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DIANE DAVIDSON, COMMITIEE FOR 

BIOLOGICAL COMMENTARY ON UTAH WILDERNESS ISSUES 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Chairman Hansen, distinguished subcommittee 

members--

Mr. HANSEN. Pull that just a little closer to you. Ms. DAVIDSON. OK. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I am Diane Davidson, Professor of Biology at the, 

University of Utah. I represent the views not of the university but 

of a group of Utah biologists who came together from throughout the state in March, 1995, out of concern that public debate on wil- derness designation was being conducted strictly in the political 

arena and without reference to widely accepted scientific criteria 

for protection of biological diversity. Although the term ''biodiversity'', defined as living things and the 

processes that sustain them, was not coined until the mid-'80's, the 

1964 Wilderness Act clearly enunciates a role for wilderness in 

biodiversity protection. It does so by expressing the need to pre-
417 

serve and protect lands in their "natural condition," recognizing wilderness is a place where "the community of life is untrammeled 

by man," and mandating protection of scientific, educational, and 

conservation uses of the land. As biologists, we believe that wilderness is vital to conserving Utah's many plant and animal species. Our deliberations culminated in 11 recommendations forwarded 

to the governor and the delegation for an approach to designing 

systems of protected areas. The Utah delegation's bill, H.R. 1745, 

ignores virtually all of these scientific criteria. It is seriously flawed 

and will do little tofreserve Utah's biological heritage. Details of each o the following criticisms appear in my written 

testimony! First, the delegation's piecemeal designation of wilderness fails to provide the large, contiguous roadless areas required 

to ensure long-term population viability of wildlife especially wideranging and secretive species. Second, it does a poor job of adjoin- ing and augmenting existing protected areas such as national 

parks and Forest Service wilderness areas, and of providing migratory corridors among these areas. 

Third, it is failure to designate large roadless areas with small 

ratios of circumference to area leaves native plant and animal communities vulnerable to devastating invasions of nonnative species. Perhaps the most serious threat now facing biodiversity in Utah is 

the wholesale replacement of the native flora (and animal forage, if you will) by introduced plants like the brome grasses which now 

dominate intershrub areas, exclude native annuals and kill native 

perennials by increasing fire frequency. 

Isolated roadless areas now serV"e as refuges for native plants. I 

would like to leave with you this figure which is representative of 

what much of Utah BLM lands look like this year, which is just solid cover of cheat grass between perennials. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Ms. DAVIDSON. Fourth, the delegation's bill fails to ensure protec- tion for intact ecosystems. It neglects to protect critical winter 

ranges and water rights for wildlife. Finally, it excludes 

biodiversity hot spots and isolated areas of endemic species and 

species of special concern. For example, the two areas most worried 

about by botanists are not included in your bill. 

The greatest future threats to the "natural condition" of Utah 

wildlands are the inevitable species losses that accompany habitat 

fragmentation, and the alteration and invasions of exotic species. After just 150 years of significant contact with Caucasian popu- lations, biological communities all across Utah are virtually unrecognizable. 

We can either act now to preserve species in aggregate on public 

lands and in the fully functioning intact ecosystems that sustain 

them, or we can pay the enormous economic costs of preserving species one by one in fragmented and decimated populations and 

on private as well as public lands. 

Throughout the world, it is now standard practice to design nature preserves according to scientific criteria virtually identical to 

those recommended to the delegation by Utah biologists. Even in 

developing countries-Panama, Peru, Tanzania-natural areas are 

now established according to sound ecological principles. This enlightened approach contrasts sharply with the delegation's blatant 
418 

disregard for biological criteria in wilderness designation. As biologists in this wealthy nation where the scientific criteria were developed, we will be ashamed if this bill becomes law. 

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt recently argued that the two 

conflicting and previously compartmentalized management goals of 

his Department, extraction and conservation, can only be met by using proven scientific principles to help pursue both goals simultaneously. He would have this be the legacy of his Administration. 

We hope that this will be your legacy too, that you will reject the 

bill, H.R. 17 45, a bad bill, representing political compromise at its 

worst and undeserving of Utah's spectacular wildlands and 

biodiversity, and that H.R. 1500 or something very like it will become a model for science-based land management decisions across 

this nation. Thank you. 

[Statement of Ms. Davidson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. You know, some days you are just very embarrassed because you work all night, bells keep going off, and 

I just can't control any of these things. And I am terribly embarrassed to have kept you folks this long and not having the benefit 

of a full committee here to drill you while we have got you valuable 

people here. Wayne Owens, what do you want me to do? Do you 

want me to take the testimony or come back or what because I 

know you are all in a hurry? 

Mr. OWENS. Well, much of what I will say will be no surprise either to you, Mr. Chairman, or anybody else who will read the 

record. But I would like to give it a shot if I might. Do you want 

to respond to the bells? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think we have got about nine minutes. Could you take four fast minutes and--

Mr. OWENS. Fine. Thank you. That is fine. I appreciate very much your--

Mr. HANSEN. And I am really apologizing--

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE OWENS, FORMER MEMBER OF 

CONGRESS; AND CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS 

ALLIANCE 

Mr. OWENS. No, no. I appreciate very much your allowing John 

Seiberling to continue and make his statement. It was a definitive 

statement, in my view, and I subscribe to basically everything I 

heard in it. And it reflected much of what I believe. And I would 

also ask, Mr. Chairman, that my own statement be printed, every golden word, in the record in full. 

Mr. HANSEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. OWENS. As if I delivered it in full. Let me make about three 

or four points to you before you leave. With all respect, this is not 

a wilderness preservation bill, Mr. Chairman. It is a wilderness development bill. You would allow two-thirds of all Utah's remaining wilderness to be developed fully without any curb at all, and the 

third that you propose to make wilderness is so unprotected that 

it does not do justice to the term wilderness and to the 1964 Act 

under which you propose to preserve it. 

The changes that you would allow even to that minimal amount 

of land I think do so much violence to the concept of wilderness 

that it is not fair to call it wilderness, and, in fact, the bill, in all 
419 

honesty, should be called the Wilderness Development Act. There 

are in Utah, as you know well, 3.2 million acres of wilderness 

which are now protected as wilderness, and for many years there 

has been a great deal of political pressure in the state to release 

some of that, as much as possible. 

Your bill would, of course, release 1.4 million of it fully for development and would leave 1.8 with very minimal protection. The two 

pictures here, Mr. Chairman, which I show you, you have seen before. These are extraordinary panoramas, vistas which would not 

be protected by your legislation. 

For reasons that it is unclear and that I am unable to understand, it is said that these areas and many others like them are 

not of wilderness quality, not adequate to justify wilderness protection. And so these areas would be allowed to carry powerlines 

across them, theoretically roads, offroad vehicles anyplace that they 

can go, and the whole wilderness quality would disappear. 

If in Europe, for example, either of these vistas existed, they 

would become a national park. One of our problems in Utah is that 

we have what the world sees as so much of this land. But to put 

it in perspective, I would remind you that this land took God and 

Mother Nature 300 million years to create. Some lands down there, 

it is said, are actually 1.8 billion years old; hard to believe and to 

know whether you trust those scientists. But they are not going to 

make any more of it. 

It is the magnet, Mr. Chairman, which brings economic vitality 

to Utah. Tourism is, of course, rapidly becoming the number 1 economic factor in Utah. Tourism is bottomed on these beautiful red 

rocks. The economic vitality of new businesses which come in is 

also bottomed on the quality of outdoor life which is itself based on 

the unique red rocks which are Utah's red rock wilderness. 

At this point, Mr. Chairman, repetition is very difficult and won't 

keep you awake. You have been in the Chair so long that out of 

warmth and friendship, I am not going to persist with reading 

these other points or even making further summaries except to say 

that this bitter and divisive debate is a real problem for us in 

Utah. I have watched it for many years, and I don't think you have 

the hatred that my old political nemesis Bob Bennett was talking 

about, but you do have real, serious divisiveness. And I understand 

your movement to try to resolve that though I could not disagree 

more vehemently with your proposed solution. 

But to open these lands to development, which your bill doesall of the lands to various degrees of development, is a very serious 

error, and in the strongest way not only on behalf of Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, which I Chair, but for my own self as 

a person who really has grown up in this red rock country and 

loved these lands since my pre-adolescent youth, I would urge you, 

whatever you do, to at least not permit the 3.2 million acres of wilderness study areas to be opened for development. 

[Statement of Mr. Owens may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. My friend Maurice Hinchey and your good friend 

is going to finish this meeting now. 

Mr. OWENS. This is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Do you think 

I need to preach to anyone in the House, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I only have the proxies. 
420 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me thank you again and apologize that things didn't go as well as they should, but we really appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. We will put it in the record, and when I meet on 

a regular basis, we will have time to divide the word of truth on 

this. And thank you, Maurice. I appreciate it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. My pleasure, Mr. Chairman, my pleasure. Thank 

you. . Mr. OWENS. I don't know whether I am going to get any vigorous 

cross examination by the Chair now, but I am prepared for it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. [presiding] Yes. You better be on your guard. Mr. OWENS. I just finished my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, first of all, let me apologize for having to run 

out. We just had a vote, and that is where the Chairman is goint~ 

now to cast his vote on this budget bill. It is one of the most important bills of the year, as you know, Wayne, and particularly this 

one which, in effect, I will editorialize now only slightly, reverse:3 

a lot of things that have happened here in the past or at least attempts to do so. So it is a very important vote, and that is what 

happened. It came up, unfortunately, at this particular time so I 

apologize, and I apologize particularly for not being here for you:r 

testimony, and so it is difficult for me to ask any meaningful ques- tions. 

Mr. OWENS. You know everything I said, Mr. Hinchey, and my 

guess is you don't have any really tough questions, but I will be 

happy to entertain anything. 

Mr. HINCHEY. This is what I would like to ask you. You were 

here all during the course of the day, and you heard the testimony that was given by previous witnesses. Is there anything that sticks 

out in your mind that was mentioned by any of the previous wit· 

nesses that you would like to address at this point? I address this 

question--

Mr. OWENS. Well, I do have a background of difference between 

cow pies and elk droppings and could explain that to the commit·· 

tee's satisfaction if you would like. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Please do. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I guess I would like to make one comment, anc: 

that is that I have sat through this hearing and many others in 

Utah and many times have heard people say that the people close: 

to the land manage it best, and that the land has always been 

managed very well, and we all defer to one another and pat each. 

other on the back. 

But I think there is plenty of evidence that that isn't true, and. 

it is mainly in the invasions of exotic plant species which just lit· 

erally cover Utah BLM lands, all over the place. Everywhere I have: 

gone this year, it has been almost 100 percent cover of that stuff, and that does not reflect good land management. And people making decisions which affect the future of wildlands 

which are still somewhat protected from that because they are 

roadless areas, they need to know the difference between cheat. 

grass and something else, Utah native plants, and they need to 

know the difference between elk and cow droppings. 

Mr. OWENS. There is one other-Tom, do you want to--
421 

Mr. POWER. The one thing that struck me was the implicit economic message or economic hope, I guess, that I heard coming from 

folks in southern Utah and that was that mining and agriculture 

were the only reliable economic base upon which they could feed 

their families, to provide some sort of stability, a living income, et 

cetera. 

I think it is clear from the experience throughout the West and 

the rest of the United States that mining and agriculture have not 

in the recent past and will not in the future provide that. Those 

industries are mature industries that are subject to extreme fluctuations because of their being plugged into international markets 

and will be declining sources of employment and income. One only 

has to look across the Nation at areas that are reliant upon mining 

exclusively or agriculture exclusively and one does not see prosperity. 

I was particularly struck with the comments coming from folks 

in Kane County where despite some recent setbacks, there is ongoing, considerable economic vitality in the southwestern comer of 

the state. They are not moving on some trajectory that is leading 

to poverty. They have a very vital economy that is going to continue to generate significant growth in employment and income, 

and they need to look at what the sources of that vitality are, and 

it is not mining and it is not agriculture. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I was in Utah just last week. The Chairman 

held two hearings there; as you know, one in Cedar City and one 

in Salt Lake. And he gave us the opportunity to, you know, meet 

with folks out there, and we had I think two very, very good hearings. 

And when we were down in Cedar City, we learned some more 

about St. George. And I was amazed at the number of miners and 

farmers that are now living in St. George; people making their living down there in that little community. Of course, I am being facetious. Those folks who moved into St. George are not moving there 

to mine or farm. They are moving there for other reasons. And it 

is those reasons which provide a strong economic base for that community. 

We had .a mayor of one of the small towns, Springdale, yes, 

mayor of Springdale who came in and talked to us about how 

things were really growing. I mean, he felt the economy was strong 

in his community, and he felt that it was strong because of the 

presence of wilderness right up, smack up against the park actually-smack up against his town. So those are instructive, of 

course. 

I don't know. We are trying to work this out here. I have a great 

respect for the Chairman of this committee. You know, we are different parties and very different philosophies, but he is really a terrific guy. He is very smart, and I think he is very straight, and, 

you know, it is just that we differ on some of these issues. But I 

think that if we keep working at this, we can come to a good resolution on this problem. 

Mr. OWENS. Two fast comments if I might, Mr. Chairman. One 

is that the Kane County commissioner saying that they hoped for 

150 to 200 jobs at 30,000 to $50,000 a year from the miners from 

the proposed Kaiparowits mining operation just outside of Kanab. 
422 

He said tourism will never bring that, but, in fact, tourism is the 

only thing that is keeping his county alive. Enormous amounts of 

people on a daily basis spend enormous amounts of money in his 

county, Kane, and in my county to the north, Garfield County, where I grew up. Without tourism, we would be dead. Without the 

red rocks, there would be no tourists. I think that needs to be 

looked at. 

The last point I would make is Senator Bennett's AA is still here, 

and I would like to just comment on Senator Bennett's concept that 

there is already 10 percent of the state in wilderness protection. We speak of a natural tithe, a term some of us coined several years 

ago, that we ought to save 10 percent of the state in wilderness. 

The Forest Service, which has 8 million plus acres in Utah, is almost all of it, except for 800,000 acres, totally open to oil and gas and mining and grazing and timbering. There is no wilderness on 

the Forest Service except for 800,000 acres which was the '64 bill 

that Chairman Hansen referred to earlier. 

If you look at the 22 million acres of BLM, of course, we hope that there will be 5. 7 million preserved as wilderness. The bill in 

front of us, though H.R. 1500 is there pro forma, would preserve 1.8 but not in wilderness. It is not wilderness. It is a whole new 

concept of multiple use that they charaterize as a kind of wilderness. The military bases and reservations and the Indian Reservations, those are not wilderness either. 

So there is no wilderness tithe of 10 percent already in Utah. 

There is a tithe basically of 800,000 which is a little over maybe 1-112 percent. If this committee were to report out your bill, H.R. 

1500, it would, of course, make amends and make us full, natural 

tithe payers, an expression that has more meaning in Utah per- haps than anyplace else. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I like it very much. I like it very much, and 

it would still, of course, be only about 26 percent of the public lands 

in the state. Well, let me thank all three of you. And, Wayne, I 

must say particularly to you for introducing your bill, for having the courage and the foresight to do that when you did it some years 

ago, and I can tell you that I will always be grateful to you for that, for your having introduced it, for starting this off, and for allowing 

me to pick up in your wake and to try to carry on your work. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might correct earlier on 

a statement that I made. Chairman Hansen asked me earlier what 

year I introduced the original H.R. 1500, and I said 1987. It was 

actually 1989. And then secondly and lastly, may I thank you for 

having picked up the baton and running so well and so efficiently with it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks very much. Thank you all. The hearing is 

adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:02p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
423 

----· . 

·, 

Statement of 

Governor Michael 0. Leavitt 

Utah 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

House Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

June 29, 1995 
Governor Leavitt 

Wilderness Testimony 

6/29/95 

, 11'1/ ,5 

424 

Governor Michael 0. Leavitt 

Governor State of Utah 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Lands 

United State House of Representatives 

June 29, 1995 

The current wilderness review and designation process for Bureau of Land 

Management lands in Utah was designed to allow Utah as a state to participate in a 

reasonable solution to the longstanding issue of wilderness designation. After 17 years, 

at a total cost of more than $10 million and thousands of staff hours, a resolution to 

this very important .yet controversial, and sometimes contentious, subject is in sight. 

There are many individuals and groups, local and national, that are very interested in 

the outcome of the wilderness effort in Utah. While we are sensitive to these 

concerns, we are committed to the premise that in any wilderness proposal we must 

take into account the concerns of the local communities where each wilderness 

designation will be located. 

HR 1745 is an honest approach to wilderness. It recognizes that the definition of 

wilderness contained in the wilderness act of 1964 endures as the standard for 

determining what lands should be designated wilderness. 

HR 1745 was crafted under the challenging circumstances that surround all BLM 

wilderness bills. Until very recent times, BLM lands were those lands subject to the 

whole array of public land laws and were determined to be the most valuable for 

settlement, disposition and intense multiple use. 
Governor Leavitt 

Wilderness Testimony 

6/29/95 

425 

During the long history of western expansion, lands which were deemed valuable for 

special protection were "reserved" and protected from the application of the public 

land laws. Such lands include National Forests, National Parks and Monuments, and 

Wildlife Refuges. 

In contrast, BLM lands were those where you could establish an RS-2477 right-of-way, 

locate a mining claim, make a homestead or desert land entry, mine for coal, drill for 

oil and gas and graze your cattle, all with the active support and blessing of federal law 

and land managers. 

It was the deliberate policy of the United States government that BLM lands were to 

be trammeled, or controlled by man; that they were lands where man was to go and to 

stay, not just visit; wheredevelopment was to occur; where man was to improve the 

land and inhabit it, just as fast and as aggressively as possible, all of which is the 

antithesis of wilderness. 

It is a miracle that any BLM lands still qualify for wilderness protection. Fortunately, 

for both present and future generations, there are still lands in this state which truly 

meet the definition of wilderness. Those lands are captured in HR 1745. 

In the development of this proposal, it was our intent to solicit input from each and 

every interested party who wished to participate. Although the time frame for this 

project has been aggressive, the opportunity for public input has been considerable. 

More than 35 public meetings were held by the impacted counties during 

February and March. The counties worked very hard and I want to thank them 

for their efforts. 

Five regional meetings were held statewide April13, 14 and 15. Members of 

the Utah Congressional Delegation and I listened to hours of testimony. Two 

additional meetings were held by members of the Utah Congressional 

Delegation along the Wasatch Front during the same time period. More than 

550 people an had opportunity to speak at those 7 meetings. 

2 
Governor Leavin 

Wilderness Testimony 

6/29/95 

426 

In addition, in excess of 3500 wrinen comments have been received by the 

Governor's Office of Planning and Budget. All of these comments have been 

read, cataloged and responses sent. 

We believe that through this process we have heard substantive comments from the 

citizens of this state and interested groups throughout the country. We have listened 

to these comments, but we must all remember that the public is very divided on this 

issue. The number of contradictory public opinion polls substantiates this assertion. 

There is no overwhelming public consensus about wilderness designation. 

We must all remember the wilderness issue is one of great complexity. Both the 

congressional delegation and I have committed considerable time and resources to this 

process. The bill reflects our commitment to the importance of what is fair, balanced, 

and good for the citizens of Utah and the United States. HR 1745 takes a balanced 

approach. It won't please either side but represents what we think is the best solution 

for Utah and the nation. As a participant in these discussions, I fully support HR 1745 

proposal to designate approximately 1.8 million acres as wilderness .. 

The State of Utah recognizes the vocal support of some of its citizens for 

HR 1500 as well as citizens around the nation. I acknowledge the massive efforts of 

those who put that package together, and the sincerity with which it is presented. 

However, I cannot support HR 1500 because I believe that it would create an 

unworkable management process. The intrusions of man into the lands proposed by 

HR 1500 are substantial. There are roads, corrals, drill sites and the like. But perhaps 

more importantly this proposal is simply unacceptable to the citizens who live and 

work in these impacted counties. Many of these rural citizen's livelihood is derived 

from the lands in question. 

HR 1745 has been characterized by some as a minimalist wilderness bill. I do not 

believe this is valid. It contains substantial wilderness. It includes Utah's "Crown 

Jewels." We have recommended 49 wilderness areas that include such well known 

areas as the Grand Gulch, Desolation Canyon, San Rafael Swell, Escalante Canyons, 

and Westwater Canyon. 

3 
427 

Governor Leavin 

Wilderness Testimony 

6/29/95 

HR 1745 also includes numerous "eco-systems" representing: 

High mountain ranges such as the Deep Creeks and Henry Mountains; 

Deep river canyons such as Muddy Creek, the Little Grand Canyon of 

the San Rafael River, the Dirty Devil River, Desoh1tion Canyon and 

Labyrinth Canyon on the Green River; 

Red Rock Desert, such as Negro Bill Canyon and Red Mountain; and 

Unique areas in the West Desert such as Notch Peak, Fish Springs, and 

the Cedar Mountains. 

Several large blocks of wilderness areas have been included such as: 

Fifty Mile Mountain -121,000 acres; 

Escalante Canyons -103,000 acres; 

Desolation Canyon/Book Cliffs Complex-332,000 acres; 

the Dirty Devil Area -75,000 acres; 

Dark Canyon (113, 130 acres) and Phipps Death Hollow (67,591 acres) are areas 

adjacent to already existing Forest Service wilderness, making these areas large 

blocks of contiguous wilderness; and 

Several areas are recommended adjacent to our National Parks and Recreation 

Areas, such as Butler Wash and Mancos Mesa, which create large blocks of 

protected land. 

On the other hand, HR 1745 does not recommend lands with high resource 

development potential including a large part of the Kaiparowits Plateau. Also, the bill 

attempts to make boundaries manageable by moving away from any conflicts and 

intrusions. 

HR 1745 contains language which protects Utah's interests. These include language to 

protect state control of water rights. However, this does not mean streams will be 

dewatered. The State of Utah will work with BLM through our water appropriation 

process and the Divisions of Parks and Wildlife to acquire in stream flows for 

Wilderness purposes if necessary. 

Other important measures in this bill include; protection of grazing permits; the 

release to multiple use for lands not designated as wilderness; disallowance of any 

reclassification of air quality status due to wilderness designation; and the exchange of 

4 
Governor Leavin 

Wilderness Testimony 

6/29/95 

428 

school trust lands. These provisions are important; my support of the proposal is 

dependent on many of these provisions. 

Some have solemnly asserted that passage of HR 1745 will result in the massive and 

immediate destruction of lands not protected. Images of thousands of bulldozers lined 

up to advance on unprotected BLM lands is simply not true. Those who rely upon 

such images to advance their cause purposely ignore the plethora of laws and 

regulations passed since 1964 which will provide layer upon layer of protection of 

those lands. In fact, I believe that there are many available mechanisms, other than 

wilderness, whereby BLM lands can be protected. 

Perhaps this may be the end of a long debate on wilderness designation in Utah, but it 

should also represent the beginning of a new era. An era of working together, of 

jointly developing plans to manage these lands, some as wilderness and other lands in 

other ways but the key is together. Federal, state, and local government, the 

environmental community, ranchers and citizens. 

There have been examples established across the west and here in Utah on how we can 

work together. The Southern Utah Planning Authorities Council (SUPAC) the 

Canyon Country Partnership (CCP), and the Coalition for Utah's Future/Project 

2000 process in Emery County are a few recent experiments of this type of process. 

These efforts have illustrated that there is no doubt Utahns have a commitment to care 

for the land - it is simply how we do it that is being debated. 

If HR 1745 does not pass, a new beginning will not occur, instead the same old debate 

will continue- 5.7 million acres or zero acres. The polarization will deepen. Distrust 

and resentment on both sides will continue. This is not healthy for Utah and its not 

healthy for the land. We will continue to hold the lands hostage while we continue to 

intellectualize, pontificate and debate. I urge you to create a new beginning and a new 

era of cooperative management. Please support HR 1745. Thank you. 

5 
429 

TESTDIONY Oll' KENT R. PETERSEI!I 

CRAIRMAH, EMERY COUNTY COM!USSIOI!I 

01!1 TKB UTAH WILDElUIESS BILL, HR 1745 

JtJNE 29, 1995 

Chairman Hansen and members of the National Parks, Forests and 

Lands Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee 

on a subject that has occupied much of my time since January. We 

in Emery county appreciate the chance to be a part of the 

discussion on a subject that will have a tremendous impact on lands 

that we have used and enjoyed for over 100 years and have long 

considered to be a part of our way of life. 

I first want to briefly mention HR 1500 which seeks to set 

aside 5.7 million acres of wilderness of which more than 1 million 

acres is in Emery county. Most of this land does not meet the 

definitions of the 1964 Wilderness Act because of roads and other 

uses. This does not mean that it is not beautiful land worthy of 

some protection. The BLM has several layers of protection on most 

of this land now. There are Areas of critical Environmental 

Concern, Recreational Opportunity Spectrums, Visual Resource 

Spectrums, Closed to Mineral Entry, and others. This land will not 

be overrun with bulldozers if it is not designated wilderness. 

Those words are only scare tactics. If you have ever tried to get 

a permit from the BLM to improve a road, or to put in some other 

improvement you will realize how well protected most of this land 

1 
430 

is. As an example of this protection, vehicles are not allowed off 

existing roads on the entire San Rafael Swell. 

Emery County has spent the last two years working with a wide 

range of stake holders on wilderness issues. From these meetings 

we developed our Emery County proposal which included wilderness, 

primitive, and semi-primitive designations. We think our plan 

provided excellent protection for a large block of land. We were 

able to convince people with a wide range of opinions that our plan 

provided excellent protection for the land. It takes much of the 

polarization out of the discussions and allows people to come to a 

common ground. 

We would have liked to have seen more of our proposal in the 

bill but we believe the area designated to be wilderness in HR 1745 

includes all of the land qualified to be wilderness in Emery 

County. We can live with the designations of these lands as 

wilderness as long as certain criteria are met. 

1. Only those lands designated as wilderness in the present 

bill be included in the final bill. I realize that there 

are many who feel there should be more wilderness on the 

san Rafael Swell. Believe me when I tell you the rest does 

not qualify as wilderness. 

2. The effect of wilderness must limited to that land actually 

designated as wilderness. The language protecting water 

rights, air quality, and prohibiting buffer zones, etc. 

must be strengthened so that these new wilderness areas do 

2 
431 

not have any effect on areas outside of the wilderness 

boundaries. 

3. If the effects of wilderness can be restricted to the 

boundaries of wilderness, it is tolerable. The peripheral 

effects are the ones that adversely affect us. Language 

must be in place restricting wilderness to its boundaries! 

A. This act must prohibit the establishment of "Buffer 

Zones" around any of the wilderness areas. This act 

must specifically allow non-wilderness activities that 

can be seen, heard, or smelled from within the 

wilderness area up to the boundary of the wilderness 

area. Much of the concern over wilderness in places 

like Emery County is the result of the establishment of 

official or unofficial buffer zones. 

The Sid's l1ountain Wilderness Area is only eight 

miles from the Hunter Power Plant, a coal fired 

;/~tfq~<<:W . plant with three 400 ~ generat~ng units. It 

is visible from almost everywhere on Sid's 

Mountain . This plant is a mainstay of our local 

economy. Future expansion or normal maintenance 

cannot be jeopardized because someone can see the 

plant from within the wilderness area 

B. Sid's Mountain, Mexican Mountain, and Muddy creek 

Wilderness Areas are all downstream from the majority of 

the water users in Emery County. A federal reserved 

water right could have a devastating effect on these 

3 
432 

upstream users. This act must prohibit any federal 

reserved water right for these and all other wilderness 

areas. Any water rights obtained for the wilderness 

areas must be obtained in accordance with Utah water 

law. 

c. Much of the conflict in wilderness discussion has been 

over roads. The BLM even went so far as to call those 

roads they did not want to recognize as ways. The act 

must recognize that these roads exist even if they are 

not well maintained roads. We designate these as Class 

D roads in Utah. Emery County has prepared a map 

showing these class D roads for the Utah delegation. 

The boundaries for HR 1745 wilderness areas have been 

drawn to eliminate or at least to minimize conflicts 

with these roads. Where roads are designated as the 

wilderness boundary, we think the setback should be one 

quarter mile instead of 300 feet for high standard roads 

and 100 feet for dirt roads. The one quarter mile 

setback will eliminate many of the conflicts with 

wilderness. 

D. There are two large power plants in Emery County. They 

are a major portion if our state's economy. Both plants 

operate in compliance with the latest EPA directives. 

While the pollution from these plants is held to a 

minimum it is understood that the wilderness areas 

downwind from these plants will not be Class I airshed 

4 
433 

with these plant in operation. It is critical that this 

wilderness bill recognize that all wilderness areas in 

Emery County retain Class II air quality status. We are 

not in favor of dirty air. We want these plants to meet 

all of their emission regulations, but we do want them 

to remain in operation. 

In conclusion, the language in the bill needs to be 

sufficiently strong to protect our water rights, industrial base, 

and road system. The language must be sufficient to prevent the 

new wilderness area from affecting our activities outside of the 

wilderness. 

If you are unable to pass this bill in its current condition 

you may want to consider some alternative methods of protection. 

I would be glad to discuss some of Emery County's Proposals with 

you at some future time. More than anything else we would like to 

see more local involvement with public land management planning and 

decision making. Moving more of the decision making authority to 

a local level will do much to eliminate the divisiveness of public 

land debates. 

Common sense tells us all that our communities and economy can 

continue to thrive without doing harm to the natural surroundings 

we cherish, and by the same token, the intricacies of our natural 

surroundings can likewise continue to thrive without the need to 

stifle our communities and economy. If we exercise vision and 

responsibility, nature and economy can peacefully coexist. They 

can and must coexist, because we place high value on both! 

5 
434 

__ L.Y--··,--·, ·.·...<...t " m: w .. curtls SUUIVSIJ Fu 80 -381~ P•g•l or.! Wond-v. F•Oruary06, 1~'95 $.<1.9 :1<1 P-.. 

I . 

. 

1(·, ' . , · ~ ; ._., 

Emery County Values 

We value the land. Our communities and families have been tied directly to the land for 

generations, and we are close enough to the land to recognize it as the source of sustenance 

and life. II was the land and its resources that attracted our forbearers to this remote area 

over one hundred years ago, and this same land and its resources are what make it possible 

for us to live here today. Our lives and our livelihoods are directly connected to the bounties 

of the land. 

We place high value on the scarcest of our natural resources -- the water. From the day our 

first progenitors entered this valley until the present time, our greatest and most serious 

efforts have been directed to the protection and management of our water resources. 

Ultimately, it is the availability of water that makes it possible for us to live on this arid land. It 

is water that makes it possible to grow our crops, to establish our communities, and to 

generate electricity in our power plants. Because of the scarcity of this basic resource, there 

is a fragile balance between being able to survive here, and not being able to survive. W e 

recognize water as being the key to our survival. 

We value our local economic base. Emery County has one of the strongest rural economies 

in the entire nation. It is based on the extraction of coal from numerous local coal mines, and 

the conversion of that coal into electricity in five power generation units. This industrial base 

was built by millions of dollars of investment, and the product of this industry is used in every 

home, hospital, school, and business in the state and in neighboring states as well. 

The economic boon we presently enjoy is viewed in stark contrast to previous decades of 

economic hardship and struggle, during which it was barely possible to eek out a meager 

living in this uncooperative environment. This understanding of the economic difficulties of 

our recent past generates within us a strong appreciation for the bounty we enjoy today. 

We appreciate the uniqueness of our economic circumstances. Our economic base makes it 

possible for us to have good jobs and incomes and still live in a rural setting. It has made it 

possible for a new generation to live in Emery County, rather than having to leave as in 

generations past, and to prosper in doing so. We also place a high value on making these 

types of opportunities available to future generations. We envision a future in which new coal 

mines are developed and new power plants are constructed, so a new generation can find 

productive employment and contribute to the good of society. 

We value our agricultural base. Many of us either participate in some type of agricultural 

enterprise at the present time or have parents who were farmers and ranchers, and we have 

learned first-hand the lessons and values that come from working with land and nature. 

We cherish our local heritage and culture. Much of what attracts us to the San Rafael Swell 

relates to the people and places of our local history and folklore. Places like Swasey's Leap, 

the Old Spanish Trail, the Z.C.M.I. mine, Swasey's cabin, the M.K. Tunnels, and Temple 

Mountain are all examples of the historic attributes of the Swell that are an important part of 

our local heritage. 
435 

An important part of our rural lifestyle is the enjoyment of the outdoors, and the recreational 

opportunities afforded by the wide open spaces of the public lands that surround us. We also 

enjoy "generations-old" traditions, such as "Easterin'," that are tied directly to the lands of the 

San Rafael Swell. 

We also place high value on the remnants of ancient cultures that have lived in these valleys -

particularly the Fremont Indians and the rock art, granaries, baskets, and other items that 

they have left behind. These, too, are part of our local heritage. 

We value the unique rural lifestyle that exists in this valley. We are able to enjoy the rural 

attributes of clean and safe towns, wide-open spaces, and a sense of closeness and 

community that can only be found in a rural setting. Yet, we also enjoy other amenities that 

are not always found in rural communities -- things like paved roads, curb, gutter, and 

sidewalks, libraries and museums, modern water, sewer, and secondary water systems with 

excess capacity, and excellent school facilities with state-of-the-art technologies available to 

both students and teachers. These things are all made possible because of the tax base that 

our industrial developments have provided. We are ever diligent in our efforts to protect and 

preserve this tax base. (After all, the bills for the amenities mentioned above have not yet 

been paid off!) 

We also place great value on the wonders and beauties of nature that surround us. They are 

part of our very fabric. We love this land on which we have lived for generations. It is our 

desire to manage these lands so that our descendants can enjoy them just as we have been 

able to enjoy them. 

Our common sense tells us that our communities and economy can continue to thrive without 

doing harm to the natural surroundings that we cherish, and by the same token, the 

intricacies of our natural surroundings can likewise continue to thrive without the need to stifle 

our communities and economy. If we exercise prudence and responsibility, the two (nature 

and economy) can peacefully coexist. They can and must coexist, because we place a high 

value on both' 
436 

Position Statement 

Emery County Public Lands Council 

We, the people of Emery County, place high value on the lands of the San Rafael 

Swell, and it is our desire to preserve and protect these lands for future generations. We 

also place high value on preserving and protecting our communities and our local economy. 

