U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

48–613 CC 1998

HEARING ON THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL

CONSERVATION AREA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE SAN

RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL

CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF

UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–85

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held April 23, 1998 ................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

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

Utah ............................................................................................................... 2

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

Cook, Hon. Merrill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah . 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................................................................................................................ 5

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

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

Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York ................................................................................................... 29

Statements of witnesses:

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a Senator in Congress from the State of Utah .... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Curtis, Wes, Director, Governor’s Rural Partnership Office, State of Utah 58

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

Dmitrich, Hon. Mike, State Senator, State of Utah ...................................... 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

Johnson, Randy, Chairman, Emery County Commissioner .......................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Leavitt, Hon. Michael O., Governor, State of Utah ....................................... 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Martin, Wilson, Program Manager, Utah Department of Community and

Economic Development ................................................................................. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 91

Meadows, Bill, President, The Wilderness Society ........................................ 56

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78

Owens, Hon. Wayne, President, Center for Middle East Peace, testifying

on behalf of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance ....................................... 45

Peay, Donald Keith, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North American

Wild Sheep ..................................................................................................... 41

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85

Petersen, Kent, Emery County Commissioner ............................................... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71

Additional material submitted for the record by .................................... 94

Shea, Pat, Director, Bureau of Land Management ....................................... 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74

Warnick, Richard M., Salt Lake City, Utah, prepared statement of ........... 84

Wilson, Bevan K., Emery County Commissioner ........................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

Letters submitted by ................................................................................. 97

Additional material supplied:

Community & Wild Lands Futures, ‘‘Disputing Parties Heading Onto

Cooperative Public Lands Trail’’ .................................................................. 104
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH

THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL

NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE

STATE OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARK AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in room

334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen,

(chairman of the Subcommittee) present.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order. The

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes to

hear testimony on H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Cannon, who represents Emery County.

I would like to welcome our many friends from Utah who have

worked very hard on this legislation to bring this proposal and that

truly balances the needs of the land, and the needs of the people,

who support these public lands. This legislation has been worked

on by many interests, State and local governments, historic and

cultural interest, wildlife interests, and recreational interests. Although the administration’s testimony claims that interests were

not represented in this discussion, the truth is that all who were

interested were invited to participate and did participate. Those

who wish to sit back and throw stones and fail to roll up their

sleeves and actually work on something in a positive manner, will

not and cannot be taken seriously. This also applies to the administration.

The purpose of a hearing such as this is to hear constructive

comments on how to make this bill better, to suggest changes to

benefit land or help our local managers, or whatever it takes to

help perfect legislation. We appreciate Mr. Shea coming out to

Emery County and the visit we had with him. I am not 100 percent

sure that the testimony he gives today was written by those who

have been on the land or even knows what the land looks like, but

that’s something they’ll have to work out.
2

H.R. 3625 is unique in that the designations fit the land. Many

wilderness proposals attempt to force the land to fit the designation, and this just does not work. However, H.R. 3625 takes a very

close look at the lands involved and maximizes their potential for

what they are. This will protect wilderness, semi-primitive areas,

bighorn sheep, scenic easements, history, and recreation.

This administration often talks about balance and new approaches to land management. However, when such a proposal

comes along, they simply choose to sit back and sometimes, unfortunately, play partisan politics and let the public land suffer. As

one who has been part of more wilderness bills than any man in

Congress, I can tell you that I find that very disturbing. If we do

not find balanced approaches that can be endorsed by the local people who live in these areas and find cooperative management

schemes, our land, our wildlife, our history, and our children will

suffer the consequences of playing politics with this thing.

I want to compliment the people from Emery County who work

so diligently on this program and all the people who have put the

hand of fellowship out to anyone that would talk to them. And, I

don’t think many of us realize the countless hours that these people have put on preparing this piece of legislation. In fact, as I look

back at past administrations, and Presidents, and others who have

worked on this, this is the way it should be done. People in the

local area working with anyone who will come and work with them

should take the time to do it.

And I particularly want to thank Randy Johnson, Kent Petersen,

and Bevan Wilson for the great work they’ve done on this. And, all

of those people who were willing to say let’s sit down and work this

out.

In 1984, we passed a wilderness bill in Utah. It was the HansenGarn bill on Forest Service, and it basically worked because we

said everybody can be a player. However, we find a lot of people

who choose not to be a player, and then when the time of reality

comes, then they would come in and complain. I always worry

about that.

I guess I’ve said enough at this time. The sponsor of this bill is

Mr. Cannon from the third district in Utah. So, I’ll turn the time

to him now for any opening remarks that he may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here this morning and participate in this hearing. As many of you

know, the debate over the land use in Utah is a long and complicated history. Having spent most of my own youth on this land,

I know and cherish it. No one wants more than I what is best for

this unique land.

That is why I am pleased to introduce H.R. 3625, the San Rafael

Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. This bill predicts

nearly a million acres with various land designations and including

407,000 acres of wilderness, 193,000 acres of Semi-Primitive Areas,

and 66,000 acres in which desert bighorn sheep management will

take place, and 27,000 acres called critical environment.
3

To allow for integrated management and enhancement of the numerous visitor attractions in the area, H.R. 3625 establishes a National Heritage Area for Emery County and parts of Carbon in

Sanpete County. It also creates a national conservation area on the

beautiful San Rafael Swell, which will allow management that will

preserve the dramatic canyon’s wildlife and historic sites of the

Swell. The plan provides for management a management system

which includes a desert bighorn sheep preserve. The often neglected school trust lands of Utah are also addressed in legislation.

H.R. 3625 gives the Secretary of Interior three years to trade out

any school trust lands impacted by the Heritage Conservation

Area.

The beauty of this plan is that it addresses specific concerns and

problems with real practical solutions. I wish I could take credit for

this impressive plan, but I can’t. The local leaders of the area, and

the citizens are the source of this conservation plan led by the

Emery County Commissioners. They know the land management

problems of this area well. I applaud their creativity and careful

attention to detail in crafting this bill so that it meets these vexing

problems with real-life practical solutions.

If successful, this proposal can be the model for resulting other

Federal land management issues across Utah. Already other counties are expressing an interest in pursuing a similar process.

Let me emphasize that H.R. 3625 is a beginning. The text is neither sacred nor cast in stone. We’re doing some new things here.

We’re in new territory. Rather, it builds a starting point from

which to resolve the interrelated land management issues in the

area. I would encourage the other witnesses and their respective

organizations to see today’s discussion as a dialogue. This is not a

time for rigid positions or knee-jerk reactions, this is a time for

constructive suggestions—a time to join the Utah lands solution

revolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to participate

in this hearing.

As many of you know, the debate over land use in Utah has a long complicated

history. Having spent much of my youth on this land, I know and cherish it. No

one wants more than I what is best for this unique land.

That is why I am pleased to introduce H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National

Heritage and Conservation Act. This bill protects nearly a million acres with various

land designations, including 407,000 acres of wilderness, 193,000 acres of semiprimitive areas, 66,000 in a desert bighorn sheep management area, and 27,000

acres of critical environment.

To allow for integrated management and enhancement of the numerous visitor attractions in the area, H.R. 3625 establishes a National Heritage Area for Emery

county and parts of Carbon and Sanpete Counties. It also creates a National Conservation Area on the beautiful San Rafael Swell which will allow management that

will preserve the dramatic canyons, wildlife and historic sites of the swell.

This plan provides for a management system which includes a Desert Bighorn

Sheep preserve.

The often neglected school trust lands of Utah are also addressed in this legislation. H.R. 3625 gives the Secretary of Interior three years to trade-out any school

trust lands impacted by the Heritage Conservation area. The beauty of this plan is

that it addresses specific concerns and problems with real, practical solutions.
4

I wish I could take credit for this impressive plan, but I cannot. The local leaders

and citizens of the area are the source of this conservation plan led by the Emery

County Commissioners. They know the land management problems of this area

well. I applaud their creativity and careful attention to detail in crafting this bill

so that it meets these vexing problems with real-life practical solutions. If successful, this proposal can be the model for resolving other Federal land man- agement issues across Utah. Already, other counties are expressing interest in pursuing a similar process. Let me emphasize that H.R. 3625 is a beginning. The text is neither sacred nor cast in stone. Rather, the bill is a starting point from which to resolve the interrelated land management issues in the area. I would encourage the other witnesses and their respective organizations to see today’s discussion as a dialogue. This is not the time for rigid positions or knee jerk

reactions. This is the time for constructive suggestions, a time to join the Utah

lands ‘‘solution revolution.’’

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We’re privileged to be joined by the Ranking Member of the Com- mittee, Mr. Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa, a misplaced

Utahn.

[Laughter.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My apologies, Mr. Chairman, for being a little late this morning. I was tied up with another meeting, but I

would like to first offer my personal welcome the good Senator from

Utah, Senator Bennett, and I understand that Governor Leavitt

will also be joining us in a couple of minutes, and the members of

the Utah delegation.

Yes, I am a transferred Utahan in that sense. I think I missed

a call with such a substantial number of the Polynesian community

living in the State of Utah. I know the reason why they’re all in

Utah, Mr. Chairman. They’re all preparing to——

Mr. HANSEN. It’s called football.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No. Well, other than my cousin, Chris

Ma’afala from your alma mater, but I think the reason why the

Polynesians decided to live in Utah is that they are preparing for

the winter Olympics—[Laughter.]

Like the Jamaicans in the bobsleds, I’m sure they can probably

do well also. The slalom I think is what it’s called.

But, Mr. Chairman, I do truly want to welcome the members of

the Utah delegation for being here, and especially our good friend,

Senator Bennett.

Mr. Chairman, the debate on the San Rafael Swell area is not

new. Proposals to protect the area have been around since the mid1930’s when a San Rafael Swell National Park was first proposed.

The area has also been a focus as part of the long-running Utah

wilderness debate, and given its history, it’s not surprising that a

new proposal, substantially different from what has been considered previously, would generate considerable interest.

And I recall very well, Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago I did

join you at a field hearing that we held in Salt Lake City. And,

needless to say, it was a very lively, interesting debate from the

various sections of the community there in Utah, and I have no

doubt that my good friend Mr. Cannon’s proposed legislation will,

needless to say, also generate some very interesting different points

of view.

And I know, Mr. Chairman, that probably no one else, in my

humble opinion, knows more about this area than you, yourself,
5

and that you’ve honestly tried several different ways to resolve this

impasse.

I understand that Mr. Pat Shea with the Bureau of Land Management will also be representing the administration to give his

points of view concerning this legislation. And with that in mind,

Mr. Chairman, I do look forward to hearing from our witnesses this

morning. And, I hope we will resolve this problem.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Our friend from Nevada, our sister

State, Mr. Gibbons.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I’m very pleased to

be here to join you and my colleagues in support of this bill. I also

welcome my colleague from Utah, including the Governor. I’d like

to say that those of us in Nevada are very interested as well as

those in Utah of the outcome of this bill. We think it’s a very important bill. In fact, I think it’s such a swell bill, I would order—

ask all my colleagues to support it as well.

[Laughter.]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I just knew somebody would come up with that

joke.

We’re very privileged to have our Senator, Robert Bennett, and

our colleague, Mr. Merrill Cook, Representative of the Second District.

Senator Bennett, we’ll turn the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A SENATOR IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator BENNETT. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared

statement that I would submit for the record, and then make a few

comments about it.

It was about three years ago that Senator Hatch and I sat in this

room with the Governor and testified in favor of the Utah Wilderness Bill perhaps a little naively because we thought, at that time,

we could get a resolution to this issue. All we did was set off a extremely bruising debate with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars spent in national advertising, heavy lobbying, and,

unfortunately, a great deal of acrimony ended up in simply solidifying the position of polarization rather than moving toward a solution.

And, when it became apparent that neither side was going to get

its way on the wilderness issue, the citizens of Emery County sat

down around the table and undertook what has become a 2-year

process in an effort to reach a consensus to bridge the gap between

the polarized positions that have been taken. I not only applaud

that as a logical thing to do, but I am interested to realize that that

activity is in full compliance with both the language and the spirit

of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

A lot of people in the debate over the previous bill forgot that

during the debate of the Wilderness Act, very specifically, priority

was to be given to the attitudes of the people on the ground, the
6

people who are closest to the wilderness designation. The people

who live in and around it should have their opinions given priority

over the opinions of people who are far away.

I grew up in Salt Lake City. I am not familiar with these lands

in terms of my youth, as Congressman Cannon is, and former Congressman Owens is. I really approach this from the position of a

complete newcomer. And so, I am delighted that the people who are

closest to it have been the people who have created this solution.

And, I think in response to the specific requirement of the 1964

Wilderness Act those of us who do not live there, those of us who

do not have our lives firmly entwined with this land on a day-today basis need to pay attention—close attention to the opinions of

those who do. The law requires it, as well as common sense.

Now, I informed the members of the Subcommittee that I intend

to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. Senator Hatch will

be joining me in this effort.

It’s refreshing to me to be able to be involved, as I say, on the

basis of what people close to the area have to recommend. Now, we

are often told in Utah during these debates over the use of the

land, that the future of rural Utah lies with tourism.

Along with you, Mr. Chairman, I went through the hearings that

were all over the State of Utah, where we were told again, and

again, and again, and again, by supporters of H.R. 1500 that rural

Utahans could make more money off of tourism than they could

mining, ranching, agriculture, and timber. I remember one witness

saying, ‘‘we have a new extractive industry in rural Utah as we extract money from the wallets of the tourists who come in to see our

incredible land.’’ Well, if that is, indeed, is going to be the future

of rural Utah, then the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area is a road

map as to how we will get there. We may need to pay attention

to that and keep that in mind.

Now, the proposal would create an advisory council to work closely with the land management agencies to promote the cooperative

use of the lands. I think that’s a very logical thing to do because

we need to recognize that we learn as we go along and crafting a

single decision in Washington, and then imposing it on an area forever and ever without any opportunity for fine-tuning and changing as the world changes and as people’s use of the land develops

is very shortsighted. So, I applaud the bill for having that in it.

Now, I am willing to enter into discussions on the Senate side

of how this bill can be changed and improved. I’m willing to look

at the question of the designation of Wilderness Study Areas beyond county lines. I understand that the Emery County people did

not go beyond the county line of Emery County. That doesn’t mean

that Congress has to stay within those boundaries, and I understand that much of the controversy around this proposal has to do

with drawing the county line across existing WSA’s and saying that

land beyond that line should not be included in the bill.

While I will start out with the language of the bill as it is, I will

be willing to have discussions about that issue as it goes forward.

I think we should understand that in this discussion we are not

disagreeing on protection of the land. We are not disagreeing on

which land needs to be protected. The only disagreement that I can

find comes on the definition of how that protection should go for7

ward, and one of the things that has occurred in my experience

since I’ve been a Senator is a recognition that there are many definitions. There are many ways to protect the land. And one of the

reasons we have found ourselves at an impasse in the past is that

stakes have been planted, positions taken on the assumption that

everything is either or. You either have development or you have

wilderness, and there is nothing in between, and there is nothing

that either side will accept.

The fact is, of course, that there are plenty of opportunities in

between full development and full wilderness, and many of them

make more sense for the land than either of those extreme alternatives. This proposal recognizes that truth and was worked out by

people of different points of view who came up with sensible ways

to protect the land, and at the same time, protect the interests of

the people who live close to it.

So, with that in mind, I hope that those of the other side of the

issue three years ago would be willing to participate in a process

that would involve the administration, the Utah delegation, Emery

County Commissioners, and others to see if we can’t resolve any remaining differences. I think perhaps if the principals could sit in

a room without staff and P.R. people whispering in their ears as

to how a press release might read, or how a fundraising letter

might be affected, we could probably resolve this in an afternoon.

With that Mr. Chairman, as I said, I will submit my full statement for the record. I’ll be happy to answer any questions the Committee might have at this time.

I will tell you in advance that we have a vote scheduled at 9:30

a.m. and I, therefore, will have to leave and I apologize that I’ll not

be able to stay here and hear the testimony of my colleagues. I’ll

be happy to respond to any questions any member of the Committee might have.

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee today.

It was almost three years ago when Senator Hatch and I sat in this room with the

Governor and testified in favor of the Utah Wilderness bill. After the bruising debate last Congress, I didn’t think that I would be back before the Subcommittee so

soon, but it is a pleasure to be here.

I first want to congratulate the Emery County Commissioners and the Emery

County Public Lands Council for their excellent work in preparing the proposal we

will refer to as the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area. Two years ago, when

it became apparent that neither side was going to get its way on the wilderness

issue, citizens of Emery County sat down around the table and undertook a twoyear process in an effort to reach a consensus on how to bridge the gap in opinions

on public lands management in their county. These individuals recognized that

there are many more facets to public lands management than just wilderness. The

proposal you have before you today that has teen introduced by Congressman Cannon is a result of their work.

The San Rafael Proposal: Common Ground—Common Sense

I am pleased to begin my remarks by informing the members of the Subcommittee

today that I intend to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. I am delighted

that Senator Hatch will be joining me in this effort. After the pummeling we received at the hands of our well-funded opponents in the 104th Congress, I am somewhat surprised that we are so willing to jump back into these murky waters. What

would possibly compel us to do this?
8

In an era when government is supposed to have been reinvented to allow for a common-sense approach, it is refreshing when initiatives originate from somewhere

other than I Street or Capitol Hill. The San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area

embodies the spirit of compromise. In an area that encompasses well over one million acres rich in diversity of uses, resolving all of the conflicts is bound to be difficult. This is a good faith effort to resolve several competing ideas of public land

use. When this proposal was presented, it was done so with the understanding that

not everyone would be happy with the conclusions. But it was a good step in the

right direction. The people of Utah are often told that tourism is the future of rural Utah and

that the traditional industries of mining, ranching, agriculture and timber are relics

of the past. In good economic times that might be the case. But there must be a

way to seize upon the tourism opportunities. If tourism is the destination for the

future, then the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area is the roadmap to get Emery County there. I believe the primary goal of the Emery County proposal is to promote tourism opportunities by designating a nationally recognized Heritage Area. However, the

resources and the rich history of the San Rafael Swell people are invited to see must

be first protected and enhanced. The proposal would create an Advisory Council that

will work closely with the land management agencies to promote the cooperative use

of the lands. It ensures that management plans and criteria are prepared for the

different regions in the Heritage Area to preserve their unique qualities. It will promote and arrange for cooperative agreements with state and local governments to

prepare for the inevitable influx of visitors.

I note with a bit of irony that we are talking today about methods by which we

may protect public lands and establish a method of public input and management

prior to the creation of the Heritage Area. This is a process that I wish we could

have undertaken prior to the creation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante. I believe

what we are involved in today is the proper way to proceed with the creation of a

special management area. That is one reason why I am puzzled by the Administration’s current opposition. Perhaps we should just designate it a National Monument

and worry about the details later. The administration didn’t seem to worry about

details the last time it decided to set aside a few million acres in some type of designation.

Another important aspect of the proposal is its provision for the protection of continued management of one of the largest herds of bighorn sheep in Utah. It sets

aside a Desert Bighorn Sheep Management area that is over 65,000 acres in size

that has all of the protections of wilderness designation, but still provides the state

of Utah with the management flexibility to properly manage the herd. This is a

prime example of why a one-size-fits-all wilderness designation is not the best solution. If people will drive to Southern Utah in a chance that they might see a California condor, imagine their excitement to be directed to several designated viewing

area established for the purpose of seeing Desert Bighoms in their most natural of

habitats.

Finally, the proposal will resolve the thorny issue of off-road vehicle use by creating semi-primitive areas that are restricted in access. This will bring to closure

a continuous management battle and reduce uncertainty as to what activities are

permitted.

Resolution begins with the first few steps

A comparison of acreage shows that under the proposal we protect 987,651 acres

in Emery County under four different protective measures nearly half of that being

wilderness by the strictest definition. The opponents to the Heritage Area proposal

would protect 1,049,000 acres in Emery County as wilderness. The difference between the two proposals is under 100,000 acres. Yet, using the same tired, old rhetoric opponents branded the proposal ‘‘anti-wilderness’’ before it was even introduced.