We believe it is possible to protect the lands without endangering our economy, and 

we believe that we can develop and expand our local economy without endangering the 

wilderness values of the lands of the San Rafael Swell. 

Our concern is that federal Wilderness designation can pose a threat to our local 

communities and economy because of the effects its management can have on lands, 

water rights, air quality, and development outside the boundaries of the Wilderness 

designation. 

In order to preserve the wilderness values of the San Rafael Swell without 

endangering the economic future of our communities, we propose the following: 

We propose to protect wilderness values and wildlife habitat on the San Rafael 

Swell by the creating designated wilderness areas and/or other management options. 

Using existing management tools available to the BLM, lands on the San Rafael Swell can 

receive every desired and necessary protection. We will consider any reasonable 

protective proposal, including Wilderness, National Conservation Area. Area of Critical 

Concern (ACECl. Critical Habitat, and what we will refer to as an Enhanced Resource 

Management Plan. 

We further propose to support the BLM in the enforcement of necessary protections 

by developing county ordinances which compliment BLM management goals, and by using 

Emery County law enforcement personnel and resources to enforce these ordinances. 

We also declare our willingness to work with the BLM in controlling visitation to 

certain areas by requiring permits and/or other· such controls. 

We are willing to extend these protections into perpetuity by including appropriate 

language in the Utah Wilderness Act. 

We call upon all stake holders to put aside political posturing and rhetoric, and to 

join with us in doing what is best for the lands. If we put the interests of the lands ahead 

of politics, we can develop a management plan that will protect the wild values of the San 

Rafael Swell for current and future generations. 

Common sense tells us that our communities and economy can continue to thrive 

without doing harm to the natural surroundings we cherish. and by the same token, the 

intricacies of our natural surroundings can likewise continue to thrive without the need to 

stifle our communities and economy. If we exercise vision and responsibility, nature and 

economy can peacefully coexist. They can and must coexist, because we place a high 

value on both! 

,. 
437 

Statement on Utah BLM Wilderness 

by Commissioner Joe c. Judd 

Kane County Commission 

before the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Washington, D.C. 

June 29, 1995 

I wish to thank the Congressional panel for the time allotted me to testifY. 

I also wish to commend Congressmen Hansen and his staff for their efforts to bring this 

wilderness struggle to closure. 

I represent the people of Kanab City, the Cmmty Seat for Kane Cmmty. Kanab represents 

the vast majority of residence of the cowtty. I am a city cowtcilman. 

Professionally, I am a geologist I have worked in this field for over 25 years. Half of this 

period as a private consultant 

I have watched as America has changed from a climate which supports industrial 

development and economic growth to a climate that is so stifling that is literally killing 

Americas ability to be self determining. This new climate is killing the very sector, namely 

the mining and mineral utilizalion industries, that has given us a standard of living highest 

in the world. Gentlemen, because of this new climate, our standard of living is teetering on 

the brink of a dramatic decline. 

Currently, America is dependent on foreign suppliers for a myriad of essential commodities 

just to meet present demands. Oil and Gas, Chrome, Uranium, Copper, and Industrial 

Diamonds just to name a few. The list is extensive and will get ever longer as we curtail 

our ability to be self sufficient Remember the oil embargo of the seventies? We were just 

over 30 percent dependent at that time, we are over 50 percent dependent today. 

I suggest that virtually evezy foreign policy decision that comes from Washington is 

predicated on our need for foreign commodities. This sever dependence can easily force 

Washington to make irrational decisions. Further, I SlJ8gCSt that these decisions should be 

predicated on decreasing our dependence on foreign supplies. We owe that much to our 

children. 

The term WilDERNESS and what the designation has come to represent is extremely 

volatile. It has come to represent to many the difference between National Independence 

and National Dependence on foreign supplies which will result in our way of life, National 

Goals and Values being held hostage. You know and I know that we just fought a war in 

the Middle East because of America's dependence on foreign oil. Gentlemen, does it make 

any sense to spill American blood on foreign soils to preserve American energy supplies, 

while at the same time locking up Americas energy sources in federal wilderness areas 

created for recreational enjoyment of a select few? 

The idea of pristine open space is not really the isauc here. We have millions and millions 

of acres already in such a condilions with numerous protective regulations already in place 

and enforced to continue these pristine open spacca. It's about what we will be giving up as 

a Nation if we lock up vast 1racta of productive and potentially productive lands for 

recreational use only and only for a select few. 
438 

~ spcaal intcmlt IIJ'OIIIl8 J1f0P01C doling off acccu to 3~ pcn;ent of Kmc Coonty. 

This is in addition to the c:xiBting pasta, wi1ocmea, forat and the Lake Powell Rcaealion 

Aru that is ~ aa if it were wildemcla. 

Kane CoWity contains one of the largest untapped foail fuel reaoun:ce in the world. The 

KaiparowiiB Coal Field lilcrally contains the cquivalcnt of 20 billion bamla of mid-cast oil 

this traoalatcs into lriDi0111 of BTU's of C11Cf8Y. This area is also rec:ognimd by the Bureau 

of Lind Man.agocmcnt aa havina "Hiah Potcnlill for Oil and Gas". 

Are we willing to sacrifice reaoun:ce IIIICh aa this in the intcmlt of solitude and 

unobe1nlctcd Wvi ahcds for a acloc:t few? JronicaDy, this umc few demand oil and p and 

metal production just to sojourn to their favorite wildcmcu localion? 

The trade-off and it's risk to the tWion ia too gJCat. 11 would be an abiOiulc crime against 

fUture gcneraliona of Americana to lltcrilizlc our nalion's C11C1J1Y ~ and force our 

pmddli1cllm to I'CIMin boaaac to forcip llllpplica. The CIICKC of the wildcmcea debate 

JIIUit be rooted in balance. Wildctncu pracnation must be balanced with CCOIIOIIIic 

stability and nalioDaJ accurity intcrcat. After aD, the terms •economy• and "cc:ology" come 

from the umc root word. Wdhout balance, we will stumble and faD aa a society. 

Kmc CoWity, as arc nearly aD COUDiica in the west, is arid and depends on the 

dcvclopmcnt of c:xiBting and potential water reaoun:ce for their very llllVival. Quality 

hydrologic acquifcn arc like mineral clcpolitB in that they arc whCR you find them. The 

N-jo Sandstone ia just such a water raoun:c for Soulhwatan Utah. We arc dependent 

on water within and issuing from this acquifcr. ADy COJIIIrainl or I'CIIIriction placed upon 

the ordtrly ~of this raoun:c wiD be very dcvaltalina to the c:xiBting and fulure 

economy of the region. 

The Pahnmuwcap WSA is just IUCh an -. The llyclrolopc pollclniW is lrancDdous. 

HR-174S I'CCOIIIIIIImda 19000 arces for wildcmcu designation. Thia area is criacroucd 

with roads, fcncce and ocbct man- made III'IIC:tUrel wbic:h lhou1d, ~to the 

Wildctncu Act dillqualify the II'Ca. Add to Ibis the implct to c:xilling and future Water 

noccls for Kmc and Waahin&ton Couoliol, the Pabnmuwellp lbould be dropped from the 

HR-1745. 

Ocndcmco, lltcruliwa to wi1clcrncu dc:lipalion ia more acceptable. Regulations arc 

already in place that ~ and proCect the prilline 111111re of~ lands without the 

oepliw cfrCI;fl ofwildcmcu ~ We can have prilline viiCaa and these can be 

«npatibbe with PRODUCTION, JOBS, NATIONAL SELF-RF.LIANCE AND 

mADmONAL WAYS OF LIFE. 
439 

House subcommittee on Nationa l Parks Forest and Lands 

Hearing on H.R.1745 

A Bill to Designate Certain Lands i n the State 

of Utah as Wilderness 

The Honorable James B. Hansen 

Chairman 

Washington D.C. 

June 29, 1995 

Comments submitted by: 

Roger Ho lland 

Kanab City Councilman 

Kanab (Kane County) , Utah 
440 

1 wlah to lbmlr. die CODp'CI8ional panel for die ~ aiiOIIcd me to te81ifY. 

I alto wish to commend CongraaaiiCil Hansen and bia lllaff for their cffortB to bring thia 

wildcmcas llnJSBio to Gburo. 

I roprcscnt tho people of K.IDab City, the County Scat for Kaoc County. Kauab rcprcsenls 

lbc YUt fD4iority of n:sidcn<:c of lbc county. I am a eity c:ounQiman. 

Profeaionally, I am a gcolosisl. I have wortcd in this field for .,_. 25 yean. Half of thia 

period as a priva~ COIIIUitanL 

I haw watched • Amarica baa chaDgcd 1iom a c:limato wbicb IUJ>POI1II inclllltrial 

deYelopmcnt and CI:OIIOIIIic; 8fOWih to a climate tbal ia 10 lliflillg tbal ia litmiJy killing 

.Amc:rical ability to be self ddcnniDiDg. TbiiDCW climate is killing 1hc YCJY IICCfOr, MIDdy 

tbc mining 111d miDaa1 Ulili1.llion indulllrica, dill 1111 giYCD 111 a standard oflivillg bighcst 

in the world. Ocndcmclll, bcc.1ulo ofthia DCW climalo, our standard ofJivirlc is tcclaing on 

the brink of a dramatic clcc:linc. 

CUmotly, America is dcpcndcnt on fon;iallllllpplicra for a myriad of CIIICllliaJ commodilice 

jUII( to meet pi'CICIIt clcmaads. Oil IIIII Gal, <llromo, Ul'lllium, Copper, and Indualrial 

Diamonds just to namo a r-. The lilt ia CXIalliYO and will get - Joaacr aa we cartail 

our lbility to be self sufficient. Rancmbc:l- tho oil emiNqo of the lliMiltics? We M:rC j!llt 

01/a" 30 pc:r!:CDl clcpcndcnt at dill time, - - 0\a' 50 pcn:cnt clcpcndeau loUy. 

I 11JS1P1 tba1 virluaiJy cway forcip policy clcc:ilioa tba&coaaftom Waabiil8foA il 

JRCiicatccl on our nocd for foR:i&n UCIIIIIOCiilicl TbilecYCr clcpcll4cau;c = easily fon:c 

WMbiaaUm to mabl ioftlianaldecioionL P"urrbblr, I....,. that d.-~ lhould be 

pnclif:aDI on doc:roaliDa our clcpendax;c 011 foR:i&n auppJice. We OM dill mueh to our 

cbildnlll. 

Tho term WUDERNESS IIIII what tho dclipa1ion baa-to RpRIIOIIt is Clldla!ICiy 

'lllllatilc. B baa come to JqiRIICIIt to !DillY tbo clilfCII'aiCO bctwccn NatiooallDdcpcndcncc 

and Nalioaal ~on foni&n IIUplllica wbidl will rault in our way oflifc, Nalional 

Ooall and Vllucs bcina held boage. You kDow and I know that Ml just fouPI a war in 

lbc Middlo Ellt bcc:aulc ot America's dql t~idcA:o on forcian oil. GcniJcmca, cloca it make 

..., - to lipiD AJn.io;m blood - f"orai~Plll<lila 1o JII""C"'<' AnaUn cncrv oupplica, 

while at the samo lime Jodcins up Amcricaa cacrgy sowcca in Ccdcral wildcmcllarcaa 

mated for rocRatioml ClljcJynalt of a IICiocl fow'l 

Tho idea of prislinll openlpiCO illlllt really tho illue ba'e. We bavo millionl and millioua 

of acra anacJy in IIUdl a concliliolll wilh IIIIIIICIOIIS protcclive regulatiOIII already in pJacc 

and eoforcccl to continuo ~ prislino openljNIIlCII. Ita about what we will be glWtg up aa 

• Natioll if-look up-- of praclactM: and polaltially prodllctM Ianda for 

-aona1 U8C only and only for a IICiocl few. 
441 

Some special inrcn:ai!J'Oups propoao c:1oe111g oft'-10 3:5 pcr'CCill or Kane Counly. 

This ia in addition to lbc cxialing parlcs, wilderness, forest and lbc Lake PowcD Recrcalion 

An>a !hal ia managed 111 if it wc:rc wildcmCI!II. 

Kane County contains one of the lalgest wttapped fOIIIIil fuel resources in 1bc world. Tho 

Kaiparowits Coal FICid Jitl:raDy contains tho equivalcut of 20 billion barrels of mid-cast oil 

this translates into lrillions ofBTIJ's of aler&Y. This-is also m:ognizod by the Bureau 

of Land Management as ha'Ving ~Potential for Oil and Gas". 

Arc we willing to sacrifice n:aourcc:s such 111 this in the inlcralt of solitude and 

unobattuctcd view llltcds for a aclc:ct few? Ironically, Ibis same few dcmmd oil and gaa and 

metal production just to sojourn to their favorite wildemtas localion? 

The lradc-off and it's risk to the nation is 100 gn:at. It would be an absolute crime ag;dnst 

future generations of Americans to sterilize our nation's energy resources and force our 

gnrulchildrcn to remain hostage to foreign IIUpp!ies. The csacncc of the wildcmcaa dcbale 

must be rooted in b.Jiancc. Wildomcsa prosc:nr,llion must be b.Jianccd with economic 

51ability and national security intcrcal After all, the terms "economy• and "ecology" come 

from the same root word. Wllhout balance, we will SIUmble and fall111 a IOOcty. 

Kane CoWlly, as arc nearly all counties in tho west, is arid and depends on the 

dcvc:lopment of existing and potential water resources for their very IIUI:Vival.. Quality 

hydrologic acquifc:n arc like mineral deposits in that lbcY arc whc:rc you find lhcm. Tho 

Nzv.ajo Sandstone is just such a water resource for Southwestern Utah. We arc dcpcndcnl 

on water wilhin and illsuing from this acquifcr. Any COIIIIraint or resukli<in plaud upon 

lbc orderly dc:vclopmeDI of this resource will be very d.cvaataling to the existing and future 

economy of lhe region. 

The Paluunuwcap WSA is just IIUCh an area. The hydrologic potential is lrcmCIIdoua. 

HR -174S rccomma~ds 19000 an:es for wilderness dcsig~Wion. This area is criascroacd 

wilh roads, fa~ces and other man- made struc1ure11 which should, according to lho 

Wilderness Act disqualifY lhc area. Add to Ibis the impact to cxisling and fu&ure Waler 

needs for Kane and Washington CoiUllioa, tho Pahnmuwcap should be dropped from lhe 

HR.-1745. 

Genllcmcn, altcmalivaJ to wildcmcss dcaignalion is more acceptable. Regulations arc 

already in place that preserw and protect the prillinc nature of thc:sc lands wilhout tho 

ncgalivc effects of wilderness dcaignalion. We can lwvc prillinc vistas and lhc:sc can be 

compallblc with PRODUCTION, JOBS, NATIONAL SELF-RELIANCE AND 

TRJ\DmONAL WAYS OF IJFE. 
442 

Testimony of John A. Harja 

Vice Chair, Board of Trustees 

School and Institution Trust Lands Administration 

State of Utah 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

Before the Subconunittee on N ationa1 Parks, 

Forests and Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

June 29, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Conunittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

address you today concerning the issue of school trust lands and the proposal to designate 

wilderness for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Utah. The Chair of the Board of 

Trustees and the Director of Utah's School and lnstitutiolllll Trust Lands Administration 

(SITLA) have previously testified before the Committee about the iwo bills on the agenda. 

The Board of Trustees and SITLA support the eAchange mechanism for lands of 

"approllirnately equivalent value," as contained in H.R. 1745, with some clarifying 

amendments and additions. 

First, we would request that the determination that the lands to be exchanged are of 

"approximately equivalent value" (page 27, line 7), be combined with the statement that the 

value of the federal lands must be adjusted to reflect the right of the State of Utah to receive 

revenue from commodities production on the lands (page 31, line 1). We request this change 

because it must be more clearly understood that the federal lands are encumbered by the 

obligation to make payments of half of the royalty production to a party not involved in the 

exchange, i.e. the State of Utah, thereby diminishing its worth as an asset to exchange with the 

trust. 

Second, we would request that the hazardous materials inspection clause (page 30, line 6) be 

amended to reflect its value to both parties. We would ask that the first sentence (lines 6 -11) 

be deleted and replaced with the following: 

Both parties shall inspect all pertinent record~ and shall conduct a physical inspection 

of the lands to be exchanged pursuant to this Act for the presence of any hazardous 

materials as presently defined by applicable law. The results of those inspections shall 

be made available to the parties. 
John A. Harja 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

June 29, 1995 

443 

Third, we would request that a statement be added, perhaps on page 27, after line 9, as a new 

section a(4), which reads as follows: 

Congress recognizes that the federal lands are being acquired for their potential as 

developable property, and determines that the lands are suitable for developmental 

purposes. 

In addition to the trust lands exchange provision of H.R. 1745 (Section 11), we ask you to 

continue efforts to obtain solid language to prohibit so~alled "buffer zones. " The federal and 

trust lands in Utah are distributed in a checkerboard type pattern. Trust lands not involved in 

the proposed exchange will remain near the designated wilderness areas. It is very important 

that the management zone for the wilderness area end at the boundary, so that the trust may 

accomplish its purposes on the nearby lands without interference due to wilderness 

management. We believe that buffer zone language used in the past, i.e. the 1984 Forest 

Service wilderness bill for Utah, did not solve this problem, and resulted in restrictions on 

trust land management. 

We frrmly believe that the bill to designate wilderness must resolve the trust lands issue 

through an exchange of lands as stated in H.R. 1745. We also believe that it is most efficient 

and cost-effective to argue over the worth of the lands now, then simply direct an expeditious 

exchange of title documents. We therefore request that the time frame on page 27, line 10 be 

amended to read "If the State of Utah offers to transfer ... ", and the time frame on page 27, 

line 16 be amended to read "180 days." 

I had occasion recently to hear George Frampton, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, remark 

on the need to co-manage areas of intermixed land ownership, versus the idea of blocking up 

areas of consistent management purposes through exchange. He remarked that exchanges of 

land berween the federal government and other parties "take a long time to fail," therefore comanagement is preferable. Mr. Frampton was not discussing wilderness at the time, and may 

say something else if he were. However, I would ask the Congress to consider that the 

purposes federal wilderness management, and the purposes of trust land management can 

never lend themselves to compatible co-management. The federal managers, the trust 

managers and the respective beneficiaries are better served by blocking land together for their 

separate purposes. 

The trust strives to be a good citizen in the national, state and local communities. I would like 

to emphasize that the trust has always chosen the reasonable path to resolve similar ownership 

2 
John A. Ha!ja 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

June 29, 1995 

444 

incompatibilities. It was tbe trust that initiated tbe effon to resolve the thorny problem of 

inheld trust lands in the national parks, forests and Indian Reservations. This effon resulted in 

passage of significant exchange legislation in late 1993 (P.L. 103-93). 

However, recent legislative action by tbe Utah Legislature bas redefined and reemphasized tbe 

role of the trust lands. As trustees, we must manage tbe trust lands as fiduciaries for the 

exclusive benefit of tbe beneficiaries, tbe common schools. The legislation clearly states that 

otber state agencies and tbe general public are not beneficiaries. Therefore, if an opponunity 

for development presents itself, the trust must consider and act on it if economically 

appropriate and beneficial to tbe trust. 

Land that is available for sale or lease, while surrounded by protected land, can become very 

attractive on tbe real estate marlcct. Access to the trust lands is a legal right. Recently, the 

trust received a return of 170'1 of the expected sales price for lands similarly situated. 

It is for these reasons that we strongly support tbe exchange language in H.R. 1745, subject to 

tbe amendments suggested above. Both parties will be better off if lands of similar 

management purposes are blocked togetber. I want to emphasize that tbe trust is seeking to 

keep lands that have long term development potential in its ponfolio, and is tberefore 

interested in an exchange of land as part of the bill. The trust is not interested in the workout 

solution that is a part of P.L. 103-93. 

The areas proposed for wilderness pursuant to H.R. 1745 contain approximately 142,000 acres 

of trust land. In addition, there are an additional 15,000 acres of mineral estate within the 

proposed wilderness, and an additional 67,000 acres of lands within sections bisected by the 

boundaries. all of which must be exchanged to accomplish the purpose of wilderness. 

The obvious question on everyone's mind is the estimation of the "wonh" of the lands 

involved in tbe exchange. Both parties to the exchange require the proposed exchange lands to 

be of • approximately equivalent value • in order to protect tbe interests of tbe trust 

beneficiaries and tbe taxpayers. We n:peatedly bear, as tbe "conventional wisdom• concerning 

exchanges of this type, that the federal tracts requested are exlmnely valuable for tbe 

projected royalty streams from mineral production and that tbe real estate and development 

community is constantly beating on tbe doon of the local BLM office. Convenely the state 

lands are remote and scattered parcels with little or no present or fUture utility. These 

arguments are disturbing and inaccurate for a smmber of reasons. 

Fint, no consideration is given to tbe effon in both time and money to explore and develop 

3 
John A. Hmja 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

June 29, 1995 

445 

these lands. The lands must be leased, bonuses and rentals paid, exploration undertaken, the 

resource quantified, the market evaluated, environmental and other permitting granted, and 

production facilities constructed. If an exchange were consummated tomorrow, it could be 

years, if ever, before a royalty return would accrue to the trust. There are simply no 

guarantees that development will occur, resulting in royalties to the trust. The same is true for 

the trust lands, of course, or would be if federal wilderness study area management did not 

interfere. (We note that all of the trust tracts were leased for mineral production within the 

last fifteen years.) Thus, we believe that the proposed exchange is a fair swap of the 

opportunity to develop these resources, not a guarantee of any particular return. We do not 

believe that any of the federal lands offer a bankable investment at this time . 

Second, it is commonly stated, as if obviously true, that the trust lands are so remote and 

otherwise undesirable that no one would ever want them for any type of commercial activity. 

The trust lands are no more remote than the proposed federal tracts, which are held to be 

valuable, and as noted above, have all been leased for mineral production within the last 15 

years. Further, as discussed later, remoteness has worth as well. 

Mineral leases on the trust lands are often derisively dismissed as "speculative", and therefore 

worthless. The trust lands were spread out all over the state at the time of statehood, so that 

the trust would have the opportunity to share in the resources subsequently found. After 

almost 100 years of work by private and corporate citizens, some areas of resource presence 

are now known. Within those areas of known resource are a portion of the trust lands. Thus, 

lease5 for the trust lands are no more or less speculative than those for the surrounding federal 

lands. However, movements in market forces and changes in federal land management 

policies can cause both the trust and federal leases to become less attractive. For example, 

coal mining unsuitability determinations, such as that which occurred near Bryce Canyon 

National Park can change the market and desire for coal leases locally. It is extremely unfair 

to dismiss the opportunity for development of the trust lands as speculation, solely because of 

the pervasive effects of federal land management decisions. 

The advantage to both parties in the exchange is in the achievement of unity of title to the 

lands for the purposes desired. This advantage must be equally considered in the examination 

of worth. After all, each side must gain something of value, as well as give up something of 

value. The trust will gain the advantage of a larger parcel of land that may be commercially 

developed. The federal government, on the other hand, gains full utility of a parcel for the 

purpose of wilderness preservation. Additionally, the federal government realizes the full 

benefits of the exchange immediately, while the trust must wait for economic and other 

conditions to be right. 

4 
John A. Harja 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

June 29, 1995 

446 

Third, the usual complaints about trust land exchanges ignore the standard components of a 

detennination of value; utility, scarcity and desire, and the four basic forces which influence 

these components; social, economic, governmental (legal) and environmental (physical). 

These components must be used as part of a fair consideration of the wilderness values 

obtained by the federal governmenl. Wilderness is a very desirable commodity today, due to 

societal recognition of its scarcity. The wonh of wilderness has and continues to increase over 

time . Enormous amounts of effort and money are being expended in order to preserve tracts 

of land as wilderness. This commitment of time and money reflects the value of wilderness. 

It would be extremely unfair and incorrect, under the standard valuation techniques mentioned 

above, to assume that the wilderness values sought by so many for protection can not be 

translated into a component of "wonh • to be considered in the proposed, or any other fair 

exchange of laods. The Board of Trustees will have to be satisfied that this requirement has 

been met before any offer to exchange might be made. 

An exchange of the full utility of use for wilderness purposes for the full utility of offering 

parcels on the market for commercial development is a fair exchange, especially given the time 

value of money (time to realization of revenue flow) and the obligation to pay half of any 

mineral production to a third party. 

The trust does not believe that the detailed appraisal advocated by some will adequately answer 

all the questions, or address the issue of what is fair to both the country as a whole and the 

school children of the State of Utah. The appraisal and review process is time consuming and 

extremely expensive. The trust has spent nearly a million dollars on various aspects of 

implementation of our 1993 exchange bill, much of which has been the result of expenses and 

delays related to disagreements with the federal government over procedures and standards for 

an appraisal fair to both sides. Further, detailed appraisals only reflect the here and now; they 

are only a snapshot in time. Future benefits, to all the citizens of the country for wilderness 

and to the schools of Utah for the trust, are not adequately represented in detailed appraisals. 

Past benefits are similarly minimized. Business cycles are not represented, especially when 

federal land management has caused localized changes in the desire for a particular resource. 

The trust seeks a fair sense of wonh for the proposed exchange, and does not believe that 

detailed appraisals can adequately do the job. Therefore, we support the idea of a 

detennination of "approximately equivalent value" up front, followed by the exchange of title 

documents, as proposed in H .R. 1745. 

In conclusion, I would like to remind the Congress that these lands were granted to the state 

for the express purpose of generating revenue for the support of the public schools. 

Historically, their contribution to the overall budget has been small, less than 1%. That is, 

5 
John A. Harja 

H.R. 1745 and H.R. 1500 

June 29, 1995 

447 

however, irrelevant. Every penny counts, and with the renewed charge from the Legislature, 

my fellow trustees and the Director intend to set a course which will increase the value of the 

lands, and over the long term, significantly increase the contribution to educational funding. 

You can help us, and reduce administrative costs on the federal wilderness lands, by 

completing the proposed exchange. 

6 
448 

STATEMENT OF C. BOOTH WALLENTINE 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

ON UTAH BLM WILDERNESS LEGISLATION BEFORE 

THE HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JUNE 29, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before 

you today. For almost as long as I have been associated with the Utah Farm 

Bureau, nearly 33 years now, I have been involved with the wilderness issue. I 

can recall discussing with then-Utah-Senator Ted Moss wilderness legislation he 

was working on in the years before the Wilderness Act was passed. I am 

personally very pleased, as is the Utah Farm Bureau, that the wilderness issue is 

finally moving closer to resolution. With several modifications which I will 

discuss later, we support H.R. 1745 as a balanced and reasonable compromise 

bill. With these modifications it will offer protection for water rights, access, 

grazing, predator control programs and other important activities which must and 

should continue regardless of wilderness designation. 

We compliment the sponsors of H.R. 1745 for including even more specific 

language to try to protect these activities than was included in the only other 

Utah wilderness legislation on the books, the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act 

designating wilderness on National Forests. The Utah Farm Bureau supported 

that legislation because we were promised no restrictions on predator control, 

grazing, water rights and water structure maintenance and no buffer zones. 

Unfortunately, Forest Service rules and management decisions have not honored 

those promises. With the additional modifications we suggest, H.R. 1745 should 

better insure that the intent of Congress is, in fact, carried out by the BLM. 

For a number of years, the effort to designate wilderness on BLM land in Utah 

has been the most divisive public lands issue in our state. It is unfortunate that 

this has been the case, because in many ways, this divisiveness has been the 

result of myths and misinformation on wilderness and the alternatives to 

wilderness. Let me highlight a couple of the most basic of these misconceptions 

because I think that many of them are held by many members of Congress who 

do not come from public lands states or have much experience with public lands 

issues. 
449 

The first of these myths is that unless public lands are designated wilderness, 

they will some how be destroyed. In Utah and elsewhere we hear people saying 

that we must designate these lands as wilderness in order to preserve them for 

future generations. This is not true. We have numerous laws, regulations, and 

court decisions already on the books to protect these lands whether they are 

designated as wilderness or not. Wilderness is almost entirely a recreation 

management concept, not a land protection concept. 

This is such an important basic truth, one which must be the basis for any 

rational and realistic discussion of wilderness, that it bears repeating. 

The land we are talking about in any of these wilderness proposals will be 

protected' regardless of whether it is designated as formal wilderness or not. The 

difference is largely what kind of recreational uses will be made of these areas. 

Presently, the BLM has the authority to do administratively everything which 

wilderness designation would do with one exception:permanently prevent 

mineral entry. But in its environmental impact statement, the BLM looked at 

how much of the 3.2 million acres of wilderness study areas would be disturbed 

by mining and the associated roads and infrastructure if NONE of it were 

designated as wilderness. 

Let me relate to you what happens when I have asked the average Utahn to 

guess what percentage of land would be disturbed by these activities. Most of 

them, responding to the rhetoric which has surrounded this issue, guess that it is 

around 50% of the land. That is, without wilderness designation, about half of 

the 3.2 million acres will eventually be disturbed by mining, including oil and 

gas development, and related activities if it is not designated. 

What is the actual number as determined by the BLM? About 1.8 per cent. If 

none of the 3.2 million acres is designated, only about 1.8% would ever be 

disturbed according to the BLM analysis. If we do not trust that analysis, or we 

want to be conservative, and triple their estimate, that still means that 95% of 

the land will never be disturbed. And remember that the BLM can already 

control administratively road construction, campgrounds and all the other 

activities which many wilderness advocates hold up as their primary concerns. 

Even where oil and gas or mining is permitted, existing rules, laws and 

regulations ensure that these activities will be done in a responsible manner and 

the impacts will be reclaimed. It is very instructive to note that many of the 

areas which some of the wilderness advocates are recommending for wilderness 
450 

were mined in the past. In many cases this occurred before we had the laws and 

regulations on the books which would apply to these activities today. These 

same advocates admit that much of this land is reclaiming naturally to the point 

where they say it now qualifies as wilderness again. That natural reclamation is 

occurring even though the practices which were common then would never be 

permitted today. Under current laws and regulations, active reclamation efforts 

must be part of all activities which disturb public lands. That means that today 

reclamation would be faster and more complete. 

So, I hope that as you debate these various wilderness proposals, you keep this 

discussion in the context of the real world and of the true impact of alternatives. 

In this same context, I urge you to keep in mind the costs of the various 

alternatives to managing this land. At the field hearings, Dr. Don Snyder of 

Utah State University testified on the results of the extensive study his group of 

economists and natural resources specialists did in trying to gauge the economic 

impact of wilderness on Utah and particularly rural Utah. I will not reiterate the 

study's findings except to note that the team's conclusion was that there would 

be a net economic cost to the rural areas of the state. I urge you to also 

consider the cost to the nation if we do not develop the natural resources which 

may be found on those areas which may be designated as wilderness. 

We already face a balance of trade problem caused in large part by energy 

imports. We are exporting abroad jobs in the natural resource industries. We 

are facing a serious problem in food and fiber production which could develop 

into a full blown crisis if something is not done soon to deal with it. It is 

essential for all who consider these wilderness proposals to remember that the 

decisions on where to designate and how much to designate have very real 

national implications. 

These lands. belong to all the people, and the decision of what to do with them 

should serve the broadest public interest. I am absolutely convinced that broad 

public interest demands that the full range of implications, including the 

economic implications, of wilderness designation be fully considered. I hope 

that you will include them in every facet of your debate. 

Let me make one final general point about revenue. The BLM along with all 

other land management agencies-and the Federal Government as a whole--faces 

a budget crisis. Wilderness costs more to manage than non wilderness land. 

BLM managers in Utah estimate it will cost twice as much per acre, or about 
451 

$1.50 per acre more. Where is that additional money going to come from? 

What other BLM programs, most of which are already woefully underfunded, 

are going to be further reduced? Can this funding dislocation be justified 

largely to preserve a specialized type of recreational preference? If the 

alternative to wilderness designation were destruction of the land, as the 

wilderness advocates like to suggest, then perhaps massive designation could be 

more easily justified. But, as I stressed above, it is not. And since the land will 

be protected in any event, I do not think that large amounts of wilderness can be 

justified on a fiscal basis, much less when all the other public policy 

implications are considered. 

We developed these several points I have mentioned along with a number of 

others into a fact sheet on wilderness which many Utahns found extremely 

useful in helping them decide on the wilderness question. I am attaching a copy 

of this fact sheet to my testimony. 

Turning more specifically to the provisions of the bills before you, let me say 

that I do not consider H.R. 1500 to be worthy of any consideration. Opinion 

polls show that most Utahns oppose it. Much of the land included in what is 

recommended does not even qualify as wilderness under any reasonable 

interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness Act. It has none of the management and 

other provisions which are essential to protecting the public interest. I would 

urge you to dismiss it out of hand. 

H.R. 1745 is a much more realistic vehicle for dealing with Utah BLM 

wilderness designation. Not only was it worked out after extensive hearings and 

debate in the state, but it attempts to deal with the full range of management 

issues, such as buffer zones and water and grazing rights, which must be 

addressed in any responsible bill. It certainly comes closer than any Utah 

wilderness bill which has ever been introduced into Congress in providing the 

protection for all users of the public lands. By striking a balance between 

economic and recreational users, it best serves the broad public interest. 

That said, we still have concerns with some aspects of this bill. We prefer a 

much smaller acreage figure than the 1.8 million acres in this bill. The amount 

of acreage in the bill is far in excess of what is needed to meet the recreational 

demand for wilderness. 

Apart from our concern about the acreage, we have several other suggestions to 

improve H.R. 1745. The first of these is the buffer zone language in section 
452 

3(e). In light of the recent court decisions on the Wenatchee National Forest, 

the language in the bill appears to us to be inadequate to prevent the creation of 

buffer zones. The Utah State University study stressed that it was impossible to 

determine the full economic impact of any of the wilderness proposals unless 

there was an assurance that buffer zones would not result in more land being 

impacted than what was actually designated as wilderness. 

It is essential that stronger language be included, and we would suggest 

language which more pointedly and specifically prohibits the presence of nearby 

wilderness affecting any land management decision on any multiple use land. I 

cannot stress emphatically enough how essential it is to us that there be iron-clad 

protections in the bill against the creation of buffer zones by any means. We 

urge you to re-draft and strengthen this section. 

We are also concerned about the road language in section 3(g) and (h). 