It was labeled an anti-wilderness bill because we disagree not on protection, but on

definition.

It must be made clear that this proposal was not intended to be a wilderness bill

alone. Wilderness is just one component of a larger land management process. With

that in mind, I challenge the Board Members of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to participate in a process with the administration, the Utah delegation and

Emery County Commissioners which we might try to resolve the differences in this

proposal. I would be happy to lead those discussions. I would venture that if we all

sat in a room without staff for an afternoon, we could reach a consensus.

A closer inspection reveals that there is quite a bit of good in this bill. If these

lands are really in peril as we heard all throughout the last debate, failure to participate in the process is like the individual trapped on his roof by rising flood wa9

ters who turns back the rescuers in the boat because he is sure the helicopter is

on its way. My point is that lands can be protected by designations other than just

wilderness.

In last year’s wilderness debate, Members were implored by some individuals in

the environmental community to act with vision and concern, not just for ourselves,

but for our children. We heard a plea for ‘‘visionary.’’ I applaud the architects of

this proposal for showing that kind of vision, which bridges the gap between many

competing uses and puts forth a plan that will allow for the protection of this special

area while promoting a wise plan for its management for the future.

Granted, translating that vision to legislative language can be difficult. H.R. 3625

has several rough edges around it that need to be smoothed out. I will introduce

companion legislation that in its first draft will be very similar. But I recognize that

the process is just beginning. I am open for comments from both sides. Perhaps we

will need to tighten legislative language, or look at some boundaries and I am willing to do that. I have already read the statement that Mr. Shea has submitted and

I will admit he raises several good points that I am willing to entertain.

Mr. Shea praised the Emery County officials last week and referred to the proposal in the Utah press last week as ‘‘a step in the right direction.’’ He stated: ‘‘The

ideas in the bill have a lot of merit. It is a step in the right direction. It recognizes

wilderness. It involves people in a very direct process for having their perspectives

heard.’’

I was encouraged when I read those comments in the Deseret News last week.

But I read the printed statement of Mr. Shea today and I hope he will elaborate

on why—if these ideas have such merit—has the Administration so willingly waved

the veto pen before the public hearing process has even gotten underway. It does

not bode well for the process and it sends a very clear and very unfortunate message to the local people: ‘‘If your attempts fail to meet our predetermined outcome,

your efforts are of no use to us.’’

Let me say to the Administration, rather than saying no, give us a chance to work

with you. If we are able to cooperate, perhaps we will be successful in our efforts

and at the end of this Congress we will have taken the first small steps to resolving

the larger wilderness debate. I hope this could be the case.

I appreciate the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. I look

forward to hearing the comments of the panelists today.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, your full statement will be in the

record and all of the statements given today in their entirety will

be in the record, and anyone, of course, is free to abbreviate their

statements if they’re so inclined.

We’ll now hear from Congressman Cook.

STATEMENT OF HON. MERRILL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this important issue regarding the conservation

of the San Rafael Swell encompassed in H.R. 3625. The San Rafael

Swell is certainly one of the most beautiful and ecologically diverse

areas in the State of Utah, and it deserves to be conserved and protected.

I commend the Emery County Commissioners and my Utah colleagues on the work they’ve put into this bill to create a sensible,

balanced bill. Do I think H.R. 3625 solves the wilderness debate in

Utah? No, I don’t, but H.R. 3625 is a good initiative by local government to work out the problems in their local area and, in this

case, Emery County, Utah. This is a good start toward resolving

wilderness and public land management issues in Utah.

As we consider H.R. 3625, we know this is a solution that will

drastically improve conditions and habitat in Emery County while

preserving ecologically sensitive and vital areas within the San

Rafael Swell. We also don’t know that we’ll have a lot more work

to do. H.R. 3625 is a good approach toward balancing economic and
10

recreation opportunities, which is important to the citizen of my

district in the Salt Lake Valley, while preserving this wilderness

may be the most diverse and beautiful areas of the Swell, which

is also important to my constituents. H.R. 3625 preserves one of

the largest bighorn sheep herds in the State through the creation

of the San Rafael National Conservation Area.

This designation of a National Conservation Area will allow the State to monitor and successfully manage the sheep herd while

limiting and controlling access to this vital wildlife resource. H.R.

3625 also will allow for vital restoration and conservation of many

other habitats in the San Rafael Swell benefiting many species

within the National Conservation Area.

This bill creates more than 400,000 acres of wilderness as well

as preserving many of the most vital and interesting areas from

Utah’s history. As open space continually declines due to population growth pressures, these areas will offer unique recreational

and historical opportunities for generations. Many of these sites

chronicle the important part mining had in Utah’s economic development, as well as preserving and chronicling sites along the Outlaw Trail within the Swell, which is a vital heritage for both Utah

and the Nation.

These areas deserve to be protected and shared as a remembrance for ourselves and for future generations. By preserving

these areas, we will preserve who we were. These can serve as an

inspiration for future generations to achieve greater things than either we or our ancestors thought possible. Finally, H.R. 3625 fairly balances the economic needs of the peo- ple who make the San Rafael Swell area their home. We must remember that any decision we make regarding designation and

management of public lands will have significant impact on these

people. This bill remembers the people and their needs, as well

putting forth a viable and vigorous management and preservation

plan for the San Rafael Swell.

This bill may not be perfect, and it doesn’t claim to end the wil- derness debate in Utah, but it does balance the needs between

preservation, wilderness, wildlife management, and human interaction with public lands in the San Rafael Swell. I would call that

a win for everyone, especially for the San Rafael Swell. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. MERRILL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this impor- tant issue regarding the conservation of the San Rafael Swell encompassed in H.R.

3625.

The San Rafael Swell is one of the most beautiful and ecologically diverse areas in the state of Utah, and deserves to be conserved and protected. I commend the

Emery County Commissioners and my Utah colleagues on the work they have put

into this bill to create a sensible, balanced bill. Do I think H.R. 3625 solves the Wilderness debate in Utah? No I don’t. But, H.R. 3625 is a good initiative by local government to work out the problems in their local area, in this case Emery County,

Utah. This is a good start towards resolving Wilderness and public lands management issues in Utah, and as we consider H.R. 3625 we know this is a solution that

will drastically improve conditions and habitat in Emery county, while preserving

ecologically sensitive and vital areas within the San Rafael Swell. We also know we

have more work to do.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Congressman Cook.
11

Questions for Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook?

Let me just say this: I think they both hit upon one point that

has to be made, and that is the BLM wilderness-park wilderness

issue; this bill does not resolve it, but it is a step. It is one step

into the issue. It would be an incremental step. It finally would

break the logjam, and I honestly think that if we don’t seem to be

able to take it all in one bite, that this should be a very logical approach to do it—somewhat tying into what Governor Leavitt will

probably testify to when he walks in about a step forward, and

think this is a very progressive way.

The gentlemen from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions,

only to compliment Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook for

their fine statements.

Given the fact that the whole approach is now being taken from

our good friend, Congressman Cannon, the proposed legislation

takes into full consideration the views and the concerns of the local

communities who will be directly affected by this legislation.

And as you had noted earlier also, I think the statement of Governor Leavitt reaffirms the concept that is now being proposed is

that we do this on an incremental basis. I’m curious to see how

we’re going to do this, and, hopefully, that our friends from the Bureau of Land Management will have their points of view taken in

consideration, if this is possible and feasible under the circumstances.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook for their testimonies.

Mr. HANSEN. Congressman Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Let me just reiterate what I’ve said many times in the past. I

deeply appreciate the intellect, and capability, and camaraderie we

have in this delegation and I want to thank Senator Bennett and

Congressman Cook for coming in and sharing their thoughts with

us. We certainly look forward to working with them as well as with

you, Mr. Chairman, on this bill and I appreciate your efforts to

come over here today.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, thanks.

I had only one question relating to the exercise of water rights

by the Federal Government here. Perhaps either Senator Bennett

or Congressman Cook could address the issue of water rights or

perhaps the author of the bill. But, I’m curious as to—it’s under

section 407, Senator—whether or not the Federal Government acquiring a water right in that section would preempt State Water

Right laws on the beneficial use of those water rights.

Senator BENNETT. No, it would not.

Mr. GIBBONS. That’s all. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Senator Bennett, we appreciate you being with us today. We

know you’re busy and have things to do. Thanks so much for coming over to our side. We appreciate it. We’ll look forward to hearings when your bill is introduced on the other side.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Congressman Cook, would you like to join us on the dais? We are

privileged to have you here. We know you have other things to do,

but if you have time, we’d love to have you.

Mr. COOK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d love

to. I do have responsibilities with the Aviation and Banking.

Mr. HANSEN. I understand.

We’ll now turn to the next panel, the Director of the Bureau of

Land Management, a Utah native, Pat Shea. We’re glad that Pat

could be with us. Senator Mike Dmitrich, one of my old colleagues

from way back, will be with us on this panel; Emery County Commissioners Randy Johnson, Kent Peterseon, and Bevan Wilson. If

you’d all like to come forward and take your places, we’d appreciate

it.

At the request of Director Shea, we’ll ask the Utah folks to go

first. So, Mike, are you ready?

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DMITRICH, STATE SENATOR,

STATE OF UTAH

Mr. DMITRICH. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. We’ll turn to Mike. Let me say that we normally

operate under a 5-minute rule, and that is our rule in this Committee, and that thing right in front of you is just like a traffic

light: green you start; yellow you wrap up, and red, I gavel you

down, which really won’t happen today because I want to hear your

testimony, but if you could stay it close to that area, I’d really appreciate it.

Senator Dmitrich, we’ll hear from you, sir.

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

Committee. It is of great pleasure that I address you today. I’m addressing you on an issue of great importance, not only to my constituents, but to all the American people.

In Emery County, a county bigger than some New England

States, lies one of the last great undiscovered national treasures,

the San Rafael Swell—a place where the shores are long, vanished

oceans. At every turn, there are signs of ancient Jurassic eras.

Through the Swell passes the Old Spanish Trail, and cowboys can

still be seen working. It is an area rich in biodiversity, both plant

and animal. However, like many areas in the West, it is rich not

only in beauty, but mineral wealth, grazing potential, and other

uses which make human life possible.

For decades, the various user groups have been also, literally, at

war. Many groups on all sides have staked out extreme positions

over which they have declared no compromise, no surrender, no

quarter asked, none given. The result has been an area in managerial confusion. Such a situation is extremely difficult for local elected officials, and local area resource managers from the State and

Federal agencies.

However, not all voices have been strident and unyielding. Environmentalists, resource people, recreation groups from both in and

out of the area have spent, literally, thousands of hours forging a

plan to manage the San Rafael Resource Area in a sensible and

thoughtful way.
13

You have before you H.R. 3625, which is a legislative embodiment of that effort and an emblem of their dedication to reason and

compromise. It is a commitment from both the citizens of Carbon

and Emery Counties, and those who don’t live there, but who loves

those lands to care for them and to use them responsibly now and

forever. There are those who can, and will, cite the specifics better

than I.

However, let me state that H.R. 3625 creates approximately

630,000 acres of National Conservation Area from which industrial

development will be banned, but in which conventional tourism and

livestock will be allowed. In addition, over 300,000 acres would

place in the wilderness or primitive designations. Again, I will

leave the real details to others, but what I want to do is give you

some reasons to vote for this proposal and not a blanket wilderness

designation.

For those who constituency lies east of the hundredth meridian,

voting for wilderness always seems a safe and popular vote. However, as all of us who answer to the voters know what appears popular today can turn to voter resentment and anger tomorrow. If

you enact, as some would have you do, a simple blanket wilderness

designation for the San Rafael, the law of unintended consequence

may begin to work with a vengeance.

First of all, since wilderness precludes many kinds of game management techniques, such as providing salt or water bubblers, you

may be causing great harm to the just reemerging bighorn sheep

herd found on the Swell. You will hear testimony on that later. It

goes against our intuition, but some of those species cannot any

longer survive without human intervention. A game manager supports this proposal.

Often wilderness precludes most kinds of archaeological work

which would be criminal in this area so rich in Native American

history. It may also mandate the destruction of some historical

sites because they are the works of the ‘‘hand of man.’’ Furthermore, since the only allowed means of travel in wilderness areas

are foot and horseback, many of the wonders of this area will be

denied to your constituents who are elderly and handicapped.

Those people deserve access to the lands as well.

What might appear to be easy vote has many land mines in it.

In the end, your constituents will be grateful that you took the

thoughtful approach and did what is right for people and animals,

for history and for culture, and for the opportunity to enjoy the

land which they, hopefully, journey to my State senate district.

That said, let me state that I am not an opponent of wilderness

designation. Some of the earlier proposals did have too little wilderness. There must be pristine and quiet places in the evermore hectic world where a person can enjoy nature as God created it.

Please note that an area larger than Rhode Island has been excluded from mineral development, and I am happy to say that

there are several wilderness designations as part of the overall

plan, but these are designations thoughtfully done, rather than

done as part of a cynical numbers game. These areas contain the

type of scenic wonders the original sponsor of the 1964 Wilderness

Act had in mind. Besides, I have great sympathies with endangered species.
14

I am a rural Democrat that has survived the legislative process

in the State of Utah for 30 years.

[Laughter.]

I can tell you this battle has been going on during that greater

part of my 30 years of service. It is time for this battle to end. It

is time to, finally, say no to narrow interests, and to say yes to the

vast majority of Americans who know in their hearts that there’s

room for all of us. It is time to do the right thing, instead of the

easy thing, for the wildlife, for the people of Emery County, for the

people of the State of Utah, and all of America.

Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you, Chairman Hansen, for allowing this hearing. I have also submitted with my testimony of copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, which I sponsored

in the State legislature which had both hearings in the House and

Senate and passed with only 6 negative votes out of the 104 legislators.

It is my pleasure to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dmitrich may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Were you the sponsor of that bill, Senator?

Senator DMITRICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. And that passed? Out of 104, only 6 opposed it?

Senator DMITRICH. There were six negative votes.

Mr. HANSEN. And that was in favor of Congressman Cannon’s

bill?

Senator DMITRICH. Yes. That is in favor—the senate resolution

has all the stuff that Congressman Cannon has in his bill.

Mr. HANSEN. So, in effect, the State legislature is solidly behind

this legislation?

Senator DMITRICH. Solidly.

Mr. HANSEN. The people of Utah, in other words?

Senator DMITRICH. In fact, the negative votes—there was not any

testimony given in the senate. It was just a negative vote.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator Dmitrich. We appreciate you

being here.

Chairman of the Emery County Commissioners, Randy Johnson.

The time is yours, sir.

STATEMENT OF RANDY JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, EMERY

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Can you pull that mike just a little closer?

Mr. JOHNSON. I will do that.

Can I just make one point very quickly for the sake of everyone

here that, while the San Rafael was most aptly named after earlier

users of the Spanish Trail and most rightly would be pronounced

San Rafael, in deference to the wonderful mix between human heritage and the beautiful land, we’ve always called it the San Rafael

and it must be the San Rafael. It’s just as true and natural as

‘‘Easter,’’ in which most of you would think back here in this part

of the Nation is some sort of a down-easter wind, but it really

means rolling Easter eggs and having a picnic on Easter weekend

down in the desert. So these things mixed with this land, and I

wanted to make that point very quickly.
15

Mr. HANSEN. I won’t comment at this time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

[Laughter.]

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on this

important bill. I have spent a great deal of time trying to think of

what I might say to you which would portray how important, I believe, that this new approach to public lands management really is.

I’m chairman of the Emery County Board of Commissioners. I’m

also chairman of the Utah Association of Counties, Public Lands

Oversight Committee; a member of the National Association of

Counties Public Lands Steering Committee, and chairman of the

Rural Public Lands County Council. I am also chairman of the

board of directors of the Utah Lands Foundation, a resolution-oriented environmental organization based in Utah, and I’ll speak

mostly from that perspective today.

Obviously, public lands issues consume a great amount of my

time. I want you to understand that I believe that what is before

you is truly a remarkable landmark bill. H.R. 3625 has the potential to change the entire field of discussion and could lead us into

an era of public lands problem solving if we willing to let it. The

challenge would be in prying ourselves loose of the stalemate we

have created.

As stated in an April 14, 1998 Desert News editorial ‘‘Perhaps

a miracle, a big one at that, would move key players off dead center or more accurately from the outer extremes.’’ I am here today

to ask you for that big miracle. I must also ask the question, if

there is a general refusal to come to the table and look for solutions, then what kind of future have we defined for ourselves? Isn’t

it time to reevaluate our public lands management philosophy? I

believe that we must ask ourselves what kind of war have we created and who benefits.

I assert to you that the Emery County plan solves problems. It

address the needs of all stakeholders. It works for the best good of

the land itself, and most importantly, it is a manageable plan.

Surely, this is a wonderful opportunity to move away from the

stalemate described so well by the Desert News.

Emery County has searched that natural history and human heritage are just as important and deserving of protection and recognition as our scenic vistas. We also believe that the current status

of protection, and the current status of polarization and acreage

quotas is harmful—harmful to the land, harmful to the people who

use and enjoy the land, and harmful to the Nation. Certainly, we

are capable of prescribing a management philosophy that meets the

needs of the land while assuring that we can also carefully manage

the resources which come from the lands. We believe that Emery

County has done just that.

H.R. 3625 is the only proposal that protects the entire San

Rafael Swell. It is the only proposal that provides specific protection to one of Utah’s largest herds of bighorn sheep. It is the only

proposal that has started from the land upward drawing nearly all

stakeholders to the table. And it is the only land management proposal that recognizes all the values of the land and works for truly

manageable preservation of all those values. The National Heritage

Area part of the plan addresses the wonderful blend of man and
16

nature which is unique to the San Rafael. Here the footprints of

history trace themselves across the rugged beauty of the Swell. Dinosaur remains scatter the area, focusing on the Cleveland-Lloyd

Dinosaur Quarry, one of the largest sources of fossil remains in the

world. There is also ample evidence of early and Native American

cultures throughout the heritage area with many examples of their

wonderful history preserved in rock art.

Further, the heritage of the early settlers of this harsh and unforgiving land is woven into the area, and is every much as deserving of protection as recognition as the rocks surrounding them.

Such treasures as Sid’s Leaps, Swasey’s Cabin, and Temple Mountain are as much a part of the San Rafael Swell as sand, and wind,

and deep canyon draws. The Heritage Area works to identify and

protect these and other wonderful sites for the enjoyment of all

who come to the Swell San Rafael.

Few other places in the world can provide such an ample supply

of heritage sites. Access to these destinations will be accomplished

by means of existing and long-used roads and trails. Most importantly, the ever-increasing flow of tourists will find a greatly enhanced visit to San Rafael Swell while we are able to better manage the flow of people and better protect the more pristine of the

San Rafael lands. This wonderful blend of man and his world is the

very heart and soul of this plan. Tracking the various footprints of

natural history and human heritage through the San Rafael Swell

gives the breath of life of these lands and causes all who become

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

share of ownership in the process of preservation and protection.

It is a user-friendly plan, and everyone benefits from its manageable approach. The National Conservation Area works to preserve

the more pristine areas of the San Rafael, and various levels of protection as dictated by the land itself. In more than 600,000 acres,

the NCA not only includes huge tracks of wilderness designation,

but it goes well beyond wilderness and its protective layers. It recognizes the largest bighorn sheep herd in Utah and makes provisions to manage and protect that wonderful resource. It also withdraws the entire San Rafael Swell from oil drilling, timbering, and

mining.

Some will say we have withdrawn protection from many acres.

What they really mean is that we are protecting those lands in

ways other than wilderness—ways that are just as permanent, just

as effective, and in many cases, much more protective than wilderness. Another criticism is that wilderness is permanent. Other protections are not.

And, Mr. Chairman, we are here before you to seek congressional

designation which would make this hybrid eagle system management concept permanent, providing protection for the San Rafael

Swell for many generations to come.