Cherrystemming roads into wilderness areas certainly violates the spirit of the 

Wilderness Act if not its intent. The rights-of-way granted to the counties by 

R.S.2477 are· critical to maintaining the public's access to the public lands and 

resources. It is not appropriate to give the Secretary the right to close any 

county road for any reason and we think this language in the bill undermines 

these county rights. 

We also think there should be setbacks for ALL roads and 2477 rights-of-way, 

not just the two categories specifically listed here. Many of these county rights 

of way are two track jeep trails. There is no justification for bringing 

wilderness boundaries right up te the outside edges of the tracks and there are 

good reasons for observing a set back. Not the least of these is avoiding the 

needless litigation costs both for the federal government and the counties which 

will result if setbacks are not applied to all rights-of-way. We strongly urge you 

to redraft these subsections along these lines. 

There are a number of provisions of H.R. 1745 which are very good. The 

protection of state water rights and the primacy of state water law are well 

protected in this bill. We also like the language protecting access generally and 

specifically the language which identifies a number of specific water projects 

and other infrastructure projects which would be protected even where 

wilderness is designated. It is important to keep in mind that protecting water 

that is now used for irrigation is also protecting the water which growing 

communities will need in the future. The language maintaining the present state 

responsibilities for fish and wildlife is also very good. 
453 

While we would prefer to see true hard release language in section I 0, what is 

in H.R. 1745 is better than what has been included in some other recent 

wilderness bills and will do much of what is needed in returning lands not 

actually designated to the full range of multiple use management options. 

We think the land exchange provisions in section II dealing with Utah's school 

trust lands are fair and equitable and we endorse them. Because education 

consumes such a large percentage of our state's resources, this provision is vital 

to all of us. As Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Utah State University, I 

am particularly aware of the need for the revenue that these trust lands could 

provide to support higher education in Utah. We simply must generate more 

revenue from these trust lands and our experience has shown that cannot be 

done if they are isolated within wilderness boundaries. We commend the 

sponsors of this bill for the language they have included to facilitate that effort. 

We also like the provisions protecting grazing. As you know continued grazing 

on wilderness areas was specifically protected in the Wilderness Act. The 

history of trying to insure that grazing in fact continues has been a difficult one, 

as most of you know. In fact, it was agency misinterpretation of the intent of 

Congress on grazing which gave rise to the guidelines contained in House 

Report 96-1126 which is referenced specifically in section 3 (cX2). I have 

attached a copy of them to my statement. 

These guidelines are very good and if they can be enforced they will go far 

towards carrying out the will of Congress in this important area. The problem 

appears to be getting the agencies to do what Congress intends. In the field 

hearings in Utah last week, several ranchers testified on the problems they have 

encountered trying to continue grazing operations in wilderness areas managed 

by the Forest Service or in wilderness study areas managed by the BLM. In one 

case, grazing in the Pine Valley Wilderness in Washington County, the rancher 

had never been given a copy of these guidelines even though on page 22 of the 

committee report it is clearly states that it is the intent of Congress that each 

permittee should receive one. 

Certainly the agencies involved have made decisions which are in violation of 

these guidelines in these and several other instances in Utah alone. The Utah 

State University study surveyed land managers across the West and found a 

number who also apparently are making management decisions which are in 

violation of these guidelines. 
454 

Given this history, we can expect that there will also be problems with BLM 

managers in Utah. To avoid these to the extent possible, we would suggest 

several things. First, we urge you to put the specific management directives in 

the guidelines into the law. 1bat will make it easier to enforce them, and should 

help to serve notice to all parties that the Congress expects the management 

agencies to carry out the directives they are given. 

Second, we urge you to state specifically that the BLM cannot use the presence 

of wilderness or wilderness values as a criteria for determining the suitability of 

grazing in any area it manages. 

Third, we request Congress to hold periodic oversight hearings on grazing in 

wilderness areas across the Wesl Most of the effort to identify problems could 

be accomplished by a questionnaire the subcommittee could send to permitees 

grazing on wilderness land. This questionnaire could reproduce the management 

guidelines and ask the permittees to identify any problems which have come up 

which appear to be in violation of the guidelines. Further exploring those 

problem areas could then form the basis for the hearings. 

My guess is that we would see a major increase in compliance by the agencies, 

and a major drop in problems for livestock producers, after only one or two 

cycles of these periodic hearings. Based on the history of the last 30 years, we 

think it will take this kind of attention by the Congress to make the provisions 

of the grazing language in this bill actually work on the ground. 

In conclusion, with the changes I have outlined here, H.R. 1745 is a good bill. 

Even with these changes it certainly is not what we would have drafted, but we 

understand the need for compromise to get this divisive issue resolved and our 

endorsement represents that process of compromise on our part. 

We do agree wholeheartedly with those who believe that we have a narrow 

window of opportwt.ity to pass a reasonable bill. We commend the Governor 

and the members of the Utah delegation for their efforts to accomplish that 

difficult but very importaot goal. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. 
455 

N0.7 

UTAH WILDERNESS FACTS!!! 

FROM THE UTAH WILDERNESS EDUCATION PROJECT Box 211154, Salt L.alce City, Utah, 84121-G1154 

TEN FACTS YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT WILDERNESS 

(BEFORE YOU CAN DECIDE HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH!) 

FACT #1. THREE OPINION POLLS PROVE THAT THE MORE UTAHNS LEARN ABOUT 

LEGAL WILDERNESS, THE LESS THEY SUPPORT! Recently, theDeseret News (12118/94, p. B-1) 

compared a 1989 Dan Jones poll with one taken in 1994. In 1989, only 24% of the public supported designating 

less than 2 million acres oflegal wilderness, 43% supported more than 2 million acres and 32% had no opinion. By 

1994, the number supporting less than 2 million acres had jumped dramatically to 43% -nearly doubling! Only 41% 

supported more then 2 million acres and only 16% had no opinion. 

A Valley Research survey of Wasatch Front residents reported in the Salt Lake Tribune (2126/95, p. A-1) was even 

more startling. It found that 32% wanted NO more wilderness designated and 27% wanted only 1.2 million acres. 

That totals 59"/o supporting designating 1.2 million acres or less! Just 31% supported the wilderness extremists' 5. 7 

million acre proposal. 

In a statewide survey in 1994, Utah State University found that 74% ofUtahns opposed the BLM's 1.9 million acre 

proposal and 77% opposed the extremists' 5.7 million acre proposal. (Research Report 151, p. 85) 

Why is public opinion running against excessive wilderness? Read on ... 

FACT #2. THE WILDERNESS EXTREMISTS' PROPOSAL WILL COST US MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS A YEAR! Over tbe past five years Utah and the Federal Treasury received an average of $71.4 

million dollars in reveoue annually from Utah forests and public lands-money we taxpayers did not have to take 

from our own pocket. (Source: Utah BLM) Under federal law, HALF of that was returned directly to Utah! Most 

was revenue from oil and gas developmeot and eoal mining-activities which are prohibited in legal wilderness. 

The wilderness extremists' 5.7 million acre proposal would lock up 26% of Utah BLM land. It is impossible to 

determine precisely what such a massive lock-up would cost us taxpayers but it clearly would run into the millions 

of dollars annually. Part of that cost would come directly. For example, just one gold mine planned in Millard 

County that is currently being blocked by the proposed King Top wilderness would geoerate an estimated $7 million 

annually in taxes and royalties to the state and county. (Source: Centurion Mining Co. and Millard County) 

Part of the cost of wilderness would oomc indirectly, either because exploration is prohibited within legal wilderness 

(so we would never know what's there) or because the establishment of buffer zones around them would prohibit 

mining or other activities. Utah already has had an expensive lesson with buffer zones. More than 184,000 acres of 

rich coal deposits in the Alton Coal Field were declared "unsuitable" for mining by the federal govemmeot merely 

because the proposed mining activity could be SEEN from within a national park! Remember, too, that in addition 

to tbe lost tax and royalty reveouc, there is also a cost from the foregone jobs and other economic activity which 

would have beeo generated by mining or oil and gas operations. While you can never be certain how large the price 

tag really is, be assured thirt wilderness designation will cost you cold, hard cash in many ways. 
456 

So, howmuclt are YOU willing to pay to subsidize the recreational prefen:ru:es of a tiny minority of public land 

users? That's right, we said "reaeation" because ... 

FACT #3. WILDERNESS IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PROTECT A SPECIALIZED TYPE 

OF RECREATION. It is esscn1ia1 to understand that what most people think of as "wilderness" i.e. 

undeveloped wild land, is not the same as "legal" wilderness. As defmcd by Sect. 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act, 

to quaiiJY as legal wilderness, an undeveloped area "must provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. • The area must also APPEAR natural, "with no permanent 

improvements or human habitaticns" and with "the imprint of man's work substantially unnotiocable. • Determining 

what qualifies as legal wilderness is a highly subjective task, and, as we shall see, has lead to much of the current 

controversy. ' 

The legal definition further states that wilderness "MAY (emphasis added) also contain ecological, geological or 

other features of scientific, cducatiooal, scenic, or historical value" but they are NOT required. Indeed, regardless of 

the presence of these scientific, scenic, eoological or other values, an area COULD NOT be designated wilderness 

if it did not first meet the other aesthetic and recreational criteria. By legal definition, any relationship between legal 

wilderness and other objectives such as maintaining biodiversity or ecosystems is largely coincidental. 

Section 4(c) of the Act provides further evidellce of the narrow recreational and aesthetic focus of legal wilderness. 

It states that except in very limited CIDI:IJli=DCY situations, there shall be "no use of motor vehicles, motorized 

equipment or motor boats, no laodiog of ainnft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or 

installation within any such area. • Ask )'OUlSCif; what does prohibiting mountain biking or motor boats or helicopter 

le'!diogs or shelters for hikers or outhouses have to do with "protecting the land for future generations," as the 

wilderness extremists love to phrase it? You're right! Nothing! All they do is protect the recreational desires of 

backpackers who want to be alone in public land that they imagine looks as it did before European settlement. 

The irony of the wilderness controversy is that it has little relevance to what will happen on the ground because ... 

FACT #4. EVEN IF NO LEGAL WILDERNESS IS DESIGNATED ON BLM STUDY AREAS, 

VIRTUALLY ALL OF IT WILL REMAIN "WILD." Most people wony about the laDdscape impacts of 

activities such as mining, road coostructim and off-road vehicle use on natural areas. The BLM analyzed the 

potential impacts of these activities on the 3.2 million acres of wilderness study areas (WSA's). The agency projects 

that even if NO wilderness is designated on ANY of this land, "a maximum of 58,968 acres of the soil (about 2 

pen:ent of the WSA acreage) would be disturbed by anticipated projects in the foreseeable future. • (BLM Final 

Environmental impact Statement (EIS), Vol. 1, pp. 20-21.) Even being ultra-conservative and doubling or tripling 

this estimate, 95% of the WSA's williiCVIr be disturbed whether or not they are ever designated as legal wilderness! 

The reality is that ... 

FACT #5. HUNDREDS OF LAWS, REGULATIONS AND COURT DECISIONS PROTECT 

THE PUBLIC'S LANDS AND RESOURCES. The issue in the debate over designating BLM land as legal 

wilderness is NOT whether a portion of our oa1ural heritage will be "preserved for future gcneraticns to enjoy," but 

rather what types of recreation will be permitted and what will be prohibited. Today,literally lnmdrcds of laws, 

regulations, and court decisicns ensure that the public's lands will be protected and used responsibly. 

The following is a listing of just SOiliC of the laDdmark fcdcral environmental and resoun:c maoagemmt laws passed 

SINCE passage of the Wilderness Act. in 1964: The National Environmental Policy Ac:t (NEPA); Clean Air Ac:t 

Amendments of 1970, 1977, and 1990; Clean Water Ac:t Amcodmeots 1972, 1977, 1987, and 1990; Fcdcral 

Environmental Pesticides Ccottol Ad; Endaogacd Species Act; Toxic Substalx:es Ccottol Act.; Fcdcral Land 

Polley Management Act, Natiollll Fcnst Maoagaoeot Ad; Surface Mining Ccottol and Reclamation Act; Forest 

and Raogclaod Rtoewahle ~ Raan:h Ad; Public Range Lands Improvement Ad; Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act; The Sikes Aci; Fcdcral Coal lasing Ameodoteots Act; National Forest Service Roads and Trails 
457 

SystCm Act; Pon:st and Rangeland Rmcwable Resoun:es Planning Act; The National Trails System Act: National 

Forest Tnmsportation System Act; Land and Water Conservation FUDd Act; Federal Water Project Recrcalicn Act; 

The National Historic Preservation Act; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the An:beological Resoun:es Protecticn 

Act. 

So, wbeo you bear someone claim that an area must be designated legal wilderness to protect it from desllllction, 

UDderstand that they are either ignorant cir they are attempting to deceive you. 

You should also understand that ... 

FACT #6. THE TRADEOFFS THAT ACCOMPANY WILDERNESS DESIGNATION CAN 

HURT OTHER RESOURCE VALUES. Legal wilderness is simply a land management scheme to promote 

a certain recreation preference. Choosing this option entails tradeoffs, some of which promote certain resource 

values at the expense of other resource values. The only way to say that legal wilderness is "better" than other land 

management options is to first deeide that the resource values which are thereby promoted are "better" than the 

values which are damaged by legal wilderness. The REAL ISSUE in the debate over legal wilderness designation is 

choosing which resource values to promote over others. 

Wildlife provides an excellent illustration of these tradeoffs. The Final EIS ( Vol. I, p. 22) notes that legal 

wilderness designation promotes certain vegetative types that helps some species over others. One of the many 

specific examples of wildlife trade offs identified in the EIS is the negative impact wilderness designation will have 

on habitat for the ferruginous hawk. This raptor is a sensitive (Category 2) species, one that some of the same 

extremists promoting excessive wilderness are urging should be listed as a federal endangered species! (Final EIS 

Vol. 5, Chapt. on "Grand Gulch," pp. 16, 27) 

The BLM's publication "Current Wilderness Management Issues" notes that, "Habitat may be manipulated only 

when it is l)ecessary to correct conditions resulting from human influence or to protect threatened or endangered 

species." (p. I) Habitat manipulation is a fundamental technique of modern scientific wildlife management. 

Prohibiting its use, as wilderness does, can have tremendous potential negative impact on both game and nongame 

wildlife. So, whether you are a sportsman or simply someone concerned with promoting biodiversty, legal 

wilderness designation will end up promoting someone else's recreational-related values at the expense of those 

wildlife-related values you might think are more important. Yet, the land belongs to you just as much as it does to 

them. 

Scientific research provides another example. This same BLM publication makes it clear on page 4 that research 

can only be conducted inside legal wilderness if "the projects do not degrade the wildemess character and there are 

no alternatives for condocting that research outside of wilderness." Even wbeo research is permitted, modem 

scientific devices can be installed and operated ooiy when the information to be obtained is "essential, • it "cannot be 

obtained from a location outside of wilderness" and the equipment is the "minimum tool necessary to accomplish the 

objective safely and successfully." Among other consequences, this drives up costs, wasting scarce research dollars. 

There are numerous other negative tradeoffs effecting everything from water quantity and quality, to noxious weed 

and pest control, to protecting archeological and historic sites. Ask yourself again, just what do these and numerous 

other wilderness restrictions have to do with "protecting" the land? Nothing! All they protect is the recreational 

pleasure of a tiny minority. 

Unfortunatcly,legal wilderness designation also brings costs and tradeoffs for the whole range of other BLM 

programs ... 

FACT# 7. BECAUSE LEGAL WILDERNESS IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO MANAGE THAN 

MULTIPLE USE LANDS, IT CAN STEAL FROM OTHER BLM PROGRAMS. A "rule ofth=b" 

is that it costs about SI.SO more per 111n per year to manage legal wilderness than it does to manage multiple use 

lands. The annual management costs of tbe extremists' S. 7 million ac:re proposal under this fonnula would be about 

$8.5 million, or 27"/o of Utah BLM's TOTAL budget for 1993. 
458 

How would thatlldditiooal costbubeorbcd? Utah BLM's budget is alrQdywocfully ~toJ1111118elhe 22 

milliclll ~ or public lands ill tbh. A reduclion ill the CUIROt light budget oe.- a h::tio:m or that 27% would 

bavc a devastating impact 011 criticll BLM programs rangiag from an:bcology to R:IOIKCC m..........,. md law 

eofon:emenl Is Ibis a trade otr'llibich sbouki be IIUidc to protect the recrealional desila ol a few? 

It is totally uurealistic to expect more appiopriations from Congress. In !he cum:m fiscal,_, Cor c:xamplc, BLM'a 

land maDagcmeot budget not oa1y fililcd to keep pace with inflation. but clcclilltld lliFI1Y from $599.86 million ill 

fiscall994 to $S98.4S millioo ill !he c:um:at fiscal year. (Source: FY 199S lnlrricr Appropialions Bill) With the 

incrcasills fecbal budget aliiiCb, !he fimding sbortfall for all fecbal mmaganmt qmcies will oa1y get worse. 

Thtte is ooc bright spot. boweYcr, Cor all who care about othrr BLM programs md adivitics and !he important · 

values they n:pR:SCill, because ... 

FACT# 8. MOST OF THE EXTREMISTS' 5.7 MILLION ACRE PROPOSAL DOES NOT 

QUALIFY AS LEGAL WILDERNESS. Most of the wilderness cootrovcny arises beamsc.oflhe 

subjectivity built illto the legal dcfiaition ol "wilderness," as noted above. For example, where docs ooc draw !he line 

between an area of public laDd tbat 9ffi:n an opportunity for mere "solitude" and ooc wbich oflin an "outsunding 

opportwlity for solitude" as is RqUind ill !he law to qualify for legal wildcmess? Or, at wbatlevel an: human 

impacts "substantially UDDOiiceablc" IS the law also requires for an area to qualify .. 

Wbco BLM reviewed its lands for wildcmess suitability, the agency attemplld to ~ly !he legal dc:fiDilion. Taking 

an opposite approacll, the wildcmcss c:manists paid little attention to tbe law and IIRtdlcd tbat dc:fiDiti011to 

ridiculous degrees. · 

Their book, Wildemess At 17re,Edge, wbichoutlincs tbeir S.7 million aac proposal, offi:n IIUIIICroUS examples of 

Ibis failing. In discussing their SbaCor Canycn area. wbicb was rejected by the BLM because it docs not meet the 

legal erileria, the exlrmlists claim 011 p. 279 that "most" of the impacts of man's previous eclivitics "are DO longer 

notioeablc to the wildemcss visitor. Tbe clrill sites are more than a dceadc old and an: DD longer evident, and the 

gully plugs are small and appear Dllural. In IIWI)' plaoes one must look loog and bard to find the vcbicle track. sinoe 

it bas been maintained ooly by !he pass118Colvcbicles." Rep. Bill Orton. iiiAppeodix Hofbia 1992 wildeiness 

report, "Utah Public Lmd Use Managaac:at. • reproduces similar quotes applyills to more than three dozen of their 

proposed areas. 

Hundreds of thousands of acres of laDd the c:xtrcmists propose also will be eliminated because they ignored what are 

called 'R.S. 2477 rigbls-of-way.• Scc:t 4 of the Wilderness Act prohibits includillg pcmllllelltroads. Utah oounties 

own thousands of miles of these valid transpcrtatioo rights-of-way across fcdcrallmds that may initially appear to 

be roadless (including tcm of thousands of acres the extremists include in their proposal). The COUD!ies can, at their 

option, improve and reopen these I'Oids. Even some of the legal wilderness areas, proposed by the BLM will be. 

disqualified or their boundaries will ~ adjustment because of the prcsca:c ol these rights-of-way. · 

The extremists' willingness to accept a i<l'wa- standard for legal wilderness bas an eva1 more profound implication, 

bowevcr, because it bclps to prove that . . . 

FACT #9. WILDERNESS IS ACTU.ALL Y A RENEWABLE RESOURCE. Wddemcss c:xtrcmists 

are fond of warning dolefully tbat •coce wildeiness is gone, it is gone forever. • In fac:t, IS was just illustrated, that is 

not automatically the case. Lmd tbat eva~ the extremistS admit at one time did not qualify as legal wilderness they 

·are now willing to aoeept because it is "Rdaiming naturally. • 

Because legal wildemcss is almost Clllirely a r=calional classificatioo, what qualifies IS lepl wildemess, ooe line 

of reasoning goes, is largely ill !he• olthe (m:reatiooal) bebold«. CoagR.ss itsdfbas iao::Rasia8IY acced on Ibis 

premise that if it is good caough Cor the actual users, an area is good eoougb to designate, fNf:l1 if it docs not qualify 

under the original law. 
459 

As a RaUl~, Consress bas made sianificaDt dumgcs in the original intent of the Wlldcmcss Ad.. For exiiDPle, by the 

early 1970's the Fcnst Scnicc WIS UDder increasing pressure to designate more wilderness in eastcm aatiooal 

forms. They bad fouad oaly four IIRIIS that qualified IU1der the original definition of the Arl.. because the private 

land purchased to c:mdc tbale fcresu previously bad bern logged. farmed, roaded or otherwise made UDSUitablc for 

legal wilderness. The Fcnst Scnicc was comctly applying the definition in Sec. 2 (c) wbich required that legal 

wildcmcss must be "Ill uodevdoped an:a of federal land retaining its primeval ~ aud influc:acc. • 

As in Utah, howewr, scmcoftbale aeas wc:n: reclaiming naturally, with "the imprint of man's work" becoming 

substailtially more "uaooticc:able" wilh the passage of time. Because these areas increasingly LOOKED like 

wildemcss, (thoogb 1cga1ly they were not) coviromncntal groups such as Sierra Club aud the Wildaucss Society 

were pushing for their dcsigaalion. Ra!pooding to this pressure, Congress effectively amended the strict definition 

of the original law md passed the "Eassatl Wlldcmcss Act" (Public Law 93-622) designating 16 an:as as legal 

wildemcss and cstablisbillg 17 additioaal wilderness study areas. 

In 1978, Congress took a similar action. It passed "The Endangered American Wilderness Arl., • designating 16 

wilderness an:as in the West that bad been rejected by the Forest Service for not meeting the requirancnts of the 

original law. Clearly, ooa: wikkmess is gooc it is NOT necessarily gone forever. 

This nolaxation of the original ailaia wbich bas made legal wilderness a renewable resomec does DOt argue for now 

designating ever more of iL On the c:mlraly, the substantial costs and negative tradeoffs associated with its 

designation convincingly argue against that. But it does allow us to "have our cake and eat it too. • It means that we 

can responsibly utilize the public's lllltllral resouroes for the public's benefit NOW and RESTORE the land to 

wi1dcmcss status in the fidure if the m:n:ational demand requires. Remember, that over the past 30 years we have 

accumulated hlllldreds of laws, rcgubdioos, aDd court decisions which require far more earcfu1 stewardship of the 

public lands. All of the human impecls that are now reclaiming naturally were done before this legal framework was 

in place. Wit{l these additioaal ~.it will be far easier to recreate legal wilderness. 

Understaruiing that legal wilderness is a rmcwahle resource, like timber and forage, makes it much easier to resolve 

the policy impasse c:mdcd by the wilderness extremists' demands for excessive acreage. This is especially true in 

light of the fact that ... 

FACT# 10. CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED THAT ALL LAND THAT QUAUFIED AS 

LEGAL WILDERNESS WOULD (OR SHOULD) BE DESIGNATED. In passing the Wildcmcss 

Arl., Congress W8llted to "secure for the American people of present and future generations the bc21clits of an 

enduring resource of wilderness. • (Sec. 2(a)) It did not specify how large that resource would or should be. 

However, Sen. Frank Clwrchofldabo, the key senator in passage of the law and floor manager of the bill, said in 

1977 that he aud otha- supp<llta"S anticipated a National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) of about 40 to SO 

million acres. (Address to Uoiwrsily ofidaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho). 

Presently, the NWPS OOIIIains approximately I 00 million acres of legal wilderness, a HUGE amount of land. It is 

equal to twice the total area of Utah. In fact, only the states of Alaska. Texas and California are larger than I 00 

million acres. It is more than half of the acreage of the entire National Forest System. It represents nearly one 

seventh of ALL lands IJiallll8l'd by the federal government. What's more, this figure does not even inehxle more 

than 30 million acres oflmdoutside the NWPS preserved by the National Park Service. 

In the past 30 years, Congress bas passed almost 100 laws designating wilderness. But none of those laws required 

or suggested that simply because Ill an:a might meet the criteria of legal wilderness it should be designated. Indeed, 

since 1980, vir1ually all the laws clc:si8l'ating legal wilderness have contained staudard "releasc"IBDguage releasing 

for nonwildemcss multiple usc ~ hll1ldreds of areas that might qualify but were not designated as legal 

wildcmcss. 

So, how much legal wildcmess is CIIOUIII>? Coosider that since the mid-1970s the recreation use per aae has been 

steadily DEO..INING. ( USU Raeardt RqJort #IS I, p. 71) This means existing legal wilderness acreage is more 

than meeting the demand. Clearly, "an enduring resource of wilderness" has already bern set aside for the recreation 
460 

.-Is of ptCSeDt ll1d future gcnenlions-evcn without a single acre of BLM lllld in Utah being designated as legal 

wildtmess. 

WHEN THEY EXAMINE THE FACTS, REASONABLE PEOPLE ARE 

CONCLUDING THAT .. . 

Dcsignatioo of legal wildtmess carries with it many costs ll1d tradeoffs that must be examined more carefully in the 

light of preseot realities than they have beco in the past. Setting aside land to meet the n:aeatiooal desires of 

various segments of the pub lie is oertainly a legitimate use of the public lands, whether the users are wilderness 

backpackers or 4-whcel drive enthusiasts. But the demands of any group of rccreationists must be balanced against 

the costs to the rest of the public from meeting those demands and the amount of land designated must bear some 

relationship to the size of the user group. Neither of these criteria have been met in designating legal wilderness. 

There is no question that the genenl public bear heavy costs in subsidizing legal wilderness. The Utah State 

University researchers investigating wilderness impacts concluded that "wilderness designation represents a transfer 

of wealth from those who now usc nonwildemess areas to those who will use wilderness areas." (p. 225) One cost 

is fairly straightforward. Some of the public's natural resources are locked up by wilderness and the public loses the 

benefits of their full utilization. That cost is counted in lost revenue to counties, states and the federal government, 

revenues which must be made up by program cuts, higher taxes or additional deficit spending. It can also be · 

counted in the damage done by diverting funds from more critical resource management programs to subsidize 

wilderness n:aeation. 

The cost can be also be less direct, but just as real. When we have to purchase energy and other needed raw 

materials from other countries that we could have produced domestically, we do more than merely pay the costs of 

exporting Ainerican jobs abroad. We also increase our already critical balance of payments deficit, put further 

pressure on the dollar, ll1d risk higher domestic interest rates. 

Finally, reasonable people understand that the choice is not between wilderness designation and destruction of the 

public land, as the extremists try to mislead people into believing. There are adequate safeguards in place to ensure 

wise stewardship of the public's lands for future generations. We can have the best of both worlds-responsible 

development ll1d use of resoun:es now and a rich natural heritage to pass on to future generations. Equally 

significantly, we can do both of these while also meeting the recreational desires of the vast majority of the public. 
461 

Statement by 

JAMES M. PARKER 

Former Associate Director of BLM 

Former BLM State Director for Utah 

ON H.R. 1745, THE UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1995 

Before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

June 29, 1995 

Chairman Hansen, members of the subcommittee: 

It is an honor to once again appear before this Subcommittee. I have 

been retired from the Federal Government for just over a year. Although the 

points I wtsh to emphasize today are based on my experience over the past 

thirty years working for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, I certainly do not wtsh to give the impression. 

that I am in any way speaking for the Bureau or the Department or trytng to 

represent their position or the position of their employees in anyway. I 

represent only myself, as an interested citizen, but, as a citizen who has had 

an intimate involvement wtth the wilderness issue on public lands for the past 

decade and a half. ·. 

I commend you Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Waldholtz and other 

members of the Utah Delegation, and the members of the subcommittee for 

attempting to finally resolve this important issue. 

From personal experience and observation I know that you have spent 

countless hours in meetings, heartngs, briefings, revieWing maps, studies, and 

other data and in dealing wtth correspondence on this issue. I also know, from 

sometimes being there, the hours you Mr. Chairman and Congressman Orton 

have spent out on the ground on foot or horseback, or in vehicles bouncing over dirt roads or in the air, in small planes, studying areas being considered 

for wilderness designation, so that you mtght be in a better position to deal 

wtth this issue. 

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into this very sensitive 

and controverstaltssue. It would have been easy, and perhaps politically 

expedient, to postpone dealing wtth the wilderness issue, as many have 

suggested and some would like you to do indefinitely. I commend you for 

taking the tougher, higher road and dealing with the issue in a timely and 

appropriate manner. 

Based on my personal experience I believe that H.R. 1745 captures the 

essential elements needed in a Utah wilderness bill and that the ac~e 

involved is both credible and appropriate. I would llke to add my end~ment 

to the general concepts of the bill and to the scope of its coverage. Ceftatnly 
462 

2. 

there is room for disciSsion on the detailed boundaries of specific tracts and on 

the possibility of alternative designations for some areas, but generally I feel 

the bill iS a good one and that it would serve public land management in Utah 

well. 

I also believe that it meets both the spirit and the intent of the 

Wilderness Act qf 1964 and that the proposed designations fit well into the 

overall management mandate provisions of the Federal Land Polley and 

Management Act qf 1976. Wilderness is an tmportant component of public land 

management, but I do not believe that either the Wilderness Act or FLPMA 

intended it to become the predominant factor in the management of the public 

lands. 

I believe that the intent, of both the Wilderness Act and the FLPMA 

wilderness proviSion, is to protect certain lands that meet a specific set of 

criteria for wilderness designation. This determination is to be made through a 

very deliberate and careful public process which involves several stages of 

screening inventories; then intensive study and analysiS, including extensive 

public participation and comment and environmental analysis; and finally, 

reporting which iS to include detailed documentation and analysiS to assist 

Congress in it's decision making. 

I believe that H.R. 1745 recognizes this prescribed process and captures 

the sense of how it was to be carried out. I commend you for cutting through 

the special interest smoke screens and the media oriented counter proposals 

and focusing on the factual and on keeping the integrity of the criteria and 

process formulated by thiS very body. I believe that in doing so you have acted 

in good faith with the laws which have previously been enacted by the 

Congress. 

There are some areas of the bill that I would like to see fine tuned. 

One of these has to do with the "road" issue. As you well know the issue of 

undocumented rights-of-way grants, commonly referred to as R.S. 2477 rtghtsqf-way claims, to a large extent grew out of the wildernees inventory process in 

Utah. The question has been settled, at least administratively, inside officially 

designated WSA, but outside these areas the question is still very much alive. 

Designation of any areas outside existing WSAs which might include possible 

R.S. 24 77 clatms would limit proper management of the area as wilderness and 

would insure the proliferation of legal challenges and extended court cases. 

Some language providing for recognition or at least assertion and 

documentation or perhaps processing under Title 5 of FLPMA of cherrystemmed roads or roads on the boundaries of designated wilderness would seem warranted. 

The wording in the road closure section could also use some fine tuning. 

Cherry-stemmed roads are not part of offical WSAs nor should they be part of 

designated wilderness. Some of the language in thiS section may therefor be 

superfluous. Clarification of what is meant by "road" in this section of the bill 
463 

3. 

would be helpful, 

The discussion of State flsh and Wildlife management acttvlties inside 

destgnated Wilderness area also needs clartfl.cation. As presently written it 

could negatively tmpact the good cooperative and consultative relationships 

that now extst between BLM and State agencies involved in flsh and Wildlife 

management acttvlties. Some recognition needs to be gtven to consistency With 

the WUderness Managament Plan developed for each area. 

The section on land acquisition should include a provision for 

acquisition by donation, in addition to exchange or purchase, since thls is a 

means some conservation organizations and conservation minded indiViduals 

mtght wtsh to use to tmprove management of a destgnated area. 

The assumptions of equal value speclfted in Section 11, for exchanges 

relating to State of Utah school and institutional trust lands ls, based on my 

experience in dealing wtth slmtlar proposal that have been before the Congress, 

very problematic. This of course will depend on what lands and related 

resources are identlfied for exchange. I know this is a very tmportant and 

sensitive issue to the State and one that deserves some additional 

consideration. 

Other sections of the bill involVing such things as buffer zones, access, 

water rtghts, grandfathered practices and rights, use of destgnated Wilderness 

areas by Native Americans, military overfitghts, alr quallty, protection of 

cultural and paleontological resources. release language. and specific 

proVisions for certain areas, are essentially the same as those already 

established in other Wilderness legislation or presently sanctioned in 

regulations and procedures established for wilderness management. They do 

not appear to be precedent setting nor are they, at least in my opinion. out of 

line With appropriate management of designated wilderness areas. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to say a word about a major 

problem I have observed regarding the publlc dialogue and discussion of this 

Issue In Utah, and one which seems to get worse rather than better. It Is one 

that could tmpact the dellberatlons of this Committee. This problem concerns 

the large amount of misinformation which continues to surround the 

Wilderness debate in Utah. 

Unfortunately this misinformation. whether purposely promulgated by 

special Interest groups or by uninformed indiViduals, seem to often 

predominate the publlc discussion of possible wilderness destgnatlon in Utah. 

This has added a great deal of confusion to the public dialogue and has, I 

belleve. detracted greatly from the publlc's ablllty to really understand the 

Issues. I noted that some of this misinformation was very much allve and 

passionately repeated at the field heartng last week. It can also be found dally on the public opinion pages of most papers in Utah. I hope that as the 

Committee works through thls legislation that It would not be unduly 
464 

4 . 

Influenced by the large amount of mtstnformauon that surrounds the 

wtlderness ts.sue tn Utah. 

I would also I.J.ke to say a few words about my experience and 

observations regarding the oft crtuctzed proceSs BLM went through to complete 

Its statutory mandates to Inventory, study and report on areas suitable for 

preservation as wtldemess tn Utah. l would also I.J.ke to comment brtefly on the more recent process that the Utah delegation and Governor carried out as a 

prelude to the Introduction of the current round of legtslatton. 

In October of 1976, with the passage of FLPMA, BLM was directed by the 

Congress to conduct a reView of the public lands under Its jurtsdtcUon to 

identify areas suitable for wtldemess destgnatton, as spec1fted tn the Wilderness 

ActQ/ 1964. 