If you say the sand lands of the San Rafael need protecting, we

say we agree. If you say there needs to be a wilderness experience

available to anyone who seeks it, we say we agree. If you say we

should preserve some of our precious lands for future generations,

we say we agree. If you say there are some areas where no new

roads should be built, and no new mining should occur, we say we

agree, but if you say that wilderness is the only way to achieve
17

these things, then we say, we do not agree. We believe that we

must reevaluate our public lands management philosophy. We

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

are we going and who benefits.

I close my testimony with the words of Thomas Jefferson directly

from walls of the Jefferson Memorial: ‘‘I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions

must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As

that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries

are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions

change, with the change of circumstances institutions must advance also to keep up with the times.’’

And I ask you once again for the big miracle. Let us move to a

new hybrid form of manageable protection. Let us accomplish the

purposes of the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Conservation

Area.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Excellent testimony. Thank you.

Commissioner Petersen. We’ll turn time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF KENT PETERSEN, EMERY COUNTY

COMMISSIONER

Mr. KENT PETERSEN. Thank you, Chairman Hansen. I appreciate

being here, members of the committee.

Most of the people in my county live along between the mountains of the Los Plato and the San Rafael Swell to our east. Now

much of our wealth comes from these mountains. Our water comes

from these mountains. Our coal is in these mountains, but our

hearts are in the San Rafael Swell. It’s where we go when we want

to be alone, and it’s where we take our visitors when we want to

show them something special. And when our people leave for a

time and come home, the Swell is the first place they want to visit.

The San Rafael Swell is a land of scenic beauty, but it is much

more than this. It has a unique history and heritage.

Remnants of the early Americans abound throughout the Swell.

Butch Cassidy and the Robbers Roost frequented the Swell. Cowboys have managed their herds on the Swell from the early 1870’s

until today, and abandoned uranium mines remind us of the Atomic Era.

Now we know these are public lands belonging to the people of

the United States. We support the right of the people all around

this country to be able to visit these lands and have a say in the

way they are managed, but we feel very strongly that those of us

who live next to these lands and who have spend our lifetimes on

or near them, must have a large say in how these lands are managed.

Now the citizens of my county have a long history of caring for

the land. In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s a person could tell a

location, from the valley floor, of the sheep and cattle herds on the

mountains by the clouds of dust they kicked up from the severely

eroded lands. Local citizens petitioned the government for the es18

tablishment of the Manti National Forest, and now these lands are

once again very productive.

In 1992, Project 2000, a Coalition for Utah’s Future, a broadbased public interest organization, decided to try to resolve the

Utah Wilderness issue. Emery County volunteered to be the pilot

county for this effort. We met with a widely diverse group of stakeholders to see if we could come to a consensus resolution.

The stakeholders include State and national environmental

groups, extractive industries, ORV users, ranchers, government

agencies and local citizens. We worked for about two years and

didn’t reach consensus because the debate changed to be focused on

H.R. 1745 and the sides became polarized.

However, these discussions provided the impetus for the development of this bill. We decided if we were going to have a say in our

destiny we would have to become proactive and seek workable solutions.

While meeting with Project 2000, we found that our goals for the

land were not all that different from most of the environmental

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

is today. The differences were in how we were to accomplish our

goal.

We determined we all wanted the land protected, but we also

found that wilderness was not the only method and is often not the

best method. It is, in fact, a non-management tool. We studied various protection methods and determined that a national conversation area with various protection schemes inside the boundary

would the most effective method for managing the Swell.

And NCA provides protection for about 630,000 acres; and inside

this area are wilderness, semi-primitive nonmotorized areas, an

ACEC to protect the view from Interstate 70 and the Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area. There are also wilderness and semiprimitive areas outside the NCA in both Carbon and Emery Counties.

Now the Desert Bighorn Area provides protection for the sheep

while allowing Utah DWR all the tool it needs to keep the herd viable. Careful management is necessary for this. It also provides for

watchable wildlife areas, scientific study of the sheep and educational opportunities for the public.

The semi-primitive areas provide the ideal management conditions for several areas in the San Rafael Swell. They provide for

the wilderness experience while recognizing existing conditions.

Now most of the H.R. 1500 areas in the Swell are protected within the NCA either as wilderness or semi-primitive areas or by the

NCA itself. Additional areas are protected outside of the NCA as

both wilderness and semi-primitive. These designations protect the

land while recognizing existing conditions.

I am sure that after careful study you will agree that H.R. 3625

is the ideal management tool for the San Rafael Swell and for all

of Emery and Carbon Counties in Utah. Let’s try a new solution

for an old problem.

And I thank you again.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kent Petersen may be found at

end of hearing.]
19

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner Petersen. Before you leave the mike, though, I’ve often been interested in the poem you

have about the San Rafael Swell. So I’ll take the prerogative of the

Chair and ask you if you’d like to read that.

Mr. KENT PETERSEN. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chair- man. I’m disobeying one of the cardinal rules of a cowboy poet by

appearing without my hat, but:

‘‘I remember the first time I saw him, kind of hanging around by the store. His arms and his legs were both sunburned, and his nose

was all peeled and sore. His boots had soles like a waffle, tacky

shorts that had long since seen their best, and he wore an old

faded blue t-shirt with a big ‘Save the whales’ on his chest. ‘‘Now he looked like just a regular feller with maybe a story to tell, and he asked if I could please help him to check out the San

Rafael Swell. We jumped in my four-wheel drive pickup and went

out to take a look at the place, and I could tell that he liked the

desert, from the looks that he got on his face. ‘‘When we got to our first grazing allotment, I stopped the pickup and sat there to wait. It was his job, because of where he was sitting, to get out and open the gate. He got back in and was cussing,

and when I looked down I started to hoot. He hadn’t looked where

he was stepping, and he had green stuff all over his boot.

‘‘And then he explained how he didn’t like cattle, said they

should be banned from the land. They ruined the wilderness experience. Kind of hard for an old cowboy to understand, but I showed

him the canyons and pinnacles caused by erosion from millenniums

untold, and we marveled at the colors and stillness as we watched

nature’s beauties unfold.

‘‘We saw signs of the old ones, the Freemont, who left their messages carved in the stone, and we saw diggings left by the miners

and some petrified dinosaur bones. We saw the remains of an old

homestead cabin right next to a cool flowing spring. We showed

how this land could be helpful and the next season heartless and

mean.

‘‘We got back to town, and I left him. I forgot him, and I’m sure

he forgot about me, and then I saw him about a month later on

the late evening news on TV. He explained how this land should

be set aside as a wilderness for backpackers and friends and get

rid of those cows and the cowboys and those four-wheel drive trails.

‘‘It seemed like a lot of folks listened. They were starved for the

touch of the land. They just wanted a place to be all alone. It was

a feeling we could all understand. They got to thinking of us as intruders. It was their land they wanted to preserve. It was theirs,

and we no longer belonged on it. We’d been here for as long as we

deserved.

‘‘Well, we talked to our Senators and Congressmen, explained in

detail of our fight. We wrote letters and talked to each other. We

put up one hell of a fight. We thought for a while we were winning.

We held rallies and parades with our friends, but, just like it says

in the good book, eventually all things have to end.

‘‘We lost, but I guess it’s been all right. There’s plenty of things

here to do. We now live on a big reservation, and they put all the

cows in the zoo.’’

[Laughter.]
20

Mr. HANSEN. Very well done.

Commissioner Wilson, thank you for being with us. We’ll turn

the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF BEVAN K. WILSON, EMERY COUNTY

COMMISSIONER

Mr. WILSON. My pleasure.

Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member and members of the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today as an

Emery County Commission and as a native Democrat of Emery

County. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on a matter that is

of vital importance to all of us.

During the debate on the 1996 Utah wilderness bill, Senator Bill

Bradley raised a question that is central to my discussion today.

Senator Bradley asked, ‘‘How do we achieve a balanced, reasonable

plan for conserving America’s natural heritage while providing opportunities for economic growth and development across our public

lands?’’ This is a question that we in Emery County have been pondering for over a decade.

The 10,000 citizens of Emery County live on tiny islands of private land surrounded by a sea of public land. Nine of the every ten

acres are owned and controlled by government, either Federal or

State. These lands not only surround us; they sustain us. Water is

our most limited and precious natural resource. Every drop of

water we use comes from public land. Ranching is our dominant

agricultural enterprise. Much of the forage for our livestock comes

from BLM or Forest Service land.

Emery County is the No. 1 coal-producing county in Utah. Most

of our coal comes from Federal coal leases. Public land has always

provided most of our recreational opportunities, and our growing

industry is inseparably tied to those lands.

Public land issues have always been important to us, but they

assumed a new importance during the BLM wilderness inventory

process. Hundreds of local citizens attended public hearings and offered comments on the wilderness EIS. Since that time public land

issues have occupied most of the county commissioners’ time.

Suffice it to say, the commissioners and Public Lands Council

met with numerous stakeholder groups, listened to hours of testimony, held dozens of meetings, and considered every conceivable

land protection strategy before developing our proposal. I wish to

make it clear that H.R. 3625 is our proposal. We are deeply indebted to the Utah congressional delegation for helping us express

our wishes in legislative language.

What does H.R. 3625 do? First, it protects public land. It bans

mining, logging, tar sands development, and oil and gas exploration

on approximately one million acres. Some would have you believe

that this bill somehow lessens existing protection. It does not. It

protects lands now identified by the BLM as Wilderness Study

Areas. It protects land in the center of the San Rafael Swell that

are not identified as Wilderness Study areas. It provides specific

protection to the Sid’s Mountain Area, which is home to one of

Utah’s largest bighorn sheep herds.

Second, H.R. 3625 sets the stage for a tourist industry that respects the environment and local culture. It does this by blending
21

a National Heritage Area with a carefully selected mix of protective

measures, including wilderness. Some paint tourism as the answer

to all of southern Utah’s environmental and economic problems,

and wilderness as the ultimate tourist attraction.

I have no doubt that tourism will assume a growing importance

in Emery County’s economy. Emery County is pretty close to

Utah’s population center. A visitor from Salt Lake City can spend

his entire vacation in Emery County without even having to purchase fuel locally. If we base tourism industry on traditional ‘‘windshield’’ tourism, we will have to attract a huge number of visitors

because per capita spending will be so low.

We don’t want to do that. That type of tourism would severely

impact our public lands and compromise our cherished rural lifestyle. We hope to develop ‘‘value-added’’ tourism which will provide

an enhanced experience to a smaller number of visitors. A National

Heritage Area is a natural fit for that type of tourism. Protective

designations, such as the Bighorn Sheep Management Area, also

provides opportunities for sustainable tourism.

The Bighorn Sheep Management Area was developed in cooperation with wildlife managers and land managers primarily to protect

the sheep and their habitat. The Area also provides unique opportunities for visitors to view bighorn sheep. Recently two Public

Land Council members were explaining their concept to a National

Public Radio reporter, while traveling through the Buckhorn Draw.

As if on cue, a herd of 13 bighorns moved out a gully, up a cliff

face, and paused on top of a large boulder. The reporter was

thrilled by his first encounter with bighorns in the wild. Guides

and outfitters will be able to provide that experience to others, in

perpetuity, if we adopt a plan that manages both lands and people.

The bighorn sheep area is only one example of the sustainable,

value-added tourism opportunities created by this H.R. 3625.

I repeat Senator Bradley’s question, ‘‘How do we achieve a balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America’s natural heritage

while providing opportunities for economic growth and development

across our public lands?’’ I believe that H.R. 3625 comes closer to

answering that question than any proposal yet offered.

Emery County’s public lands and its culture are inseparably

linked. Our lands and culture have survived the rise and demise

of free-range grazing. They have survived the uranium boom and

bust. They have survived the roller coaster trend of the coal economy. The question yet to be answered is: Can they survive tourism

and the service-based economy of the New West? Our challenges

are great. We believe that H.R. 3625 will help us meet those challenges now and in the future.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate your testimony.

We are honored to have Pat Shea, Director of the Bureau of Land

Management, with us. Director Shea met with us in Emery County

and has been very good to work with in this issue. We appreciate

you being with us. We’ll turn the time to you, Director Shea.
22

STATEMENT OF PAT SHEA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. SHEA. Thank you. I would like to submit a written statement that was provided to the Committee.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.

Mr. SHEA. And I will summarize that testimony. I do think H.R. 3625 is predicated on a genuine local concern that is shared certainly by this Administration for preservation, conservation, and

interpretation of invaluable national assets; and the San Rafael

Swell certainly is one of those. Indeed, many decades ago it was recognized as a area of great importance by my relatives who happened to help settle Emery

County, and I should recognize that Bevan Wilson is a second cousin, just so there’s no confusion here, and it’s sort of nice and symbolic that we’ve got the two Republicans sort of book-ended by the

endangered species, Utah Democrats. I want to make a couple of points: The BLM does have two plans

in place. One is the San Rafael Resource Management Plan, and

the other is the Price Resource Area Management Framework

Plan, and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties that

we in the Bureau have had is how we try to reconcile those plans

that are in place with the legislation. I don’t say it’s impossible, but

we are still in the process of trying to do that, and much of my testimony will be focused on some areas of concern that we have. We are pleased that the legislation recognizes I think a very val- uable contribution that the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, has

introduced to the BLM process, and that is the Resource Advisory

Committees. The RAC process I think has moved us away from the

process of confrontation into recognized arenas of dialogue with

each different group having a place at the table, to participate in

that dialogue.

And so I think that is an important principle; although, consistent with Congressman Canon’s agility, he has introduced in it

a new concept, and I think we need to discuss that new concept

very much up front and see how it can be reconciled with the 1964

Wilderness Act.

So instead of doing something inadvertently that results in litigation, I think we have an obligation to the people to deal with it directly, and if indeed we are trying to amend the Wilderness Act by

this legislation, we ought to recognize that. If we are not, then we

ought to make a clear declaration that we are not, but we shouldn’t

inadvertently slip into it.

No, it also creates or proposes a National Heritage Area, and we

in the BLM certainly have had experience with National Heritage

Areas, and we think they are very important models where the predominance of the land that you are dealing with is in private ownership. We don’t think that that model necessarily has an immediate application where the predominant land is public land, as it

is in the San Rafael Swell; not to say that there isn’t something

that can’t be worked out there.

Now, we do think, again, because of the importance, and I would

say the fundamental conservative nature of recognizing past legislation, namely the 1964 Wilderness Act; we believe as an administration that this bill inadvertently seeks to amend that Act, and
23

therefore the Department, the Secretary and I, would recommend

the veto if this legislation was to become law. So I need to make

that message very clear, that we in the present form would not be

able to endorse this legislation and would recommend a veto on it.

Now, having said that, like I said, I hope we can find some areas

of engagement, and certainly our meeting in Emery County and

our going out to the San Rafael Swell was a step in the right direction. And I’d like to, for constructive purposes, mention a couple of

things that, as the Director of BLM, I am more interested in trying

to do.

You’ll notice the map there has stars which are designated as

Heritage Areas, under this legislation. What I would like to do is

enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Emery and Carbon County and see if we couldn’t do a systematic survey to make

sure that either under the existing framework, which I would point

to as a San Rafael Resource Management Plan or the Price Resource Area Management Framework Plan.

We could provide the kind of protection—I don’t think anybody

disagrees that this area is vulnerable to an explosive growth in

tourism and we need to have the infrastructure in there that allows to preserve those Heritage Areas. We just don’t think we need

to have the kind of legislation that’s proposed, and reasonable people can disagree on that, but as an interim measure I would invite

serious discussion and hopefully memorialization of that, of a

Memorandum of Understanding, for a recognition by survey method of those areas for heritage designation.

I think within the bill itself, and I would point to section 105,

there is not a clear delineation of what the relationship is between

the Heritage Council, that is proposed, and the existing Resource

Advisory Committee or the existing plans that have gone through

the FLPMA process that is our organic Act.

We also don’t believe that the bill was clear on how the two councils created under the Act would use or be obligated to use either

NEPA process or FLPMA, and until there is clarity on that I think

we need to be very cautious in this area.

I also think we are trying to, in some senses, back door the problem of the 2477 roads. On the map it says, ‘‘minor roads.’’ Some

of those roads are really river bottoms, and they may have been

used as jeep trails, but I think the definition of a road is quite

clear, and obviously that matter is being litigated, and I don’t think

we should by passing legislation attempt to—without clearly identifying the effort—to amend the law as to what a definition of a road

is. And so we would respectfully request that the designation

‘‘minor roads’’ be taken off the map.

Let me try to use an analogy. My grandmother was a school

teacher in Emery County, and she is the one that taught me how

to make ice cream; and I remember as a kid always sitting there

turning the handle and putting more salt on it because that was

going to make it freeze up a little quicker.

And I would suggest that this legislation is a great formula for

old-style, heavy cholesterol ice cream. I think we have decided for

health reasons that perhaps old-style ice cream isn’t always the

healthiest thing. It certainly may taste the best, but I think frozen

yogurt is a national standard, and I think we are obligated to stick
24

with the national standard unless we choose at a national level to

change it.

And so, with all due respect, I come down on the side of frozen

yogurt, and my friends from Emery County are proposed old-fashioned ice cream; and you are all are going to have to decide, and

it’s certainly within your power, under Article 1 of the Constitution, to amend it; but if you are going to set a national standard

of ice cream, let’s call it ‘‘ice cream.’’ Let’s not try to kid ourselves

and say that we are really are serving frozen yogurt when it’s not

frozen yogurt.

So that may be an abstraction, but I think people of Utah will

understand it, and I would be open to any questions you might

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shea may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much for your testimony.

The gentleman from American Samoa, for a question to the

panel.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have been sitting here listening to the various testimonies, and

without question, there has been a lot of issues brought forth for

the Subcommittee’s consideration, and a lot of times I think the

members of the Committee are bothered by the fact that sometimes

there are friends from downtown at the Bureau of Land Management who tend to dictate things from Washington, but never really

have been out there in the western country to find out what it

means to have cow manure under your boots or something of that

sort.

And I’d like to ask Mr. Shea, as a native Utahan, you are quite

familiar with this area that is being considered in this proposed

legislation?

Mr. SHEA. I should also recognize that at one point in my legal

career I represented Carbon County, and they sued Emery County

over coal royalty disputes, and it was a sort of Hatfield and McCoy

dispute, and it’s a sign of the changing times that Mike Dmitrich,

a known Utah Democrat from Carbon County, is now representing

Emery County.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Shea, I notice in your statement that

you made an interesting observation about the proposed legislation,

that basically the provisions and the concept underlining the proposed legislation is in reference to how we deal with wilderness

areas among the eastern seaboard States, where privately owned

lands are predominant, and the futures of how we do this federally

in terms of resolving some of the problems.

And you are suggesting in your statement here that the basic rudiments of this legislation really touch on the concerns of private

landowners without touching on the fact that major portions of the

State is federally owned land. And I think we go back to this same

issue that I know that our good chairman has been very concerned

about is the fact that so many of our western States are owned

practically by the Federal Government, as opposed to so many of

our eastern States who don’t have this problem of Federal ownership.
25

And I noticed also in your statement that when it comes to federally owned lands, you are talking about all of America versus the

State of Utah. And our good friends from Utah are saying, ‘‘Look,

the place is in our State. Why can’t we have an approach where

there is a balanced approach to development as well as preserving

the environment?’’ I think this is basically where we are at.

And my good friend Mr. Cannon proposes, hopefully, a balanced

approach. I noticed that Senator Bennett commented earlier that

the provisions to this bill is in compliance in his opinion—in compliance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Would

you care to comment on that?

Mr. SHEA. I respectfully disagree. Again, I think what we are trying to do in designating some portions of it as semi-primitive and

then making exceptions as to mechanical or mechanized use of the

wilderness area, we are inadvertently or indirectly amending the

1964 Act. So I would respectfully disagree.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I also noted in your statement that you did

list several of the current Federal enactments: the Archeological

Resources Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the NEPA, the FLPMA, the Environmental Impact Statements, whatever else that is thrown in there.

Now I noticed Mr. Cannon’s bill does note those Federal laws,

and in your statement you suggest that it doesn’t put enough teeth

really in saying whether or not these Federal laws can fully apply

to the proposed bill.