In August 1979 the 1n1t1al BLM wtldemess tnventory was concluded tn 

Utah. Thts tnventory reViewed all 22 m1lllon acres of BLM administered lands 

tn Utah and Identified lands that "clearty and obviously" did not contain 

w1ldemess characteriStics and those areas that mtght have those 

charactertsUcs, as spec1fted tn the Wilderness Act. Areas that mtght have 

w1lderness charactertsttcs were reViewed tn greater depth tn an tntenstve 

Inventory. 

The Inventories were conducted 1n accordance with the BLM WUdemess 

Inventory Handbook, which had been developed on a national level tnl978. The 

handbook had ortgtnally been ts.sued as a draft WUdemess Polley and Review 

Procedures for conducting the reView required by FLPMA. Some 60 meetings 

were conducted to Insure that adequate publtc Involvement was achieved tn the 

development of the handbook. Over 5,000 written comments were reviewed as 

the procedures and crtterta were developed. In February of 1982 a final version 

of the BLM WUdemess Study Polley was publlshed, It proVided guidance for the 

conduct of the study process once the Inventory phase was complete. 

ln November of 1980, areas determined to have wtldemess 

characteristics were destgnated as official Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). This 

was an admtnlstrattve decision by the State Director and was subject to 

appeal. It also put these areas under rather stringent wilderness management 

requirements. The dectston to not Include several areas as WSAs proposed by 

wtldemess advocates was appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals 

(ffiLA). This was the begtnntng of a series of remands, restudy efforts, appeals, 

and court rulings. Some of these were national tn nature. some only Involved 

Utah. As a result of these acttvtttes the number of WSAs and the acreage 

Included tn WSAs Increased to Include some 3.2 m1lllon acres. 

I mention this hiStory to tllustrate that the process worked, the 

products were tested and retested, and appropriate adjustments made. Durtng 
465 

5. 

thts whole period of Inventory and Initial study and review hundreds of public 

heartngs, meetings and workshops were held, thousands of public comments were received and reviewed, and thousands of pages of documentation were prepared, printed and diStributed to the public for review and comment. 

Countless briefings and Individual discussions were also held. 

The process was open to every citizen of the United States, 1t was well 

defined, the criteria well documented, appeal and protest rights were well 

publiciZed and used by groups and indlvlduals on both ends of the tssue, and 

extensive documentation was completed for all aspects of the process. In the 

later stages of the process, an environmental impact analysts was completed, 

tssued In draft for comments, and then finallzed. It considered the 

environmental consequences of the proposed action and six alternatives 

ranging from "all wllderness" to "no wllderness" for the 82 WSAs which were 

Included In the study. 

For the Draft EIS alone 16 separate heartng were conducted, over 700 

people testlfted, and over 6,000 people commented In wrttlng. The resulting 

Environmental Impact Statement encompassed 7 volumes, contained In 10 

large books. The total cost of all thts effort by BLM In Utah has been 

estimated to be close to 10 m1lllon dollars. 

The whole- process has taken some 15 years to complete, and In some respects it ts stlll ongoing. Undoubtedly, thts ts one of the longest running, 

most Intensive, public Involvement efforts In the history of Utah. It Involved 

more than 16,000 written comments, more than 75 formal pullc meetings or heartngs, and hundreds of face to face discussions. 

I am sure that it ts no secret to you, that despite all of the above, that 

BLM's efforts have come under a great deal of critlctsm. When I was appointed 

Associate Director of the Bureau In 1981 one of the first questions that came to my attention concerned the adequacy of the wllderness Inventory and study 

being carrted on In Utah. As I looked Into this matter I could not find any 

evidence of real problems. Certainly there had been challenges and appeals to 

the BLM State Director's deciSions, but that had been the case In many other 

States also. It was obvious that the review In Utah was not perfect, but 

neither was It seriously Oawed. The matter was to fact discussed on more than one occasion In thts Committee. 

When I became BLM Utah State Director, In 1988, I once again heard 

the critlctsm and again made a concerted effort to determine 1f In fact the effort 

had been seriously flawed, as some speclal Interest groups stlll clalmed. Thts 

time, I personally Interviewed many of the people Involved In the process and 

carefully studied the documentation. I also looked at many of the areas of 

actual conruct on-the-ground. Again I came to the conclusion that whUe 1t 

was not a perfect process, 1t was carrted out ln. a very open, professional and 

orderly manner, with detaUed criteria and processes and well documented 

results, With a great deal of oversight and testing of the decisions by appeals 
466 

6 . 

and judicial challenges. After observing this Issue rather closely for the past 

five years I am more convinced than ever of the valldlty of BLM's efforts. I 

believe that others who have objectively looked at the matter have come to the same conclusion. 

The crttlctsm of the recent public hearings and meetings and the process 

that the Utah delegation and the Governor conducted as a prelude to finalizing 

their legislative proposals has, I believe. fallen prey to the same speclaltnterestdrtven criticism and media oriented campaign of dlstnformatlon that has 

plagued the BLM process. 

It Is Important that everyone has a chance to voice their opinions and 

feeUngs, whether they be local elected officials or paid special Interest 

representatives. It Is also Important to stay within the parameters of the law 

from which the mandate sprtngs and within the boundartes of good science, 

appropriate criteria, and good common sense. I believe that the recent process 

used by the delegation and the governor was not only appropriate but was a 

gracious gesture, gtven the extent of previous public Involvement and the numerous opportunities that have existed over the past 15 years for Individuals 

and groups to become Involved In and to Impact the process. 

As a final observation, may I suggest that It Is time to put down the 

placards. banish the bumper stickers, refrain from the rhetortc. stlence the 

sound bites, forget the fund raisers and end the wilderness debate by moving 

ahead with legislation to destgnate those lands which meet the criteria 

outUned In the WUdemess Act and In other laws and regulations as wilderness 

In Utah. In dotng so please remember how Important the ability to adequately 

manage designated wilderness Is. Manageablllty of designated areas Is critical. 

Again thank you for the opportunity to offer you some of my 

observations on this Important Issue, probably the most Important public land use issue of this decade In Utah. Your task, as you well know is not an easy one. The Issue has been, and I am sure will continue to be, a controversial 

one. but It Is an Issue who's ttrne has come and I am pleased to offer my 

support for your efforts to gatn passage of H.R.l745. 

Thank you. 
467 

. 

··~~~ FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Members of Congress, 

As businessmen we understand the need for economic development. As 

sportsmen, we love to hunt and fish in wild, remote and pristine 

areas, and go to the ends of the earth to do so. 

We make no suggestions regarding the specific numbers of acres in 

the Utah Wilderness Bill . However, because of attempts to prohibit 

the use of .adem wildlife management techniques in wilderness areas both in Utah and surrounding states, we strongly reco ... nd 

that the language regarding wildlife management r-ain in this 

legislation. I will give you a few examples. 

In Utah, some wilderness advocates have used wilder·ness regulations 

to try and stop stocking of fish in the High Uintas Wilderness 

Area, designated wilderness in 1984 via the Garn/Hansen Bill. 

Interestingly, Forest Service surveys show that one of the primary reasons that 80% of the peopl~ go to this particular Utah 

Wilderness Area is to fish. 

In many instances, small, man made, water catchments commonly 

referred to as guzzlers, are the keys to supporting various 

wildlife species in the remote desert areas of the Western United 

States. In Arizona and Nevada, some wilderness advocates have 

requested that these life giving waters be removed to restore all 

things to their "natural state" . The natural state means no wildlife. (See attached Arizona Wildlife News, September 1989) . 

15 years ago, Utah had only one remaining isolated population of 

Bighorn sheep, the animal symbolizing wilderness. Many wilderness 

advocates feel that lands must be designated wilderness for 

protection of Bighorn sheep. Designation of Wilderness Study Areas 

has done absolutely nothing to restore Bighorn populations. In 

fact, in some instances it has hindered the restoration efforts. 

Since 1980, Utah Bighorn sheep hunting advocates have raised and 

spent over $1.1 million dollars of private capital, to restore 

these magnificent animals to Utah's landscape. For the past five 

years, I personally have spearheaded this effort. I know what it 

takes to restore and maintain Bighorn sheep populations, and it 

requires some manipulation by man. 

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife 

1174 Soutb 300 West • Salt Lake City, Utab 84101 • (801) 485-4090 • Fax (801) 487-9795 
468 

Because of efforts of sportsmen, wildlife management professionals, 

and like minded public land managers, there are now Bighorn sheep 

in the following proposed wilderness areas: Fifty Mile Mountain, 

Escalante River, Paria River, Dirty Devil River, Happy Canyon, 

Little Rockies, Westwater Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Book Cliffs, 

Floy Canyon, Sids Mountain and the entire San Rafael complex. 

Without using modern management tools potentially prohibited by 

wilderness, the very symbol of wilderness would not exist. This 

past January I had the opportunity to help transplant Bighorn sheep 

into the proposed Desolation Canyon wilderness, a project 

successfully completed with a couple hours use of helicopters. 

Now that Bighorns have been restored to many areas, some wilderness 

advocates want, "to leave certain populations and areas within 

Desolation Canyon un-hunted." It is most interesting that those 

who have contributed nothi ng to the re-establishment of wildlife 

populations now want to control the management agenda. 

Predator control is controversial. However, even Walt Disney 

understands what uncontrolled predator populations can do as portrayed in the movie the "Lion King". Uncontrolled populations 

of hyena's ate themselves out of house and home and nearly 

destroyed the pride lands . The same could happen in the Utah . 

For these reasons, we are very supportive of the language in this 

bill that allows for modern wildlife management activities. The 

specific language includes, "WATER DEVELOPMENT, PREDATOR CONTROL, 

TRANSPLANTING ANIMALS, STOCKING FISH, BUNTING, FISHING AND 

TRAPPING. WE ASK THAT YOU ADD "AERIAL SURVEYS, TRANSPLANTS, AND/OR 

SURVEILLANCE VIA PLAKE OR HELICOPTER" AS ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ALLOWED IN WILDERNESS AREAS. 

This language should eliminated the debate amongst federal land 

managers about wildlife management activities in Wilderness Areas. 

Nor should there be any debate about the ability to continue to 

hunt, fish, and trap, for the group of people who were the first 

and are still the foremost wildlife conservationists - the American 

Sportsmen. 

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the democratic 

process. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Sincerely, 

~-:f!rr~ Executive Director 
AH. WU.DERNESS! 

It's a beautiful concept, and just about 

everyooc bUL lhc most nbid. profit moti

valtd developer is in ravor of it But 

sometimes we may fmd we get more &han 

we hoped for when we originally c:ndonc 

the idea. 

lt seems there is almost no middle 

gf"" ··'ld in the wilderness concept as il is 

a~ .:d to our public lands. It's an aU-ornothing situation. and while this may seem 

wonderful at first thought, it often gcu in 

the way of l<>sK and practicality. 

The Wilderness Act under which a 

number of areas in Arizona have been set 

aside makes it quite clear that there ~haU he 

no roads, even temporary ones, and that no 

motOrized eqoipment of any Jtind may be 

u!iled, "except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the adminisntion 

of this Act (including measW"es requ.i.m1 in 

emergencies in,-olving the health and safety 

of persons within the area) ... " 

This v.·arding allows the adminislrator 

of a given area to determine just what is: 

"neccssary .. .for the administration of this 

Ac~" but the adminisuator is eJq><Cted to 

keep any exceptions to the Act at an absolute minimum. 

Mono specifiCally. fish and wildlife 

acth·ities are legitimate activities as Ions 

as lhey are conducted ''in a manner c;ompatible with the pres<rvation of the wilder· 

T eautlful meadow ., left le • lovely 

plo,..to l>eln Septemllfi, but you'll ha .. 

to hlte or ride 1 horN to get t...,., Ttw 

top of Eacudlna MDuntaln Ia now In a 

wtldamen•ru. 

469 

neu etrrironmcnL.. Methods lhat infringe 

onthistOIICeptmtybe approved if no other 

methodsareavailable.butwhaceverisdone 

contrary to the specific wording of the ct 

mUSl have prior wriaen approval of the 

ldminiSierins agenc:y. In most cases this 

means eithcc the Forest· Service oc lhe 

Buruu of Land ManagemenL 

All that !IOUilds quite rtaSONiblc. unbl 

>""' bump imo it hcadlona and raliu 1"" 

can'tdothejob7""'ro expectedtodo. And 

thai's wt1e1e tile problenu IIIli. 

loa nvmberofQlSCS. for example, the 

Game anc1 rllh Dopartntent 11as boen 

unable to maintain wildlife wa1ahoiC$ 

wllich,.,.re.-beforothe~~Uinques· 

lion formally was desiJnatod a 11'ildemoss. 

On Pusc:h Ridge in the Catalina Moun. 

talns)IIStnonhofl'llcson. for eumple. the 

Doponment ~ to refutbish an olcler 

Jain water catchmenr &hateJ.iS&ed brefoR Ute 

area beame a wiktemess. omcials or me 

Coronado Natiollal Fore~ in which the 

water dev~ is lacaled. """-'ever, 

feel It is " incompatible" willl wildernea, 

and may orclcr the Depanment to retnO'YC iL 

lllhertllanrtplirit. 

In 1 similar sicuadon. an AO&F Clldl· 

The term "wtlderne.... conjura up 

thought• of pristine tora.ta chllf'llc:t.r· 

lztd by tell. ancient tntll nurtured by 

emple I MUll pr.clpllatiOn. but U11 rtll• 

ttv 11 that m1ny AriZona wlldetrMM ar· 

••• ere In the deMrt porttona ot tht atllte, There'a a major wlldlmftll area, 

for namp ... behtnd the f8ml111r flee of 

superatttlon Mountain, Pown betow. 

ment consiJ'Ucled prior to wilderness des~ 

ignation in lhe Juniper Mesa Wilderness 

"-of the Prescott National Forest needed 

mllintenance. It.. LOO. was deemed inaxn~ 

patible with lhe wilderness concept. so the 

Forest Sen'ice ordered the Deportment to 

remcve it. 

Those arm't the only cases ofthintin1 

aimed at restoring wilderness by removinll 

anylhing IJIIJI-made. There"s a 740...:re 

biehom enclosure in the Viliin Mountains 

up in the nonllwest comer of the-. It 

was built blck in the poe-wildemea days 

of 1978 Ul f~K:iliwe bisbam slleep 

transplanting openlions. Now tile BLM 

wants il removoll. 

In ocher BLM·admini- Wilder· 

ness .areas. aerial pme surveys have hid to 

beal>anclonedorltlOIIiliedbeciUICnolligNs 

below 2.000 fOCI would he"""""""· The list g001 on. The old Soatlt ~ 

yon Pipeline on the east side of the Kaibab 

North coold serve wildlife betu:r if some 

drinking spotS,...,.. added along its len8d>. but tile Kaibab National Forest off'l<C re· 

tmed 10 allow any modiftcadons because 

it'l now in a wilderness area. 

SUTEMSER JOB • WIZDUFE VIEWS • ,AGB J 
470 
471 

Zone II, 10702 So_ 300 W_, SuKe 120, So_ Jordan, UT 84095 

1616 North Main, Centerville, UT 84014 

1-801-292-0245 

WILDERNESS HEARINGS - WASHINGTON DC 

JUNE 29, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and members of the .committee, my name is Bill 

Rigby. I am a farmer and I currently serve as president of 

the Utah Association of Conservation Districts. I represent 

utah's 195 locally elected supervisors from our 39 Soil 

conservation Districts and the approximately 14,000 private 

agricultural landowners we represent. 

The Utah Association of Conservation Districts is organized 

to foster Utah's conservation effort. It is our vision to 

have a productive Utah in harmony with a quality 

environment. Our 47 years of experience tells us that 

conservation means wise-use and stewardship. 

The perception that wilderness designation is required to 

protect our wild lands is unfounded. We do not see widespread evidences of serious environmental problems on Bureau of Land Management lands. The lack of water prevents 

residential or agricultural development in the Wilderness 

Study Areas of Utah. Department of the Interior studies 

demonstrate that rangeland trend is improving and that 

numbers of wildlife are increasing dramatically. Industries 

that use natural resources are already regulated by federal 

laws. These laws also provide ample opportunity for public 

input on management policies on public lands. These lands 

belong to all the public and their use should not be 

restricted to certain segments of the public. 

Wilderness Designation is the most restrictive land 

management policy for federal lands. We do not believe it 

to be the ultimate land management-policy. Economic studies 

and experience with Forest Service Wilderness Areas 

demonstrate that Wilderness Designation is a net economic 

loss to local economies. Some counties will have l/3 of 

their lands in wilderness. 

The January 1995 Research Report 151 by 5 professors from 

Utah State University concludes: (copy attached) 

"The economic gains from recreation, which 

is one of the major uses consistent with 

wilderness, appear to be inconsequential, and 

probably would not offset the economic losses 

associated with wilderness designation. However, 
472 

we did not consider the nonmarket benefits 

associated with wilderness designation. 

The major beneficiaries of wilderness 

designation appear to be relatively young 

2 

and wealthy recreationists. In effect, 

wilderness designation represents a transfer 

of income from rural areas, where economic 

opportunities are already limited. The 

withdrawal of resources through wilderness 

designation seems inconsistent with efforts to 

foster the social and economic revitalization 

of rural areas of Utah, an objective that has 

long been the stated goal of many federal 

programs." 

We believe that designated wilderness areas should have no buffer zones. If there must be buffer zones they should be 

inside the designated wilderness boundaries. Forest Service 

designated wilderness immediately adjacent .to the Salt Lake 

City metropolitan area function well without any buffer zones. 

The recommendation for 1.8 million acres or less of 

designated wilderness on Utah BLM land is strongly supported 

by a majority of the people of Utah. A survey conducted by 

Dan Jones and Associates during the week of May 10, 19q5 

showed the following: 

4\ of respondents 

18\ of respondents 

26\ of respondents 

36\ of respondents 

7\ of respondents 

8\ of respondents 

wanted 

wanted 

wanted 

wanted 

wanted 

had no 

zero acres 1 million acres 1.8 million acres 5.7 million acres some other number 

opinion 

Many had a hard time defining what wilderness was. Comments included a lot of anti growth sentiment. 

Many indicated the poll really made them think. 

Contrary to news reports that 2/3 of Utahns want 5.7 million 

acres, the poll showed 48% wanted less than two million acres of wilderness and only 36% wanted 5.7 million acres. The remaining 16% had no opinion or wanted some other 

amount. In addition, the public approved by a margin of 69% 

to 29%, the process instituted by the Governor and 

Congressional Delegation which 3rrived at the 1.8 million acre alternative. 
473 

3 

I attended the wilderness hearing at the University of Utah 

which was attended by mostly young people advocating 

designation of large amounts of wilderness. I was unable to 

obtain a time slot to testify so I visited with 26 young 

people in groups of 3 or 4 in the hallways and talked about 

how we conservationists have preserved and used and enhanced 

the natural resources and have in the process provided food 

and fiber for all America. I gave examples of the Heber 

Valley water story, Vernon Creek watershed, etc. After 

explaining the principles of multiple use to them, not one was convinced multiple use was the wrong way to go. 

Many of the areas dropped from wilderness designation 

included Revised Statute 2477 roads that protect public access across federal lands to private and state lands. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directed that federal lands with 

unsurpassed opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation be set aside exclusively for those purposes. The 

problem arises in the fact that in Utah such designation is 

not needed. There is more federal land accessible for 

citizens to experience solitude than the entire land areas of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont combined 

(some 52.5 million acres). 

Utah has more National Park administered land than the 

combined total land areas of Delaware and Rhode Island (2.3 

million acres). No state in the Union has as much National 

Park, Monument and Wilderness Area acres as does Utah except 

for Alaska. 

Utah already has 0.8 million acres of National Forest land 

designated as wilderness. Combined with the 1.8 million acres in the Utah Delegation Bill the designated Wilderness 

Areas in Utah well exceed the entire land area of Delaware 

(1.98 million acres and half of Rhode Island .53 million 

acres). 

Only 2lt of Utah is privately owned and sot of that is in 

agricultural production. It is important that we maintain our ability to produce food because if people go hungry for 

24 hours they quarrel, if they go hungry for 48 hours they 

steal, and if they go hungry for 72 hours they may kill to 

get food. ' 

I feel a.w~ll used ar~a accessable to many people becomes 

self po~1c1ng. That 1s, people then tend to police each 

other, lf they see soaeone desecrating the thing they value. 
474 

4 

There is a poem about a Blacksmith who remains strong a~d 

powerful as long as he uses his arms. If he lets them JUSt 

rest in time they wither and become useless. Prayer, 

exercise and food keep us healthy. Management and wise use of ecosystems keep them healthy and productive also. 

New York City, faced with prospects of having to build a $5 

billion filtration system for their culinary water supply, 

chose instead to spend a tithe of that money to help the 

agricultural owners of the watershed install conservation 

plans on their farms which protect the water supply and save billions of dollars. · 

Another example of cooperation between federal land managers 

and private users occurred in Utah during a recent drought. 

The range was so dry no grass grew so sheepmen voluntarily 

kept their animals off the public lands for a year. Since 

the sheep weren't there the ranchers didn't pump the private 

wells they had drilled at their own expense on BLM land and 

the wildlife had no water. 

some people see wilderness areas as a church and tout the 

spiritual values fostered by it's beauty and solitude. 

Perhaps we should ask whether government policies that seek 

to preserve them constitute a subsidy to religion . 

An option might be to auction public lands to wilderness 

groups who could then manage them according to their own standards~ No sacrifice is too great for someone else to 

make as long as it is free to you. 

We ruin anything we put in prison although some humans we have to lock up to protect ourselves. But to lock something or someone up stops the growth and value of the thing or person. Even our water storage ponds like Lake Powell have 

to receive and release water to stay fresh. The oceans have 

to have action waves and water running into them, etc. 

Nature does not lock things up . 

We believe .that the best management decisions are made 

closest to the re~ou~ce base. Consequently, we strongly 

support the . l.8 m~ll~on acre wilderness designation recomme~dat~ons developed by the Utah congressional 071egat~on and Utah Governor Michael o. Leavitt in concert w~th the 29 Utah counties as contained in House Bill 1745. 

If you have any questions or need more information, please 

feel free to contact me at 801-292-0245 or Dean Maxwell UACD 

Coordinator at 801-572-9315. 
475 

WILDERNESS DESIGNATION IN UTAH: 

ISSUES AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Donald Snyder, Christopher Fawson, E. Bruce Godfrey, John Keith, Departmenl of Economics 

Robert Lilieholm, Department ofF or est Ruources 

Utah Slate University 

The Wilderness Act of 1964, which established a 

National Wilderness Preservation System, was not 

concerned with the economic impact of wilderness 

designation. Indeed, some wilderness advocates argue 

that economic factors should not be a factor in wilderness designation, though some cite the economic 

benefits that may accompany wilderness designation. 

Rural communities in Utah adjacent to proposed 

wilderness areas are very concerned with this issue. 

There are widely divergent claims about the economic 

repercussions of wilderness designation. These range 

from those who view wilderness designation as a 

prelude to economic revitalization to those who claim it 

will be the death knell for communities. 

livestock grazing, along with the economic contributions 

of recreation-the primary measurable economic benefit 

associated with wilderness designation. We also 

estimated the probable economic consequences of 

withdrawing access to resources in wilderness areas. 

We did not attempt to estimate the impacts of wilderness 

designation on nonmarket values, although we recognize 

the important role these values have in wilderness 

decisions 

ISSUES 

We reviewed other economists' views of wilderness. Some view wilderness designation as a 

The concerns of local communities were the focus of 

this swdy. Time consttaints and limited funds did not 

permit a comprehensive analysis of all relevant economic factors. Instead we examined issues likely to have 

a direct financial impact on local communities. These 

included the effects on adjacent lands, water rights, and 

· legal artifact that often exacerbates conflicts because it 

encourages an "all or nothing" approach, i.e .• recreation 

is the major use pennitted in wilderness areas. 1bey cite 

alternatives to this approach that would permit the 

utilization of resources without jeopardizing "wilderness" values. 

TABLE 1. PROPOSED WILDERNESS ACREAGES BY COUNTIES, 

BLM PROPOSAL UWC PROPOSAL 

COUNTY ACREAGE %OF COUNTY ACREAGE %OF COUNTY 

Beaver 7,321 0.5 81,801 5.0 

Box Elder 0 0 25,043 0.6 

Carbon 73,069 7.3 124,075 12.3 

Daggett 0 0 12,121 2.7 

Duchesne 0 0 9,532 0.5 

Emery 400,709 14.3 1,049,419 37.5 

Garfield 310,517 9.3 984,170 29.5 

Grand 201,946 8.6 631,764 26.8 

Iron 1,585 0.1 5,789 0.3 

Juab 66,082 3.0 147,763 6.8 

Kane 219,949 8.4 1,020,489 38.8 

Millard 102,482 2.4 327,399 7.5 

San Juan 376,834 7.4 1,000,405 19.6 

Sevier 0 0 28,266 2.3 

Tooele 42,176 0.9 187,799 4.0 

Uintah 541 0.01 91,995 3.2 

Washington 63,443 4.1 172,669 11.2 

Wayne 176,072 11.0 513,962 32.2 
476 

Othen believe wilderness designalion represents a 

transfec of weallh from cum:nt and polential users of 

these areas to recreationists. Under the cum:nt system 

of wilderness designation, rccreationists pay liale or 

nothing to gain access to these resow.:es. which, these 

economists contmd, encourages a misallocation of 

these resources. 

Other economists argue that wilderness aumot be 

valued in economic terms. Some analysts suggest !hat 

the views of many environmental groups tqnSent an 

"environmental theology," and thai government support 

of wilderness designation represents a subsidy to 

religion. One proposed market-based alternative would 

let environmental groups 8C<juire these lands so these 

groups could manage lhem in a manner consislent wilh 

their beliefs. · 

We present these market-based penpeaives to illustnlle 

alternative views of wildecness designation. Other 

nonrnarket perspectives (e.g~ biological. ecological, 

aesthetic) have received widespread consiclerlllion in 

numerous academic and popular publications and are 

readily available. 

We used county maps to curnine issues and 

concerns associa'.ed wilh the 137 wilderness 

study areas proposed by the Ucah Wilderness Coalition 

(UWC) and "the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Many of lhe UWC areas involved "cheery-stemmed" 

roadways and included roadways. The 1epl staiiiS of 

many of these roadways is currendy being debalecl. The 

boundaries of some study areas also inlersecled town 

boundaries. 

THE· EFFECTS ON ADJACENT lANDS 

Tbere is concern that wilderness designalion will influence lhe development and rnaJI8llelllCDt of 

adjacent land. Under the Property Cause of the U.S. 

Constitution,the fedend government bas the abiliiy to 

protect federal resources, including OOIIIIOUing the 

management of adjacent lands. The federal government 

has exercised this aulhority many times. In some cases. restrictions on land ...., near wilderness have resulled in 

de facto buffecs, even wben wilderness legislalion 

specifieally forbids the implementation of these zones. 

Howevec, the limited extent ancl special~ 

surrounding these cases suggest thai fear11 of widespread and systematic buffecs are unwarranted. 

While it is impossible to predict whether buffecs will 

be crea1ed in a certain area, cbere are actions that can reduce the lil<elihoocl they will be crealed. For example, 

suues can act to mitigate dueals 10 wilderness areas. instead of waiting for the federal governntallro acL 

Creating wildecness area boundaries oo the basis of 

ecosystems talhec lhan political or other criteria would 

also reduce the problem, as would provisions in legisla· 

lion that include "release language," i.e., provisions that 

clearly specify how areas not designated as wilderness 

are "released" for other uses or furthec sludy. 

Standard language used 10 prohibit !he creation of buffer 

zones should be carefully drafted to ensure that it meets 

its intent under lhe law. Specifying which resources are 

to be protected by special land use designations such as 

wilderness would alleviate concerns, allhough it would 

also make it more cliflicult to draft and pass legislation. 

Another alternative is to employ a core/buffer BPIKOOCh 

in which areas designated as wildecness secve as "core" 

areas surrounded by olhec areas whece lhere are fewec 

restrictions on land use. This melhod has been successfully employed in many areas of lhe counlry, although it 

can be cliflicultto implemenL 

RECREATION 

We surveyed users of five wilderness areas and wildecness swdy areas in Utah to determine the 

characteristics of usecs and lhe economic impact associated with wilclemess use. The visitor> tended to be male, 

relatively young, well educaled, affluent, white; and 

employed as professionals or executives. A large proportion (47 to 81 percent) oflhe visitor> were from lhe 1oeal 

area. which included adjacent staleS. On a household 

basis, visitor> spent about S30 per day, somewhat less 

lhan many other types of recreational activity. 

Residents of urban and rund areas of lhe stale were asked 

about their auitudes toward wilderness. Genecally, 

respondents said they made extensive use of wildecness 

areas, but a substantial portion of lhe recreational uses, 

such as bicycling or off-road vehicles, would not be 

allowed under wildecness designation. 

We asked a random sample of Utah residents about !he 

value lhey placed on wilderness (!hose respondents who 

favored wilderness) or thai they placed on preserving 

multiple use (lhose respondents who opposed wildecness 

designation). When these "bids" wece compared, 

multiple-use was valued much higher lhan wildecness. In 

othec words, opponents of wilderness said they were 

willing to spend more to preserve multiple use. 

More lhan two-lhirds ol the respondents inclicated !hey 

would vote against the BLM proposal. Thece was even 

less support for the UWC proposal, even by respondents 

who supported lhe genend concept of wilderness. 

We estimaled lhe economic impact of visitation to lhe 

BLM and UWC wildecness and wildecness study areas, 

based on current visitation rates to wildecness and 

wilderness study areas. As shown in Table 2, wildecnessrelated expenclilures as a percentage of total county sales 

are very low. For example, in Emecy County, where 37.5 

percent of the couoty would be designatod as wilderness 
477 

ABLE 2. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WILDERNESS designation has oflen restricted access 10 mining claims. 

and lhis may occur in Ulah. DESIGNATION AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 

TAXABLE COUNTY SALES. Even though gross sales from mining and minerals are 

BLM uwc relatively small compared 10 10181 county sales. lhese 

SALES AS SALIS AS extractive industries often provide a substantial share of 

%OF %OF lhe local property laX base. e.g .. 43 10 6S% of property 

CoUNTY COUNTY tax receipts in Duchesne County from 198910 1992. In 

COUNTY TOTAL TOTAL addition, mining wages are about twice lhose of most 

Beaver 0 0 jobs in lhe service industry. 

Box Elder 0 0 Based on average monlhly employment. 12 of 18 Carbon 0 0 counties wilh wilderness swdy =as had a proportion- Daggett 0 0.4 ately larger mining sec10r thai the state average. Coon- Duchesne 0 0 ties with proposed wilderness may bear a disproportion- Emery 1.7 4.4 ate share of the cost of wilderness withdrawals if Garfield 3.1 10.0 wilderness designation decreases mining-rdaltd Grand 0.6 2.2 economic activity. Rural counties are rela<ively isolated Iron 0 0 in their ecooomic activity and may not participate in the Juab 0.2 0.4 economic gains enjoyed by communities along the Kane 2.2 8.2 Wasatch Front, a faciO< that increases the signiftcance of Millard 0.1 0.2 local effons 10 foslel' economic growlh. SanJuan 2.8 9.1 

Sevier 0 0.1 

Tooele GRAZING 0.1 0.2 

Uinlah 0 0.1 

Washington The 1964 Wilderness Ac! all";"s livestock ~g in 0 0.1 wilderness =as. Despue this. wilderness dcsigna- Wayne o.s l.S tion has sometimes led 10 a decline in livestock when Average 0.3 0.9 managers declare land unsuilahle fCI' glaZing and 

reduce allowable forage utilization nues, Cl' when under the UWC proposal, wilderness-related expendi- operaiOrs decide 10 slOp grazing due 10 increases in tures would be 4.4 percent of 10181 taxable sales. management costs. 

Communities that have beneflled from wilderness Many residents of rural counties depend on bolh designation were either larger melropOlitan areas or ranching and nonfarm income. Neither is sufficient by areas that already possessed the infrasuucwre needed 10 itself. Any decline in ranching income due 10 a loss of support wilderness-related activities. The value of grazing on lands designated as wilderness would have wilderness is expected 10 increase, based largely on negative economic effects. higher incomes and the proximity of wilderness. The 

latter fac10r may not be germane 10 many of the remote 

wilderness WATER areas under consideration in Utah. Also, the 

U.S. population is aging, and wilderness use usually Many existing wilderness areas occupy high . decreases wilh age, another faciO< thai should be elevation sites where concerns over water nghts considered when projecting the future use of wilderness are minor. However, in many of the areas now being areas. considered for wilderness, virtually all of lhe appropriated water rights are upstream. This, combined with the 

MINING uncenainty about the federal government's policy 

regarding "reserved" rights (i.e., the principle thai There was little ccmsensus oo the ~nds in mineral quantities of water are reserved when public lands are markets. There is a long hisiOry of mining activity wilhdrawn from the public domain), means thai eco- in many of the wilderness areas proposed by the UWC. nomic development in many areas of Southern Ulah It is nearly impossible 10 ascertain lhe extent of mineral depends on a resolution of reserved water rights. deposits in proposed wilderness areas. Wilderness 
478 

CONCLUSIONS 

The economic gains from recreation, which is one of 

the major uses consiscent wilh wilderness, appear to 

be inconsequential, and probably would not offset !he 

economic losses associated wilh wilderness designation. 

However, we did not consider the nonmarl<et benefits 

associated with wilderness designation. 

The major beneficiaries of wilderness designation 

appear to be !datively young and weallhy rccreationists. 

In effect, wilderness designation represent.s a lransfer of 

income from rural areas, where economic opportunities 

are already limited. The withdrawal of resowces through 

wilderness designation seems inconsistent with efforts to 

foster the social and economic rcvital.ization of rural 

areas of Utah, an objective lhat has long been the stated 

goal of many federal programs. 

This stlldy W4S primarily S"f'pM<d bJ tM minuolleou fonds, with 1Jdditi0N21 S"f'portfrom tM D<ptUfnVnl <(Comnuuoily 

and Ec"""""" D<W!/opm<nt. tM UtlJJo Agricllllwol Ezp<rim<nt 

Stati.ofs. the Utah Coopu01ive E:tte1t.riott Suvia, aNi tM 

D~parllMftl o{&OfiOiftics ar Utala SUJU Ulliversily. 