Am I wrong in——

Mr. SHEA. No, you are correct in that. I think, quite frankly,

that’s probably one of the most difficult problems Congress faces

today is finding ways with new legislation, like Mr. Cannon’s, as

to how it relates to past legislation. And that’s why I said I really

felt my testimony was a fairly conservative statement, because it

does seem to me a very important, conservative principle that you

don’t invent something entirely new. It has a relationship to what

preceded it, and in this bill that’s unclear.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, as I recall, three or four years ago I

personally attended, along with my good friend from New York,

with Chairman Hansen—we had a field hearing in Salt Lake City

on the proposed rule in this bill that the chairman then introduced.

And I was under the clear impression that the Bureau of Land

Management is supposedly working very closely with the various

factions in Utah, politically, socially, economically.

And where are we? I mean, why the continuation of the problems

that we are faced with? This is about the fifth bill that is being introduced now in trying to resolve this impasse. In your honest opinion, is the Bureau of Land Management, with all its resources, sincerely trying to resolve this with the leaders of Utah?

Mr. SHEA. I believe it is. I think one of the frank problems we

have in Utah is that when people indicate that everybody has been

invited to the table, that may be an accurate statement as to a portion of the meal, but they’re certainly not there for the preparation

of the meal.

And I think it’s important to recognize, from the BLM’s perspective, that if you are going to have a guest, they have a right, I believe, under the Federal Constitution, to participate not only in the
26

dessert or the main course, but also in the preparation. And I think

it’s in the preparation where there has been an absence of representation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I also noticed that you commented about the

two management plans in place by the Bureau of Land Management with its current efforts to deal or address these two basic

areas, the San Rafael Swell. May I ask you: Was there an Indian

name in place before the Spaniards came into this place?

Mr. SHEA. Undoubtedly there was. Unfortunately, at least the

pre-European entry into North America name was never captured,

so undoubtedly the natives at the time had a term for it, but I don’t

know that we in the modern era know what that term was.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, do you think there will be a

problem that we can introduce a bill to change the name San

Rafael Swell to the real true Native American name that it should

have designated? I am just curious about that.

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, and I’ll wait for another

round. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Gentlemen, thank you.

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, I can’t help looking at this group and being struck by

a fact. On the wall in my office somebody has posted a joke that

appeared in one of the offbeat Utah papers that had a sign saying,

‘‘Entering Utah. Next Democrat 436 miles.’’ And yet, three-fifths of

this panel is Democrats, and maybe the most remarkable thing is

I think we can both characterize everyone on this panel as our

friends. It’s an interesting fact.

I have to apologize, Randy, about infecting people with San

Rafael because that’s my problem, and it’s not that I don’t know

that you say ‘‘San Rafael,’’ but having spoken Spanish for some period of my life, I just fall into that pattern. It reminds of where my

daughter is going to school in southern Virginia, at a town where

most westerners would pronounce it ‘‘Buena Vista’’ but, you know,

when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking. In Virginia, at least, they call it ‘‘Buna Vista’’ down there. The town is

famous because that’s where statewide apparently campaigns in

Virginia begin with regularity.

Let me begin by commending the panel. I appreciate the efforts

that have gone in. I would like to point out that ice cream is not

yogurt. They are two different things, and you can enjoy them both,

if you like yogurt.

[Laughter.]

Let me begin by asking some questions, and there’s one other

thing I wanted to say just as a matter of preparatory comment. I

believe it was the Deseret News recently, Pat, you talked about dominion and stewardship; and frankly, that is what I would—you

also referred to yourself as a conservationist, which is something

I—I view myself as that—and frankly, I believe that if we can

move forward in the context of weighing the concepts inherent in

those three words: this is, dominion, stewardship and conservationist; I think we can make some progress.

And frankly, I appreciate the clarity of your response to the bill

and hope that we can have a continuing dialogue. You know, one
27

of the things that just concerns me is the continued reference to

the fact that not everyone was invited to participate in this process.

I am not sure that if we asked the county commissioners who were

reaching out to people or you, Mr. Chairman—I am inclined to ask

you why you think people weren’t involved, because I know of

many, many outreach attempts to everyone that has an interest

down there.

I am not sure that all of them decided they wanted to come to

the full dinner or even the preparation, but why is it you think

that people were not involved in this discussion or involved in only

a limited way?

Mr. SHEA. Certainly, on my time in Utah, most recently when we

were in Carbon and Emery County, I had discussions with people,

particularly from the conservation community who were not part of

the preparation, didn’t know about the preparation. At a point at

which it had been formulated, they were then invited to make comment and, quite frankly, didn’t feel they were welcome at the table,

but were going through somewhat of a formalistic ‘‘now is your 5

minutes to make a statement on it,’’ and then, ‘‘thank you very

much.’’

Now I want to quickly add, and I specifically want to address the

three county commissioners, I think there’s a real potential for a

continued reaching-out process. And I think Governor Leavitt and

the Utah delegation have made an effort in that direction, and I

don’t think we’re back in 1992 and 1994 or 1996. I think we are

making some progress, but there needs to be a chance for the

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, for the Sierra Club, for other

folks who, quite frankly, a few years ago were not entirely welcome

in the area, to be engaged in a discussion on this.

Mr. CANNON. Are you familiar with the attempts by the Commission and by me to involve those two particular groups that you’ve

referenced?

Mr. HANSEN. Could I ask the gentleman to suspend? Could I ask

unanimous consent that the Governor of the State of Utah be allowed to sit on the dais? Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

Back to the gentleman.

Mr. CANNON. I think I missed my time again, but are you referring particularly to the SUWA and Sierra Clubs, and are you familiar with our attempts—my attempts and the county commissioners’

attempts—to draw them into the discussion?

Mr. SHEA. Congressman, as we were bouncing along the road to

go out to the Swell, you described for me the details that you had

had as an outreach, and I certainly then and now commend you for

that effort. All I am saying is that as the process was initially

being formulated, there needed to have been more participation

than there was.

Mr. CANNON. Let me, at the end of my time, just ask—read a

quote and ask—it may not be our fault that they were not at the

table. SUWA ran an article in the May 30, 1994 issue of High

Country News which stated that, ‘‘SUWA is unwilling to negotiate

the issues, and the SUWA steers clear of consensus.’’ Moreover, the

ad encourages the use of lawsuits over consensus-building or advi28

sory committees, yet even states that ‘‘if this allows our critics to

label us as extremists, then we are extremists.’’

I mean, is it possible that we are never going to be able to draw

the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance into this discussion?

Mr. SHEA. It’s certainly possible. I don’t think it’s likely.

Mr. CANNON. In your mind will that be the end of the discussion?

In other words, can this one group hold up any progress any

progress in public lands in Utah?

Mr. SHEA. No.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, and I do have some other questions on

the next round.

Mr. HANSEN. We’ll have another round. I’ll deviate from the

questions at this time, and we’ll call upon the Governor of the

State of Utah to give his presentation.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, GOVERNOR,

STATE OF UTAH

Governor LEAVITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My purpose today

is to speak in support of the San Rafael National Heritage and

Conservation Act. This is consistent with what I have believe was

an important process question for us, and that we have been talking about these issues related to public lands and wilderness now

for more than 20 years, and we are making very little progress.

I have called upon the citizens of our State to recognize that the

most important thing that we can begin to do is to begin to agree

on what we can agree on, and there are some important areas on

which I think we can agree.

I have been advocating the idea of using an incremental approach. There are large tracts of wilderness that I believe everyone

agrees upon, and I would very much hope that we could begin to

make wilderness. This would not be all the wilderness that is necessary. There is still a broad debate on how much and where it

should be, but there is at least 250,000 acres on the table here

from a community-up effort that’s being offered as agreement, and

it’s my clear view that we should continue forward.

There are some other very good ideas in this initiative that I am

impressed with. The whole idea of being able to create the reserve

for the bighorn sheep is a very exciting idea. I’ve got a prepared

statement. In the interest of time, I’d just like to submit that and

I’d like to respond to any questions that you would like to direct

to me, but my purpose is to be here today to express my enthusiastic support for moving forward on things on which we can agree.

There are some very good innovations here that we should be

taking very seriously.

[The prepared statement of Governor Leavitt may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Without object, the entire testimony will be included in the record.

I’d ask the members of the Committee, as they direct their questions, the Governor is willing to respond to questions as well as the

panel which is before us at this time.

I do appreciate your opening statement, Governor, and basically

I feel that the legislation that has been put forth by Representative

Cannon basically fills the need that you were talking about years
29

ago as far as an incremental approach to this probelm. This is a

step into it.

It does not resolve all of the wilderness areas on BLM. It doesn’t

even come close, but it starts the process moving in a very creative

way, by the people of Emery County and the good work of Senator

Mike Dmitrich in the Senate and the House. So I really think we

are on the right track at this particular point.

Of course, here we are to work out the details and see if we can

come up with something that would be constructive. We’ll have another round because I understand Congressman Cannon wants another round, and we’ll now turn to our friend from New York, Mr.

Hinchey, for any questions he may have for the Governor or the

panel.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to join you in welcoming Governor Leavitt. It’s such a pleasure to

see you once again, sir. It’s always a pleasure to have you here

with us.

I have no particular questions to pose to the Governor at this

time, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening statement that I would

like to make at whatever time you deem that to be appropriate.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman is recognized for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to

begin by saying that this bill demonstrates that there are some

things I think on which we can all agree. We can agree that the

lands covered by this bill are worthy of protection for their natural

characteristics, not for their exploitive value.

We can agree that their economic future lies with the uniqueness

of the land and its importance to the Nation, and we can agree that

they are not ordinary places, not simply leftover lands deserving of

obscurity.

Perhaps most importantly the very basis of this hearing is the

recognition that these are Federal lands and therefore owned by all

the American people and lands that all the American people have

a legal and financial interest in and that they should have——

Mr. HANSEN. Could I ask the gentleman to briefly suspend? I

think we have a group of students who are interested in watching

this. Why don’t you youngsters come up and just use this bottom

tier here, if you would, and we’d be just pleased that you could join

us for a few moments.

I appreciate the gentleman from New York’s courtesy in suspending his statement at this time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Certainly.

Mr. HANSEN. Just walk all the way around and we’ll probably get

most of you on here. If you would like to sit down in those chairs,

we’ll take as many as we can. Now you’ll all be graded on this, so

take good notes, will you?

[Laughter.]

Thank you, gentleman from New York, for suspending. We’ll turn

the time back to you, sir.
30

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that these are lands in which all the people of our country have

a deep legal and financial interest, and they are lands in which,

as they come to know about them, I believe we’ll have an even

deeper interest in as well.

The premise of the bill that we have before us, which I think is

a very creative piece of legislation, is that these lands are deserving of a special status and distinction in the national arena, worthy

of the attention of all Americans, and I certainly very strongly

agree with that idea.

However, that brings me to my first concern about the bill. We’ve

been hearing quite a bit in the Committee in the past two years

about the importance of consultation on public land issues. Yet the

bill was apparently put together very quietly and developed as if

the lands were only of local interest in Emery County.

The owners of the lands were not consulted. The bill was introduced just as the House was going into recess three weeks ago. Yet

markup has already been scheduled. It would be hard for me to

think of a bill as complex as this that was rushed through the Subcommittee process as quickly as this one has.

Nevertheless, I am glad that various people will be here today

to comment on the broader national interest in these lands. I will

keep my own comments on that subject.

First, Mr. Chairman, you know of my strong interest in Heritage

Areas, and I am pleased to see the idea being applied in the West

as it was with Cache La Podre. It is a further demonstration that

the interests of the East and the West in such programs are not

as different as some would say they are.

Throughout our long discussions of Heritage Areas, both before

you began chairing the Subcommittee and since, Mr. Chairman,

you have rightly emphasized that Heritage Area proposals must fit

certain criteria, such as prior study by the National Park Service,

and that a Heritage Area designation must serve a national interest and not simply the local, economic interest. I hope consideration

will be given to how those standards apply in this particular case.

Secondly, I am concerned about some of the terms of the special

management areas proposed under the bill. I know, for example,

that very little is said about how the ‘‘National Conservation

Area’’—that phrase I put in quotes—will be managed, only that it

will be managed by an advisory committee whose membership will

be almost exclusively composed of Utah residents.

Fond as I am of the many friends that I have made in Utah over

the last several years, I must say again that these are lands owned

by all the people and that all the people will be footing the bills,

but they will have little representation on this committee under the

provisions of this legislation.

I am concerned about the Bighorn Sheep Management Area. I

wonder whether it makes sense to manage an area for the protection of a single species. My broader concerns about these areas concern their purposes.

The first purpose stated for the conservation area is to concern

the resources for future generations, and again, of course, we can

agree on that; but it’s a broad statement. What are the resources
31

involved? Is there a conservation for the future compatible with the

other stated purposes, such as ORV use for example?

As you would probably expect, I am leading up to my concerns

about how the bill treats wilderness. It states several purposes that

seem to be the same purposes as wilderness designation, but it severely restricts such designation. By my calculations, it would designate even less area as wilderness than the bill you withdrew

from consideration over two years ago, Mr. Chairman.

It would end protection for 140,000 acres that are currently Wilderness Study Areas, and I think that is a very important consideration indeed. Its provisions on road claims would effectively foreclose wilderness designations on much of the area in question

which in my judgment would defeat the goals of conservation.

In the past two years I have heard you and others praise wilderness, and I have heard Governor Leavitt praise wilderness, but it

still seems that the goal is to reduce the supply of this precious

commodity to the smallest number possible. As you know, I believe

we have too small a supply of wilderness lands in their natural

state as it is, and I believe we should make the strongest effort possible to preserve the wilderness we have.

I have spent 18 years working to protect the remaining wilderness in my home State, and I am committed to protecting the wilderness that we all share ownership of, wherever it may exist

across the country. I believe a large percentage of the lands covered

by this bill are eligible for wilderness designation and should be

protected as wilderness, instead of trying to develop various new

kinds of land management categories that fall short of wilderness

designation. I realize full well that many people fear the word ‘‘wilderness’’ and resist designation because of those fears.

The same was true when we were designating wilderness in New

York a century ago, but you might take the opportunity to put

those fears to rest by sharing all the eloquent comments that you

have made about the value of wilderness during our discussions of

your eastern wilderness with the people of Emery County. That

might help to bring us closer to a resolution on the future of these

lands and help to educate the whole country on why these lands

truly are worthy of national interest.

And although I think the bill is an interesting and creative exercise, particularly in the way that it seeks to employ the designation

of national Heritage Areas; I think that unfortunately it falls far

short of what we ought to be doing as a Committee and as a Congress with regard to exercising and expressing our deep respect

and appreciation of the uniqueness of this particular part of our

country.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me that opportunity.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, is recognized for questions for the panel, opening statement and questions to the Governor.

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I was not

here earlier to begin the hearing, but I had other commitments. I

appreciate and acknowledge the presence of the Governor and the

work that has been done on this proposal. I am not very familiar

with it, but I understand that the management entity that’s included in the bill in terms of management of the national lands is
32

such that it does not have significant representation or at least majority representation by the Department of Interior at the BLM. Director Shea is here. I acknowledge his presence, and that’s a concern. Is it not, Director Shea?

Mr. SHEA. You are correct.

Mr. VENTO. I think the—you know, the idea of—in terms of dealing with wilderness measures in the past, we have in fact tried to

have special I guess for the Forest Service to have some national

recreation areas and deal with these in a different way in terms

of trying to provide or accord some protection in addition to the wilderness protection; and I think that his bill tries to mix that with

the BLM in this BLM area and doesn’t embrace the entire State.

This only addresses what portion of the State and Utah, Governor, is this about—this I know is three counties—is this about a

quarter of the issue at hand in terms of the 20 million acres of wilderness the BLM that lands that are present?

Governor LEAVITT. I can’t give you an exact percentage. It may

be even be a smaller percentage than that.

Mr. VENTO. I am just trying to get an idea——

Governor LEAVITT. The important thing is it’s progress.

Mr. VENTO. Director Shea, has the BLM done some studies with

regards to the National Conservation Area or with regards to a

Heritage Area in this, which of course is an entirely different entity

than wilderness? I know there have been some wilderness studies,

but has there been any analysis or any type of formal study of this

process?

Mr. SHEA. We have two plans in place, as I mentioned earlier:

the San Rafael Plan and the Price Plan, but we were not involved

in the formulation of this legislation, and one of the things I suggested, particularly on the heritage side, is I do think that there

is a great deal of administrative flexibility to do a survey between

BLM and the people of Emery County and Carbon County to look

at the heritage side.

On the conservation side, I think you’re absolutely correct that

we have a problem with trying to say this is wilderness but it’s not

quite wilderness under the 1964 definition, and my earlier statement was that I think Congress has the power to legislate whatever way they want, but for purposes of clarity if it in fact is wilderness area; they ought to comply with the 1964 law or amend it

specifically.

Mr. VENTO. The issue here of course is that there has been—do

we have any ACECs? Is there any other land designations in these

areas that are already present or not?

Mr. SHEA. There is one in the near area. We are proposing than

an NCA is part of this bill. The original proposal was for 890,000,

and this covers 630,000.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that, Mr. Chairman, most of the time

we would try to get some analysis I know on the formal bill that

we had with Heritage Areas we actually had had some provision

that provided for some money to try and get some parameters

around the type of Heritage Areas that we are talking about.

Of course, that addresses, as the Director has pointed out, areas

that are largely private land. How much private land is involved

in this entire complex that we are talking about, this million acres?
33

Mr. SHEA. There is none in this—well, it’s 630,000 acres.

Mr. VENTO. There is no private land at all?

Mr. SHEA. There are school trust lands and State trust lands, but

there are no private lands.

Mr. VENTO. Currently, the management entity that—the idea of

putting that in place was because there was substantial cross ownership of land. Is there a significant amount of State land in here?

Mr. SHEA. Not a significant amount, but there is some. I did

point out in my testimony that the conservation areas were traditionally where the predominant nature of the land was private and

that this was unusual here.

Mr. VENTO. Now I noticed that, but I was just wondering what

the amounts were that we’re trying to address. So I mean, the

issue, Mr. Chairman, is, you know, not only that, but I understand

that this anticipates a trade out of the school sections, this legislation does, so then it would be practically exclusively national land.

Is that correct?

Mr. SHEA. Yes. If you could direct your attention to the map over

there, the white portions of the wilderness areas, both the dark

green and the light blue, as I understand it, are either State trust

lands or school trust lands, but in the exchange process, which in

my reading of the bill is not clear as to what process we would use

for that exchange, then it would become solely Federal.

Mr. VENTO. Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that

I’ll study the bill more carefully, but I think that if is a start of

a negotiating position I guess it’s fine. In terms of how we are

going to deal with—in other words, segmenting and trying to deal

with issues that we can deal with and agree upon, but obviously

there are a lot of changes from what is a Heritage Area and what

are National Conservation Areas.

I understand that the conservation area is all Federal except for

the State trust lands, and the Heritage Area encompasses all

Emery and Carbon Counties and includes private lands as well. So,

I don’t know how we can sort through it, but if the Heritage or

Conservation Areas can help in terms of—obviously, your bottom

line is hard relief.

Mr. HANSEN. I think it’s a little sad that the two gentlemen from

Minnesota and New York—I know you are very busy, as we all are,

but you’ve missed some great testimony explaining many of the

questions that you’ve brought up from this panel and also from

Senator Bennett and Senator Dmitrich.

Let me point out, this is a very unique approach. This is one that

will take you to an historic area, a legendary area, and turn it in

to a way to handle this for its best protection.

Questions come up by many of you as to how many acres we are

putting in this. Let me point out, if you take wilderness, semiprimitive, bighorn sheep, ACEC, and other areas under protection,

this H.R. 3625 comes to a total of 987,651 acres. Compare that to

BLM’s WSA, some 497,940, or what BLM recommended. What they

recommended at one time that we do was 473,000. Now take H.R.