A summary of tM findings is publisMd bJ tM Uroh Agricultural Expuimtnt Station tu Reuarch Report/51, Wilderness 

Designation in Utah: Issues and Potential Economic Impacts. 

Copw or< avoilabl< fr"'" tM UtlJJo Agricllllorol Ezp<rUrwot 

StaJion. Utah StaJ< Univusity, Loga~~, UT 84322-4810; (801) 

797-2206 Cost i.r $10 plus U p<r CopJ shipping and hondling. 
479 

2?.7 3 S. Highland Dr. Suite 20 ..-. P.O. Box 520974. Salt Lake City. Utah 84152-0974 ..- Phone SO\ -+86-2872 - Fax SOl 467-9296 

TESTIMONY OF THE 

UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION 

REGARDING H.R. 1745 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Resources Committee 

U. s. House of Representatives 

June 29, 1995 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

It is a genuine pleasure to be back in this hearing room and to 

see so many of my friends and colleagues after a few years' 

absence. 

I can honestly report back to each of you that there is, 

indeed, life after retirement from the Congress. However, 

despite the joys and opportunities of retirement, I must confess 

that the House of Representatives and this subcommittee still 

occupy a special place in my heart. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, I have the unique opportunity and 

privilege to appear before you not just as a private citizen but 

as a representative of the Utah Wilderness Coalition. The Utah 

Wilderness Coalition is an umbrella organization that includes 

regional conservation organizations such as the Grand canyon 

Trust and the southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; national 

organizations such as the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, and 

American Rivers; and thirty-four other organizations as diverse 

Found~J in !9$5. An IRS 50\(dOI nrgani:ati,m. Printd "" h'(\"ckd parc:r-
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 2 

480 

as the Colorado outward Bound School and the Wasatch Mountain 

Club. 

They and I share one thing in common -- a profound and 

undiminishing love of Utah's redrock canyon country. This is. a 

place of high desert and deep canyons, of isolated mountain 

ranges and high plateaus, that is unlike anything found elsewhere 

on this Earth. It routinely inspires awe, amazement, and deep 

reflection at the sheer glory of God's masterpiece. We are 

absolutely committed to protecting it. 

During my tenure as a member of this subcommittee, we held 

many hearings on Utah's BLM lands and their potential for 

addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. After 

seeing and hearing so much about those lands, it is inescapable 

to me that these are truly lands imbued with national 

significance. The redrock country of southern Utah i s on a par 

with the awesome landscapes of Alaska. 

These wi ld lands do not belong solely to the people of Uta h, 

or to the western states they are part of the natural legacy 

that each of us inherits by virtue of the simple fact that we 

were blessed to be born in these United States of America. 

Having inherited this extraordinary legacy, we are equally 

obligated to treat it with the utmost care. The true measure of 

our vision will be whether we can find the means and the resolve 

to protect these lands so that our children and grandchildren 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 3 

481 

will have the opportunity to see a part of the West that, in its 

natural state, inspires poetry and music and awesome serenity. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand how much time and effort have 

gone into drafting H.R. 1745. However, I must also say that, in 

the opinion of the groups I am representing today, this bill 

protects too little of Utah's existing wild.lands, and even those 

that are designated wilderness are protected to a lesser standard 

than wilderness deserves. 

I was sorry to see that this bill abandoned many of the 

principles we used in the 1970's and 1980's to guide us through 

the difficult task of sorting through dozens of wilderness bills 

after the RARE II studies of Forest Service lands. It was my 

position then, and it is still my position, that the wilderness 

areas we designate s hould all be held to the same high standard 

of protection. 

However, H.R. 1745 fails to afford the level of respect and 

protection that our federal wild lands in Utah -- and the people 

who use and love them -- deserve, for the following reasons: 

(1) First, the process by which this legislation was developed 

was flawed and unbalanced. The drafting process was biased 

against wilderness designation, was based in part on incomplete 

or inaccurate information, and ignored the clear sentiments of a 

majority of Utahns who participated in the five regional hearings 

and who provided written comment during the process: Nearly 70 

percent of the written and oral testimony compiled by Governor 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 4 

482 

Leavitt's Office of Planning and Budget endorsed the proposal to 

designate 5.7 million acres of wilderness in Utah. The press in 

Utah has duly noted and decried the disparity between the 

citizens' participation and support for wilderness and the final 

product represented by H.R. 1745. 

Moreover, important national interests:were ignored in the 

county-dominated process. We agree that local officials, 

businesses and citizens must have an opportunity -- indeed, 

should be solicited and encouraged -- to participate in 

discussions designating federal lands as wilderness. Yet this 

does not negate the fact that a broader range of values and 

interests is a lso essential to the designation process. However, 

the process that produced H.R. 1745 completely disregarded the 

interests of most Americans in preserving the unique and 

spectacular wilderness qualities of these public lands and, in 

ma ny cases, e ven intimidated those interests from participati ng. 

This is why t he future of Utah's wild lands must be examined anew 

by this subcommittee and the Congress on behalf of all the people 

of the United states, as intended by the Wilderness Act. 

(2) Second, the acreage proposed for wilderness designation is 

inadequate. As has been thoroughly documented, the BLM inventory 

itself was grossly defective, was in some respects unlawful, and 

excluded several million qualified acres from wilderness 

consideration. H.R. 1745 recommends even less acreage than this 

inadequate recommendation. Are we content that nearly four 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 5 

483 

million acres of this world-renowned landscape be precluded from 

wilderness protection, as proposed in H.R. 1745? Can it be right 

that this bill leaves out such significant sites as: Fish and 

Owl Creek canyons on the east side of Cedar Mesa, with their 

numerous, 1500-year-old, Anasazi cliff dwellings; or the rugged, 

wild country of the Kaiparowits Plateau; or,the heart of the 

Dirty Devil canyon system; or the ecologically diverse slopes of 

the Beaver Dam Mountains; or the narrow, sinuous White canyon 

near Glen canyon, important habitat for desert bighorn sheep? 

Are we content with a bill that ignores the recommendation of the 

Washington county commissioners and the Town Council and mayor of 

Springdale, Utah, leaving out the Watchman unit adjacent to Zion 

National Park, which those local officials testified is essential 

to the economic well-being of their communities? A 

recommendation that was validly made regardless of vague promises 

to some day include that area in Zion National Park? We say 

emphatically, "No." In short, nearly four million acres of 

critical wilderness areas have been left out of this bill. We 

support the citizens' proposal contained in H.R. 1500, America's 

Red Rock Wilderness Act. We urge you to provide the opportunity 

for full and fair consideration of all eligible wilderness lands, 

including those set forth in H.R. 1500. 

(3) Third, the "release" language in H.R. 1745 is unprecedented 

and unacceptable. The bill contains language which deals with 

lands not designated wilderness, All prior wilderness bills have 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 6 

484 

released undesignated lands to multiple-use management, but have 

expressly permitted federal land managers to review the 

wilderness qualities of released lands as part of the agency 

planning cycle. But the language in H.R. 1745 deviates entirely 

from that rational approach because it states that any lands not 

designated as wilderness: 

"··· shall be managed for the full range of 

nonwilderness multiple uses ..• Such lands shall not be 

managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability 

for wilderness designation or their wilderness 

character and shall remain available for nonwilderness 

multiple uses, subject to the requirements of other 

Federal laws." (Emphasis added.) 

It is said that one can never step in the same river twice. 

In the matter of undesignated wild lands, in ten or fifteen years 

a land manager may find that a given area still retains its 

pristine character, that impacts which once were apparent are now 

substantially unnoticeable, or that predicted demand for an 

exploitable resource has disappeared. In such cases, the 

Congress has always been careful to provide land managers with 

sufficient flexibility to carry on their work. 

In light of the many areas left out of the BLM 

recommendation to the President in 1992, it is imprudent to 

foreclose the options of this Congress, land managers, and 

national public interests by forestalling future consideration of 

wilderness designation or continued management of such critical 

lands to protect wilderness values. The language used in H.R. 

1745 attempts to redefine the concept of multiple use and 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 7 

485 

restricts the ability of land managers to protect natural values, 

in a way unprecedented on public lands anywhere else in the 

United States. 

(4) H.R. 1745 expressly denies a water right to wilderness 

designated by this Act. This is yet another fatal flaw of this 

legislation. In the two most recent BLM wilderness bills enacted 

for Arizona and California -- Congress has reserved a quantity 

of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the Act, stating 

that the priority date of the reserved water right would be the 

date of enactment. Congress further directed the secretary of 

the interior to file for the quantification of such rights in the 

courts of the states in which the wilderness areas were 

established. 

Water is a precious resource, all the more so in desert 

lands. One of the reasons for granting .wilderness protection to 

desert wild lands in Utah is to protect the relatively rare 

riparian ecosystems found there. When Congress established the 

National Wilderness Preservation System it surely did not intend 

that land should be protected without the water which gives it 

life. 

The language included in the Arizona and California desert 

wilderness legislation balances this need with the rights of 

other water rights holders and the traditional role of the states 

in quantifying the extent of water rights. H.R. 1745 is 

seriously deficient in its failure to achieve this same balance. 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 8 

486 

(5) A host of "exemptions" in H.R. 1745 would allow and even 

encourage new nonwilderness activities in designated wilderness 

areas. Even the limited wilderness proposed in H.R. 1745 would 

be seriously threatened by provisions that exempt certain 

activities that are inconsistent with wilderness designation. I 

am referring to new construction of dams, reservoirs, water lines 

and maintenance roads; and construction of new pipelines. These 

exemptions strike at the heart of what is wilderness as defined 

by Congress in 1964 and embraced by American society for over 30 

years: "an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain." They seriously degrade the values wilde rness is 

intended to protect. The many valid benefits derived from 

wilderness depend on its undisturbed, natural int egrity. 

Therefore, the primary management goal for wilderness under the 

terms of the Wilderness Act of 1964 should be the protection of 

its wilderness character. We oppose all of the legislative 

provisions that would undercut the spirit or meaning of the 

Wilderness Act, and which cumulatively turn this legislation i nto 

an anti-wilderness wild.erness bill. 

The history of such exemptions is not a happy one. These 

exemptions set up within the law an unresolvable conflict between 

wilderness as defined by Congress and incompatible , nonwildernes s 

uses. The inevitable result will be challenges to the law that 

will lead to years of bitter and costly legal battles, 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 9 

487 

uncertainty and dispute, and ultimately disappointment for all 

citizens at the failure of foresight embodied in H.R. 1745. 

Not since the 1960's, when Congress established Canyonlands 

National Park, has there been such intense national interest 

focused on Utah's spectacular wild lands. You should rej ect H.R. 

1745, and support H.R. 1500 because that bil~ protects adequate 

wilderness acreage and corrects the serious flaws contained in 

the current bill, for all who cherish these wild places today and 

for the generations who will live with our choices. I have 

brought with me a detailed analysis of H.R. 1745 which 

supplements my testimony today and which I would like to have 

included in the record of this hearing. On behalf of the members 

of the Utah Wilderness Coalition, I urge you to support the 

citizens' wilderness proposal represented by H.R. 1500. Thank 

you. 
Utah Wilderness Coalition 

June 29, 1995 

Page 10 

488 

UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION 

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS 

American Hiking Society 

American Rivers 

American Wilderness Alliance 

American Wildlands 

Arizona Whitewater Association 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

Association for the Tree of Life 

Colorado Environmental Coalition 

Colorado Outward Bound School 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Desert Protective Council 

Desert survivors 

Desert Tortoise Council 

Earth Island Institute 

Forest Trust 

Four Corners Outdoor Education School 

Four Corners Wilderness Workshop 

Friends of Dixie National Forest 

Friends of the Earth 

Friends of the River - Colorado Plateau 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

Idaho Conservation League 

National Outdoor Leadership School 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

Natural Arch and Bridge Society 

Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association 

New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalition 

Oregon Natural Desert Association 

Project Lighthawk 

Sierra Club, Utah Chapter 

Slickrock Country Council 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Special Populations Learning Outdoor Experiences (S'PLORE) 

Uintah Mountain Club 

US Public Interest Research Group 

Utah Mountain Biking Association 

Utah Rivers Conservation Council 

Wasatch Mountain Club 

The Wilderness Society 
489 

The Economics of Wilderness Preservation in Utah 

Testimony Prepared for Presentation to the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources and the Environment 

Utah Wilderness Bill 

THOMAS MICHAEL POWER 

Professor and Chair 

Economics Department 

University of Montana 

Missoula, Montana 

59812 

406 243-4586 

June 29, 1995 
490 

The Economics of Wilderness Preservation in Utah 

I. Introduction 

Proposals to extend wilderness protection to significant additional lands in Utah 

are regularly criticized on economic grounds. Whatever justification can be provided 

on ecological, cultural, or moral grounds, wilderness is regularly seen as having 

significant negative economic consequences . This economic conclusion is based upon 

two assumptions: 

a. Wilderness prohibits the ongoing expansion of Utah's economic base by 

locking up natural resources that are central to the state's basic 

industries. In that direct sense, wilderness impoverishes the state and 

constrains its economic development. 

b. The primary purpose of wilderness is to provide free recreational 

opportunities to a relatively small number of primitive back country users. 

The gain to this tiny minority, given all the back country already 

available, is tiny while the economic losses to the majority are 

substantial. This type of land management can only make Utah poorer. 

Both of these assumptions are false as are the economic conclusions drawn 

from them. This testimony seeks to explain how these common assumptions are in 

conflict with empirical economic evidence . Once these errors in economic argument 

are corrected, it becomes clear how it is that substantial additional wild erness 

protection can contribute directly to the economic well-being of Utah residents and to 

the vitality of their economy. This testimony summarizes and updates a paper on 

wilderness economics presented to the Project 2000: Coalition tor Utah's Future in 

1991 . 

II. The Opportunity Cost of Wilderness: A Critical Review of the Sources of 

Utah's Economic Vltalitv 

The primary economic activities that would be restricted by wilderness 

classification is commercial extraction of timber and minerals. In southern Utah, it is 

primarily mineral extraction that would be restricted. In addition, there are fears that 

grazing would be restricted. The assumed negative impact of wilderness designation 

is tied to the "locking up" of those minerals and forage. When mining and grazing are 

analyzed in the context of the overall Utah economy, this is seen to be a seriously 

exaggerated claim. 
491 

A . The "View Through the Rear View Mirror" 

Historically, the development of Utah's natural resources, farming, ranching, 

and food processing as well as mineral extraction and processing, represented the 

"core" of Utah's economy. In the early days of Utah's development these economic 

activities clearly were the "base" of the economy that directly or indirectly supported 

almost all other economic activities. But throughout the second half of this century 

there have been some profound changes in the Utah economy. These key extractive 

industries have gone through periods of both dramatic boom and serious collapse and 

depression. Meanwhile, the overall Utah economy has dramatically expanded and 

diversified into a sophisticated urban society. As a result, the economy has been 

steadily transforming itself in ways that have significantly reduced the importance of 

extractive industry. That transformation has important implications for public 

economic policy. 

The transformation of the Utah economy from heavy reliance upon extractive 

natural resource use is well underway and it will continue. The important point from 

a public policy point of view is not whether this trend will continue or whether is can 

or should be stopped . It cannot and should not be. The important issue 'is whether 

public economic policy will recognize where the Utah economy is now and where it 

will almost certainly be in the future and focus public economic policy upon obtaining 

the most benefit for Utahns from the new economy that is emerging. To do this, Utah 

has to resist the natural tendency to guide public policy by the "view through the rear· 

view mirror" . 

Most of us tend to think about our communities in terms of the history we 

shared with them, implicitly assuming that the present in some fundamental ways is 

like the past and the future will be too. Grade school "geography" classes , reinforced 

by the mass media throughout our lives, encourage this view: Pittsburgh is driven by 

st eel production, Milwaukee is driven by beer production, Detroit is driven by auto 

production, and Utah is about irrigated agriculture, desert ranching , and mineral 

extraction and processing. Whatever the historical truth of these assertions , they 

have little or nothing to do with current economic realities . 

Such a backward looking approach to public economic policy at best w ill be 

ineffective and a waste of public effort and political energy . More likely, that 

backward-looking approach w ill actually damage the economic well-being of residents 

because it misunderstands what is important to them. We need to look clearly at 

where we are now and where we are being carried by ongoing changes in the 

economy. This will not be easy. Political influence follows the public perception of 

economic importance. It is politically important for the economic interest groups that 

have dominated the Utah economy in the past to encourage the public to believe that 

their importance has not diminished significantly. This combined with our tendency 

to base our current perceptions on our past experience will encourage exactly the type 

of rear-view mirror approach to public economic policy that needs to be resisted. 

2 
492 

B. The Role of Extractive Industry in the Utah Economy 

The primary "opportunity cost" associated with wilderness preservation is the 

opportunity to develop mineral deposits not now under development. For instance, 

George Learning's estimates of "The Adverse Economic Impacts of Wilderness Land 

Withdrawals in Utah" indicate that over ninety-nine percent of the "losses" associated 

with wilderness are associated with limits on mineral extraction . (learning, 1990, p. 

407) 

The potential for such limits on mineral production to impact the Utah economy 

has to be understood in the context of the relative importance of mineral activity in 

the overall Utah economy. Figures 1 through 5 seek to provide that context. Figure 

1 shows the changes in total employment over the last decade and a half in Utah. It 

shows the impressive expansion in the overall economy but also shows the relatively 

small and negative role played by mineral extraction and agriculture as sources of jobs. 

In 1993 less than about one job in a hundred was directly associated with mineral 

extraction. Figure 2 shows the dramatic $300 million decline in real income generated 

by mining. At the same time the rest of the Utah economy was expanding 

significantly ( + 10 billion) in real terms. These declines, of course, have not been tied 

to lack of access to mineral bearing land in Utah. Rather, they have been tied to 

market forces that have had a similar impact on mineral extraction throughout the 

West. Access to additional supplies will do little or nothing to counter the downward 

trend in employment in these industries. Only increased demand, higher market 

prices, and a competitive advantage for Utah will put part of the under-utilized existing 

reserves in Utah back into production (Power, 1991 I 

Figure 3 looks at the income directly generated in mtntng as well as other 

extractive industry and the related manufacturing. "Extractive" industry here is used 

to refer to the aggregation of mineral extraction, primary metals production, petroleum, 

farm, food processing, agricultural services, forestry, and wood products. Even when 

this broad definition is used, extractive industry still is seen to be the source of a 

relatively small part of all of the income earned in the Utah economy and a part that 

has not been a source of growth. On the contrary, during the 1980s, these extractive 

industries have been a downward force on the Utah economy. Figure 4 shows this 

decline. While the extractive sectors were a declining source of income, the rest of 

the economy expanded by fully fifty percent in real terms . 

Figure 5 shows the shrinking proportion of all the income received in Utah that 

flows from the mining and other extractive sectors since 1969. It should be noted 

that the relative decline is nQl just a phenomenon of the depressed energy markets of 

the 1980s. This relative decline has been going on since the 1960s and can be 

expected to continue. 

The employment and income figures accompanying this paper report only the 

~role that extractive industries play in the Utah economy. Because of that, they 

tend to understate the full economic role played by these industries since the indirect 

linkages to other industries through purchases and the induced impact associated with 

3 
493 

their employees' spending is not taken into account. Given the constant or downward 

trend in relative importance, this does not affect the conclusion drawn: As these 

industries shrink in relative importance measured by their direct impact, so do they 

shrink in importance even when their linkages to the rest of the economy are taken 

into account. The employment and income data reported here can be crudely 

adjusted for indirect and induced impacts by multiplying the income data by two and 

the employment data by three (Utah Economic and Business Review, 1990, Table 1). 

Even with this adjustment, these natural resource industries remain a small and 

shrinking part of the total Utah economy. 

This is not expected to change. The Utah Office of Planning and Budget 

projects that employment in agriculture and mineral extraction will continue to shrink 

as a percentage of the total Utah workforce over the next twenty year despite an 

optimistic projected •mini-boom" in the mineral extraction industries ( 1994, Table B8). Mining in the year 2010 is projected to directly provide six tenths of one percent 

of total employment in Utah compared to the nine tenths of one percent currently. 

Even if one applies an employment multiplier of three to this, mining will be 

responsible for less than two percent of total employment in Utah. This 1Ql2! direct, 

indirect, and induced employment associated with mining is less than the projected 

ilD.O.l.l.a.! growth in overall employment in Utah. That is, one year's growth in total 

employment would more than replace all mining-related employment. In that situation, 

it is far more important to focus upon the forces supporting the overall expansion of 

the Utah economy than on likely ineffective support measures for a declining industry. 

The expansion in the Utah economy despite the dramatic declines in the 

extractive sectors is important. It underlines the fact that these natural resourcebased extractive industries cannot be seen as the "economic base" driving the Utah 

economy. The Utah economy no longer follows these industries. The larger economy 

has an energy and dynamism unrelated to the historic extractive economic base. That 

is one of the reasons that it is important not to exaggerate the importance of these 

extractive sectors and why we must look elsewhere in understanding what Utah's 

"economic base" actually is. 

This should not be surprising. The economic development of the United States' 

economy has not been primarily tied to the extraction of more and more mineral 

wealth from the ground. The sources of growth have been elsewhere, in the 

improvement in the quality of our labor force, in the improvement in the state of our 

knowledge, and in the improvements in our technology and organizational abilities. 

The same is true of the Utah economy. The future economic development of Utah will 

be tied to its attractiveness as a place for people to live, work, and do business not 

to the quantity of mineral wealth Utah's landscapes are able to yield. True economic 

development consists in the diversification of the economy away from natural resource 

industries and the development of import substitution activities that significantly 

reduce the relative importance of purely export-oriented economic activities. In that 

sense, the transformation of the Utah economy away from extractive industry is 

simply a sign of its success in escaping its previous "frontier" or "hinterland" status. 

4 
494 

One important feature of this transformation of the Utah economy is the 

increasing role that various service type industries are playing as both sources of jobs 

and income. Figure 6 compares the role of local services to that of extractive 

industries in providing income to Utah residents during this last decade. While the 

extractive industries have generated a fluctuating but relatiVely fixed level of income, 

income generated by the service sectors has risen steadily so that they are now 

responsible for eight times the income generated by extractive industry. This trend 

is expected to continue. This means that extractive industry will be providing a 

smaller and smaller share of Utah's jobs and income. (See Economic Report to the 

Governor, State Economic Coordinating Committee, 1994) 

Although mineral extraction may play a relatively minor role in the overall Utah 

economy, it plays a much larger role in some of Utah's rural counties . Figure 7 

depicts the situation in one of Utah's southeast counties, Grand County. In 1981 in 

Grand County, mineral extraction was responsible for about a quarter of total 

employment. By 1993 80 percent of these jobs had been lost and mining only 

provided about 5 percent of jobs. What is interesting is that even in an area as 

dependent as this one upon mineral extraction, the rest of the economy did not 

collapse. Employment in the rest of the economy was over 1 .000 jobs higher in 1993 

than it was in 1981 despite the fact that 80 percent of the mining base had been 

eliminated. Locally-oriented employment which is claimed to be totally dependent upon 

the extractive economy added 1,500 jobs while mining was losing 600 jobs. Even in 

a "mining" county the rest of the economy has a life independent of extractive 

industry. See Figures 7 and 8. 

The double roller coaster ride that extractive industry took Grand County on 

since 1 969 (See Figure 8) raises an important public policy question. Should public 

policy seek to maintain a local economy's dependence upon such an unstable 

industry? Local economic well-being would appear to be better protected by assisting 

the local economy in making the transition away from reliance upon the historical 

extractive base that has brought so much disruption to these economies. Protecting 

natural landscapes so that they can continue to provide a broad stream of 

environmental services to residents of the local area is more likely to contribute to this 

than seeking to encourage the degradation of those landscapes in the pursuit of 

whatever extractive potential that may come along. 

Given the rather minor role that mineral extraction plays as a source of 

employment and income in the Utah economy, it is unlikely that any modest impact 

that wilderness designation IIllillU have on this industry could have a significant impact 

on the overall economy. There is no significant economic opportunity cost associated 

with wilderness protection. 

Ill. The Economic Value of Wilderness 

Wilderness is often presented as "free good" demanded by a tiny minority of 

backcountry recreationists. This is a distorted caricature of the purpose of wilderness 

5 
495 

and the broad range of benefits that wilderness provides. By drastically narrowing the 

assumed purpose of wilderness, this approach ignores most of the substantial 

economic benefits associated with protected wildlands. 

Wilderness classification is often presented as an "anti-economic" step because 

it purposely bans most commercial activities on the protected lands in the pursuit of 

what some see as cultural, ethical, or aesthetic objectives, dispersed, noncommercial 

backcountry recreation. This is a mistake. Lands with wilderness qualities are a 

relatively scarce resource that has significant alternative uses that satisfy important 

human needs and desires. In that sense wilderness classification is a "classic" 

economic decision to allocate scarce resources to the pursuit of important human 

objectives. Wildlands provide a broad range of benefits that make the lives of Utah 

residents more satisfying and fulfilling in at least the same way that most of their 

purchases in commercial markets do. One way of looking at those positive benefits 

of wildland preservation is outline in Figure 9. 

Figure 9 divides the economic values associated with wilderness into several 

categories : 

on-site v. off-site values 

use v. non-use values 

dollar expenditures v. non-market economic values 

present v. future values 

Each of these distinctions is important in evaluating the economics of wilderness 

protection. Often, most of these values are ignored. When economic analysts do 

consider positive economic values for wilderness, they tend to focus exclusively upon 

the expenditures associated with wilderness recreation. This represents a small part 

of the "on-site" "use· values in Figure 9. This clearly represents only part of the 

economic values than need to be considered. Because the discussion of the economic 

value of wilderness has been almost exclusively focused upon on-site recreational use, 

the discussion of wilderness economic values here begins with the off-site economic 

values of wilderness. 

A. On-Site v. Off-Site Economic Values 

The impact of landscapes preserved in their natural state extends far beyond 

the physical boundaries of those areas. Natural landscapes tend to define the 

character and quality of the surrounding physical and social environment. This is clear 

when wilderness areas protect water quality that then supports off-site fisheries or 

protects habitat that then supports off-site wildlife populations. But the range of 

influence is greater than this. Protected natural areas preserve the landscape that 

influences every thing from scenic vistas to recreational patterns to patterns of human 

settlement. 

This can be put very directly: People care where they live. They care about the 

qualities of the natural and social environment that make up the living environment. 

They are willing to make sacrifices to obtain access to these natural amenities. High 

6 
496 

quality natural environments draw people and businesses to areas even when 

economic opportunities are otherwise Quite limited. (See Power, 1995 and 1988.) 

This is not an insupportable sweeping generalization. It is a fact that has had 

a dramatic impact on the pattern of settlement and economic activity in this country. 

If, for instance, one looks at the pattern of economic change in nonmetropolitan 

America over the last decade, one finds natural amenities playing a very positive role. 

During the 1980s, the only group of non-metropolitan counties that had above average 

population growth rates were "amenity" counties in which the natural and social 

environments supported both recreation and retirement development (Deavers, 

1989;Beale and Fuguitt, 1990). 

While the overall economic performance of nonmetro counties 

during the 1980s has been relatively poor, there are two groups of 

counties that have experienced substantial growth. 

The first group of counties have high amenity values. They are 

attractive to growing numbers of mobile retirees moving out of cities and 

other rural areas, and to owner/managers of footloose industries with a 

preference for a rural location. They typically have locational assets--

lakes, mountains, shorelines, and so forth--that make them attractive for 

residence or recreation. Since 1983, nearly 85 percent of the non metro 

population growth has occurred in 500 of these counties. They have 

also experienced strong employment growth, over 26 percent from 

1979-88. 

The other group of nonmetro counties with strong employment gains 

during the 1980s are rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas. Adjacency 

is defined as having access to the metro area, not simply physical adjacency. 

(Deavers, 1989, p.5) 

Classified wilderness appears to be associated with such attractive amenities. 

A review of all counties adjacent to federal classified wilderness reveals that the 

population growth rates in this set of non metropolitan counties has been two to three 

times that in all non metropolitan counties and in the 1970s, 1980s and first half of the 

1990s (Rudzitis and Johansen, 1989, p.33). This would suggest that whatever 

wilderness does to the local economy, it does not impoverish it in a way that makes 

living in the surrounding area less tenable. Surveys of recent inmigrants to these 

wilderness counties revealed that the presence of protected wildlands played a 

significant role in the location decisions of sixty percent of those newcomers while 

forty-five percent of existing residents indicated that the proximity of those wildlands 

was an important reason for their staying in the area. Over eighty percent of longterm residents and newcomers felt that the nearby wilderness areas were important 

to the county. (Rudzitis and Johansen, 19911 

This, of course, is not to say that the mere presence of classified wilderness will 

guarantee stability and growth in surrounding communities. But clearly the general 

pattern is the opposite of wilderness protection impoverishing local communities. In 

areas where a mining boom has gone bust or a major local employer has shut down, 

7 
497 

the local economy is obviously going to suffer. The existence of high quality living 

environments stands no chance of immediately off-setting such dramatic impacts. But 

even more reliance on the industry that has gone bust is not a solution. And 

damaging the environmental resources that support a diversification away from the 

unstable and declining extractive industries certainly does not offer a path out of the 

depression that over-reliance on extractive industry has created. Protecting the quality 

of the living environment at least lays the base for future diversified development. 

This assertion that the quality of the living environment is important in the 

economic development of a local area is neither new nor should it be controversial. 

Clearly the climate and desert environment of Arizona has been important in attracting 

and holding population. In fact, the use of the term "amenity" to capture the role 

played by local environmental qualities in economic development was first coined by 

an economist seeking to explain the rapid growth of desert Southern California in the 

1950s. As with Arizona, people were moving to where there was no obvious 

"industry" in the pursuit of particular environmental qualities and then industry was 

following the population (Ullmann, 1955). The shift of our urban populations from 

center cities to suburbs also can only be explained in terms of the pursuit of higher 

quality living environment than urban centers were capable of providing . In fact, the 

distribution of attractive natural qualities across the landscape is a major determinant 

of the distribution of residential development across that landscape (Mueller-Willa, 

1990). The point is that people care where they live and make locational decisions 

on the basis of those preferences for living environments. 

This is important to the future development of Utah. In the competition to 

attract both new residents and new businesses, the quality of the natural and social 

environment are going to be important. To the extent that Utah can present itself as 

having a sophisticated urban "post-industrial" economy, an unusually stable social 

structure, illi1 a spectacular and well protected natural environment, it will be able to 

compete quite well with other areas as a growth center of the West. Wilderness 

protection, by granting permanent protection to those landscapes that are most unique 

in Utah, can be seen as an integral part of such an economic development strategy. 

B. The Role of •foodoose" Income 

One thing that has facilitated locational choice based on preferences for high 

quality natural and social environments has been the rapid increase in the importance 

of income not associated with current participation in the labor force, in particular 

retirement income. Figure 10 shows the growing importance of this type of footloose 

income flowing into the Utah economy. For comparison purposes, total income from 

extractive industries is also shown. Over the last 25 years, while extractive income 

has hardly grown at all in real terms, this retirement income has almost quadrupled . 

During the last decade when extractive income fell by a third, retirement grew by 60 

percent. 

For non metropolitan counties the role of retirement income is equally important. 

This might be expected in southwestern Utah where retirement communities are well 

8 
498 

recognized. See Figure 11. But retirement income plays an important role in 

southeastern Utah too. In Grand County, for instance, estimated retirement income 

is three times as large as extractive income and continues to grow in real terms. See 

Figure 12. 

Note that these estimates of retirement income are three to six times as large 

as extractive income. Clearly these income flows are important to the state economy 

and to the local economies into which they flow. To the extent that the quality of the 

living environment influences to where these incomes flow, that environmental quality 

becomes a very important part of the economic base. 

C. Residential Choice and Economic Vitality 

People care where they live. They put considerable effort and expense into the 

pursuit of preferred living environments. As people make these choices, economic 

activity shifts with them because with them shifts both labor supply and markets for 

goods and services. Retirees are only the most obvious example of this. The current 

"resettlement of the West" is just the most recent example of the impact of 

households' pursuit of higher quality living environments on the relocation of economic 

activity. Protected landscapes, have economic impacts far beyond their borders 

because they provide the high quality environmental backdrop that makes an area an 

attractive place to live, work, and do business. In that sense, the protected 

landscapes become an important part of an area's economic base and economic 

vitality. This is the reason that wilderness counties tend to show such dramatic 

economic vitality. 

Utah with its spectacular landscapes and wide variety of national parks and 

monuments is well situated to present itself as the source of high quality recreational 

opportunities and attractive living environments. Wilderness designation protects this 

scenic and recreational base, "advertises" the quality of that natural setting, and 

announces Utah's commitment to protect that quality indefinitely. This supports the 

ongoing development of the new economic base in Utah that is already transforming 

the Utah economy. This is not speculation. The performance of the southwestern 

Utah economy demonstrates the extent of the economic development that is possible 

amidst federally protected landscapes, in this case national parks. It should be kept 

in mind that when most national parks have been proposed, the objections raised to 

them have been the same as those raised to wilderness protection: The parks will 

"lock up" natural resources and condemn adjacent areas to economic stagnation. The 

economic vitality of southwestern Utah provides dramatic rebuttal to those assertions. 

There is evidence of a similar expansion of economic activity throughout much of 

southern Utah. 

D. Non-Use Values Associated with Wilderness 

Wilderness is not protected only or primarily because of its recreational use 

potential. Polls indicate that most Utahns and most Americans support wilderness 

protection and expansion of the wilderness system (Pope, 1990). Yet most citizens 

9 
499 

never set foot in a classified wilderness and have no plans to do so. Despite this 

"non-usage", they are willing to make significant sacrifices to see that additional 

wildlands are protected. This clearly indicates both that there is a value here that can 

be given economic expression and that recreational use is not the dominant value at 

stake. Economists describe this situation in terms of "non-use" values associated with 

the fact that people take pleasure in simply knowing that certain natural treasures 

have been protected or put value on keeping their options open or feel that it is 

important that a bit of our past natural heritage be preserved for future generations. 