1500, that our former friend from Utah will be talking about, of

1,173,494. So they’re very comparable, and the issue would be

something they call Sid’s Mountain—Sid’s Mountain in this area
34

where wisely I think these folks are trying to determine a way to

propagate the bighorn sheep.

So I can’t imagine anyone saying, because no one really here can

give us a good definition of wilderness anyway, why wilderness is

more important when you are taking an area, making it kind of a

quasi-wilderness and turning it into something where there would

be areas for bighorn sheep which would require sometimes an entrance or helicopters and what these folks call ‘‘guzzlers,’’ which is

kind of an evaporation process, so they can have some water.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t even mention the size

of the wilderness. I was just talking about the management

structure——

Mr. HANSEN. Surely. I understand.

Mr. VENTO. [continuing] proposed and how much land there was.

Obviously, we can disagree about how much ought to be declared

wilderness or the definition of the wilderness, but the issue is

whether or not—you know, how it was going to managed is obviously important.

The point is we are taking a million acres and taking the Federal

Government completely out of the management of it, and the guidance is going to be completely the legislation. It becomes very important. In fact, you have hard release. You have other factors involved. I guess I did mention them, that tangentially are referred

to it as wilderness, but six out of the eight wilderness areas designated by the bill have less acreage than was included in your initial bill, as an example.

So there are some changes, and obviously, I understand that this

mix—I am willing to look at mix in terms of conservation areas. It’s

a way to an end, but the question is, where do we—you know, I

think in terms of how it’s going to be managed and whether or not

there will be future opportunities to readdress the question. I understand you want some certainty.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman’s comment. I’ll recognize

myself for 5 minutes now.

Mr. VENTO. Well, that’s all I have——

Mr. HANSEN. Let me, if you’ll give me 5 minutes, let me point

out that I think the gentleman from Minnesota said it correctly. It

is a mix. What we are talking about here is a very creative, innovative mix. That’s what we are looking at and how we can come up

with these things.

I think all of the issues that were raised by Director Shea and

others are pretty legitimate issues. I would like to respond some of

them, if I may.

Director Shea pointed out the idea that this doesn’t really follow

the wilderness criteria for the 1964 Act. With my friend from Minnesota, we’ve labored through many wilderness Acts, and I don’t

mean to put the Director on the spot, but I really don’t think you

can name a single wilderness area that we’ve worked on that

doesn’t deviate from the 1964 Act. As you aptly pointed out, Congress has the prerogative to make those changes.

Go to the California Desert Protection Act, which is probably the

single biggest wilderness in the Lower 48 since the Utah 1984 Act,

both of those deviated. The one we did on the Arizona strip deviated. The one we did in Wyoming that Dick Cheney carried, that
35

deviated. They all deviate because I don’t how we can practically

make it that we don’t see a deviation.

Director Shea pointed out that the boards were not represented.

I would like to point out that we’ve done that all over America.

Every Park Service I’ve worked with, and as you know I work with

all 374 units of the Park Service; every one of them deviates somewhere, and every one of them has an advisory council.

So, my friend from Minnesota pointed out that this one would be

handled entirely by the local folks. It doesn’t have to be that way.

That’s not set in stone. I think, and I agree with you, we could

change that around. We could put SUWA, the Sierra Club, and the

Cattlemen’s Association on them, for all I care. We would come up

with an advisory council that could work. I don’t see where we’d

have any problems with that.

The other issue that Director Shea brought up, if I may look to

an answer we’ve come up to, is the concern about applying a Heritage Area concept to public lands. I don’t know if that’s accurate.

First, there is currently operating a Heritage Area in the Four Corners area. Although not federally recognized, it does cover almost

exclusively public lands and the local governments from four states

that help manage the Heritage Area, and they do a great job.

Moreover, we currently have 13 federally recognized Heritage

Areas in this country, and all of them involved the participation of

the Department of Interior and are structured almost identically to

what these men right here came up with—almost identically. So I

thought, when I first looked at this, that these county commissioners, Senator Dmitrich, and the people that worked on this had

followed that as their skeleton. Maybe they fleshed it out a little

differently, but it looked to me like they followed it identically.

So I have a hard time buying that idea—the local and State government could do a great job on their own. Now they’re kind of just

reaching to BLM for a viewpoint.

To say that there wasn’t participation in this thing, I mean quite

a few months ago these men asked me to sit down there in Ruby’s

Inn and look at this. I understand they gave the same thing to

some of our environmental groups.

As my friend from the third district points out, a lot of these

groups have elected not to participate. Over my 18 years in Congress, most of them would. In 1984 they did, but since that time,

and Mr. Cannon has pointed out, some have agreed they don’t

want to participate. In fact, here, as it says right here in one of

these groups, ‘‘while one advocacy group steers clear of consensus

efforts.’’

I would ask that this be included in the record. Any objections?

So ordered. Thank you.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. And this is a plan of how to get people out of the

area and direct them.

Also, on the order of 2477 roads, I don’t see where this circumvents this at all. These are called minor roads for a reason, and

they purposefully avoid RS 2477 fights. The assertion that was in

the testimony, I can’t go along with that.

If the administration will not support any wilderness designation

that includes roads and wilderness areas—well, I won’t go into that
36

because I see my time is going to end in a hurry, and I know you

folks have some other questions.

But I would like to, with your permission, Director Shea, I would

like to give you some questions to followup on this, if I could, and

I would appreciate a response as rapidly as we could, because my

friend from New York is right, we would like to move this legislation.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. It’s not as if we did this in the dead of the night,

I mean this is kind of a repeat of what we’ve done for years and

years around here. You can pick up on the 1984 wilderness bill, the

1.4 that the legislature of the State of Utah came up with, the 2.1

that Enid Green Waldhotz, or Green now, came up with the other

pieces of legislation.

This is a kind of a repeat of those, but an extremely creative idea

that is brought about by the people from the area of Carbon and

Emery, and I have looked at a lot of pieces of legislation in my

years here. I have rarely seen one as creative or as interesting as

taking this compilation of a lot of ideas, putting it together to protect the land and this truly does and is extremely close to the

wildest, most extreme position in protection. This one comes as

close as any that I have seen.

We have asked for another round, and the gentleman from American Samoa is recognized.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I would like to offer my personal welcome to Governor

Leavitt for his presence and certainly for his insight and some of

the helpful suggestions that he has offered, hopefully, to find some

solutions to some of the difficulties that we have with the proposed

bill.

Since we’ve been talking about lunches and dinners and yogurts

and ice cream, I like both yogurt and ice cream, except when you

eat too much, you get sick. I think I was struck by Governor

Leavitt’s earlier suggestion that we find the concept; and I think,

Mr. Shea, you’ve indicated that you support the concept of an incremental approach to this problem that has been there for years and

years and years.

And I wanted to ask Mr. Shea: What would be the administration’s position if you were to go through—and, again, I noticed in

your statement, you support the concept that the proposed bill has

given—what would be some of the areas—perhaps incrementally—

and maybe we don’t find a whole loaf or a half a loaf or a third

of a loaf—but get something moving so that we could all agree

upon and get it passed? Rather than trying to ask for the whole

loaf, can we work something that is digestible or feasible for both,

especially for these members on this side of the aisle and certainly

for the administration?

And I wonder if we are working on some kind of a deadline, that

we really, truly make a sincere effort to go though some of these

areas, that perhaps our friends from the administration could give

some constructive suggestions on how we can move this legislation

forward, and certainly with the consensual approval or support

from this side of the aisle.
37

Mr. SHEA. No, I certainly think, and the chairman and I have

had a number of conversations where the incremental approach

has been a focus of those conversations. I think Congressman

Vento’s question, however, about the level of analysis that we’ve

been able to do is a very valid one.

And just to go back to Congressman Cannon’s point that he likes

ice cream but doesn’t like yogurt, I, like you, like both, but I think

we need to have enough analysis to really be able to say, ‘‘Is this

ice cream or is this yogurt or it some new blend?,’’ and not to say

that a new blend wouldn’t work.

I mean the chairman was very correct, that every time this Committee has gone through a wilderness proposal there has been a

specific recognition of how it was going to be at variance with past

legislation on the wilderness question. I am simply suggesting in

its present form there is not the clear-cut recognition of how this

is varying from those other wilderness proposals.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I want to thank the chairman certainly

for his initiative in inviting our appropriate leaders from the local

areas, not only the residents and constituencies who are directly affected by the proposed bill, but we certainly appreciate their testimonies this morning.

And now after hearing from you, Mr. Shea, I sincerely hope that

we do make a mix on this and that we do seriously apply Governor

Leavitt’s offered suggestion that perhaps by incremental approach

that maybe we can resolve some of these problems.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Utah,

Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want also to thank the Governor for being here. And, in fact,

if I could just take a moment to sort of indicate some of the origins

for some of the ideas here—I mentioned earlier the county commissioner has done a great deal of work on this, but the Governor, of

course, came up with the idea of an incremental approach, an approach to see if we could find areas where we agree, and that was

the father in many ways of this idea.

In addition, Mr. Hinchey, I want to thank you for your work on

the National Heritage Areas because I think that’s an important

element that we’re trying to build into this process as well.

And I think I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that my predecessor, Bill Horton, was a large—a big proponent, a very articulate

proponent of National Conservation Areas. Take all of those ideas

together and we’ve sort of built to get to the point where we are

right now.

Going back to the questions, we were talking about the outreach

that we’ve done. I’d like to point out that I spent time speaking

with Ted Wilson about this project. Ted is a member of the board

of directors of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I have spoken with people from the Sierra Club and a large group of people

from the Sun-Utah Coalition, who visited me in my office, about

how important this process was and how they should get involved.

So I know that we’ve had other conversations; those are just some

that come to mind. We’ve done some serious outreach.
38

Perhaps the county commissioners would be so kind as to discuss

how they have reached out to draw in members of various groups

into this discussion.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Congressman, one of the, shall I say, scariest

aspects of getting this bill into this process has been that we in

Emery County felt that we needed to introduce the concept and

then build it from the ground up, and what that means is that

we’ve taken a considerable amount of criticism because when we

start talking with people about it, they say, ‘‘Well, you haven’t

mentioned this, and you haven’t recognized that, and you haven’t

done this,’’ but the point is we didn’t want to do that all by ourselves in some little room.

We wanted to come up with the concept and put it out and draw

groups into the process and build as we go, and that’s exactly what

we are still doing. We started by introducing this concept to the

Governor and to our delegation members, and then branched out

to the managing agencies of the area. We have gone around to cities and communities and water companies, and we have had an

open and active invitation to all the environmental groups to join

us at the table and help us literally construct this bill as we went

along from the ground up.

And we are still in the process. I am a little uncomfortable with

what has been said here about the management of it. I think it’s

clear that we want the Federal agencies to continue to manage

these lands as they do now, but under the umbrella of this bill, and

our boards that we are suggesting would be advisory boards in

which the locals simply have a voice in defining the management,

not in controlling the management of those areas.

So the point is that we have invited and been open to having

every conceivable stakeholder take a part in putting this puzzle together, and we still remain that way.

Mr. CANNON. Have you reached out particularly to the Southern

Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and other groups like

that?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Can you give us just a little discussion of how you

have done that?

Mr. JOHNSON. We made specific invitations to the Southern Utah

Wilderness Association, which, you know, basically at the time encompassed most of the groups that dealt in southern Utah lands.

We have had conversations since then with specifically Sierra Club,

as well as the Grand Canyon Trust and other agencies that we felt

would have an interest in those lands, and have made specific invitations to join us in the process.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. Pat, you want to say something?

Mr. SHEA. Yes, I think there’s a great solution here that Senator

Dmitrich could support—is have Ted Wilson, who is running for

the State Senate, get elected and then we can have another known

Democrat help the Emery County people come up with a proposal

that will work.

Mr. CANNON. Who is Ted running against? I am debating here

whether we could pitch in support if you’ll make him the spokesman for the environmental consortia that——
39

Mr. SHEA. Well, he certainly has one of the best records and I

think would bring a lot, and frankly, that’s one of the things we

are talking about, is getting people like Ted involved in this process

in a more direct way.

Mr. JOHNSON. We specifically asked Mr. Wilson on many occasions to join us, and he has expressed a considerable amount of interest in this process.

Mr. CANNON. Just two quick things: You mentioned a news article with some constitutional questions. Could you have someone

put together that in a memo, so that we can integrate that, those

concerns into the bill?

Mr. SHEA. Certainly.

Mr. CANNON. And second, one of the things that I’d appreciate

is, if you would take a look at the map or have your people do that

and identify those minor roads which you don’t feel arrive at even

that level, we’d appreciate being able to look at those in particular

as well.

Mr. SHEA. We certainly will do that, and I would like, and have

been asking the staff to get prepared, to have some Memorandum

of Understanding with Emery and Carbon County to do a more systematic survey of the Heritage Areas because I think many of these

would qualify, and there may be some additional ones.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman’s time is up. We’ve got two other

panels to go, so I am going to hold my two colleagues to 5 minutes,

if you would, please, and then we’ll move to the next panel. The

gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey.

Mr. HINCHEY. I’ll be very, very brief. I just want to say again

that I very much appreciate the constructive atmosphere in which

this legislation is being proposed. I think it offers an opportunity

for us to look at this area again very, very carefully and closely.

My basic opposition, my basic concern about this particular issue

is simply this: Beyond its creativity, beyond the use of Heritage

Areas and beyond the constructive spirit in which I think it is offered, my concern is simply this: that if this bill were enacted,

there would be 140,000 acres which are now in Wilderness Study

Areas which would no longer be afforded that kind of protection.

I think that the area covered by this legislation contains within

it large sections which ought to be designated as wilderness, and

in that sense I think the legislation falls far short.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

It’s fine to—and in looking at this, obviously, in the wilderness

areas that are designated not to—obviously, recognizing there’s a

different mixture of wilderness and national conservation and the

Heritage Area designation, one of the things that obviously is a little confusing is that you’ve got stacked on top of one another, on

top of national land, I might say, different designations, and I deal

with that all the time.

That obviously means that we’re talking about in each case different pancakes in this stack in terms of how it affects what happens with the management of the land in this instance. And I

haven’t looked at this as thoroughly, obviously, and studied it as
40

carefully as I should, I admit, but in terms of the wilderness,

you’ve carried over all of the many limitations which are unusual.

And I mean, I grant you that in each wilderness action that

we’ve done, a statewide wilderness plan for Wyoming or for the

Forest Service in Utah, for that matter, we’ve had differences, but

you have a long list of changes here that engender problems, including the county land de-classification to RS 2477-like protection.

Anyway, it engenders that whole issue.

And I would just suggest that if you want to solve a problem, the

best way is to try to not solve all of them. You want to deal with

the issue. Don’t try and solve all of these problems in wilderness

in this particular issue—besides the hard and soft language or

whatever unique language you have here.

As I look down the list, there are quite a few in terms of—some

are less controversial than others to be sure—but, you know, just

like the mandated Federal purchase of land, I am not objecting to

that so much. I think I could, but, I mean, some of the others in

terms of including language on grazing when it isn’t really necessary, I don’t that there’s any risk to this.

You know, are you concerned about communication towers in wilderness? I mean, I think you go through all of this list because I

think that complicates the matters. Now, on the various—you

know, you referred to this as advisory in terms of the Heritage

Area group, and it is up to the Secretary to put them in. This management entity is given a lot of responsibility, and in fact, of

course, they have to come up with some of their own local money.

And, you know, I think looking at what the makeup of that is

in terms of the plan, there should be a greater representation, because this is national land, of the public land managers on it.

Whether we could come up with a model here for looking at something in the West for a Heritage Area—I mean, we didn’t have to

do it in Cache La Podre, as was pointed out here.

That Heritage Area went—because it was a lot of private land

and public or State land involved in it, so it’s a different type of

entity, but we might want to be looking at the makeup of that and

whatever other special areas in terms of, you know, it’s fine to have

the bighorn sheep area, but I don’t know what the effect of the bighorn sheep in terms of trying to propagate that many in that area

would be. But I think we certainly would be willing to—I would be

willing to look at it, work on it, and try to come to some conclusion

that would accomplish your goal.

But, in any case, with that said, I just want to point out the reason that you were talking about wilderness and talking about the

other issues is because this bill touches on and engenders a lot of

new proposals in terms of Conservation Area, Heritage Area, wilderness, and other requirements. And I think if you want to

make—I think we’ve got to make the bill a little less controversial

and follow more broadly the Wilderness Act with regards to wilderness areas.

So, that being said, Mr. Chairman, I understand that you want

to move along, and so I would yield back the time or yield my time,

if you want the time.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
41

Just let me say this on conclusion: I would hope that the folks,

especially members of the Committee, would take it upon yourself

to travel to this area. I think you will find this is probably one of

the most unique areas I’ve ever encountered, as I have gone around

the United States looking at these areas.

The gentleman from New York brings up a very interesting concept. Does it really fit? We’re taking away some Wilderness Study

Areas. Basically, we are really not. If you look at it, I think if you’d

go out on the ground, you’d see that some of these would be semiprimitive areas. Some of these would be used for areas where they

would probably have as much protection as a National Park has,

which I think would be quite a unique thing.

Also, this is an area of history that’s unbelievable. I mean,

there’s old mines on there. There’s—well, Butch Cassidy probably

shot it out with a few U.S. Marshals in that area. It’s hard when

you’re talking Heritage Areas to say they all fit. That’s why a Heritage Area is a Heritage Area.

One of them was so unique that something happened on the East

Coast during the West—so I think before we freeze ourselves into

cement on this by any means, it would be well for this Committee

to take a weekend and come out and look at it, spend some time

on it, see why we want to make Sid’s Mountain an area for sheep.

Let’s keep an open mind on this. I think if we’d go, we’d do very

well.

I appreciate so much the commissioners, Senator Dmitrich, Director Shea coming here. It’s been very interesting and provocative

testimony. I appreciate your being here. We’ll excuse you at this

time. We welcome you to stay and listen to the rest of the testimony that will be brought up in this hearing. Thank you so much.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, may I just say one comment here?

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. Commissioner Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. I would at this time just like to extend an invitation

to you and your Committee members to come to Emery County. We

would be very happy to host you on a tour of the San Rafael Swell

and any areas, heritage sites, and so on, that you might find of interest. We would love to have you come.

Mr. HANSEN. We’ll probably take you up on that invitation and

appreciate your kindness and generosity. Thank you so much.

Our next panel would be Wilson Martin, program manager, Utah

Department of Community and Economic Development, and Donald Keith Peay, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep.

I want to tell you that Mr. Peay is truly an expert on wild sheep,

and this will give you some good insight on what we are talking

about.

Mr. Peay, we’ll turn to you and this man has put in literally hundreds of hours in propagation of wild sheep and other wildlife. So

we’ll turn the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DONALD KEITH PEAY, UTAH CHAPTER OF

THE FOUNDATION FOR NORTH AMERICAN WILD SHEEP

Mr. PEAY. I appreciate the chance to speak before this Committee. I am not a biologist. I am an engineer by training and de42

gree, but I have spent the last 10 years of my life involved in wildlife preservation. I would also say, just as Congressman Vento

knows, that money from wild sheep advocates in Minnesota and

the East Coast and New York have also contributed to our efforts

in the San Rafael.

I have a written testimony which has been submitted. I am going

to deviate from that because a lot of the issues have been covered.

I specifically want to talk a little bit about bighorn sheep, since

that seems to be a focus, and some of the technical details about

management and propagation of those species.

I may just add that it seems like the 1964 Wilderness Act concept predates ecosystem management, and we found in the West

with wildlife populations that you may set wilderness in one area

where the animals live in the summer, but if you didn’t protect

where they go in the winter, it didn’t do any good. Yellowstone and

the bison issue is a classic example of some of the shortcomings of

the 1964 Wilderness Act or National Park Act or any other Act.

And that’s why we as wildlife advocates are so enthused about

this concept which we think is ecosystem management for bighorn

sheep in the San Rafael. It encompasses the winter range, the summer range, and all the management attributes required.

Just briefly, our organization has spent over 300,000 private dollars and restrained bighorn to this area. There were conflicts with

ranching interests. We worked those out in a win-win fashion. And

I want to just state that the use of helicopters, water development,

and other management tools is the reason why these species exist.