Because all of these improve people's sense of well-being, they can be expressed in 

economic terms. These values are not trivial. Studies in Colorado and Arizona 

suggest that"these non-use values associated with protecting wildlands far exceed 

recreational use values (Walsh et al., 1982; Schultz, 1983). A recent Utah study 

conservatively estimated these values at ten to forty million dollars per year depending 

upon how much land is preserved in a wild state (Pope, 1990). The important point 

is that preservation of wilderness benefits more than recreational users. A much 

broader cross-section of Utahns benefit than that. 

E. Dollar Expenditures v. Economic Values 

The direct economic value of wilderness is the improvement in well-being that 

results from its ongoing protection. The expenditures that individuals make in the 

process of .Y.2l.o.g wildlands represent a~ to the individual user. In that sense, it 

is a deduction from the economic value, not a measure of the economic value. It can 

be taken as a minimum estimate of the gross benefit since one would assume that a 

person would not use a wilderness area if the costs of doing so outweighed the 

benefits. But for most wilderness users, the benefits are likely to considerably exceed 

the costs associated with the activity. That is why we need to focus upon more than 

simply the expenditures that use of wildlands elicits. 

The local business community may be primarily interested in the expenditure 

side of wilderness-related tourism because these are dollars flowing through the locai 

economy . But one still has to keep in mind that this easily measured dollar flow 

represents only a small part of the total economic value associated with that 

wilderness area. If this is all that is focused upon, the primary contribution that 

wilderness preservation makes to the well-being of Utahns will have been ignored. 

F. Future Wildland Values 

One important aspect of wilderness preservation is that it seeks to preserve 

indefinitely certain valuable environmental qualities. To the extent that this is 

successful, it means that these wilderness areas will be providing a flow of valuable 

services indefinitely into the future. This sustained flow of values needs to be taken 

into account in the economic analysis by purposely looking into the future and 

accounting for the benefits these preservation efforts will have for future generations. 

Those of us who are the beneficiaries of the preservation efforts that brought the 

National Park System into existence should be able to appreciate the long run nature 

of the preservation benefits wilderness protection provides . This is especially relevant 

10 
500 

when the opportunity cost of preservation is a speculative, but, in any case, a 

relatively short run mineral development which will only temporarily support the local 

community. 

IV. Conclusion 

Utah possesses an abundance of spectacular landscapes. It has significantly 

benefitted from the recreational and tourist values associated with its national parks, 

recreational areas, and monuments as well as its growing ski industry. It has in its 

remnant wildlands another significant resource which if preserved could lay a further 

base for economic development associated with high quality recreational opportunities 

and natural environments. 

The alternative economic uses of these wildlands is marginal at best, being tiecl 

primarily to the uncertain development of speculative mineral resources. This type of 

extractive industry does not offer Utahns a reliable source of additional jobs and 

income. It has become a shrinking part of the Utah economy that goes through fits 

of boom and bust. The future of the Utah economy lies elsewhere as Utah continues 

to develop into a sophisticated "post-industrial" economy in which services play an 

increasingly important role. In non-metropolitan Utah, in the counties adjacent to 

these wildlands, recreation, retirement, and "amenity-seeking" inmigrants offer a much 

greater hope of ongoing economic development than wishful thinking about thE! 

recovery of the mineral extraction industries and speculative mineral bonanzas to be 

found in those wilderness study areas. Wilderness protection does not impoverish 

communities by locking up resources. Rather, it protects the economic future of thoSE! 

communities by preserving high quality natural environments that are in increasin~1 

demand across the nation. Wilderness protection does not in any significant way 

threaten the ongoing development of the Utah economy, rather, it lays part of the lon~1 

run basis for Utah's ongoing development as an attractive place to live work and do 

business 

Note on Data Sources 

The employment and income data used in the figures and text primarily comes 

from the unpublished data of the Regional Economic Information Service (REIS), 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Income data was 

converted to 1993 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data from the Utah Offici! 

of Planning and Budget's 1994 Economic and Demographic Profiles and the 1994 

Economic Report to the Governor were also used. 

11 
c 

.. 

f 

Q. 

E 

w 

1,000,000 

800,000 

500,000 

300 000 ,

200,000 

Figure 1 

Mining & Agriculture v. Local Services 

and the Rest of the Economy 

Utah 

Jobs in local Services: Retail, Finance, 

Servicas, and State & local Government 

+290,000 jobs 

100 000 , t Jobs in Mining and Agriculture 

- 5,000jobs 

11 eo 11 112 n 114 os Ytfr 01 oa oe oo 11 92 93 

Figure 2 

Agriculture & Mining v. Rest of Utah Economy 

Real Income 

$30 000 , 000 , ..,. ....... ....,.....,...,..,.... __ ,.,.,~ i::ifd:'~ \1( 1./N i<::> '<''r '>~f.-J ;fj.ft~l: il+-51U DIIUort .. '>' :?>r:MC '\:t:--· ;.;< ·' ' I 

$25 000 , 000 ,

6' 

0 

"!. 

;. $20 000,000 , "' ... E 

0 

c 

0 

w " 2 $15 000 , 000 ,

., 

.. 

a: 

.5 

.. 

E 

0 .5 $10 000 , 000 ,

ii 

.. 

a: 

$5 000 , 000 ,

$0 

iil ;; :;j :;l :; ~ :g :;; :g m g a; :;: M Q Q m 

Year 

$1,600 000 ,

$1 400 , 000 ,

$1,200 000 , ~ ;; 

11,000,000 i 

en 

0 "' ........ 

e 

$000,000 ~ . 

t 

I $600,000 ~ i 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$0 
$30.000,000 

m.ooo.ooo 

.. 

0 

0 

~ $20,000,000 

.... 

~ 

.. $15,000,000 E 

0 

.: " $10,000.000 

ii 

.. 

0:: 

$5.000,000 I 

502 

Figure 3 

Extractive Sectors v. Rest of the Economy 

State of Utah 

Figure 4 

Extractive and Non-Extractive Real Income 

State of utah 

$30,000,000 r---------------------------. $3,000.000 

$25,000,000 

I 

i $20,000.000 

'II $15.000,000 

I 1 $10.000.000 

I $5,000,000 

ExltociiYO -Food.lollnlng.- = Petroleum, Lumber 

$2.500.000 I 

~ 

$2.000.000 1 

$1.500.000 1 $1,000,000 J 

J 

$500,000 

so-1-------<--+-....... ----+---->-----+--+---+---+so 10 11 u u ~ e • v u u so ~ u " 

v-
12% 

10% 

~ ... ~ 

J ... 'l5 

i 

~ ... ... 

2% 

0% 

$ g 

$14,000,000 

$12,000,000 

1$10,000,000 

... e. $8,000,000 

.. 

E 

8 .5 $e,OOO,OOO 

i $4,000,000 

;::: ~ ~ 

~ ;! 

503 

Figure 5 

Relative Importance of Extractive Industries 

as a Source of Income In utah 

~ ;e r:: ;e ~ 2 ;; 1<1 :a ;r; :a i :0 ~ m 

D &l ; £1 

Year 

Figure 6 

Extractive v. Local Services Income 

utah Real Income 

Extractive Industry: 

Local Services: Relail Trade, Finance, 

Insurance, Real Estate, Services, 

State & local Government 

+ S8.5billion 

:;: 

Agriculture, Food, Minerals, Metals, Petroleum, and Lumber 

$2.000.000 L------------"1'lir1Gn:11Wr-------------------1 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 G ~ : I ~ i ~ I I 8 ; ~ ~ 

Year 
$50,000 

$45,000 

$4(),000 

.. $35,000 C> 

C> 

~ $30,000 

!!. 

• $25,000 E 

0 

u 

.5 $20,000 

iii 

~ $15,000 

$10,000 

$5,000 

! 

:J 

"' il 

·c 

>. !1.,_ E "" 0 

c !:II 0 :i+ u 

w '!; 

5 • ~- 'Q.<: H 

~~ O"" 

,.. ~~ ~~ ! 

l !:8 }+ 

w 

~1 I!" 

IL •

... 

c • • c 

i 

' ~ 

504 

Agure 8 

Mine and Agriculture v. Local Services 

Grand County, Utah 

Local Services: Retail, Finance, 

Services, State and Local Govt. 

~$19 million <{;7'.4 1987-1993 

~ I 

Mining & Agrirulture: 

Unliable, Downward Trend 

-$2-4 million -80% 19110-93 

Year 

"E~ 

~~ 

w-g 

!i 

(/)-

g• 

...J 

~ I ~ JU8wMidW3 

~ § 

:;: 

"E 

.. ::: E 

,., 

!l~ ;; !1' .... W",' 

"!! ii 

B 

~ .. I 

!li 

u I 

.

"' 5 :0 .5 

:I! 

I 

::l 

" 

l3 

II 

; 

il 

! 
Figure 9 

\Wilderness Economic Values \ 

F-1' N=o=n-=u=s=e , ' Local 

Non-LocaJ 

National & 

International 

i' Use Values D 

On·Site, In Wilderness 

Outside 

!! 

Figure 10 

Estimated Retirement & Extractive Income 

Utah Real Income 

$6,000,000 .----------------------, 

$5,000,000 $4,000,000 

Estimated Retirement Income: 

.35 • (Dividends, Interest, & Rant)+ .as.,-ransfer Payments 

+ S4 billion 

$3,000,000 

j 

i 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 + Income from Extractive Sectors: 

Agriculture, Food, Mining, Metals, Petroleum, & Lumber 

No Growth in Real Terms 

il: ;: ::: ; : 

Year 

m :;; m ;; &l 

01 
$350,000 

Figure 11 

Sources of Real Income 

Washington County, Utah 

$300,000 

$250,000 

• J 

! 

$200,000 

$150,000 

$100,000 

$50,000 

Year 

Real Income ($1,000s) 

§ § 

70 71 

72 73 

74 75 

76 

77 

78 79 

m 

.. 81 

82 83 

M 

85 86 87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

;!; 

.. 

;c 

E' 

el 

§ 

3 

CD 

m 

!/! 

I 

ii' 

I 

j :CD 

3: 

S' 

CD 

.. 

:> 

ClCL 

iil "T1 sJ 

c:U 

:> .. 

.:z= 

- iii C3 lit CD ::Tia, 

S' 

8 

3 

.. 

"T1 

cE' 

c 

iii 

"' 

en 
507 

References 

Beale, Calvin L. and Glenn V. Fuguitt, 1990, Decade of Pessimistic Nonmetro 

Population Trends Ends on Optimistic Note, Rural Development Perspectives, 

6(3): 14-18, June-September. 

Christy, Kim S., 1988, Benefit/Cost Variables and Comparative Recreation Use 

Patterns of Wilderness and Non-Wilderness Areas, Utah State University, 

Master of Science Thesis, Logan, Utah. 

Deavers, Ken, 1989, The Reversal of the Rural Renaissance, Entreoreneurial Economy 

~. September/October, pp. 3-5. 

Fjeldsted, Boyd L., 1990, Regional Input-Output Multipliers: Calculation, Meaning, 

Use and Misuse, Utah Economic and Business Reyiew, 50(1 ), October, 

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Fjeldsted, Boyd L., 1988, Utah's Gross State Product for the Years 1963-86, ~ 

Economic and Bysjness Review, 48(7-8). July-August, University of Utah, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

Learning, George F., 1990, The Adverse Economic Impacts of Wilderness Land 

Withdrawals in Utah, Western Economic Analysis Center, Marana, Arizona. 

Pope, C. Arden, Ill, and Jeffery W. Jones, The Value of Wilderness Designation in 

Utah, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 30. 

McClaran, Mitchel P., forthcoming, Forest Service and Livestock Permittee Behavior 

in Relation to Wilderness Designation, Journal of Range Management. 

McClaran, Mitchel P., 1990, Livestock in Wilderness: A Review and Forecast , 

Environmental Law, 20:812-889. 

Mueller-Willa, Christopher, 1990, Natyral Landscape Amenities and Suburban Growth: 

Metropolitan Chicago. 1970-1980. University of Chicago Geography Research 

Paper No. 230, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. 

Power, Thomas Michael, 1995, Extraction and the Environment: The Economjc Battle 

for Control of Oyr Natyral Landscapes, Washington DC: Island Press, 

forthcoming, Fall 1995. 

Power, Thomas Michael, 1991, "Wildland Preservation and the Economy of Utah, • 

a paper prepared for Project 2000 (Salt Lake City, Utah) and reprinted in the 

Newsletter of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Summer, 1991. 

12 
508 

Power, Thomas Michael, 1988, The Economic Pursuit of Qualitv, M.E. Sharpe 

Publishers, New York . 

Reeder, Richard J. and Nina L. Glasgow, 1990, Nonmetro Retirement Counties' 

Strengths and Weaknesses, Rural Development Perspectives, 6(2): 12-17. 

February, USDA, Economic Research Service. 

Roggenbuck, Joseph W., 1988, Wilderness Use and User Characteristics: Ending 

Some Misconceptions, Western Wildlands, 14(3):8-14, Fall, 1988. 

Roggenbuck, J.W. and R.C. Lucas, 1987, Wilderness Use and User Characteristics: 

A State-of-Knowledge Review, in Proceedings. National Wilderness Research 

Conference, General Technical Report INT-220, USDA, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Rudzitis, Gundars, and Harley E. Johansen, 1991, How Important Is Wilderness?: 

Results from a United States Survey, Environmental Management, 15(2). 

Rudzitis, Gundars and Harley E. Johansen, 1989, Amenities, Migration, and 

Nonmetropolitan Regional Development, Report to the National Science 

Foundation, Department of Geography, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 

June, 1989. 

Schultz, William D., 1983, The Economic Benefit of Preserving Visibility in National 

Parklands in the Southwest, Natural Resource Journal, 23( 1): 149-173. 

Ullmann, Edward, 1955, A New Force in Regional Growth, Proceedings of the 

Western Area Development Conference, Stanford Research Institute, Palo Alto, 

California. 

United States Department of Interior, 1985, Utah BLM Statewide Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, West-Central Region. 

Utah State Economic Coordinating Committee, 1994, Economic Report to the 

Governor. 

Utah State Energy Office, 1990, Uranium in Utah Wilderness Study Areas : A 

Resource Analysis, March 12, 1990. 

Utah State Energy Office, undated, [Coal Resources in Utah Wilderness Study Areas) 

Utah Office of Planning and Budget, 1994, 1994 Utah Economic and Demographic 

Profiles. 

Utah Office of Planning and Budget, 1986, Economic Issues of Wilderness, Data 

Resources Section. 

13 
509 

Walsh, Richard G .• et al., 1982. Wilderness Resource Economics : Recreational Use 

and Preservation Values, American Wilderness Alliance, Denver, Colorado . 

Western Wildlands. 1991 , 16(4). Winter, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 

14 
510 

Summary Vita 

Thomas Michael Power 

Current Position 

Professor and Chair, Department of Economics 

University of Montana 

Educational Background 

B.A. 1962 

Ph .D.(I970), M.A.(1965) 

Honors and Awards 

Phi Beta Kappa 

B.A. with High Honors 

Woodrow Wilson Fellowship 

Fields of Specialization 

Lehigh University (Physics) 

Princeton University (Economics) 

Resource Economics; Regional Economics 

Selected Publications 

Extraction and the Environment (forthcoming, 1995, Island Press) 

The Economic Pursuit of Oualitv (1988, M.E. Sharpe) 

Ecosystem Preservation and the Economy of the Greater Yellowstone Region, Conservation 

J2i2!.2gy, September, 1991 

Urban (Dis)amenities Revisited, Journal of Urban Economics. 1981 

The Economic Value of the Oualitv of life (Westview, 1980) 

The Central Arizona Project: An Economic Analysis (National Audubon Society, 1979) 

Projections of Northern Great Plains Coal Mining and Energy Conversion Development 1975-

2000 A.D. (NSF/RANN, 1975) 

Professional Reports/Consulting 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Ag . 

Washington State Attorney General 

Idaho Office of Attorney General 

Idaho Public Utilities Commission 

Montana Public Service Commission 

Washington Dept. of Ecology 

Florida Public Service Commission 

Colorado Office Consumer Counsel 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission 

City of Austin, Texas 

City of Seattle, Washington 

City of Spokane, Washington 

City of Tacoma, Washington 

Cook County (Chicago). Illinois 

Alberta Board of Natural Resources 

Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes 

Blackfeet Tribe 

Spokane Tribe of Indians 

Rocky Boy Chippewa-Cree 

Forest Co. Potawatomi CommunitY 

National Audubon SocietY 

National Wildlife Federation 

Idaho Office of Energy 

Nebraska Energy Office 

Kansas Corporation Commission 

Oahe Irrigation District 

Trout Unlimited 

Wilderness SocietY 

Nevada Public Service Commission 

Illinois Commerce Commission 

Envrionment Canada 

15 
511 

Te.timouy of Dr. Diane W. Davidson, Committee for Biological Commenwy on Ulah Wlldam.a 

Issues, 011 JUDe 29, 199S, before the Ho1.1$e Subcommittee on National Parb, Foresllllld Laoda. 

I 1m DiaDe Davidooa. a Professor of Biology a lhe Unlvenity of Utah. 1 ~ dWI vt.wa 

not of lhe University, but of a poup of Utah bloloalstl wbo Cllll410ð« from tbrollibout 1be SID 

in Mm:b, 199S, out of concena dlat public debate on wilderness designatloa wa~ belna conducted 

r.trl~y In the political areua, llld witbout rd'ecmce 10 widely eccepted aclllltlfic critaria Cot tbe 

protectjou of bioloaical diversity. 

Althougb the 1«111 "biodiversity", dd'ined :u UTinglhlnp and the procelleS that -lalu 

them, wu not coined until lhe mid l~'s, the 1.964 Wi~demesa Act dearlr eaundat. a rvle ror 

wildemesa in the protec:tlon or blodlnnltr. It does so by expressing lhe need 10 preserve IIIII 

protect lands in their "oatural coudldon', recoJIIlzlni wlldernesa u a place wbere the "co111D111Dity ot u~· Is 'unttammeled by man', and mandating tho protection of 'scle~~llfic", 'educallollll' IDd 

'conaervation' uses. As biologists, we believe tlw wllderueu II viiiiiO CODierVing Utah's more thaD 

3000 plants, SSO vertebrate., and uncounted lnsect and other invertebrate i!pecie.. 

au.. Committee'• deliberatloas culminated In 11 recommendatloas ror an appl'Oidl to 

wlldemcsa deslpatlon 1.1$lo& .c&bllshed &dentine criteria for l.be preeenadon of blodl--.Jt,.. 

A.lthoup we did not specify particular sites or acreag111, BYU zoolo&l511 Ill« pve Coqreumao 

Orton decailed inlormadoo oo alto-by-site coru:una for venebratel (copy 10 be aubmitted It hearing}, 

and we art In tile process of preparing more comprehensive lllld sit6-Speelftc recommlndatlona. 

Ollr recommendations were delivered to Goveroor lavittlllld to each member of Utah's 

Cooareasiollll delegation. In thil and follow-up letters (sample appended). wa volumeerecl our dme 

aDd expenlse. These etfort5 ell~lted two form letters (from Leavitt lllld Walclholtz, appended), lllld 1111 

response from any other member of the delegation. 

The Utah Delepdon'e bill (H.R. 1745) hu Ignored vlrtual~Jall of the es&abllshl:d ' 

lldentific criteria for desl&nln&IJ'Stems or protected uas. It Is serloU&I1 flawed and will do 

Dttle to pres«Ye Utah'a biological heritage. 

~nt. the bill tails to protect the l:lr&e, conlit:uold roadlea ana required to -ure loaa1«111 population viability or wildlife, especially of wide-ranetne and secretive species such 11 big 

hom sheep, river otter and aolden eaale. Area requlremenll are lilcely 10 be especially lqe in arid 

ud relatively unproductive BLM lands. Without subsWltlal enlaraement, Isolated wildernese 

allotments like those designated by H.R 1745 In tbe Cedar Mesa area arc too small to contaiD blodc 

commuoitiea representative of all suaes in the dislllrbance cycle, or to provide long-term protecrioD 

fur resldelll species. (This problem would be solved only panly by Rep. Wlidboltz'& amendmNIII, 

which wovld award wilderneu statui to areas like Fish aod Owl Canyo111, Road Creak Canyoa, IIDd 

the whole Orand Oulcb complea. Addition of the more remote White Caoyoll complu, which 

adjoina Natural Bridges Natiooal Monumt4t llld iJ year-round habitat foro bl&hom sheep, would 

wure the fulllro of wild! if~ iD lhia rcaion.) 

H.R. 1745 also cloel a poor Job or adJolnlns and aucmentlng e:detln& protected -, 

such q nadonal parks and Fonst Service wildernesa areas, and or provldln& mlgra!oz7 

corrldon amonc sucb areas. These omisslo111 increase the likelihood of species exdnctloa. wllbln 
512 

exlstlna protected areu, IIIII probably future needs tbr costly lllllllllgemeat of wildlife popnbtionl. AI 

evidence, we cite well-documented research sbowina that, when IUITOUDded by altered and 

unproteded babltat, ..-. &be Jarc•t or our national pub baYe Jolt JIIIUIUDallaD lpedes 

(Newark, 1995 p~ In Conservatlo11 Biology, copy to be aubmiUed It the heariog). The 

Delegation's piecemeal designation of wildemess also reducos the llkellhood that wlldllfe 11111111en 

will be able to reestablish faunal communities (including now extinct wolveclne, lynx IIIII arlzzly 

bear) foulld historically In Utah. 

'lbe following q~ci/k eoneerna IU'e representatln of H.R. 1745's iDaDeDllon to the llll8d 

for large contlguoua protected areu. The bill would DOt, for ~le, aftimi ~ at1tu1 to 

Wahweap, at 228,000 -· one of the larae&t areas In the cltizelll propoeal (H.R. 1500). Wllhweap mi&ht then have been connected to the llllfl Paria-Hackbeuy wilderaeu 111'1!11 to fonn a large. 

contiilJOIII wildlife refup In the Kalpll:Owits ecorCJ)on. H.R. 1745 would DOt COIIIIIICC wild~ 

ueaa In the Henry MtDI. wllh Capitol Reef National Park. Desipaled wilderneaa iu the Boot Cliff's 

region could have beca axpaoded to Include Turtle Canyon, th1J Bl&hom Bencha, IIIII the whole 

southern Book Cliff escarpment that constitutes winter ranp tbr blahom sheep. 

The failure of the Deleptlon'a bill to deslpaate larJe roadJal areal with 1mall nti01 of 

c!l"CUl11ferenc:e to area leaves native plant and animaleommunltlel YUioenhle to deYutlng 

lnftSions of non-nadn spedes. Perbapt the mod .-loU& threat now facing biodivll'lit)' in Utah 

II the wholesale replac:ement of the native &ra by lntroduc:ed plants. Doring tbil cxccptioDally 

wet year, the full extent of the disaster has become apparent (.FI&ure I) in the virtually eomplete 

dominance of intershrub areas this spring and summer by Asian brome arwea (/Jrofruu) Ill over 

Ulah, lncludlni Beaver Dam alope In southwestetn Utah, Canyonlands National Park IIIII Negro Bill 

Canyon iu the southeast, Red Butte Canyon Natural Area In the nonh. IIIII the banb of the Greea 

River In DesoladoR Canyon In east-centtal Utah. Expect wholesale lllttinc:tiolll of native IIIIIUala and 

and perennials (even those formerly abundant and widespread, oot just rare apecles) 15 well as 

con.sumera (polllnatln1 bees, seed-eatln1 ants and mammals) that depend on the native tlorL 

1m Deleptlon's bill also falls to ensure protection ror intact ecosystems. h neJ~eca to 

protect critical winter wildlife ranges around Mt. Pennell and Mt. ElleD iu the Henry Mountains, and 

around Sid 'a Mountain iu the San Rafael. Woae still, it letS forth IDrtlloua criteria that WQU!d 

effectively pfecludc wlldlltlless water ri&hll on BLM lands and jeopardize the rumre of the blota,of 

aquatic and riparian habitm (habitats with the highest fraction of species preaemly threau:ned aDd 

elldan&ered) and of the arid lands surroulldJni them. 

H.R. 1745 offers little protection to species or special conarn. n omils biodiversity "botspoa", e.g., in the low elevation Beaver Dam and Josbua Tree areu, and ran. to procect the Isolated 

biota of the Newfoundland Mountaln.s, which contain a number of endemic species. Also omitted 

from this bill are the two areas of greatest concern 10 botanista: the proposed White Rivu wildauess 

area, where at least a dozen endemic plantS grow on the Parachute IIIII Ev~e~~atlon Creek members of 

the Green River formation, and areas of gypsum-rich soils on QUter edles of the 'San Raphael Swell 

(Moenkopi formatlo111 near Window Blind Peale) IIIII surrounding valley areas (Summerville and 

Cannel furmation.s). Together these areas ncar the San Rafael contain 8-10 endemie plant species. If 

H.R. 1745 passes, these areu will again be open 10 ORV traffic. 

Finally, the Delegation bas also Ignored twO of our very 1enen1 recoiDDI8IIda1lolll. 'lbeae are 

to: (1) Use bloloalcal euldelllles 10 sec wilderness acrea:e, not force wildemeu desi.gnatio111 10 

2 
513 

coll!orm 10 a Mt acnaae. and to (2) allow for lut~Q ~wloa of wllden~e~~ bouDd.ulec u acl!ati& 

kllowledJe apaads. IOCietal valul!l cbanp. and ,powing population aDd dewlopmeal place IDcreuiiJ& 

ptesaure oa public and pr!VIttlalldl. 

1be anatat rutun t11na110 uta~~•• wtldlaudlta not the • otlhelr lpedMular poJoclc 

fealllra, bUC ra&blr the lneritable sped• lo5.- tha& 8CCOIIIplllJ habitat hpuealatloa lllld 

alla'adon, aad the lnvulollll olaotlc aped•. Arter just 1!0 yean olllplftc:uat ClCIIItM:& wltb 

Cauculaa populatloa~, bloJo&lcal communiUa llll ac:roa t1tall ..-. alradJ 'rirtuai)J 

unrecopballll (F1aure 1). We Clll ellher ad now to pre1ene aped• In 8J1r1C81e, on pubDc 

Iandi, and In the run, fundionlnalntad ecos)'ltfml that sn~tain them, or we CaD pay the 

_._. economic eo~~~ ot pl'ela'Yiaa aped• OIIHy-one, In rtqmenteclaad dedmatecl 

populadonl, and perhaps - 011 printe Iancia, u species lncnasl~~&17 beco11111 ~ and 

mdallaered. We biolo&ists urae you tO l3ke the lona view, and to llfeauard t1!1h'a hTeplaeeable 

biota tor lhe welflre of fUture a-llioaa. 

'Illtou&bollllllllCb ot Ill& wodd, lllw ~ lllndard pnctice to clesip IIIIUB ~ 

ICCOnlh•l to aclendflc criteria virtually identical to those recoiiUIIIDied 10 the Delepllo.n by Utlh 

biolozjsls. Bwa in devdopinJ Clllllltriea such u Panama, Perv and T&1IZUI!a (with whl.cll we have 

pcnonal aperienc:e), natural areas a now established ICCOrdiiiJ 110 IOIIIId ecolo&fcal pr!Dclpall. 'Ibla 

lllll&hlelllld approach colllrUtllharply with the U!lh Deleptioa'a blatant disreprd for bioloJical 

crileria in wildemeu dr:signatloa. As biologlsta In this wealdly natloa, whwe the scleatlfic erltarla 

were flnt developed, we will be ashamed of our awe and our nation if H.lt. 1745 bealmes law. · 

Interior SCCI'etary Bruce Bibblu has rec:eally ugued (SclliiCII 267:1954-SS (1995]) th.1t the 

two coDflicliJII aod previoualy compartmeotalized JIWiallemcnt aoaJs of bla DepatiDI8IIl (exii'ICdoa 

and conaervatlon) can only be met by uslnJ ptOV8II scientific principl11S 1D help punue boCh aom 

almuliiDIOIIIly. He wlllll thil to be lhe legacy of hil tame It IDterlor. We hope dlla will be :JClUf 

lcgxy 11 well, lhat you wDI rejecc HB 1745 (a bJd bDI, repraseatln1 political compzomlle at ila 

wom, and lllldeservlna ot Ulah'a apecQCUiar wildlands and blolollcal cllvmity), and dlat HB 1500 

wm become a model for aclence-based 111111 management declaions acrosa this llllioa. 

Appended: . 

- Scientific er1ter1a for wDdemesa deslpatlon (6 PIJel, lncllldlng letter tO Governor Leavitt aDd lilt 

of CODiributm) 

- Sample1bllow-i!p lett!S' 10 ddcgation (Hansen's office) 

- Form letter rapo111ct &QUI offices of Leavitt aad Waldboll% 

- Flpre I (color pboto DOt ye& available) 

Legend to Fllllll 1: Inuoc!IICed brome grusa~ dominate lntetlhrub ueu aloug the Green Rivw It 

the juncdon wilh Range Creek (acceuible by road) in Desolation Canyon. Similar cuverase by 

BrOitUG ia lll'idlllt cluriq lhis CSa!~Jtionally wet spring aDd aununer ovec many BLM laada ICCIIIed 

by road&. Btome Jtlllel are absent or far Jess abundant within luge roadl1111 ueu.. wbicb. CDmlll1y 

setYe u ret111ea ror llltlve YIJewlon, lllcludlliJ especially 11111ua!J, •·•·· apecl• of Mentu/IIJ, 

l'h4uli4, OwLuonla, and Erlo1anum and DWIY ott= IeDeR. Where pteaem, brome ~ alao 

allel' the flte ecology by lncreasllla flte frequeaey 110 the detriment of IIWI)' native peramia11, O.J., 

lnclian rice gnu (Oryrppsf3), mallow (Sphoalat~), IndiiiJI pallllbrush (Casrf/4}a, a paruka of 

peremdal bundl llfii&IS), walltlowet (Erysimum), tvenlliJ primroael (OtMdJml) IIJd IDIDyiiiOl'L 

3 
Altclltioa: Mr. BJ:lld Barber 

Goverum: Mk:blll Luvitt 

Gowmar's Office 

116 Stal8 Capllol 

Salt Lake City, trr 84114 

Dear Govfmw Leavitt: 

514 

ruE\UJ UNiVERSI'IY OFUfAH 

12 April. 1995 

10 bioloJists 

Deciaio111 

dltouJboul reprdiDg 

lhe Stale. 

1be dellpllioa 

Pot dlls reason, 

of Utah a 

wilder~~Maar.s 

~ of 1lalmiDII,IOOioJists 

U8of ~ COIICinl1114 

1114 eco1opts 

~ 

bavB 

come IOJabcl' duriug the put AVeni weeks 10 provide Mlttea ICialdftc: wy oa dill IIAI. 

(PrOfesaioDII ecoioPIIuelbole wbo ltlldy inlrnctioolll11111011g 11JC1Cia 111111 ialaal:tio• .,..._ specill 

111111 !belt pbyalcal habiDD. 'Ibey are distiDct from IIDV~IIII..) OUr recommenctf!lonl are 

lmeaded fbr both olccted otftc:Jal1 aocl tbe publll: It lqe. 

· We an a diltiucdy lndepcadalt collldllleaq' In die ..,~ debae. Radulr thu ld.YOCIIIIIJ 

wilderuu 1t11111 tbr partil:ular areu, wt advoata I selec:tlou pr:ocst cllnclatlt mafntalnjng die Joacllml vlabDity of Utah's -y plw llld llllmal spcdel. lllll8lll of ~ Ia 1118 polldcal 

cllalop betw- CIIViraa.-al aad -mlc: me-. wt allb CM .._. blled 011 1118 laa:lallc 

value of blocllvanltJ, lhe Sar.'s blok1Jic21 apital. 

Alapuup, - bave COIIIidlnble blowledp DOl ouly of Urab'1 -ably dlveae flora 111111 

&uDa, bat of III:Cipled sciCIIdftc pncdcel tbr minimizing spea,. loael fiola fn&mcllled llltlll'llllabitall. 

We hope tha you wUl ncopia our vlcwpoilll u lhll of oae of J0f1C 11101t ~ CI'Dlfih,.,..;• oa 

wildemea Issues, 1114 lblt you wDI DOt bealwe 10 call OD Ul ~ !be ip8Ciftc:l of lb selecdoD. 

Copl• 10 local media 111111 public: librlri• 

Sblcecely, 

itl,c-. w. &--~- Diul W. · Davldlaa. 

The Commill. fix Biologi&:al 

CommeaarJ oa Uah WUclenllu rFor more lnlbtmalioa, co!ltlet Dr. DiaDe (Dinlh) Davldlon or Dr. W'lllilm (BDI) Newmark 

o--.,......, 201...,_ .. Soltl...ob Clly, U!ah 14111 !IOIIIIHI517 
515 

COMMlTIEB P01 BIOLOOICAL COMMENT AllY ON trrAJI WIIJ)BilNJ!SS wtms 

lECOWMENDAllONS FOR. DESIGNAllNO NEW WILDI!RNBSS AIUWI: 

(llllt prioritiml) 

1) l'ROTEC'I' UJtGE CONTIGU01lS AIIUS • W..y ~ lpOCill tOqlliro lap blbilol- 10 ._....,._ 

viabilityofpopu~MW- SlilllelieldelipodiO,-Ib.-....... wiDIIIao,-a~~~~~odaw.,..._ ........ ._......_ 

- 10 iDI:Iu&o .... I .; .. of bloloJ'cll CGIIIIIIIIIitiot II.U ..... of 1111 uaun1 ~ c,dL 

2) AUGMENT OTIIEill'Ron:ct'ED AREAS· HiP priority Dul4 bo p-10 poCipOIIIl ~-IIIII alndly 

odjollllllll~ ..... aiCq p-.1 ar-. Tbll-ay albdo ---..--10 ...... "'*----

lllqllltellllll 

3) J.UJHI'AJN BVI'IER ZONES Aa00ND WJLDEJI!IIESS AlUWI • mp plorit)' lllaald toe p-. 10 J1111P0114 

wa.s.- ,.... (arl ~ proeectod laadl) 'buftilaed 'by llllnMIIIIq malcipi~HM IMda willo CIIIIJ madM ...._-.-, 

4) 'JIIlD)(Z l'RODCTED d£&S BY COIJUDOBS ·Hlp patoril)' lbauld be pvc Ia ~ ,....._-tW 

pcvrida hrid.., or ...,.... oarridan -a prOieCIOd ....,, Tbllllnlos7 elfoo:liWII7 .u- dal ~ Wlilolua ..S 

bialpiiO ..... lllilli8IID viaiM papuJarioal ollpOCIII wklllup ... ...--

5) l'ROTEC'I' NA11VB COMMtJNlTJES IROI\f INVASIONS OF NON..HATIVE SPEaiS. a...-... ...... -'by wbidl-...aw .....- iawd.a prildDe llabltm. ~ttflap _._-wiD belp ....... ...... 

populadou of_, p11aat llllllllia.l ..-.;.. lbac have..,..,. 1-. noplal:8d by......,.... -'o lpeCilo .........,. _. 

oflbeir ...... 