They were extirpated by 1950. Their first reintroduction took

place in 1979. By 1991, the herds have done so well with the current management and process that the San Rafael is now a court

area where they can use bighorn to reintroduce into other indigenous parts of the State of Utah.

I would also like to point out—I was reading an article in the

San Diego Tribune recently where in California they’d taken a completely no hands-on management by man, and because of that approach, they are going to have to list bighorn as threatened and endangered species in California.

Having said that, I think that’s why this area, this concept, this

proposal of the National Heritage Area is so important, is because

it allows for management tools to preserve what most people consider the indicator species for wilderness: bighorn sheep.

I would also just like to touch briefly that on our local TV station

there is a report just on April the 14th that the Washington, DCbased conservation groups were saying that, ‘‘wildlife populations

were being devastated by congressional cutbacks.’’

I’d prepared in the record two maps, prepared by professional

wildlife biologists in Utah, that show sheep populations in Utah

1972 versus 1997. They’re infinitely more abundant, more dispersed in different areas. So I would suggest that some people out

in DC come out West and find out the true facts, not only on Bighorns, but elk, antelope, bear, cougar, hawks, eagles, mountain

goats, and many other species.

Let me just emphasize to the Committee: Having personally been

involved in the restoration of bighorn along the Desolation Canyon

Area in 1994 and 1995, we used helicopters. We touched down on
43

the ground for a matter of 5 minutes to release the Rocky Mountain bighorns into this area. Had we not been able to use helicopters, it would have been a 2-day horse ride, and how do you

transport bighorn sheep for two days on horseback?

So, once again, the use of helicopters is critical. There are water

developments in this Elliott Mountain Bighorn Area that the BLM

has already been involved with us in installing, and we need to

continue to have these if, in fact, the American people want to have

bighorn sheep as part of the San Rafael National Heritage Area.

In summary, I would just like to say, to the American people,

that we out West are committed to preserving wild places and wild

things, and we think this is a great way to do it, through this Act.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peay may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Peay.

Mr. Martin, we will recognize you for 5 minutes, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILSON MARTIN, PROGRAM MANAGER, UTAH

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to be here. I wanted

to present to you a poster. We in Utah, of course, value our history

and heritage, and History and Heritage Week is coming up May 2

through May 9. And we have a poster for you and other members

of the Committee, and we are really proud of our history and heritage. We have a poster competition among school kids and also professionals every year that demonstrate our interests.

Mr. Chairman, I also serve as a founding member of the Four

Corners Heritage Council and also deputy State historic preservation officer for the State of Utah. Some two years ago, I met with

this Committee regarding some changes in the National Historic

Preservation Act regarding the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

We had some discussion similar to this, and I have submitted my

testimony. I am going to deviate a little bit from it. We had some

discussion much like this about compromises and finding new

ground. And Mr. Chairman, this Committee led, I think, a very

good discussion in finding new ground and compromising, using

new tools, and we found some streamlining in the new Advisory

Council regulations which are about to be enacted.

In that testimony two years ago I talked about the need in Utah

to develop Heritage Areas, and in that discussion I talked about

the Four Corners Heritage Council and also the Sanpete Regional

Heritage Tourism Council, both State initiatives that partner with

Federal agencies.

Now I am here to talk about the San Rafael Western Heritage

Area. This area has some of the most important historic and archeological resources in the Nation. There are hundreds of sites

that are either listed as eligible for the National Register that have

already been identified. In a town of Helper alone 50 national register sites are already on the National Register. Those sites are

part of the history of that railroad industry and also the mining

history of that community.
44

We also have the Hiawatha and Kenilworth and Scofield and

Sunnyside. All have historic sites listed on the National Register

as historic places. Price has numerous historic buildings listed on

the National Register.

So it also includes private land and public land in a National

Heritage Area designation. There is Nine Mile Canyon which has

pioneer homesteads, rock art sites, an old town site of Harper, Flying Diamond Ranch in the area. We have Buckhorn Wash Rock Art

site listed on the National Register of Historic Places—Temple

Mountain Wash, Black Dragon Canyon pictographs, all listed.

The National Register also includes sites further out in the community, both on the National Register in Federal lands and also on

private lands. There is not only historic and archeological sites, but

there are organizational structures that are in the area already to

help support this National Heritage designation. Three certified

local governments, certified under the National Park Service Preservation Act, are currently in place. One Main Street town is also

in place in the town of Helper.

The Castle Country Travel Council has also been a long-term

supporter of the heritage of this region. The College of Eastern

Utah has supported the Heritage Region concept through the expansion of their museum. The San Rafael Swell has the resources,

the people, and the organizations for the development of a heritage

area management plan which could assist in conserving this important Heritage Area establish and maintain interpretive exhibits,

develop recreational opportunities and increased public awareness

and appreciation of the natural, historic, and cultural resources of

this region.

Not only that, but the economic development, the key outcome

can be realized. This Heritage Area, developed in partnership with

business, local, State and Federal partners, has an excellent opportunity for success; most importantly, as a partnership for economic

development which has at its core the sustaining of the heritage

that will feed it.

We in Utah call this the development of a heritage industry, a

partnership between private and public sector to achieve the economic success through the preservation of our heritage. We strongly support the proposed legislation to create the San Rafael Western Heritage Area. Heritage Areas protect the resources as well as

enhance those resources for the visitor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the excellent testimony

from both of you.

Before we proceed, the gentleman from New York has mentioned

that our former colleague, Wayne Owens, has a plane to catch.

Wayne, why don’t you come up and we’ll take your testimony now

so we don’t hold you up.
45

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE OWENS, PRESIDENT, CENTER

FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s even less important than an airplane, it is a meeting with members of the

other body which presses me. Not that significant when you are sitting over here, of course. I appreciate this opportunity. I want to clarify for the record that Director Shea and I had lunch together two weeks ago in a favorite

French restaurant and resolved to go on diets and, hence, his preoccupation this morning with the difference between yogurt and ice

cream, just for the Committee’s information. It’s a pleasure to join you this morning. My interest in wilder- ness goes back many years to the time when I used to run cows

down the Escalante. I grew up in that wild country around

Panguitch and fell in love with those Red Mountains. And even

when I was chasing wild cows in the summer, and you couldn’t find

any water to drink except putrid water, and in the winter when

you had to melt it down, and it was freezing, I could never lose the

love that I had acquired for those beautiful red rocks. And though

I cursed the cows periodically, I never cursed the mountains. I was not like Ebenezer Bryce, the old Utah cattleman who ran sheep and cows in that country which now bears his name as a National Park. When he was told by visitors who praised the beautiful

place in which he had to run his cows, he often replied that he was

not so impressed by the beauty as he was by the fact that it was

‘‘one hell of a place to lose a cow.’’ But I think it’s the mountains

that are important and the red rocks.

This is a tough issue, as Director Shea has spoken of, in the temperament in southern Utah, this place from which I come. I have

found over the years that it’s very difficult to talk about the issues

of wilderness in peace and with straightforward discussion about

these issues. Support for wilderness in that area is not only very

sparse but supporters are often accused of having improper family

backgrounds, illegitimacy in your family background. This is a

very, very tough issue in this special place.

When I sat on the other side of this dais with you, 9 years ago,

Mr. Chairman, I introduced H.R. 1500 for the first time, because

of this great love that I have for these red rocks and for my belief

that their highest and greatest value in most instances is to preserve them for future generations. I wanted to protect them when

I came into the opportunity of service on behalf of the State, and

hence, it became a major preoccupation. And I want to say how

much I appreciate the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, for

carrying on by introducing that legislation and forcing a discussion

of those important issues on a periodic basis.

And so I am here today to respectfully speak against H.R. 3625,

and I do so for the same reasons that I spoke against and worked

against the Utah delegation’s wilderness bill in the last Congress.

Like that bill, H.R. 3625 is not a wilderness preservation bill; it is

a wilderness development bill.

From the point of view of one of those who believe that most of

this land’s highest value, most of this wilderness’ value—highest

and best use—in every sense of that term, including economic—is
46

its preservation in wilderness, this is simply a bad bill. It eliminates from protection over 140,000 acres of Wilderness Study Area

in Emery and Carbon County, areas that have been protected for

two decades against man’s exploitation, and it eliminates from consideration over 650,000 acres of wilderness which H.R. 1500 seeks

to preserve.

It dignifies with legal protection RS 2477 rights-of-way, calling

them roads, and thereby permitting local development in some of

the most pristine areas. So I can say that, yes, it designates some

wilderness, but at the same time it creates serious management

problems. I submit for the record, if I might, Mr. Chairman, a detailed explanation of how I think, in specificity, that the bill is very

detrimental to the national and the State interests.

Other than that, I don’t have any strong feelings, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

I would be happy to try to respond to questions.

May I also say for the record that I represent also the Sierra

Club or, as some folks down in our country say, Mr. Chairman,

‘‘the Sahara Club,’’ today in my testimony, as well as the Southern

Utah Wilderness Alliance, on whose board I serve.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Owens may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from American Samoa, questions for this panel?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions.

I wanted to thank the members of the panel and certainly offer my

personal welcome to our former colleague, Congressman Wayne

Owens, for his appearance and providing us with his testimony on

this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Utah.

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

Let me just begin by thanking the members of the panel for your

great testimony, and you, Don, for your incredible work in preserving bighorn sheep in Utah and elsewhere.

Mr. Owens, I think you were here when I read a quote to Director Shea about an ad that SUWA ran on May 30, 1994 in the High

Country News talking about SUWA’s unwillingness to negotiate.

SUWA steers clear of consensus. The ad encourages the use of the

lawsuits over consensus-building with the advisory committees; yet,

even states that, ‘‘if this allows our critics to label us as extremists,

then we are extremists.’’

Is it still the position of SUWA to not enter into deliberations

that might lead to consensus or agreements?

Mr. OWENS. I think, Mr. Cannon, you and I had a conversation

yesterday and agreed to have lunch—for the benefit of the chairman of the Ethics Committee, each paying his own way—to discuss

these issues, and I am delighted to visit with you about them.

I think there are several reasons that it is very difficult for an

advocacy organization like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

to enter into these kinds of negotiations. To begin with, the decisionmakers are all basically of one view, and it’s about as adverse

from that of the goals of the Southern Utah Wilderness as it can

be.
47

Secondly, Mr. Scott Groene, our issues director, did, I think,

make some genuine efforts to discuss these issues. He used to be

my administrative assistant, and is very familiar with the legislative process here, and found that the concepts simply were very different than any that we could in any sense feel conscientious about

or considered appropriate, and he simply found no willingness to

talk about true preservation of wilderness.

The third point is that, when you look at your map and as you

read your bill you see how much real wilderness is released for development and how even the small areas which are preserved

under the title ‘‘wilderness,’’ as the gentleman from Minnesota

spelled out so well, are not preserved as wilderness in fact. Many

are crossed with so many RS 2477 ‘‘ways’’, which the bill calls

‘‘roads,’’ that even the small areas of designated wilderness are not

preserved as such. Turning over control of much of the management of those areas to local consumptive users—that doesn’t give

us a lot of confidence that you really want to preserve any as wilderness, to be honest with you.

But I am happy—though I don’t do it officially, I am only a member of the board—I welcome the opportunity which you offered me

yesterday to visit about it.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I should point out, though, we have

some sharp disagreements here. I would hope you would consider

our relationship one of friendship. You educated me in the process

that we are now involved in here, frankly, back in law school.

So I appreciate that and the history of that, but the distinction

is sharp, and I guess what I have heard you just say is that basically there is no interest on the part of SUWA of coming off the

clear, clean concept of a large amount of the wilderness, even

though I think there’s some compelling reasons to do that—for instance, either the RS 2477 rights-of-way exist or they don’t, and in

this plan it seems to me that we’re dealing with those with some

clarity and some openness rather than the very difficult, complicated, legalistic way that we’ve been treating them in the past,

and we do it in a way that allows people access to some of the

areas that I think are beautiful, wonderful, breath-taking.

It’s interesting that we can come from the same experience, although I did not run cattle in that area. We did sort of grow up

in the same general area to some degree and did not, again, suffer

those hardships. We come to a very different conclusion about how

that area should be used.

Is it not a matter of concern to the Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance that those RS 2477 right-of-ways may ultimately be

proved to be real right-of-ways, giving the counties what I think

are terrific defenses against the relatively extreme position of purely wilderness at 5.7 or more million acres?

Mr. OWENS. We are fighting those issues, dealing with RS 2477

rights-of-ways and roads, and are very much concerned about the

implications of that fight. We just don’t think you deal with them

very well in this legislation, with, of course, all respect.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for

just another couple of minutes, and I think I can finish up?

Mr. HANSEN. It is recognized. Is there an objection? Hearing

none, two more minutes.
48

Mr. CANNON. I thank you. I will only have two more questions.

Let me just ask one about the Wilderness Study Areas first and

get your view on that and then come back to roads. When this debate was going on, and we established Wilderness Study Areas, it

was sort of a covenant between the government and the people that

this was only a study. Granted, that gave dramatic control or limited access to those areas pretty much. Do you feel like people in

areas where there are Wilderness Study Areas need to be thinking

that these things as absolutely permanent until you get your way

or is there some way that they have a right maybe in future legislation to sunset the study areas?

Mr. OWENS. First, an indirect answer to your question and then

a more direct: I am finding that more and more people who live in

many of those areas are understanding or coming to believe that

the highest and best use of that land is in its preservation. As so

much of these beautiful red rocks, wild countries disappear to development, more and more of the people who live in that area are

more and more anxious, I think, that more be protected.

In direct response to your question, at some point I expect the

Congress will deal with these issues. I don’t believe they should be

dealt with piecemeal, as your legislation proposes to do. I honestly

think that the congressional process is such that we’ll probably

only have one real good shot at a wilderness bill, and it should be

statewide, where you can give and take.

And I do propose to support, Congressman Cannon, and you

know I do, and Mr. Hansen knows I will support the give-and-take

in the legislative process. But it ought not to be picked off one piece

at a time, one area at a time, where in fact there is very little give

and almost all take.

Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you, Mr. Owens, would you commit a

member of SUWA’s staff to work with our staff and others in working on this bill?

Mr. OWENS. Yes, we’ll help you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. We can count on——

Mr. OWENS. I am no longer Chair, as you know. I stepped down

a couple of months ago, but I would advocate strongly that we do

have more staff contact. I, as a board member, and Ted Wilson,

whose name was brought up earlier, a former administrative assistant of mine and a former mayor of Salt Lake City and now vice

chairman of the board, will cooperate. I know he feels the same

way.

Mr. HANSEN. I would appreciate if you would give us a name of

someone we can work with; we would really appreciate that.

Mr. OWENS. Owens and Wilson to begin with, but I’ll also get a

staff member to help.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you so very much.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. Let me just close by saying that I appreciate your being here and the clarity of your position. It’s easier

to work with positions that are clear, frankly.

We differ. I think that the incremental approach is the way to

solve our problems and to do it in a way that truly meets, I think,
49

the larger objectives that you personally have and that other members of the organizations you represent have.

And so with the commitment to the chairman, I am not going to

go any further and just say thank you at this point, and I appreciate your being here.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want

to thank the members of the panel. To former member Wayne

Owens, I want to personally express my appreciation to him for his

introduction of H.R. 1500, for if that had not happened, it would

not have given me the opportunity to have introduced the bill during my tenure here. And I very much appreciate the leadership

you’ve shown and the courage that you have shown on this and

other issues of national importance.

And it’s a pleasure to see you and to welcome you here to this

hearing.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you.

Mr. HINCHEY. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I must say that,

reflecting on this process this morning, I think that the hearing

itself has been very helpful because it has given us an opportunity

to reflect more deeply and to look more deeply into this issue and

to learn more about this land from the panel members that we

have here before us at this moment, as well as those who were

here just a few moments ago.

So I think that this hearing is a very good thing, and it broadens

and deepens our knowledge, and I think for some of us it broadens

and deepens our commitment to the land. I would just observe that

as former Representative Owens has said, that, among other

things, this bill releases 140,000 acres which are now in the study

area. I think that’s correct.

And, Wayne, I think also, if I remember correctly, that this legislation would result in wilderness designation for this particular

area of more than 660,000 acres less than would be designated

under H.R. 1500.

Mr. OWENS. That’s correct. I think it’s 560,000 acres. They’re

areas in addition that you and I proposed for wilderness in H.R.

1500, and also, it releases I think 180,000 currently being protected

as wilderness study areas.

Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman from New York yield?

Mr. OWENS. One-hundred-and-eighty I think is the figure;

180,000 plus 550,000. Yes, sir. One hundred and forty thousand; I

apologize.

Mr. HINCHEY. One hundred and forty. Yes, that’s what I thought.

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me.

Mr. HINCHEY. One hundred and forty, nevertheless——

Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman from New York yield on that

point?

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. I apologize for asking you to yield, but

on areas that are protected, H.R. 3625 has 987,651 acres. WSA’s

has 497,940 acres. So, I don’t know where you come up with

140,000. If you go strictly by the definition of wilderness, which is
50

extremely nebulous, I agree with your premise of 140,000. If you

go to protected areas—ACEC, bighorn mountain sheep—those

under NCA protection, you are actually doubling the protection

here.

Excuse me. I just wanted to give you my interpretation. Thank

you.

Mr. HINCHEY. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and that’s an important distinction, but what I am saying is that, of those lands

now in the wilderness study category, the enactment of this proposal would result in 143,000 acres being released from wilderness

study; and that would mean that 143,000 acres less—143,000 acres

of land would no longer have the protection that is afforded to

them currently in the study mode which they are currently in.

And in addition to that, if I may, and Mr. Owens has just clarified that for me, that H.R. 1500 in the context of the area under

discussion at the moment, H.R. 1500 would result in more than

660,000 acres of land being designated as wilderness, more than

would be designated under this particular proposal.

So I understand what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and I think

that that’s an important point, but I think it’s important for us to

look at it from both perspectives.

Mr. HANSEN. If the gentleman will yield for just one moment—

it’s not a major difference, but our calculations only have it at

about 90,000, not 140,000 acres difference, but your point is well

taken about the——

Mr. HINCHEY. OK. Well, that’s something that can be settled. We

estimate it to be 143,000 precisely, and I stick with that number

until I am corrected.

The other area that interests me—Mr. Peay, is it?

Mr. PEAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, sir. Thank you. One of the things about the

bill that I find discomforting is that, while it talks about the protection of ecological areas, its designations are cut more along political

lines than along ecological lines. In some instances, for example, it

cuts canyons in half and provides one form of protection on one

side and not on the other, and it follows political boundaries to a

great extent. And so, therefore, I have trouble with the legislation

from a point of view of ecological protection in that it divides ecological areas.

There is also an aspect of your testimony that troubles me in

that regard also, and that is that you’re talking about an area that

would be set aside for the protection of the bighorn sheep, which

I think is an admirable objective. I find no quarrel with that whatsoever, but I find it difficult in my own mind to rationalize how you

can have ecological concerns about a particular area in the context

of one species.

How do you manage an area for the protection of one species and

one species alone, or are you offering something else?

Mr. PEAY. It isn’t just for one species. There’s many other species, but the bighorn is kind of a flagship, because I’ve been in this

wilderness debate for 20 years. Bighorn sheep is the indicator species, and I think it’s remarkable, phenomenal, that a rural county

commission in Utah is not trying to step up to the plate and say,
51

‘‘These are pretty neat critters. Let’s make them the predominant

specie that we’ll protect.’’

These animals could be endangered at some point in time, in the

very short future. So now we’re trying to protect them, and then

on the other hand, we are hearing a comment we shouldn’t do that.

So I can’t understand why anyone would not like this concept.

Mr. HINCHEY. So when you’re—if I may, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead.

Mr. HINCHEY. So when you are offering the idea of protection of

the bighorn sheep in a particular area, you are suggesting by that,

that protection for the bighorn sheep would also be done in a way

which would afford protection for all other species in that area as

well?

Mr. PEAY. Bighorn won’t be the only animal in that area. This

whole concept, in my opinion, looks out for all the species that inhabit the San Rafael but good emphasis for bighorn.

Mr. HINCHEY. OK. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Let me say that from the bills, BLM

has in WSAs in that area 497,940 acres. That’s a fact. H.R. 3625

has 407,471 acres. The difference is 90,469. Lay that aside, and

count what is protected.

There seems to be some of a religious Utopia here that if you say,

‘‘wilderness,’’ it has a certain protection, but nobody finds that. Wilderness is a protected area. So is primitive. So is ACEC. So is NCA

protection. They are all protected areas, as are National Parks. Add

all those up and H.R. 3625 protects more areas than WSAs by

twice; of 987,651 acres versus 497,940 or a difference of 489,711

acres or additional protection under this bill.

But, I concur, it doesn’t have the term ‘‘wilderness.’’ Primitive

and wilderness—you may recall that primitive areas, that’s what

the old view in the mountains used to be. We called that primitive.

Now take the definition of primitive, take the definition of wilderness. They’re almost twins. So, I hope we don’t get hung up on

the idea of this difference. We’re actually protecting more ground,

and that’s what I think we are all trying to do, isn’t it? That’s kind

of the impression that I got.

Now I would like to——

Mr. OWENS. Could I respond to that briefly, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HANSEN. Surely. Excuse me.

Mr. OWENS. Nobody disputes that there are several layers of protection included in this bill, and much land is protected, but much

is opened up for development, and the ultimate protection of wilderness is not afforded even to the 400,000 acres that you call wilderness in this bill because it is laced with roads that you recognize

under RS 2477 and the management techniques do not permit it

to rise to the level of protection which wilderness is.

Wilderness is a specific level of protection, undergirded by law

and by regulation, and it says basically you are not going to change

the nature of this land, to the extent that man can protect it unless

Congress itself gives permission. That’s what we are trying to do,

with wilderness designation, and that’s the status that I would like

to see in a big portion of this. Then the rest of it, Mr. Chairman,

should be preserved and protected, better said in the forms and na52

tures which you discussed and which do permit certain degrees of

development and use, all of which I will support where appropriate.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your comments that you brought it,

and I don’t want to get into a kicking match on what wilderness

is, except that we all know that wilderness does allow some motorized areas, if existing cattlemen wanted to go in. You know, we get

into that fight all the time around here. There is reason to take in

wilderness. This 193,723 acres of this is primitive, non-motorized,

giving more protection than wilderness does.

Other areas you really, if you want down to be cutting and splitting hairs, you can say the term ‘‘wilderness’’ all you want, but

you’ve actually got more protection in this bill for ground than the

wilderness bill had in WSAs. And that is an argument people

should look at.

Mr. Peay, who I consider the resident expert on bighorn sheep—

and I’ve known Mr. Peay for a long time—the thing that bothers

me most on this area, how much attention with motorized vehicles

of any type would the bighorn sheep need on Sid’s Mountain?

Mr. PEAY. In talking with the professional wildlife biologists who

have been deeply involved in the development of this plan, they are

very comfortable with this whole proposal.

And I am not sure of what you are saying, but I was just in a

board meeting with the National Wild Sheep Foundation and one

premiere biologist said, ‘‘We seem to have invented this concept of

Bighorns and people can’t coexist,’’ and as you’ve driven to Mojave

and right there by Arches there’s a resident population of sheep

that take occupancy right by the highway, and so the bottom line:

The plan is good for bighorns, but it does provide a lot more protection than just H.R. 1500, in my opinion, for bighorn sheep management.

Mr. HANSEN. What is a guzzler that you would need to put on

that mountain? What does that mean?

Mr. PEAY. A guzzler, there’s one there toward the Desolation

Canyon that we actually landed a helicopter as we transplanted

the bighorn. What it is, it’s a piece of naturally colored tin that

would be as big as this area inside of the desk here. It’s an apron

that catches the rainfall, and there’s about a 2,000-gallon storage

tank beneath the ground that’s not visible, and then there’s a little

metered tube that comes out to a little drinker that works on a

float valve like your toilet. So as the animals come in and drink,

water is released, and then they go back. Without guzzlers in some

of these arid areas, wildlife cannot live or survive or propagate.

Mr. HANSEN. I have noticed all around Utah that we have guzzlers on the west desert, up in the area of Yost Mountains and the

Raft River Mountains, and we have them other places. I’d have a

hard time believing that people don’t want wildlife to drink. This

isn’t only bighorn sheep that drink out of this. This is everything

that drinks in this particular area.

As I see it, the basic difference between what some folks are arguing and this is we’re talking: Do we want to have bighorn sheep

in that area? Other than that, they’re almost treated exactly alike.

You’ve said earlier that a helicopter would touch down for a few

minutes, 5 minutes or so, on occasion. I personally cannot under53

stand why people would be against wildlife. That kind of concerns

me just a little bit. We’ll have to work that out in any case.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the chairman yield?

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just one quick question to Mr. Peay: You

are the expert on bighorn sheep, and I wanted to ask: How much

acreage will it take to provide for one bighorn sheep? I am not too

familiar with your—I mean they live in the mountains I assume,

but what does it take to, you know, just to let it grow?

Mr. PEAY. Well, the——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You have about 6,000. Are they an indigent

species now? Are they an endangered species now?

Mr. PEAY. Not classified as such, but in Utah in 1972 there were

only 500 of those animals. Through management techniques that

are provided for in this bill, there’s now about 4,000 of these animals.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So I know Utah is famous for a hunting season, but do you allow hunting of this sheep at a certain time or a

certain number that can be hunted, like you would a deer?

Mr. PEAY. Very carefully regulated hunting, and just a quick example—a lady wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune, ‘‘Why would they

allow anyone to hunt bighorn in the San Rafael?’’ and the fact of

the matter is that hunting has generated about $500,000 to reintroduce the bighorn. Without hunters, we would not have bighorn

sheep in Utah.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If I were a hunter, how much would I pay

to shoot one bighorn?

Mr. PEAY. In the San Rafael area there are 13 permits available

to the citizens of America through a lottery draw at a cost of $500.

However, the State does sell one to the highest bidder, and in Reno

this year it sold for $52,000.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are you aware of any other form of animals

that are considered endangered in these wilderness areas that you

care about just as much as you are with bighorn sheep?

Mr. PEAY. As we say, there are plenty of animals and plenty of

causes. We’ve focused $1.6 million on bighorn sheep in Utah.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa should realize, let this become an endangered species and everything that

SUWA, this Committee, and everybody else is doing is moot. Immediately the whole area becomes an HCP and the whole ball game

is over anyway. So don’t let it become an endangered species.

Mr. Martin, let me quickly ask you something. How do you envision the heritage concept working, and do you agree with what the

administration has said? You have sat here and heard the——

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, I heard your testimony. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I

think that the confusion of the administration is that Heritage

Areas generally have a mix of high propensity of private sector, but

in the West of course that’s impossible.

Our Four Corners Heritage Council is mostly Federal land, and

we have sitting at the table the Federal partners that sit at the

table with appointees by the Governor and the local appointees;

and that arrangement works very well because there’s no power

taken away from the Federal agencies under this concept. It’s real54

ly an advisory process, and that advisory process I think works

very well.

So I think the structure of a Heritage Area can work very well,

even though there’s a high propensity of Federal lands. There is a

lot of private land in this Heritage Area, and that consultation

process I think strengthens from both sides.

A Heritage Area doesn’t take away, and I think it’s an important

point, it doesn’t take away the authority of the Federal Government, but it provides a consultation process which I think strengthens the management and the protection of the resources both on

private land and on the Federal lands associated with the idea.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for that answer.

We’ll take one more question from Congressman Cannon, and

we’ll excuse this panel and get to our last panel.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Owens, you mentioned this area as laced with

roads, but you are aware, of course, that there are many other RS

2477s rights-of-ways or claims of rights-of-ways in the area in

which are extinguished by this process. So, there is some tradeoff

here. Is that something that is of concern to you and to SUWA?

Mr. OWENS. Well, it’s a great concern as near as I can tell from

the red lines, although my reds and greens may be a little confused

at this distance, but it appears laced with roads even in the areas

that you call proposed wilderness, the 400,000 acres that you call

wilderness.

And of course it’s of concern that there are a lot of RS 2477 ways

which threaten the wilderness status, and I am willing to look at

and talk with you and staff about whether there is a decent tradeoff here. It doesn’t appear at first glance, Mr. Congressman, that

it is a fair tradeoff. That’s what I am commenting on.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York has one final question.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think that it’s

quite clear that the bill does afford various levels of protection, but

I think that protection of course is a relative word. And there can

be higher levels of protection and lower levels of protection, and

one of the things that I am concerned about is the issue of roads

which has just come up.

We heard earlier testimony today which indicated that some

roads are designated that may not be roads even. The bottom of

stream beds are considered as roads. So protection is a relative

thing, and I think that the introduction of roads, particularly

where they may not even be, just opens this up for a lot of criticism

that otherwise might not be there.

The one thing that mystifies me about the sheep question is this:

We are reintroducing sheep into this area, is that correct?

Mr. PEAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINCHEY. And that, of course, assumes that the sheep were

able to live there before, and I wonder why we need these guzzlers

now to provide water in an area where the sheep were able to survive before on assumably the water that was there.

Mr. PEAY. It’s for distribution purposes. It’s very clear in Nevada

and other States, where they have put in guzzlers, wildlife populations have been able to expand to a greater extent than they

were, say, 100 years ago.
55

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted to followup with a question to

Mr. Owens again. I guess I would call you ‘‘Mr. Wilderness,’’ since

your introduction of H.R. 1500 has caused a lot of discussion about

this.

Mr. OWENS. Please be aware that’s not a good name in parts of

Utah.

[Laughter.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I say it in——

Mr. OWENS. I wear it proudly.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I say it with the most respectful consideration in what you honestly believed, what you considered to be in

the best interest of your State and your constituents. And I wanted

to ask, in retrospect, in terms of the several versions that have

been proposed for the past several years since your introduction of

H.R. 1500, do you honestly believe that we can work something out

with the current proposal now before the Subcommittee?

Mr. OWENS. No.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In areas that we can identify——

Mr. OWENS. I fear that resolution of the wilderness issue is

many, many years away, simply because of the polarity of the issue

and the lack of support for it in any of the political structure of

Utah, or almost any of it, for any substantive preservation of wilderness.

So the answer is, I am willing to talk, anxious to work, but I am

very dubious, must be pessimistic with you about it. Wilderness, as

the gentleman knows, is the highest degree of protection because

only Congress can invade a wilderness. Not primitive areas, not

any other areas, have that degree and that body of law supporting

the method in which it is in fact protected. Therefore, wilderness

is a final status or at least semi-final status, and that’s really what

makes it such a difficult issue for the people of Utah. They are ambivalent at best about how much of it should be preserved in wilderness status, but polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of

Utahns want a very substantial portion of Utah preserved in wilderness. So the great polarity between political structure office

holders and the people is such that I think it’s a long distance

away, the resolution of this issue.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HANSEN. I would respectfully disagree with my friend on the

idea of what the highest degree of protection is. You don’t run cattle in parks. You can’t hunt in parks. Some primitive areas are

probably more protected than others. That’s where we get a little

nit-picky there but——

Mr. OWENS. It makes me very nervous to be in disagreement

with the chairman, of course. We very seldom have been, but on

that one I would respectfully disagree.

Mr. HANSEN. I thought we both had agreed that we both voted

for a gold medal for Queen Beatrix.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OWENS. Boy, I had forgotten that vote, Mr. Chairman.
56

Mr. HANSEN. I am sure you had forgotten about that one vote we

agreed on. I have great respect for my former colleague. He’s a very

intelligent man and a very good leader. With that, we’ll dismiss,

and, Wayne, hope you make your plane.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. We’ll now turn to our last panel: Bill Meadows,

president of the Wilderness Society, and it’s always nice to have

Mr. Meadows with us. He always gives us very thoughtful, wellreasoned testimony. And Mr. Wesley R. Curtis, director of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Office.

Good to see both of you gentlemen.

Mr. Meadows, it’s always nice to have you in front of us. We’ll

start with you, sir, and give you 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF BILL MEADOWS, PRESIDENT, THE

WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bill Meadows,

president of the Wilderness Society, and it’s a pleasure to be here

with you today to discuss protection of our Nation’s wilderness.

I am also pleased to be here with former Representative Wayne

Owens, a Utah native who loves the State, its public land, resources and wild lands. I enjoyed hearing his testimony and hope

that mine will complement his.

I would like to focus my remarks on H.R. 3625’s national implications and highlight key comparisons between this bill and Representative Cannon’s earlier bill, H.R. 1952. I believe that such

comparisons will best explain the concerns of the Wilderness Society.

In my written testimony I describe many ways in which H.R.

3625 is an improvement over H.R. 1952, but, first, I would like to

acknowledge the work of many in Emery, Carbon, and Sanpete

Counties, especially the county commissioners of Emery County

who have sought to address the important issues before us, as well

as the efforts of Representative Cannon and Governor Leavitt.

I was particularly pleased that Governor Leavitt was able to join

the Wilderness Society at its governing council meeting in Springdale, Utah, this past fall, as was Representative Morris Hinchey.

We had a good discussion on Utah wilderness in that context.

I also want to express the willingness of the Wilderness Society

to sit down and work with anyone committed to a sound solution

of wilderness issues in Utah.

Our concerns with the scope of H.R. 3625 are threefold: First, it

does not address the full range of wilderness quality lands in Utah,

as it makes wilderness designations in only two counties.

Second, even those counties in which wilderness designations are

made, H.R. 3625 actually reduces the protection that wilderness resources currently receive, by eliminating Wilderness Study Areas’

protection for over 140,000 acres. These former WSAs will no

longer be managed to protect their wilderness values. As a result,

these lands may be lost to development activities, including road

construction and ORV use.

Third, H.R. 3625 only protects some 40 percent of the wilderness

designations contained in H.R. 1500.
57

The Wilderness Society is very concerned by the wilderness management provisions of both these bills, Representative Cannon’s

earlier bills, H.R. 1952 and H.R. 3625. Both those contained nonstandard and damaging wilderness management language affecting

a variety of management issues. Such exceptions to standard wilderness management set a dangerous precedent for future wilderness legislation nationally.

These damaging wilderness exceptions include provisions related

to reserved wilderness water rights and water development. In the

arid West, wilderness areas must be protected by the provision of

water for their streams and other water resource lifelines. Yet the

water rights provisions of both, H.R. 3625 and H.R. 1952, expressly

deny Congressional reservation of the water rights sufficient to

sustain these magnificent desert lands.

In recent years Congress has enacted wilderness legislation for

Arizona and California. In each of these bills, Congress reserved a

quantity of water sufficient to maintain the integrity of the wilderness ecosystem. These statutes balance the need of water right

holders with that of wilderness users and wildlife. H.R. 3625 does

not.

Additionally, H.R. 3625 appears to allow almost unlimited expansion of existing water developments, without any regard for the impact of such expanded developments on wilderness resources.

A second concern, other road and motorized use issues. Road development and vehicular use constitutes one of the largest threats

to wilderness resources in the West; yet H.R. 3625 appears to

threaten serious road and vehicular damage to wilderness lands

through provisions related to ‘‘fish and wildlife management.’’ Native American cultural, grazing and valid existing rights are all

problems. Each of these sections breaks with existing precedence

for protection of Federal wilderness areas.

Finally, with respect to wilderness management, we must note

ways in which H.R. 3625 is worse than H.R. 1952; for example, in

its treatment of the so-called valid existing rights and RS 2477

road claims. One of the most distressing aspects of H.R. 3625 is the

control it gives to local interest over Federal land management.

We are concerned that H.R. 3625 extends a new cooperation requirement to manage wilderness resources, to manage bighorn

sheep management areas within the conservation area, and to

manage semi-primitive non-motorized areas within the core conservation areas. Local governments and interests have a legitimate

stake in Federal land management. It is not appropriate to cede

management authority of Federal lands to local interests in the

manner proposed by H.R. 3625.

To summarize, Mr. Chairman, we must oppose H.R. 3625 because we believe that it provides wilderness designation for inadequate acreage, threatens wilderness resources in Utah and on

other BLM lands, and it releases lands currently protected as Wilderness Study Areas to management practices that may in fact degrade the wilderness values, makes non-wilderness Federal land

designations that do not adequately protect these special areas and

their wilderness resources, and it threatens to cede an inappropriate level of control over Federal, national lands, and wilderness

management to local governments and interests.
58

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meadows may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.

Mr. Curtis, we’ll recognize you, sir, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF WES CURTIS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR’S RURAL

PARTNERSHIP OFFICE, STATE OF UTAH

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I point out that I will be

speaking primarily today as a member of the Emery County Public

Lands Council. I am a lifelong resident of Emery County and member of that council. It’s been pointed out today, and we appreciate

this fact, that this is a very creative, innovative proposal we have

before you.

I think there’s another remarkable thing about this proposal that

needs to be mentioned. It was created without the help of a single

attorney. We may have overlooked a few little wrinkles because we

don’t have that legal expertise, but I hope, as Congressman Cannon

suggested in the beginning, that this testimony serves as a dialogue to work out some of these things because I think if we really

look at what’s being said here and what the motivations supposedly

are for both sides, we are much closer than perhaps we realize.

Let me just hit a couple of points, deviating from the written testimony which I have submitted. First of all, regarding the involvement and the inclusion of others, I don’t want to belabor this but

the involvement of many stakeholders and environmental groups

and others is well documented in this article in the packet submitted by Commissioner Petersen. I also point out the Bureau of

Lands Management has been participating with Emery County

though a Memorandum of Understanding for the past two years

and has worked hand in hand with the development of this proposal.

I also would like to make a brief comment regarding water. For

those who are concerned about a Federal water right on the San

Rafael River, even if such a water right were granted and preempted State law in doing so, all it would likely be is a junior right

on an over-appropriated river. We are proud to tell everybody here

that the San Rafael River is one of only two rivers in the State of

Utah that already a designated in-stream flow in place. We are

concerned about the water needs of these wilderness areas.

And let me just say then that this bill is indeed environmentally

sound. It’s been carefully crafted to provide every needful protection to these lands because we knew it would have to withstand intense scrutiny. We’ve heard it said that this is an anti—it’s not a

wilderness bill; it’s a wilderness development bill.

We take that really as an affront because we are sensitive to

these lands. We have a connection to these lands that goes beyond

those who don’t live there. There’s been a lot said about that these

lands reduce protection when we withdraw Wilderness Study

Areas. I would suggest that we’re not reducing protection; we’re expanding protection on these lands.

Wilderness proposals to this point, regardless of their acreages,

I believe have an inherent weakness. They are one-dimensional in

their focus. They offer slice-and-dice protections for isolated tracts
59

of lands, but they don’t preserve the integrity of the whole. They

focus on lands and acres, not on ecosystems. This bill that we have

before you is a wilderness bill and a whole lot more. It goes beyond

wilderness.

This is the only proposal from any quarter that protects the entire San Rafael Swell. It protects the environment and the integrity

of an entire ecosystem. This is the only proposal ever made that

withdraws threats of oil drilling, mining and timbering from the

entire San Rafael Swell, which I might add is a remarkable concession for a rural county with an economy based on mineral extraction.

We’ve already talked about special protections and the needs for

those regarding desert bighorn sheep. This bill is a protection

measure in every sense of the word, and I think it’s important,

above all, that we point out that those who have spoken for and

against this proposal really share much common ground and a common interest.

We desire indeed to protect these lands and feel that we can do

so. If there are some things we need to tweak or adjust with this,

we’re more than willing—we have always extended an open invitation for anyone to participate.

In closing, let me just make one more comment that has been

about something that has been accomplished through this process

that no bill has been able to accomplish to this point, and it’s an

important lesson that we have learned. As we have proceeded

through this process, which has been locally driven and locally initiated, we have learned a lot in engaging with other interests and

stakeholders in the San Rafael Swell; but because it’s been a locally initiated process there’s a side benefit attached to this: It has

led to local buy-in, local ownership and local pride in this proposal.