6) l'ROTECf MIGIU.TORY JtAHGES • May Yalllld 111111 .....- aaill* -.Dy - ......,_ .-s-, 

a-. ol dolir n~M~ve~Jlow .......aaa. IIU( ~ ........ -llloal4llelp 10 ..- crilioal ........... 

1111.-rllliallla _,.of Utall'a ioJoDII..Iibl -a.-... 

7) PROTECT dEA.S OP MAXl1lft1M SPECDS DM!ItSn'Y • Mally Ji1111P1 of .m-ta _, plaala .-lalllllir ..._ 

clivw.ily o&Jawlln.aiaaad decllae ia~ lllhialler~ Proatiqlup~-111 relallwi71Dw ...... wiU llelp 10 ,_ ~-apeciA 

I) PROTECT JUPAIIJAN AND AQUATIC HABrUTS · In.._ babilala, rho ample~ of....-ia cncilltD 

tha ,.. af...,,.._ - ia JWOieCiial wildlife. w-.- pollibla, daoipmd wi ..... - ..... ,... ... 

-.bed~. IDIIIbeilollled -iri• ofrlpM!aa II** lba& -liar a~ h:liGD .,.,.._ 11--.,. 

c. BLM l.iliadt. laaalllloaot.cplicwa-a ....... ~-llbauldaJao,- ,._, ..... __. 11r111e 

llll,jariiJ oftlll--.l ....................... Utall. 

9) l'ROTECT sncms or SI'ECUL CONCERN • lfwiw.- cleai.ludoa _. • .,. '-' ae~y ..... -..- ....,.;.-oi'Widalonaalq.,.-. _,. ilol8eellor'-lly-.loolliclpeCiclw.ld -~ ,_oftiala ........ <_,. .....- willa-dlllrlbulicul._.-> dilaarwllliall priority for wn.ser- praiB:Iiaa. 

10) USE BJOLOCIC.U. CRrl'DIA TO SEI' ACREAGE· Prior 1a lllllliar plllbr m. ~ ....... 10 be .......... 

.. ~ • .U~~-abouldbe.v81.....Siatbo-ofiCieadftooriariab ...... _.,._.... 

lblir ialrialic bo\oloPGII_. eoaJoab!..U... . 

11) ALLOW FOR IVl'VRE EXJ'ANSXON 0'1 WJLDEJUIIES$ BOtJNDAIUES · E.._ if.._ o:ri111ria- -..., ._. 

iatD dllt 1111eo1io11 ·...-, illl &JIP&ftlll daa& ~-Ill Ullll will be~ lbr ,_....,all oiiM 111111'1 

blotopllllleri..... 'l1alo, il il cridcallba& .... pqbllo laadl be uae4 10 ,_ IIIia bed1ace-
516 

lalroducdoa 

Ill IIIII 1964 ww..- Act, Caapa Ollllfmod IIIII ~of~ Fedlnlload iaill-.1 

.-. 111111. afllnDod ecoloclcal md ociaaliliG val- u Jllllllblioa b' ~ wilder-. Aama IIIII-"' 

imparlct fiallt:ticM of willler.- areu il tbcir ~ ..U ia ~ bialopcd cli-.ky. We, • 

pmfeaiooal bio1o1i11a oad ~.· -.1d like 10 cmpbuiJlll IIU value ol ~ llld 10 ap1aia IIIII 

importu~~:e of u. Ulllll BLM ~ !-" for prors:daa 111o biolcJsi&:alval- ot t111h'a wild Jlllda. 

JllalaP:al dnonlty, the 'fU'iety ollile ill a &I••-. CUDiablllbna llllnrdlical Clllll,._a: ..... cllnnlty, speda dl-*7, ud _,_ diftr'lity. G-u: di-.ity rclieriiO IIIII pll8lk ~ widda 

lpeCicL DcpWioa ol.-M: Ylrilbility cao lbzatao lllo IUIVivol of lpeCi.. holb t.y proiiiOiiq ~. 11101 by 

mllbial orpniomo of lbo ""!*'i'l' 10 adlplto ~· cooditlaaa. ~ divenlty cu t. ~ limply u 

..

of 

... 

mt,j« 

ridlllca

-locioal ' . cw lllolaiiii1WIIIber of,....,.. """"withia-ll'eL ~ lli,..;ty ODIIIIIIa oflllo ~ 

oo:ammilie~ willliD.,... lblt an ~a-a ia lboir pllyoicollllrillalca (c.l·• ~or 

11011 type). 

~ 

a-Da. ........... ~ &-my all .-li ,._ ~a~erac~~- .,._ Clflllll- .......... 

lllllllllendlou of~ wilh ..... &DOCblr. 1bo pllylloel ~-llmlll• ...... bloloaloal ~OlD blbablllll-. """a.t..:baao-. tllooe ~---.. wblcllll'l-...... SlntlociCII for~ blodlvenlty - 1t.n£an lab DOia of all doa lmq lhiDp ill IIIII ~ IIIMi IIIII liabp..-,-.. 

Tile ~ ol Ulala'a bloloclcal dl'renlc,- depeadl aa: 1) --, till ~ JOI)IIIItloll 

~ 

Yiablllty ol 

...,... 

aallft 

wbidl 

aalmal 

tt.e 

-' 

~ 

plant 

dopmd. 

IPCda. 

Bolh 

111111 

IIIII 

1) 

lim 

malatalalac 

of IIIII..,.... 

the cridcal 

of pcOieCiedcculockal IDd 

OIOil 

~ 

111o ICIIoodaa 

ol wi~ - obauld be pided by tbeole I:WO aoeJa. Allboucll it II polllibkl to .,._.... • -n -- ol 

lpOCieo md .-ia ..,.,. - bolmic ami-• ..,.,_;tiae - opocloe ~ - bo OOG8CC'ild Ill rilL Lotao 

~ 

areu wilb ml.mlmal humu iDI!uti011 111111. aalllr21 ~ rcuoaably iDIId..., crillcal ol.....a of Ill 111• 

11n111g. lhBy provick proceccloll for fraailo laabiwa, lib oully etOdc4 ..U., 111111 ~ ballilll a 

ndueve ~ oucll., bi&bom .m..p, ri.,..- 111111 pdo!Q '"'Jio. ~ • ....a-.,_ otfw -.J. 

eco&)'llaGll imlallllty from lhc biolo!lical iuvuioaa lbal: bave ~ mmy ,.,_,miri• (lll!*iaUJ p1aat 

-..-irilla)- Ullh. 

S..- desrribo altiaKillc stn~. baled aa 1bo priadplcs of-* blolcv. for lllllediDc 

c:rifloal sila ror ..a.s.- dalipW!oa, and ror oldlnnillidc lbe _.. o1 babita& that abould 11c ,._- • ..a--(1M .. Babbll m!). 

Vjab!e Pypul!ljo!w . 

Ullh C0G1aiu u. apposimately 3000 aamod p!.at ..,U. w--... aJid abou& 58-4 vwtoln.la ...,;-. 

VIable popala~ r~ _. o1 u- pima IUid aaimals caa be ..... 111 fllalllat, wllbla .-..aa 

-ualllls, oa apcda tor wWcb lhe rilk ol atlncdoa Ia ~nu..&. n-opocloe typioally iadada- willa 

..U populadooa-. larp boa. I'UIP nqoinaaalla, a low npnllllacliw po1a111a1. (S... of !II.._..-.,.. 

fir - -a.-- from Btawa'• (1,-,11 .....U. of IIIIIIIIII8J. "" ...,..,..., llobilll& illaada ia !II. Onot 

BuiA. iac1uc11aa Uta.) Ill Ulab. .....,._of .ada aaimala aroblaJ>om ........ ri-- aJid p>kla ..p. Tile YiaJlilq ola pop\llatlalla dqleadl oa bolla die l.ftl olrllk- an~ Ia ~ 111111 die tilDe 

,_ Oftr wbld&- wldito -..rYe lt. populalloa. lllpaeral, boda lllllliblihoodof ~.,......... 

111111. 1111 ~ lime, u..:z- wilh pgpulaliml sia. A level of ri* 111111 ~ IIIII ecol<lpa .......-Jy-

• a -.-z plla a 99S c:baaao of IDIYivoliOr 1000 Y01rL 

For larp CIIZ'III--, It 11M 11-. &lllmatad that the .minl.alD Ylahla popalalloa _.y to_.. 

a 99'5 dlance of .....mal ror 10011.-n ill •~1 lO,OUO to 100,000 IDdi'l'lduall c- F'c- 3.2 ill 

!Wo9Sky 1987). Ill babiblt uca, tbil ia equivaleat to 100,000 10 1.000.000 km' or :Z..S Ia 25 milli.aa -. 

Allhoup ClUJ..- requl- may - remarbbly latp. .._,_,_. ..._of -=-lim~ liaa-

~ latpl ol oot IWiooal pNb (10,3281:m' Y~ N. P.) cluria1 biotoricalllma (j.- 83.5 yn) ...._ ~ 

~ ~ of our .,-eErora Ia s--w biodivonlty <- Table 1 iD NCWIIIIIk 1987). 

EltcqK fw. fiow ball~ poplllllioal.latp lllllllllll1a IIIICil u bipam lboep, black"-w ,;._- om ,_..ny lniO&onlol o11a-~ lllllllldiviti-. Maa7 Ill-'s aYOicl babllat adjaamt I1D ._., 

_. tm. 111e pracucc olnJaCll cu displace IUCh spcdcl (ROll 111111. 11a11ey 1979, w--' deCila~a 1!18S) 

111o loaf'WDIIIII'Iival c.f IMM llllmals dqlald& 011 Ill& protoctioa of wll'*-, i.e., Jatse blocb ollllldllbll 

experieaco mlDJ.mal lullllalllnlrmiaa. 

1 
t ~J:i~~ ~~ I ,~~~l ,,,,, Jll r·t 4'Jf ttft1t 3 fsll i.t'-r•it.i., ~~ ~~~~ ~JI~~.tli .. tl.r . ~~.J rltr•~· ·~~. ~~.i~ ra~ t rU t~I· ~hili l.J (lll t · 1 J 1 ·i{ltJ ·titJ t. ;• 

1:f !l!t lf!~llt~ 

lllil!lilli!l!~i rll

11tifltlll!(;i. iiltl sril ~&:~~:tiji t~rt f1Ej§!s}ltt r tB J'(~ttrilltrJ-: 111! 

J e It r f l( I f. I .. a It !i. fa· i J l! f I·· . f· i. ra.t e i lll j' [~ R l § j. [1 t J 8 "{r fl :j l:f!J· a. J ~:..[• "! ~ l ;,lis tf~e.lll 1 I 

- ailllt(!siJi !fliit JlrJJ: l[i I ;!;f!~Jf~llJJ!It iillt ~ I e: J' ... II 8 J: • i B •· s· "· II l 8 II J I' · i 'I J [ 

!I l{ tli["lt rt~.t! slllt l.. ~~~ [f~i I!J;~ tJ! 

Jl [ltt"lilllll lflllii il,!!,· iii if! li!t i!l!ti ltli rl fl l~~ J Jj. -li'r ~' ·• rtl t,l tl!t lr l~Jrl r~ir 
518 

"" priDarily .-icMd. "" r-ue. ..... 1'bul, prapaoed wna- - ...........w by public lllldo """'" 

JeCiiw hip priooUy for proiiCiiclL SoD lbouJhl misb& "-si-ID allbcliiq .,... Oilier typ. of Jm**ll._ 

Co lbca llllllliplo - lazldl. 

Od!gr Critical ConS!!J!I 

The oplilmi d.olilll lldYooaled llcto il bqed larply OllllOIIaYIIiao _,_for~~ 

vctebn!a opoo:ioe. Allbauab lUCia -p. em bolp Ill _... !be Joac-tarm Yilbllil)' o(-..,.... willlta 1 Ji-reJioa, czd'llllft nllaaa: oa IUdlllppi'CIMbls lllaJ Will onr1oo1r .ud ....-IIIU)' ~ llaiUid, 

ran ud eoclealic animallud pluds. folr a.mp&., 1M nliol fi& &uaa oftba CDiorldo IU-drUJofe, lbDIDahly 

di-oat ..s.mic '- oat wup laaaM of tbot S.. laful, IU¥I piM!a tlldcmlo 10 J*1icubr 1011 ~ liD IIIII 

Maoakopi fotllllllioa ill~ Ullll ~ lwMllb, tbot dwarfbMH!Iw pcppy,IIIOI ,...__ .u.ri. 

acacma). ~7• it!. vitally~ ID~ wilden~ua._ tU&will-... lbe laDa-41n11JiftiiDctiaa of~ ........ oflpCia.ICIODCCnL ~-rlim•in .... pfloip........_lbiNioloftaud~y 

pooeect alllallber of such lpeCia ~7· 

~or ~ ID ....., or llldcalla lpll:i8o iacluda Oli.V lnlllo, ..tllch mapifiao 1011 --., ........,. 

c:ryptabiolic..,;J 

Iller 1bD lldwort 

....... 

of iDtaw:1ioa1 

ud olilnlpa--CJdiDI.- iD plaa& IIIII .JIIIII _.,;.;,. 

~o~-...m..-., 

LMdlDc prial:iplly llloaa 

wlllda-

.-lo, 

~ 

._ 11iea 

opecb baY. al.-ly ---........ liaalflcac OOIIIfClllton ot ~ Ullob ...-. illdudlar ~ ~ 

lilrealalecl or eac1oaprec1 pllldl mel fiJbM. The ~ etr.cra of • .... OliOIIc ..,._ - Mil-

~ 

ill-...! by Aoia -'* (T-a ~). wllidl llaa c:lamellad dven llld -. 11irouPaat 1M 

draiDap 111111 lb8n!by aiiCRd tbot ~ of bolla lqUIIIc ballllla (flow ,..m.. 1ea1p1r11urM llld 

oodlaet loadl)aad riparilllbal>i-lo lb$clectl....lofmuDetoanadn filhoo, ~.llitdl, __.., aaclplatL 

The-' for prollletiq bi<Jdi~ il upably rho-~ pl of~~ 

Focclq wl~ deC~ 10 coabm 10- predetecmiDed fipn fer 111a1-wilder.-__,. 

~ 

imperil& Ucab'a 

Priot 

~ 

10 

oad 

aelliDJ 

tiwaa 

pill 

by fililina 

lOr 1M 

10 

total--eo 

lDoorpotalo widely 

11:1 be .w.liabed 

.-plllll ociaalific 

11 ~ 

~ 

lllllaada 

,. ~ 

~a 

-ma Ulah'a blodl-.rity llllould be .. aiualad in tbe -of oo:l.alific c:ritlria lor...-.. oat .,._.... 

ll*r 

ftliebnta 

ia!riotic 

wilb 

~no~oa~ca~• 

lU'p .,._._. 

eoo1op:o.~ 

111141 

w~-. 

nrc 1111111 

Stiolltitie 

endcladc 

uitaia 

spcda 

ror 

wlda 

.....-.... 

adllr _.... 

bodl 

~ 

~ 

llllauld .. 

I'CaJIIIbed 

~ 

a:plldtl1 1111d dealt willa Ill ddamiDIIlc tbe IDCal .,.. r..,...... E ... if 11111::11 cdlella -

iolo 1M ldecdoa p--. it ia apponu11hat wi1domoa- ill Utlb will be ~ l'ar 

..-vial Ill of droo Slala'a biolop:ol beriQao. 1bDa, it il crilical tlw aclw public laDda be IIIOd 1o prlllllllt 1bla 

beriraa-. 

F"...lllly,-- thot .,.,.,.. daa put--._ Rpid ~baa._ modo Ia OIW ~-& d! 1 

of~;-. &Dd Ia cnar kDowladp of 1M~~ afreollaJ Uta'l fkn aad ....._ Sal:ll 

........._ 

pRliDCdoa 

~ 

U. 

~ 

likely 1o 

ira 

~ill 

the ligbl oftbe l"alm8, 

illformalioa. 

Ml it would 

na. be w;., 

It b lmparUDI 

lo retUa tM 

tW 

llal"bilily 

.......... 

1D twialw 

optiOIII 

~ 

rar 

tba bouadarill ofUiab'a ~.._Ill 1M r~ 

of11ohbitt. B. 1995. SdeDco: opcaillrdroo- cUpiiW ol.........uioa bialot7· Sci-. 26'7:1!154-~. 

~.G. B. 19117. EuiDcdoa axlala a -u.a pooni-. Pp. 35-57 in Viahla ~far 

c-n1ioa, Caml>ridp Ualwnlty "-. Cambridp. 

o'Browa,1. H. 11m. l'oUmmlla oa -~ ~briuzD IIIsulacbiopoJrapby. ~ Natllllllla 

105:<467~71. 

IIN-.t. W. D. 19117. A llllld-bridp illmd penpeedvo oa IIIIIIDa.liaA adacdoat in-..~ 

~pub. N-JlS:430-432. 

1l<llt, G. 1L aad J.A. Bllley, 19751. Dillribuciooa ot ~ de« &ad Ilk ila ra.tlaleo .-IL 1oonal olWiJdliio 

~43:63-W41. 

s-. G. C. 1992. 'I1Io clcvl&ioaal pdiaat in oltiludiaalrup: aa atal&iGa ollbp>pore'allliladiDal..,. 

1o aldtadL ..._.,_ N-.JI.It141:893-9U. 

Wi'-• G. W. &Dd D. S. Calella. l!ISS. Eft'ecl of lbrMt -.11 Oil bUilat 11M by~~ Ilk. Nartlawelt 

s.-. 59:1.22-125. 
519 

THE COMMITl'EE FOR BIOLOGICAL COMMENTARY ON 

UI'AH wn.DERNESS ISSUES 

Briabaa Yoq VaherlitJ 

Dr. R~ CU., ProfCIIOC' of Bolmy IIDil Direccor, Cbemlcol &ol.oiiY Lib (ra. 801-378-C211) 

Dr. Jcrr111 T. F1loders, Proc- ot Botmy (801·371-2322) 

Dr. Kimball Harpa-, Pro&ooo< of Bolmy (801·371-2129) 

Dr. Samuolllaablbrdl. rrvr.or of Bollllly (801-371-2$12) 

Dr. Dub R.oeen. AlloclaliD Prota.lr ol Zoolol)' lll4 Cllnlor of Mum.!. (801·371-S891) 

Dr. Jact W. Site~, P.ofcaor of Zooloa7 (801-371-2279) 

Dr. Ricbanl T~ l'.o'-« ...S CbalnaaD of Zoolol)' (801-378-C391) 

l>t. Cia,- Wlllla. Prof- ot Zooloar""" Cunlor of Ol'llilbolou (801·37~ 

U.u-.iiJ ot Ulab 

Dr. Palricia lleqw, ~ ol Bioloa1 (801·S8S·3102) 

Dr. Lyu Bolla. ~ ......_Prof_,.. ot Bioloay (801-581-SS715) 

Dr. PhyW. D. eoa.,, .ProEe.lt ot Bfoloo' (801-SU-7081) 

Or. Diaaol W. Ilcvidooa, ProC.... of Bioloay (801-SSI-8392) 

Dr. Slwa>E--, ~ Prof<:aO&"ofBloloii)'(801-S8l-423S} 

Dr. DoDald F-. ~Pro-.. of Bloloay (801-SSI-4444) 

Dr. TbOIIIU ~. ~ ~ Pto&uor of Blolol)' (801·581-7086) 

Dr. No.-.a.N"'UU. Pror.- of Biolo&Y (801-581~) 

Dr. J011 Sept, .....,.,. Ptoleaor of Biolol)' (80l·S81-4S78) 

Dr. Jolm Speny, ~ Ptor-or of Bio1ol)' (801·58!~368) 

Clr. Dclbec1 WI-, P.ofeslor of Blolol)' (801-581-5008) 

Weber Stale UDIYonitJ 

l>t. St.ovoa L. Cialt, ~of llotm711ld Curalac of 1llo Hctbarium (80Hi26-6111%) 

Dr. SIISIII Faittub, Aaiamt Prore-r of Zoolol)' (801~26-6166) 

Dr. Cad Marty, Prote.or of ZooiOI)' (801-62.6~172) 

Dr. Samuel L Zt:wlt>ff, P.ofcaoor of Zooloa (801~26~6SS) 

Salt Lake Ccmmllllity Collece 

Dr. Jama Hatrls. ADoc:lalo Profcaor of Bioloay (801-222-8623) 

Utah MIDCIIIII ot Natunllllltory 

Dr. Sarah Oeorp. Dlnoc:loJ of UMNH, lll4 AdjWlCl Asloc:ial.o Pro ....... of BioiOI)' (801·511~) 

Dr. William N~ a-rch Cunlar (801-581~927) 

Dr. Eric: Rickut. ew.r.w of V~ (801·581-6921) 

Dr. Mlcbad WiDdbam, Cunlor', Gllmllt Herbarium (80l·S8HiS20) . 

Utah State~ 

Dr. Rlcbard Hildrdh, Din<:lor of E4ucadoa (801-SII-8936) 

Fedoral.4i-=IM 

Dr. Ja)'ll& BeWp, S&al.or Rc8earcll &olo.lliot. NllliODai Biolop:.i SarvU:a. Atcllel """C...yaUmde Noliaaal Pod~ (801-~ 

31111. ell1. 217<4) 

Doaald Duff. Aqulllic Ec:dosiJI, USDA Fon:s Service (80l·Sl4-6491) 
• 

II 

II 

520 

BLM Wilderness 

Foreat Service Wilderness 

National Park 

Wilderness 

·:· 

1 ~1 

nv-- Buffer Zone ::: 

:· 

Fp I. A pre(erred IITIIIJemlllt of wildenleA IIIII nwltlplt ~ fedetal and Irate 111111110 COI!IerW 

biological diveqlry. WlldetPeSI areas ildmlniJtered by the Bunau of l.aDd Mamsemeat. Fonac Service, 

Nlltlooal Pad: Service, and Flsb and Wildlife Service sbould funD a COIIIIguous 1:0n zoae 1D wblda !be -

exiiudion prone species in l11.1h can be protected. Muldple uselllldl em d'rec:dvel7 buffer tbll core - lad 

provldelddltlolllli mar&iDa1 habha Ul species wbk.b are primarily restrlcted to mllllesa a.. 
521 

Mr. All111 D. Freemyer, &q. 

Houle Subcommlttco 011 National Park, Fon!ltl llld Publie Landi 

SO& O'Neill R.O.B. 

WulliDpiD, D.C. 20SlS 

'lbaDk yw for your time llld eftbrt It !he recent wDdemeN harinp, which wen 1oq lllld, 

I'm lute, clrlna. Ai you may recall, l orpnlzed aclemlftc lllput 10 die wlldemes~ deblle. My 

purpose iD writiDg is to eDCOIIflle :you apiD to take the preservmon of biodiwnity .. a VfflrJ serioul 

aoll of wlldernesl clesiJIW)oD. Listenio& to Jpeeche& !'rom lhe podium It Sllllllday'a helrlq, 1 

woudcmf how aciCIICO could INf:C play ID important role ill dJe decisio~t-makiq JmlCCIItl beiiJ& 

dac:ribed. I hope that yoa wDl take acrlously our offer of uWcanco willa bioloP:II iuiiCI. WhiCIIVW 

your ftlla1 declsloas, the ICtnic; &eology will remain for cemurlel, bat die flora llld fauna wllllllldy 

not, at leaat DDt with their pre&eOt rlc!uless. 

I have jUit finilhed a 5UIIIIDary report on R8IDntion of Joaed rain furella i.a Bomeo. 'Ihen, 

I have been peripherally Involved In a project that connecced U.S. and ocher utility compllli• ia 

carbon emissions Indio& projeca with Malaysian foresters. They iiDd sclea&IS worbd togdhcr to 

dtvl'lop reduced Impact loggina techniques that both Increase proftts for lhe dmber lnduscry and 1rc1 

environmeot.IIIOWid. The &ad part is that all of Sabah'& forests have already been loged by 

deatrucdve meao.s. lf ooly sclemlscs had been Involved earlier, chere mfaht have been a bappier 

coding. 

Please don't let that happen In Utah. Call ua if we Clll be of uae. 

Sin=dy, 

Diane W. Davidson 

Fax: 581-4668 

PlwDe: .581-8392 
' t!rfi tlf~ ~i~iif • ~ti ltitlr ! ~~! ·'I t'lr tl sll ~~~ ie !·~ g(~ r1 ~~ ~·li• !'I· .r 1 ~~ l

4 }!f} ~ r ssli ~~ ~~~·~l1 ( JiJ rl!lsJ ! r~t! ~s~~ f ~~- . ~~ fltlj a 

. I!}} :~.1 ~il!1Ji I~ ·fl!ll 

11 '~~' ~-a ;r ~- -J ll rill f.iil [I 3:~ [ {if~ ~fa !~~~ tf ·f (e,•l ~p~ 1~L u~ tf· ill pt ~11·w ~i~ ilii ll~ ~~{lif.[l r(i ixi·!;t 

If · •}.t ~ J l r l[ j f8 · f • i I ~ ll• 

s 

tli tlf i~~flll 11•r i~f;r~ 1(!1' ~~~ t•Jtl•' r r ~~~~-, rr:J !i1 ~;1rrt1~ ~iJ ;~rffl J~l t•t :.11r1 11 1 l~ri~ Utl ~!,. • 'ii!Hr Uf HUi 

l•tf B f i~~~~ f.l, }lff~ $.1 I J. I Js· J.a! tl: 1 I . Iii• 8 ~ 

l "a ~ l! 6 tii p iIi~ ~ "' 0 ~ ~ i Ul ~i;, ~ * en ~~,~ . ~ 1.-. '"' s ~~~= 2!9:::;: I~a. sa! 

i 

, i r; 

•irJ 'II 

Hgf ~Rr '~-! -· i " 
MICHAEL 0 . LEAVITT 

eov••,.ott 

Diane DaYicboo 

201 BiolosJBids 

salt LeU City, ur 14112 

Dear DlaDe i:>avidlaD: 

523 

STATE OF UTAH 

OI',ICI: 01' THE CIOYIEJIINOR 

SALT LAKE CITY ••""·o•o• 

May 10,1995 

OL.JCC I. WALICII" 

I.I&U.,.IIMft' .......... 

I join with die Comaliollll Deleption iD tballking you for takfua tbo time to write to the 

Govemor's Of6cc wish your COIICCZIII reprdina BLM wildemal dcsipdion in Ut.h. Your 

eommeats haw beca. c:mlopd alq with ove: 3,000 others. . 

~you ce ~ awve, this l:ll exlraJidy importiDt IDd. emotloaal issue to maay people 

ill Ut.h. It il ill!pOl1IDt to~ that wba Utah'1 wildemesa legislatl011 is beiJI8 dnfted, M 

will do our belt to CDMO tbllllll propoals. recommmdatfnn•,llld penpeclivea aa OOillldlnd. 

Tbc wildclmea iauala oae ot anat complexities. We need a wildemesl bill which mlcc:ta our 

c:ommit:l:aalt to dJe impodllllce ofwbllt is filir, ballnccd, IDd good for the cilimls of Utah IDd 

. the Uuitrxl Staflll.. 

I greatly appreciate your tlkiJia; tbe time to C011V11Y your eon<:em1 rcprding the ~Oil 

procea 

~~ Mlcblel 0. LeaviU 

OovaDDr 
524 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

June 29, 1995 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

!O:OOA.M. 

TESTIMONY OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN WAYNE OWENS 

Chairman of the Southern Utah Wilderness AUiance (SUW A) 
525 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

June 29, 1995 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

!O:OOA.M. 

TESTIMONY OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN WAYNE OWENS 

Chairman of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUW A) 

Mr. Chairman: 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, my former colleague on this Committee and in the 

Utah Congressional Delegation, for your kind invitation to be present this morning, and 

to testify before the Committee. I would be equally comfortable on either side of the 

dais, and probably even more comfortable, Mr. Chairman, if our functions here this 

morning were reversed, and it were you on this side. But I am grateful to you for the 

chance to counsel you on what I think you should do, and I am hopeful that your 

Congressional courtesy will extend to implementing some of that advice. 

It is my privilege, at this concluding House hearing, to summarize the official 

policy position of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, whose Board of Directors it is 

my honor to Chair. I also want to express my strong personal feelings about what should 

be done to preserve the extraordinary red rocks ofUtah, land which is, in reality, 

America's Red Rock Wilderness. 

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the largest environmental organization in 

the State of Utah, is helping to lead a unified wilderness community in this wilderness 

fight. Although I do not speak for the rest of the Utah Wilderness Coalition, I believe 

they are firmly in agreement with the statement that I will make. 

We support HR 1500 wholeheartedly, and ask that you report it to the House 

Floor for its action. We will be very pleasantly surprised if you do so. We oppose HR 

1745 in its entirety, and ask the Congress to defeat this legislation. The two bills are 

reconcilable only if you follow Congressman Vento's suggestion-- made last week in 

Salt Lake City-- to move the decimal point of Mrs. Waldholz's amendment so that close 

to four million acres are added to HR 1745 for wilderness protection. And only if you 

grant genuine wilderness protection to all that land, which your bill does not extend even 

to the 1.8 million acres which it covers. 
526 

We take this position because HR 1745 not only refuses any type of protection to 

the most uniquely important areas of wilderness in the State of Utah, it actually opens up 

to unlimited commercial development much of that which is currently protected by Jaw. 

Utah only has about 6 million acres of wilderness left (one-third of what it had 50 years 

ago); this bill only gives questionable protection to less than a third of that. I say 

questionable protection because the wilderness status granted by your bill is Jess than that 

standard set down in the Wilderness Act, inasmuch as it allows dam building, off road 

vehicle use, gas pipelines and commercial developments. And then the bill would 

actually open up the rest of Utah's unmatchable natural lands to commercial 

development. This is a development bill, not a wilderness bill. 

In one sentence, Mr. Chairman, your bill gives wilderness protection to almost 

nothing, because it opens up I .8 million acres to partial development, and another 4 

million acres to total commercial and recreational exploitation. You could not do so 

much hann to Utah's natural beauty by accident; it has taken careful planning to cause so 

much environmental mischief. 

And there is one other fact which should be taken into very serious consideration 

by this Committee and the Congress. God and Mother Nature combined to create this 

unique land, and, Scientists tell us, using the wind and sand, and rain and water, spent 

300,000,000 years sculpting this uniquely beautiful country. There are no other lands 

like it in the entire world. No comparable country anyplace on the earth. And obviously 

no more of it will be made in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our grandchildren. 

So before the Congress decides that these uniquely splendid lands should be left 

unprotected -- these beautiful panoramas and vistas you see before you -- before you tum 

them over to mining and drilling for oil and gas and building of roads and every other 

kind of economic exploitation, and off-road vehicles everywhere, consider what you are 

doing not only to our natural legacy, but also to our spiritual values. 

Then you should consider what you are doing to our economic vitality. Surveys 

show that much of Utah's economic strength is tied to Utah's quality oflife, which is, in 

tum, tied to Utah's great outdoors and its unspoiled natural red rock beauty. Not only 

tourists are attracted to Utah by our wild lands, people come here to set up their 

companies because life is so pleasant here. The Red Rock Wilderness is the magnet. 

Don't destroy it. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I comment on what I think this wilderness fight is all 

about. It is not about important mineral wealth being kept from the market. There are 

very few minerals of commercial value here. The coal in these lands is only a very tiny 

percent of Utah's plentiful coal resource. There is nothing there in oil, gas, coal or other 

minerals which the Country's markets will pay for. And there is no other valuable use for 

most of this land. No commercial value, none, except as their beauty draws world 

citizens to come and enjoy. 
527 

No, Mr. Chairman, this bitter and divisive wilderness fight is all about Utah's 

future, the face it provides to the world. It is about whether a local minority will be 

allowed, in the traditions of the West, to subdue and change these lands for their personal 

consumptive use, these beautiful lands which all Americans -- not just Utahns -own. 

This is tough language from a Southern Utah boy; who grew up in this red rock 

country, in the tiny town of Panguitch, County Seat of Garfield County, where much of 

our proposed wilderness is located. My county is more than 90% federally owned and to 

many local residents, the beauty of the land becomes secondary in importance to the 

understandable need to provide jobs. And the members of the Utah delegation, in their 

representation capacity, support the desire of a local minority, not the overwhelming 

support of wilderness state-wide. 

Congress should not misunderstand this point. All impartial professional polling 

shows overwhelming public support for the preservation of large amounts of Utah's wild 

lands as wilderness. By two to one, Utahns support preservation of at least 3.2 million 

acres -- the amount which is currently so protected as Wilderness Study Areas. By three 

to one, the input received by the Governor's office favored the 5.7 million acres ofHR 

1500. Two thirds ofUtahns think protection of Southern Utah is more important than 

economic development there. 

Thank you for your courtesy and thank you for your serious consideration of what 

is at stake here for Utah and for the Country. 
528 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 1 

I request the following comments be included in the written testimony for the 

House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands field hearings. I was 

dismayed by the vague partisan tone of the uselessly imprecise generalities set in these 

hearings by the chairman. I believe the only valid way to resolve these issues is to 

consider the technical merits of each of the wilderness sites. This process of informed 

deliberation was very apparently excluded by the design of the June 23rd and 24th 

hearings imposed by the chair. All of those advocates of each of the wilderness sites 

which HR 1745 is designed to destroy, were not allowed to focus on the technical merits 

of these wilderness resources, but instead had to respond to the polarized political 

atmosphere I observed at these meetings. 

This process is flawed. HR 1745 is fatally flawed and this entire subject must be 

tabled until the work of detailed examination can cut through the fog of pre-ordained 

political decisions. Before I submit my own detailed testimony about some wilderness 

areas, which I have studied, I will respond to some of the vague generalizations, 

assertions, and aspersions on the abstract plane which they necessitate, only more 

precisely and realistically. 

Commissioner Louise Liston's dull repetition of the old rude insult that 

backpackers don't change their 20 dollar bill or underwear when we take on our journeys 

misses the point in two ways I would like to point out Ms. Liston's implication of . authorship of this insult is a falsehood and I am aware of it being used to moralistically 

denigrate outdoor enthusiasts for at least two decades. 

First, this insult misses the point that the existence of wilderness is valuable to 

people all over the world. Wilderness is valuable because it is an unused/untrammeled 

area. To analyze wilderness exclusively in terms of uses, excludes the existence value of 

wilderness to all the people of the world We have a responsibility to set aside large 

ecologically complete wilderness in all the landforms throughout the world including 
529 

Subcommittee on· National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 2 

Utah. Setting aside wilderness is a responsibility we must fulfill for the sake of existence 

value without regard to the benefits of uses opened up by setting aside the wilderness. 

Second, minimization of the impact of local spending by backpackers ignores the 

total economic impact of backpacking which does filter back to the host counties in 

substantial levels. This is a limited but personal example of use value in wilderness. My 

own graduate level understanding of chemical processing technology has resulted in 

hundreds of jobs in Utah. I have been actively recruited for hundreds of positions 

throughout the country. I tum down the tens of thousands dollars of improvement I could 

have in my salary because of the unique nature of the outdoor experience I have in Utah 

almost exclusively in designated wilderness or wilderness study areas. 

Many of the hundreds of thousands of Utahns active in the out of doors face 

situations similar to my own which adds up to billions of dollars of advantage Utah has in 

the competition for highly skilled human resources in the national market of the special 

skills necessary for high technology to be successful. This multibillion dollar advantage 

must directly boost every county in Utah through numerous linkages. Ms. Liston's 

aspersion cast on my personal hygiene is not factual and my contribution to their local 

economy is much more than changing a $20 bill. 

Much of the discussion by commodities producer pressure groups consisted of 

broad generalities irrelevant to the specific sites under consideration. Commercial timber . is not available in any of the areas under consideration with only minor possible 

exceptions. Wilderness designation does not in and of itself change traditional grazing 

practices. Grazing must be managed in a sustainable manner whether or not the land is 

designated wilderness. Experimental changes in grazing must be allowed so optimum 

range management can be calculated whether or not the land is designated wilderness. 

Any wilderness land grazer who insists on switching to non-traditional grazing 
530 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 3 

techniques which conflict with wilderness must consider what they are asking our 

country to give up for their profit 

Large areas of wilderness were illogically declared unsuitable due to water 

development conflicts. Very little land area would be in conflict if intelligently designed 

water projects were considered instead of declaring a blanket conflict Improvements in 

water use efficiency from some of the highest use rates in the west in Washington county 

to a more moderate level were asserted to not be possible without any specific data 

supporting this assertion. The low quality of testimony was exemplified by Ron 

Thompson's peijured claim that all projected golf courses are known to have enough 

water resources available for irrigation from water that cannot be used for potable 

applications. 

In response to those who claimed off the record that they could not imagine one 

million acres I want to point out that if I stand on a hill and can see over 53 miles, I am 

seeing more than the 5.7 million acre land area protected by HR 1500. If I can see this 

much land area surely I can imagine a mere one million acres. What is more difficult to 

imagine is the three billion acres of farmland in the World that has been needlessly wasted 

by destructive land use practices. In this vast acreage we have much more potential for 

increasing the long run productive capacity of world agriculture by the simple application 

of sound land management techniques than we could ever find in these marginal BIM . wilderness lands which are being used to their full long run potential already. 

From a personal perspective, I must reply to those that liken environmental 

consciousness to religion. I am highly active in my church in both the parish and other 

levels, and my values are the basis for every decision I make. Thus my value of the 

existence of God's untrammeled creation is very much central to my values, my religion, 

and the way I live my churches teachings. But equally so, my banking policy, my 

investment policy, my consumption choices and all of my decisions are based in my 
531 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 4 

values. Claiming environmental consciousness is a religion makes no more sense than 

claiming that movie viewing is a complete religion. 

My church happens to be the Catholic church and I have often celebrated my 

religion in unsullied wild places. I was married with a full mass in the High Uintah 

Wilderness Area and masses in the Desolation, Gray, and Westwater Canyon's are other 

examples of community celebrations in wilderness that I have been a part of along with 

more personal observations on mountain tops, canyons, and deserts. The Catholic church 

is the institution that fucilitates my own spiritual growth. My value of the existence of 

wildlands and feeling of responsibility for sustainability of the productive capacity of the 

world and faithful stewardship of our God given world resources, are all values based in 

my religion, but obviously not the basis of my religion. Some have suggested that we 

should tithe the biblically based 10% of our land, but the appropriate biblical requirement 

is actually much more stringent than that. Because land is a stock endowment of wealth 

and not a flow quantity of income, the sabbatical land use cycle is the appropriate 

commandment. Therefore we are required to set aside at least one seventh or closer to 

15% of every type of landform. Since the lands in HR 1500 are short of one seventh and 

do not include every Utah landform, this bill falls short of the biblical injunction, but is a 

step in the right direction. 

One perplexing fallacy repeated in the course of the hearings is that all human . impacts are equivalent. Among the many ways that the nature of different human 

impacts differ is whether the impact can be remediated to a state of essentially no impact. 

Some activities which are not acceptable on wilderness lands can heal especially if the 

activity was limited in intensity and scale. For example, if off-road vehicles were driven 

on wilderness land, the land may be obviously disturbed immediately after. Vegetation 

and soil may be disturbed, but the soil can in time return close to an undisturbed state 

through various natural aggradation processes. The vegetation can also in time re-
532 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 5 

establish itself and further cover any marginal remaining soil disturbance, so that it is not 

possible to distinguish the human caused distwbance from normal disturbances on the 

land. Human disturbances may cause a small amount of topsoil to be forever eroded 

away, but this loss of topsoil may have no practical impact if the dominant vegetation is 

not changed. The dominant vegetation will require a specific range of soil qualities. If 

human caused erosion is not enough to change soil to a condition outside of the requisite 

range of soil qualities, the vegetation can return to a pristine state after the human activity 

no longer occurs. In this way, many minor human disturbances that are no longer 

apparent cannot disqualify a site from being recognized as pristine wilderness which 

must be declared protected wilderness. In general, small permanent disturbances 

surrounded by pristine land must not prevent the pristine land from being permanently 

protected. 

Obviously, the same activities occurring at a more intense and widespread level if 

the same land is not managed as wilderness will permanently degrade the pristine nature 

of the land thrown open to inappropriate uses. Strip mines, leach piles, paved roads, 

dammed streams and many other permanently destructive impacts which are recognized 

as incompatible with wilderness will permanently destroy the pristine nature of lands 

thrown open to this type of activity whether or not a profit is realized on the project or a 

positive or negative overall impact is realized by the local or larger economy. A rational .. deliberative process is not possible when the qualitative difference between the two types 

of human disturbance is not recognized. Past unrecognizable disturbances must be used 

as an excuse to allow future permanently destructive activities. 

I am an avid mountain biker who, like most mountain bikers, wants no mountain 

bikes in the wilderness. Plenty of non-wilderness trails are available for mountain biking. 

I would gladly forgo ever bicycling on my favorite trails again if the areas could be 

protected as wilderness. Mountain biking is for exercise and the challenge of traversing 
533 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 6 

challenging tenain and wilderness is not needed to enhance the experience. In fact the 

thought of degrading wilderness by bicycling on it would clearly degrade the mountain 

biking experience for me. Easy access deeper into wilderness that mountain bicycles 

would allow would degrade the qualities of solitude, remoteness, and freedom from the 

mark of man that are essential to wilderness. From a more technical perspective, as 

George Nikas pointed out in the hearings, mountain bikes should be excluded from 

wilderness because there was no precedent for their use in wilderness prior to the 1964 

wilderness act 

Encountering bicycles deep in the wilderness would be even more undesirable 

than pack horses, except that the bicycles do not leave behind manure. 1 do accept that 

horses are not excluded from wilderness even if they do degrade the wilderness 

experience for non-equestrian users of wilderness, because they have a precedent prior to 

the 1964 wilderness act and horses can be used with limited permanent impact on the 

land. I also believe it would be hypocritical to exclude boats from wilderness streams 

due to the extensive precedent of presence prior to 1964 which is true on many of the 

streams in HR1500. From a personal perspective as a rafting enthusiast, I would like to 

see non-human powered motors excluded with, of course, the standard exceptions due to 

emergencies and other limited reasons. I personally would be willing to forgo ever again 

oaring or paddling these streams if it could mean their protection as wilderness, even 

though this would not be consistent with prior interpretations of appropriate use of 

wilderness. 

What Senator Bennett preached to the committee was ridiculous and irrelevant 

He seemed incapable of grasping the concept of existence value. He focused exclusively 

on use value and went on to assert that Forest Service lands fill that need as far as he was 

concerned. Clear cut, chained, damned, drilled, paved, with electrical or petroleum rights 

of way apparently it just does not matter in this narrow view as the senator seemed to 
534 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 7 

fondly recount herding swarms of scouts or ward groups across indifferent Forest Service 

lands. This assertion was especially ridiculous this year when Forest Service lands are 

still snow packed and soggy due to the delayed thaw and therefore suitable for little of 

this use value. 

I happened to have been hiking on BLM land in the Cedar Mountains WSA just 3 

days before and spent 5 days in Desolation and Gray Canyons prior to that and 5 days in 

the Westwater Canyon area this year also. Even from a non-consumptive use value 

perspective, the diverse lands of BLM wilderness must be protected in addition to the 

very little Forest Service land that is fully protected for a balanced range of nonconsumptive use. Senator Bennett claimed these lands will mostly be used only for 

grazing and tried to reassure us that it will in this way not be desecrated. If this is true, 

why not designate it as wilderness? He tried to reassure us that most of the land will not 

be covered with strip malls. In that case why not designate it wilderness? If the lands 

will remain pristine regardless of status, why not designate it wilderness? If no 

development is going to happen as he assures us then his testimony must surely mean that 

there is no cost to setting the land aside as wilderness. 

Ted Stewart totally discredited his testimony by his ill-composed baiting of those 

in attendance. I managed with difficulty in the face of his insults to maintain my 

composure and behave in a manner appropriate for a congressional hearing, but having . suffered through this boorish behavior, I fully understand those who did not The biology 

and ecological integrity of the wilderness must be a central consideration in any decision. 

All past wilderness acts require this due to their very name. Wilderness etymologically 

implies ecological integrity and since this word was not chosen lightly in the 1964 act, 

ecological integrity is a necessary criterion for creating viable wilderness. Wilderness is 

derived from the Middle English word "wilddeornes, • which is the place of the wilddeor, 

the wild beasts. Biology must be considered in establishing locations where wild beasts 
535 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 8 

can survive. A small sterile piece of land will not support the wild animals that define it 

as wilderness. Chopping up the land into ecologically nonviable pieces of land for 

superfluous reasons as HR 1745 does fails to fulfill the wilderness statutes. 

As someone with an extensive background in the study of economics, I was 

embarrassed by the very unscientific nature of the "Potential Economic Impacts of 

Wilderness Designation" paper sponsored by Utah State University. This study is highly 

flawed and should not be considered as even a part of the evidence until it has undergone 

peer review and been found acceptable for publication. The survey of wilderness users 

cited in the paper is methodologically flawed as documented by the Utah Office of 

Planning and Budget. The paper is biased by using county road assertions as a baseline 

instead of a sound unbiased survey of actual roads. The paper ignored the concept of 

existence value and the idea that existence values are consistent with or compelled by 

virtually all religions and this value is thus held in a context larger than any specific 

religious sect. A causal link between livestock grazing intensity and past wilderness 

designation is assumed but not proven for the anecdotal evidence cited. 

This USU paper recognizes only an older paradigm of economic activity and is 

totally blind to the new economic paradigm that has developed in Utah and the larger 

Intermountain West. The paper failed to incorporate the findings of widespread benefits 

of wilderness designation that have been documented for small rural areas throughout the . Northern Rockies in studies by Gundars Rudzitis of the University of Idaho and Thomas 

Power of the University of Montana. This paper focused on the difficulties of collecting 

fees for recreational uses without placing this problem in the context of a long history of 

problems with collecting fees above cost from commercial public lands users. The paper 

cites the total contributions of extractive industries to local taxes without assessing the 

actual impact wilderness designation would have on those revenues. The one conclusion 

which can be drawn from the USU study is that if they know nothing else they know who 
536 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 9 

controls their purse strings. 1be USU paper can be discounted for the same reasons that 

the Utah state legislature must be discounted. 

The recommendations of the Utah legislature is contrary to the sense of the people 

of Utah as is well established by the overall conclusions that can be drawn from years of 

methodologically sound opinion surveys. The exact meaning of a survey reduced to the 

single dimension of land area is questionable, but what is not questionable is the overall 

sense that wilderness is valued and more wilderness is valued more. I am sure that a 

million acres sounds very big to many who would want more if they realized that a 

million acres is less than 2% of the state and 5.7 million acres is only around 10%. 

Setting aside more than 10% of our home lots for gardens and lawns is, of course, no 

great sacrifice and setting aside 10% of Utah in the wilderness we overwhelmingly revere 

in Utah is also very reasonable when the common sense in Utah is rigorously evaluated. 

The significance of Utah's wild lands is much more than the single dimension of 

surface area though. Fully evaluating wilderness needs must involve evaluatin~: volumes 

of specific data of many dimensions some unique to only some of the sites. This complex 

process necessary for rigorous conclusions to be drawn will not be fully undertaken by 

everyone. I assert that the Utah legislature has not undergone this rigorous process any 

more completely than the average penon in the surveys who overwhelmingly ask for 

large areas of wilderness. 1be Utah legislature's position is a product of their tradition of 

responsiveness to financially poticrlul interest groups at the expense of the collective 

good. Among the evidence which should be considered in judging the value of the Utah 

state legislature's recommendation is their past history. This is the same legislature that 

passed legislation ordering the Great Salt Lake to remain below a statutory limil How 

can a body that expects natural laws to bend to their will be credited with any credibility. 

Senator Bennett is incorrect in his assumption that imposing the extreme polar 

final solution in HR1745 will somehow end the divisions over this issue. The divide 
537 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 10 

between those only interested in their own personal gain and those with a more altruistic 

outlook is much more fundamental than the disposition of Wilderness Study Area lands. 

The extreme act of destroying land that altruistic individuals recognize a need to manage 

in a pristine state is not going to endear the self interested forces, that enrich themselves 

at society's expense, to altruistic citizens. This extremist answer is only going to intensify 

the conflict since it is in no way a reasonable consensus but a hostile imposition of the 

will of special interests. 

No one exemplifies the specious reasoning contaminating this process more than 

the chair himself. In his closing statement he exhorted us to not take this too seriously. 

The valid outlook would be not to take ourselves too seriously, but any worthwhile 

endeavor is certainly worth taking seriously. I can and do maintain a sense of humor as I 

live my life, but I also take protection of BLM wilderness lands in Utah as gravely 

serious. All of my values, alii hold important and essential compels me to accept 

nothing short of the best which means no senseless waste of the precious and scarce 

wildlands remaining in this world. 

The following comments are my specific comments about the provisions of 

HR1745. The lands listed in Section 2 omit many sites which are fully deserving of 

protection and the boundaries leave out fully deserving areas in every site that is 

included. The incorrectly omitted sites I am aware of include: . I) Arches-Lost Spring Canyon, 

2) Beaver Dam Slopes, 

3) Conger Mountain, 

4) Cottonwood Canyon, 

5) Dugway Mountains, 

6) Granite Peak, 

7) Greater Dinosaur, 
538 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, I995 Page II 

8) KingTop, 

9) Little Goose Creek, 

10) Moquith Mountain, 

II) Newfoundland Mountains, 

12) Rockwell, 

13) Silver Island Mountains, 

14) Squaw and Cross Canyons, 

15) Stansbury Mountains, 

16) Upper Kanab Creek, 

17) White Canyon, 

18) White River, 

19) White Rock Range. 

I do not have the resources to personally fully document the deficiencies in each of the 49 

sites that are named in HR1745. The White Canyon, North Stansbury, and Cottonwood 

Canyon wildernesses are three areas that I am personally familiar on which I have 

included more detailed testimony. I am aware that each of the 49 sites named in HRI745 

leave valid wilderness out of the boundaries and must be reassessed so that those lands 

can be incorporated in the protected areas. 

I object to the Section 3h prohibition of normal closure of roads which may be . necessary for many reasons in addition to public safety. The normal management process 

is the appropriate venue in which to make decisions about road access. Many scenarios 

of temporary wildlife needs or cultural resource protection can be envisioned in which 

Section 3h would shortsightedly tie the hands of public lands managers with disastrous 

consequences. I object to the broad justifications for motorized access allowed in Section 

3i. Widespread motorized access will effectively destroy the qualities of wilderness. 
539 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 12 

Section 4 serves more to confuse than clarify water rights issues. I object to the 

language in Section 4a which does not reserve water for the wilderness. Flows can be 

maintained in most wilderness areas under consideration using very little water in the 

process. In the few cases where upstream diversions are an issue, solutions can be found 

without dewatering the wilderness completely and destroying the pristine qualities of the 

resources. This section sets unnecessary hurdles for the goal of managing resources as 

wilderness and sets bad precedents that can upset the balance of water rights in the West 

Section 4b is confusing since Utah water law does not recognize federal water rights for 

instream flows in wilderness. How can the BLM be required to buy under state law 

something that is not recognized to exist under that law? I object to Section 4e since, in 

the few cases where upstream water projects are possible, an unintelligently designed 

project could destroy the qualities of wilderness downstream. If the effect on the 

downstream wilderness is considered early in the design of upstream water projects, the 

public interest can be better served. 

The language in Section 5 is confusing since the 1964 Wilderness Act already 

allows mechanical means to manage cultural and paleontological resources if necessary. 

I object to Section 7 allowing low-level military overflights. Military operations can 

easily be designed around wilderness excluding low-level overflights. I have experienced 

these flights from the ground an~ attest to the fact that wilderness quality is at least 

temporarily degraded and I am concerned that no proof has been provided that such 

operations could interfere with wildlife. 

I object to all of the exceptions to normal wilderness management set forth in 

Section 9. Road construction, reservoir construction and maintenance, and other 

development in the Cougar Canyon, Red Mountain, Parunuweap Canyon, and Canaan 

Mountain Wildernesses must not be allowed since this would not constitute managing 

these lands as wilderness. Communication sites or facilities must not be allowed in the 
540 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 13 

Swasey Mountain, Fifty Mile Mountain, Mt Ellen, or the Deep Creek Mountains 

Wildernesses. Exceptions to allow a pipeline in the Desolation Canyon Wilderness in not 

acceptabie. 

Section 10 is unacceptable since requiring nonwildemess uses can render the 

lands unsuitable for future establishment of wilderness. land managers must be allowed 

to manage use of the land in an optimal manner which might involve uses that preserve 

wilderness qualities. This provision might be used to force management of the land in 

single uses that are incompatible with all other land uses. This provision limits 

administrative options for no gOod reason and prevents future reconsideration of 

wilderness designation. 

HR1745 fails to include wilderness in BlM lands in the Stansbury Mountains. 

This site is especially valued by the large population in close proximity in the Salt Lake 

City area. Wilderness that can be seen and accessed from. this metropolitan area is 

especially valuable as an addition to the highly regarded Wilderness Areas in the 

Wasatch front The roadless area west of Big Hollow must be proteCted as wilderness. I 

will focus on the wilderness at the north end of the range. I have found fully deserving 

wilderness within the boundaries indicated on the attached map. The pristine nature of 

this site is not noticeably affected by the two miles of ways, horizontal mine shaft, and 

associated road adjacent to this area. 

This North Stansbury site is part of what should be an integral whole wilderness 

area including most all of the Stansbury Range on both BlM and National Forest lands. 

The convenient access from the Salt Lake metropolitan area means that the area is 

extensively used for recreation in ways compatible with management as wilderness. This 

area is used extensively by backpackers, hikers, and sightseers with remarkal>le views of 

the West Desert and Salt Lake. The hikes are made rewarding by beautiful steep 

mountain ridges, rugged canyons, and the diversity of foliage over the small area of the 
541 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 14 

site. The transitions from grass and shrub covered slopes to juniper forests to cottonwood 

bottoms to fir, pine, and aspen covered northern exposures make the hiking experience 

especially memorable. 

This Northern Stansbury Mountain site is intensively used by hunters in pursuing 

deer, grouse, chukar, and cottontails. The potential for reintroduction of Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep and elk has been noted by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

Golden and bald eagles are the most majestic bird I have seen from among the 114 bird 

species including 17 raptor species that are documented to frequent the site. In addition 

to this profusion of bird species, 51 mammal species including deer, cougar, and bobcat 

and 15 reptile species have been reported to frequent the area. 

The Forest Service land between the Deseret Peak Wilderness and the North 

Stansbury and the Big Hollow sites would best be managed as wilderness since the whole 

range could then be effectively a pristine single ecological unit The fact that gaps exist 

should not be used as an excuse to ignore the value of either of these Stansbury Mountain 

sites. As indicated in the map, the land qualifying for wilderness designation extend 

beyond the WSA boundaries to extend further down steep mountain slopes and include 

winter range for ungulate populations on benchlands. No commercially extractable 

minerals are documented to exist within these boundaries. No conflict between 

wilderness management of the site and any likely uses are found within the boundaries I 

have indicated. 

The Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness is a second wilderness tragically left out of 

HR1745 that fully qualifies as wilderness. The proximity of this site to Interstate 15 

makes it convenient not only to the nearby StGeorge and Cedar City populations but also 

larger populations in Salt Lake City and Las Vegas. Hunting, horse riding, and camping 

are possible here when many other places are not accessible due to winter weather. Game 

species in this site include mule deer, Gambel's quail, and mourning dove. The location 
542 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 15 

of this site in the transition between the Colorado Plateau and the Mojave Desert allows 

the site to support diverse wildlife and plants including the endangered purple-spined 

hedgehog cactus. A combination of Gila monster and chuckwalla typical of the Mojave 

and cougar, bobcat, and kit fox typical of the Colorado Plateau are found in the 

Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness. Raptor species which frequent the area include the 

prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, golden eagle, bald eagle, red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, 

and sharp-shinned hawk. 

The Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness exhibits a majestic beauty with the slickrock 

sandstone formations contrasting against the adjacent forested mountain highlands. The 

contrast in and diversity of vegetation is also outstanding in this wilderness. Yucca, 

cholla, and mesquite predominate in dry lower elevations which contrasts with Fremont 

cottonwood bottomlands along streams and juniper and pinyon pine forests in the higher 

elevations. I have drawn my recommended wilderness boundaries on the attached maps. 

These boundaries include adjacent National Forest lands. The roadless state lands on the 

southern border of the wilderness should also be designated wilderness assuming that a 

land swap can be accomplished No intractable conflict exists within the boundaries I 

have drawn. Existence of any uranium ore deposits is not known and therefore the 

potential for economic extraction cannot be evaluated. Any aquifer development can be 

undertaken from outside the boundaries. Alternatives to wasteful water use practices in a 

Washington County must be encouraged as a priority over aquifer resource depletion. 

The third wilderness I encourage full protection of is the complex of four 

contiguous sites that constitute the White Canyon Wilderness. This larger Natural 

Bridges National Monument area wilderness consists of spectacular formations carved 

out of the Cedar Mesa sandstone. The nature of this terrain isolates a remarkable variety 

of wildlife and provides great opportunities for solitude. Excellent opportunities for 

hiking, backpacking, horse riding, sight seeing, photography, and canyoneering exist 
543 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 16 

throughout this area. A wide variety of terrain exists for a full range of levels of 

challenge in backcountry travel. Spectacular views of the Henry and Little Rockies 

mountains are found from the benchlands, mesas, and buttes and equally spectacular 

sandstone sculptures and narrow slot canyons are found in the maze of canyons. Many of 

canyons in this unit are accessible from Natural Bridges National Monument with natural 

extensions of hikes in the monument existing in the surrounding wilderness. 

Soil in pristine condition is found throughout the site and cryptogamic soil also is 

common throughout The benchlands are covered with extensive pinyon pine and juniper 

forests. Blackbrush, yucca, and beavertail cactus are interspersed in these pygmy forests 

in a pristine manner. These desolate slickrock and sparse forests are in contrast to the 

lush beauty of the riparian sections of river bottom and hanging gardens along canyon 

wall seeps. Critical lambing and mating habitat is found in these sites for the desert 

bighorn sheep found year round in this wilderness site and the extended area. Bald eagles 

and deer winter in these sites which serves to enrich their existence in their summer 

range. The combination of riparian and desert land is excellent habitat for cougar, 

bobcat, and many other species. 

Full wilderness protection of the White Canyon Wilderness will discourage 

destruction of the hundreds of undocumented Anasazi cultural resources existing 

throughout the site in addition to the 12 documented archeological sites. Extensive 

exploration for uranium ore has not uncovered any economical deposits. No other 

economically exploitable minerals are known to exist in the site either. I attest to the 

outstanding wilderness qualities found in the White Canyon Wilderness and the much 

greater value of this rare quality compared to any marginal deposits of minerals which 

could only be extracted in a subsidized operation or in the unlikely event of much higher 

prices. The old mine disturbances near the site do not significantly impact the experience 

in the wilderness or the high level of wilderness value found in the site. 
544 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Wilderness Field Hearing Written Testimony 

Submitted By R.P. Raunikar June 27, 1995 Page 17 

The establishment of the first national monument in Utah and the location of 

scenic highway_ 95 are a testament to the remarkable scenic beauty in the White Canyon 

Wilderness. More beauty is found upon a more intimate inspection of the wilderness in 

addition to the sweeping majesty of the view from a distance. This is a site that must be 

protected for the value of permanently undisturbed land to all mankind The White 

Canyon Wilderness I have drawn on the attached maps is fully deserving of designation 

as wilderness. The fragile beauty of this site can only be ensured by requiring 

management of the land as wilderness. 
545 

Appendix A 

North Stansbury Wilderness 

Boundary Maps 
546 

,/;.-' . 
547 
548 

Appendix B 

Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness 

Boundary Maps 
549 

AppendixC 

White Canyon Wilderness 

Boundary Maps 
550 
551 
::r 

... 

0 

"' 

• • ' 4 

552 

---'-------- -- --·--- -.-- .. - ---- -- -
553 
554 
555 

TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE BILL ORTON 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND LANDS 

REGARDING THE 

DESIGNATION OF BLM WILDERNESS AND 

NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

JUNE 29, 1995 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I thank the subcommittee for allowing me to testify 

before you. Before doing so I would request consent from the subcommittee to enter into the 

record a draft copy of a proposal which I am recommending which includes both wilderness 

designation and designation of six National Conservation Areas (NCAs) on public lands in 

Utah. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vento, and members of the subcommittee for the 

opportunity to testify before you in this hearing on designation of public lands in Utah as 

wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

As the chairman knows, approximately 90% of the public lands under consideration 

for wilderness designation are located in the Third Congressional District which I have the 

opportunity to represent. 

Chai1man Hansen has indicated that he has been working on this issue for over 10 

years. I have also worked for years, investing over 1,000 hours of my time, and thousands 

of hours of staff time, on this issue since being elected to office in November 1990. I have 

personally been over, around, between, or through every parcel of land recommended as 

wilderness by the BLM and the Utah Wilderness Coalition. My decisions and 
556 

-2-

m:ommendations are based upon a substantive analysis of imperial evidence of the resources 

on the public lands, plus an objective judgment of the most appropriate management plan for 

managing the highest and best use of those resources currently and in the future. 

Three and a half years ago, Chairman Hansen who represents the adjoining 

congressional district, and I held combined hearings throughout the state of Utah, in each 

county where lands are under consideration for wilderness designation. As a result of those 

hearings and countless hours of cooperative effort, we developed a proposal which would 

designate some of the public lands as wilderness and, in addition, would establish National 

Conservation Areas to manage much of the balance which would not be designated 

wilderness. 

After the last election, the Utah congressional delegation and the Governor began 

meetings to develop a consensus proposal on wilderness which could be submitted to 

Congress. I commend the delegation and the Governor for working together, and I believe 

that the product, HR 1745, represents a good faith effort to present a compromise wilderness 

proposal. 

While I disagree with some of the decisions which were made, and I believe that 

some of the areas recommended for wilderness do not meet the statutory requirements, I do 

believe that the wilderness proposal by the delegation is a good work product. I also have 

concerns with some of the specific language in the bill, and I will be recommending some 

minor changes. 

I agree with Chairman Hansen and the Utah delegation that the question of Utah 
557 

-3-

Wilderness has been studied long enough and it is time for a resolution of the issue. 

However, serious disagreement continues to exist over this issue on both sides, by both 

advocates and opponents of wilderness designation. Let me just share a couple of examples. 

There are many people who believe if Sids Cabin, Mexican Mountain, and Muddy 

Creek, all areas inside the San Raphael Swell, are actually designated as wilderness, that the 

wilderness management of those areas may reach out beyond the wilderness designation itself 

and impact the local surrounding community. It may have an impact on water rights and 

usage upstream from those areas. It may have impact on air quality standards, and on power 

plants that exist just outside of those areas. Therefore those concerns are addressed by the 

delegation by placing specific language on buffer zones, water rights, air quality, and grazing 

rights inside those particular wilderness areas so that the wilderness designation in these 

areas will not impact the local community. However, that protective language is antithetical 

to the very issue of wilderness, and I believe there is a strong likelihood that language will 

be stripped out during mark-up or during consideration in the House or Senate or in 

conference. In that event you may end up with the problem of wilderness designation 

expanding and impacting areas beyond that which is designated. 

On the other hand, there are many who argue that there are pristine, unique, primitive 

areas in this state, which are unique in all the world; areas like Escalante Canyons, the Book 

Cliffs, the Henry Mountains, and the slick rock area surrounding Moab. These areas are 

currently subject to significant degradation by the impact of mankind, and it is argued that 

those areas should have some management protection; specifically wilderness management 
-4-

protection. 

558 

I believe there has been a basic flaw in the debate on wilderness up until this point in 

time. That basic flaw is the assumption that wilderness is the only way to manage public 

lands and resources; that public lands either must be designated wilderness, or not designated 

anything at all. And I think that basic flaw in this process, argued on both sides, has 

resulted in one side proposing an all wilderness approach, and the other side proposing a 

minimum wilderness approach. Neither of which is likely to become law. I want to pass a 

wilderness bill and resolve the issue of wilderness on public lands in my district. 

I believe that the county hearings the Utah delegation held just a few months ago 

validated the concept which we previously developed. Congressman Hansen and myself, in 

wilderness hearings in our own districts several years ago, discovered that people wanted 

alternatives considered, not just wilderness. The governor himself looked at, and studied, 

and analyzed, and considered a concept he called eco-regions. The counties, in their 

proposals, recommended some core wilderness, but said the bulk of these areas under 

consideration ought to be managed under alternative proposals which include primitive and 

semi-primitive designations. 

Many areas simply do not qualify under the 1964 statute as wilderness and have not 

been recommended by the delegation. The principal environmental impact on these areas 

historically, and I believe in the future, has been mining exploration and off-road vehicle 

use. You do not need wilderness to resolve those two issues, and in fact wilderness is not 

necessarily the best solution to those issues. 

I have withheld co-sponsorship of the delegation bill, HR 1745, for two principal 
559 

-5-

reasons. First, I believe that the local and county recommendations which include core 

wilderness as well as alternative management designations deserve a hearing of the congress. 

You ought to know what those recommendations are, and be able to consider those as 

alternatives. Second, I have serious reservations as to whether the all wilderness or the 

minimal wilderness approach, can in fact pass both the House and the Senate and be signed 

into law. 

Therefore, I have proposed, and have submitted to the committee and to my 

colleagues, a copy of a draft bill which I will be submitting and asking the committee to 

consider in its deliberations. My legislation does two things. It designates some wilderness, 

as well as several areas that are called National Conservation Areas (NCAs). I believe that 

this approach could serve as a basis for compromise that could actually pass and be a winwin situation for both land users, and conservationists. 

My proposal includes approximately 1.3 million acres of wilderness designation. 

About 1 million acres would be located outside of areas that will otherwise be designated as 

NCAs. About 350,000 acres of that core wilderness would be inside areas that would be 

designated as NCAs. 

There would be six National Conservation Areas designated in my proposal which are 

drawn from the county alternative recommendations that we heard throughout our county 

hearings, as well as the Bureau of Land Management Regional Management Plans (RMPs). 

Those areas include approximately 3.1 million acres, for a total of approximately 4. 1 million 

acres of special management classification under my draft proposal. It attempts to address 

the concerns of the local community, the public, land users, and the conservationists. The 
560 

-6-

plan includes specific designations, management plans, advisory boards for local participation 

in the future management, as well as designations of multiple use and withdrawals in certain 

areas from mining, for surface occupancy, and from off-road vehicle use. There would be 

three recreational conservation areas: the San Rafel Swell; the Escalante Canyons; and the 

Slick Rock Areas surrounding Moab. There would be one cultural or archeological 

conservation area on the Ceder Mesa in San Juan County. Finally, there would be two 

wildlife conservation areas: the Book Cliffs, which surrounds a state wildlife conservation 

area which the state of Utah has been laboring over for the last decade to consolidate state 

lands for the principle purpose of conserving habitat for elk, cougar, and bear. Outside of 

Yellowstone such wildlife is very rare. The final conservation area would be the Henry 

Mountains. The Henry mountains is one of the few areas in the entire nation where there is 

a free-roaming herd of American Bison. 

I believe that this approach does in fact propose a reasonable alternative. It 

recognizes the impact of man. It recognizes the degradation and attempts to resolve those 

issues. It also recognizes the multiple use needs. And it recognizes the local communities 

and the necessity of those communities to be able to continue to survive. I would urge my 

colleagues, and the committee to consider as a compromise approach, this proposal which I 

believe you will find does in fact resolve the bulk of the concerns on both sides of the issue 

on the bulk of the land that is under consideration. I thank the committee for allowing me to 

come before you. I look forward to working with you through the hearing and mark-up 

process. I thank you very much for your consideration. 

0 

ISBN 0-16-047688-7 

90000