The local residents now are part of the solution, not part of the

problem. They are now becoming the public eyes and ears, watching out for abuses on these lands. This is a remarkable and positive

shift in attitude from what we have seen in the past. When we

began our processes of talking with other groups, we entered those

processes with a great deal of suspicion and feelings of mistrust regarding other parties.

We have learned that there is a lot of common ground. We invite

the wilderness advocates and groups, if they feel these feelings of

mistrust as we have, let’s sit down and work these out. I think this

is very possible and very doable, and in the process we can come

up with something that’s better than anything that’s been on the

table to this point.

What we have here is a chance to tailor something that can be

a perfect fit for these lands. This proposal is not something that

was done from afar. It fits the realities of the land. It was done by

people who understand the lands; who are close to them; who see

its nuances, its intricacies. We invite others to help us improve this

process if needful, but, Mr. Chairman, I think you have before you

here is a remarkable proposal, and I certainly urge you to move it

through the process and create the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Areas.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis may be found at end of

hearing.]
60

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.

The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think from what Mr. Curtis has just stated to the members of

the Subcommittee, I think while there are disagreements, but at

least it is a starting point, and I, for one, also don’t necessarily look

at the polls as a means of saying where the will of the people of

Utah stand on issues, depending on who is writing the polls and

what questions are raised and how you take the poll.

But I wanted to ask Mr. Curtis what his thinking is on the opinion expressed earlier by Mr. Owens, as he had expressed an earlier

opinion that he thinks that the people of Utah may not accept the

current proposal.

Mr. CURTIS. I sincerely believe, and I don’t say this just to support our own case, I think the people of Utah want to see these

issues resolved, and they see this as a very prudent and wise proposal. And in fact just this past Saturday the Salt Lake Tribune,

which tends to be the liberal-leaning paper in the State of Utah,

came out with an editorial that is very much in support of what

we are doing with this proposal.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I assume, Mr. Meadows, you have been

working closely with Congressman Cannon’s office in trying to have

some input on behalf of the Wilderness Society and some of the

provisions that have been proposed?

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, actually, Mr. Congressman, we were not

aware of the legislation in any detail until it was—we received a

draft of it several weeks ago. Now we’ve not been involved in the

discussions at all.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You indicated earlier some of the similar expressions of concern that Mr. Shea of the Bureau of Land Management had expressed earlier. What do you consider to be the biggest

priority of the problem or concern that the Wilderness Society has

with this legislation?

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I think the main thing is the distinction we

have on this question of protection, and we believe we are losing

protection by looking at this in this various level of management

prescriptions; and we are going to lose wilderness protection in the

course of adopting that.

I was actually very concerned with Senator Bennett’s testimony

this morning when he talked about this particular legislation serving as a road map for future wilderness.

Well, that’s exactly what we are concerned about, is that this is

in fact a road map, and if in fact we’re going to have more roads,

more off-road vehicles, in these places than we’ve had before, that

gives us great pause.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The comparisons that were made in one of

the fact sheets that was given to us—as you know, Mr. Owens’ proposed bill requested 1.1 million acres for wilderness as opposed to

the current bill’s proposal for 407,471 acres.

You are familiar with these counties where these two areas are

situated?

Mr. MEADOWS. I have not been to either of these counties. Our

members are, and our board members have been there many, many
61

times. We have literally thousands of members in Utah, and

250,000 members, many of whom have spent considerable time in

Utah. So I represent their interest as well.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am not one for expertise in this area, but

there’s approximately a difference of about 600,000 acres from

what the proposed bill provides, even less than what the BLM is

recommending.

You are probably familiar with the fact that the chairman did introduce the bill a couple of years ago, and we held hearings on this

issue, and that the BLM has been prodded to get moving to do

some form of agreement with the parties at hand, and it seems

that we are right back to square one again.

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you know, one of the issues is that we don’t

have as much information as we need. One of the things that concerns me right now about this legislation is even those who are

proposing it and who are endorsing it and speaking in favor of it,

talk about it as a work in progress. It’s something that we need to

do more work with. We need to bring more people into the discussion. We need to do more research.

Well, let’s not advance this piece of legislation prematurely. Let

the Bureau of Land Management complete their reinventory. Let

us learn more about the places. Let those wilderness advocates

that we’re working with very closely, who are on the ground dayin and day-out, actually try to document whether we have roads or

ways or to try to take pictures of these places in dispute under the

RS 2477 controversies. Let us go through that process and understand what is wilderness and what is not.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There are currently two management plans,

and I think the Bureau of Land Management is currently making

the study. If you are aware of this, do you know how many years

they’ve been doing these management studies?

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, they were suspended from doing the reinventory just recently, and so they’ve been on hold. There’s opportunity I think to re-institute that. We have to wait to see how the

court eventually finds what happens in the judicial process.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5

minutes.

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

Our concern here, of course, is with the Federal lands, the publicly owned land, the lands that are held in trust essentially by the

Congress and their agents for all the people of the country. And

one of the provisions of the bill that concerns me, and I wonder

what you would think about this, Mr. Meadows, is the seemingly

inordinate control over Federal lands that is turned over to local

decisionmakers. And so the Federal lands would no longer be controlled by Federal agencies, but they would be controlled to a large

extent by local designees in some way. Could you comment on that?

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, I think the language here is instructive. We

begin to talk in this bill about cooperation, that the BLM will cooperate with the local councils rather than consult, which is the

standard. We are very concerned that the national interests, which

I am trying to represent, that the members of the Wilderness Society or the Sierra Club or other organizations that actually have
62

memberships from 50 States who are all interested in what happens on the national lands, as expressed here in Utah, are not

going to be given adequate opportunity to comment.

And the Federal agencies who have been charged with the good

management of those lands are ceding that responsibility to local

interests. Now we think there is a role and certainly we support

the idea of regional—of local, regional advisory councils. We think

those are appropriate so that local people who live near the land,

including our members who live in Emery County and Carbon

County, can have an opportunity to participate in that advisory

process.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, local advisory councils, I agree with you,

would be a good thing, but we don’t want to put the Federal Government in the role of an advisory council, advising local managers

over Federal land.

Mr. MEADOWS. They don’t need to be in the back seat. They need

to be in the front seat and driving the decisions with support from

those who can offer advice from the back seat, we think.

Mr. HINCHEY. One of the aspects of the Federal land, one of the

uses, legitimate uses, of these lands is grazing, and that grazing is,

of course, overseen by the Bureau of the Land Management, and

they do so in a way that is designed to ensure the integrity of the

land. But if you take the BLM out of that process and turn over

the grazing regulations to local authorities, then you are going to

have a different criteria for management, it would seem to me.

Mr. MEADOWS. I think that’s true, although I have to, quite honestly, say we have conflict with the Bureau of Land Management

over grazing issues as well. In fact, the first time I met with Director Shea, he asked me with whom do we have—the Wilderness Society—have the most conflict, and I said, ‘‘Well’’—I knew he was

asking the grazing, ranching community, mining—I said ‘‘Well, do

you mean other than the Bureau of Land Management?’’

So we do have conflict over the way our Federal agencies manage

the land, too, but we find that there is a standard that we can hold

them to. We can at least go talk with the local manager and hold

them to a standard, and we’re concerned about having that kind

of—it’s not just the local control; it’s that you’ll get different standards in different places, and we’ll have, I think, a fragmented management policy for Federal lands.

Mr. HINCHEY. What does the legislation do with regard to water

management? There are some aspects here that seem troubling

with regard to the possibility of expanded water development

issues in this region, if the provisions of this bill in that regard

were to go forward?

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you know, I think the bill is not written

carefully enough. There may be some way for us to—I was interested in Mr. Curtis’ comment about guarantee. Now that’s a plus,

and I’d be glad to talk more about that, but we are concerned that

it is sort of unlimited. There is not a restriction here. We are concerned there is an open door for just an overdevelopment of water

resources within the region.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you.

Mr. Curtis, I listened to your testimony very carefully and I’d

agree that in many ways this moves the debate forward. It keeps
63

our attention focused on the issue, and it has some creative aspects

to it, this particular legislation.

One of the things that you talked about in your testimony was

a need to protect ecological systems and ecological regions, but I

find in this bill that we would do something quite different than

that in that areas are divided along political lines rather than in

the context of ecological systems. And, indeed, I even see the canyons are cut in half and natural areas are divided in unnatural

ways.

How do we reconcile the fact of the bill and the Acts that it

would perpetrate with the idea of protecting the ecological systems?

Mr. CURTIS. I appreciate the chance to respond to that. The only

place in question where we are dividing, as you suggest, on political boundaries, is in what we call the Book Cliffs Desolation Canyon area, which is in the top righthand corner of the map there.

The reason we have done that in this particular case is because

Carbon and Emery Counties really can’t dictate what’s going to

happen in the neighboring county, which is Grand County. However, in our minds, we feel that this is a very good step toward

pressuring them to join with us in the process.

We more than welcome the addition of the rest of the lands designated in that WSA as being included with that package, and

whether it be done in this bill or in a separate bill, it doesn’t matter to us, but we feel those lands are certainly worthy of wilderness

designation and would encourage the whole package to be brought

into it. We have no problem with that.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I thank you very much for that, and that

clarifies something in my mind, but it also raises other questions,

and they are that this again points out a weakness of the particular legislation, in that it seeks to deal with an ecological problem from the point of view of political boundaries, and the limitation at the end of a county line, you know, just isn’t going to work,

unfortunately.

And when you try to have legislation that is designed to work

within the confines of political boundaries, you obstruct your objective; and it may be that in the future if this legislation were to

pass, it may be in the future that we might be able to interest an

adjacent county into joining in or into participating in a meaningful

way, but I don’t know that that’s true, and I wonder about the need

or the efficacy, the value, of proceeding in this way that limits our

ability to deal with ecological systems based upon arbitrary political boundaries.

Mr. CURTIS. What we are really focusing on, and the heart of the

issue here is, the San Rafael Swell itself, which is indeed almost

a self-contained ecosystem. Because of the geology, it is surrounded

by ledges and cliffs that make it stand out unique and on its own,

and that is really what we are referring to when we talk about an

entire ecosystem.

And this is the only proposal that does that. It not only protects

the lands but also protects the wildlife. It protects the habitat, and

I guess the question I would really like to pose, actually a couple

of questions, with regard to this entire proposal: In what way does

this proposal fail to protect the resources of the San Rafael Swell,

and what specific threats to these lands have we failed to address?
64

And if we can get clear, specific to those questions, we’d first to

deal with those, but we think we’ve covered those bases.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I appreciate the openness with which you approach that, and I think that there are some clear examples of failures to protect important resources in the legislation; and I think

that we would all welcome to point those out to you as we move

forward.

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I thank the

gentleman from New York.

Mr. Curtis, how do you respond to Mr. Owens’ and Mr. Meadows’

assertions regarding water rights?

Mr. CURTIS. Well, as I indicated earlier, I think there’s an implication here that there ought to be some type of Federal legislation

that preempts State water law, and I don’t think that’s a battle you

want to get into, but with regards to water rights themselves, we

have long said that even with the Federal water right there, all it

would be is a paper water right. It wouldn’t necessarily have water

attached to it because the stream is over-appropriated.

We have an agreement on the San Rafael in place right now that

was worked out though Utah Power and Light with actually a designation established by the Division of Wildlife Resources that

guarantees an in-stream flow on the San Rafael River. And these

are the types of approaches that we think are much more meaningful, to actually provide water, not rights.

Mr. HANSEN. How do you respond to the idea regarding increase

or decrease of off-road vehicles? Mr. Meadows made a big point

that it would increase off-road vehicles.

Mr. CURTIS. I can tell you, from our perspective and the way that

we have conceived this and believe this in our minds, that we are

very concerned about off-road vehicles. It’s a concern our local public has, and in our minds what we have put together here addresses that issue. The wilderness areas and the semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas you see up there do not allow vehicular access.

And, in fact, the resource management plan that is in place right

now on the San Rafael Swell does not allow vehicles to go off from

designated roads and trails. We view the semi-primitive and the

Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area as being essentially managed for their wild qualities and being very similar to wilderness

designation, as you pointed out earlier.

Mr. HANSEN. For some reason, if people say it’s wilderness, it’s

all right. What we should do is call all these things ‘‘wilderness’’

and do what you want on them anyway, because they get more protection. There’s some mystique out there that the term ‘‘wilderness’’

gives great protection, you saw from our former colleague Congressman Owens. Actually, primitive areas, as they used to be designated in the 1930’s, get more protection than wilderness.

Mr. CURTIS. And could I add to that, Mr. Chairman? We asked

the regional manager, the district manager of the BLM there, what

it would take to really enforce wilderness on the San Rafael Swell,

and he said it would require the United States Army. There are too

many points of entry and access.

However, as I mentioned earlier, we’re seeing something very

significant happen here, and this is important to note. Our local

people are buying into what we’re doing here, and they’re starting
65

to change their attitudes dramatically. In fact, he indicated to us

just last week, the director of the area there for the BLM, that

abuse has declined quite a bit in the past year.

And, in fact, the local off-road vehicle club has gone out and reclaimed some of these areas where vehicles should not have been.

They have put up signs saying that people should not ride their vehicles there. They’re reseeded and revegetated those areas. It’s a

whole different attitude, and that’s what can come by working together on these types of processes.

Mr. HANSEN. It kind of goes to the area that you hear a lot of

environmental groups say that, once this ground is gone, it is all

that’s lost. That’s poppycock. I can show you areas all over America, and I would like to start with Promissary Ridge in Wyoming

which was loaded with people and now has been reclaimed due to

the efforts of Dick Cheney, and I supported—I carried the bill on

the floor—totally reclaimed. I can show you areas around the

Gunison in Colorado—totally reclaimed. I can show you areas in

the California Desert Protection Act—totally reclaimed. And all of

you who are rolling your eyes, I would be more than happy to take

you and show you those areas because it just happens to be fact.

I strongly disagree with Mr. Meadows on one thing, that only the

Federal Government can manage the land. It’s not true at all. I

hope I am not putting words in your mouth, Mr. Meadows. That’s

what I thought I heard you say. I used to be speaker of the Utah

House, and we did exhaustive studies with what the State did compared to the Federal Government.

Now you take our western States—there’s an imaginary line nobody can see, and one side is Federal and one side is State. We did

a study—the Utah State University did for us when I was Speaker

of the House—saying who managed the land the best—for the best

use, taking care of it, help, all that type of thing. By far, the State

of Utah did a better job. The kicker was this: On State lands BLM

cost us 75 cents an acre in those days and Utah cost us 23 cents

an acre. So, I don’t know where this idea comes from that all

wealth, wisdom, knowledge emanates from here. It’s not true.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that we have conflicts

with the Bureau of Land Management. We obviously have conflict

with the Forest Service and other land management agencies at

the Federal level frequently. I can take you to places where private

lands are better managed than State lands, or State lands better

managed than public—than Federal lands. But I can also do the

reverse.

I think there’s a lot of inconsistency. We can talk about anecdotes, but the concern that we have, the base concern we have, is

that these are Federal, national lands; and our Federal agencies

need to take the responsibility for managing those appropriately.

You and I together need to force them to do that well.

Mr. HANSEN. I don’t disagree with that, Mr. Meadows. I’ll agree

with that statement, and I could show you in forests, because I

used to chair the Committee on Forests and Forest Health, the majority of private ground, owned privately, is in better shape than

the public ground. And the guy who would come in and testify is

Dr. Patrick Moore, the president of Greenpeace, who will come in

here and say, if you really want to see, it was managed there.
66

Now if I have a bone to pick with you folks—I really don’t—it

would be this: You folks always come in, as my friend, Mr. Hinchey

does, and say, ‘‘It’s public land. It’s owned by all of us.’’ I don’t disagree with that. What I do disagree is this: Because it’s public

ground, we sit there—say Kane County, Emery County, Garfield

County, specifically in the State of Utah. Now Garfield County is

90-something percent owned by the Federal Government. I imagine

Emery County is pretty high—92 percent owned by the Federal

Government. So, hey, we all own that ground. Well, then, why

don’t you pay your share? I would think that SUWA, the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the National Conservancy Area would be up here demanding that Congress pay

their share.

These guys are sitting there, and they have a fire caused by

somebody in the East who carelessly does something; they got to

go out and fight it. They have debris just strung all over the place;

they’ve got to clean it up. They have some guy go up on a mountain

and break his leg because he doesn’t know better; they send an ambulance out to take care of them. So they are sitting there and

their tax base is zero almost.

I mean the tax base of Garfield County—two Congressmen’s salaries is more than that—and they are sitting there trying to take

care of all that area, and my good friend, Pat Williams, a good

Democrat from Montana, and I raised the amount five times to

what it was, payment in lieu of taxes, and Congress won’t—and basically when it was controlled by the Democrats would never do it.

We are getting a little more out of the Republicans as far as coming up with money to pay their share of the ground.

And in any business deal, if I owned a share, I ended up paying

my share. I would hope to see you people put your money where

your mouth is, and I say that respectfully, Mr. Meadows, and come

out and help us out on some of those areas, so we can take better

care of the ground.

Mr. MEADOWS. Absolutely. And let me just comment on that

briefly. I just paid my taxes last week, just as you did. A portion

of that I hope is going to protect our lands and manage those lands

appropriately. The Wilderness Society is part of a public lands

funding initiative, 140 organizations, pushing Congress and the administration to put more money into the budgets for Bureau of

Land Management, the National Park Service, Forest Service, and

the Fish and Wildlife Service, to manage the lands that we own

more effectively.

We have been niggardly in our approach to funding those agencies and that’s why the local government are feeling pressed. We

do have an obligation as the National government to fund those

agencies appropriately to manage those lands.

Mr. HANSEN. I would agree with that, and I think that’s laudatory, what you are doing, but we got one now that just doesn’t urge

it; it’s on the books; it’s authorized; it has been paid. I would hope

that everyone of your groups would come on and say, ‘‘Come on,

you guys are always bellyaching about it. Put your money where

your mouth is, and give some of that payment in lieu of taxes,’’ and

you’ll get a lot better care of your land.
67

These county commissioners have to sit there and say ‘‘What are

we going to get this time? These guys want us to do all this work.

They want us to clean this up. They want us to take care of it.

They want to do all these things. All these eastern and western

guys come and play on it; yet, they won’t pay their share.’’

And if you are a county commissioner like these poor guys have

to be and sit here and take that crap all the time from this, you

would see they get really uptight. Every time I go visit our 29

counties and say, ‘‘Why don’t they put their money where their

mouth is?,’’ they want to tell us how to run it and they say ‘‘Oh,

yeah, we’ve got payment in lieu of taxes.’’

‘‘However, you are supposed to get about a quarter an acre. We

are going to give you 3 cents an acre this time. Yes, we are going

to screw it up. We are going in there. We are going to cause fires.

We are going to mess it up and all that type of thing,’’ but they

don’t put their money in. I get a little exercised over that.

Mr. MEADOWS. Well——

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Meadows, just respond and we’ll go to the other

gentleman here.

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s exactly the kind of place where the Wilderness Society and the county commissioners from Emery County

and this Subcommittee and someone from the Budget Committee

perhaps, subcommittee, or Interior, could sit and talk out a solution, and we are eager to talk about those issues because I think

that’s where we can make a difference.

Mr. HANSEN. I am looking forward to the resolution from the

Wilderness Society, from SUWA, Sierra Club and others saying,

‘‘Why doesn’t the government pay their share?’’ Now that would be

a very worthwhile thing for you folks to get involved in.

The gentleman from New York.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I very much

respect and agree with your advocacy on behalf of local people with

regard to the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay its

fair share on these Federal lands. And I just want to point out that

you were absolutely correct in recognizing the leadership of Pat

Williams on that and that I supported him and others supported

him in that initiative.

We very much agree that these are Federal lands, and the Federal Government has a responsibility, and we very much support

increases in those budgets that were mentioned by Mr. Meadows

just a few moments ago, and also the need to increase the payment

in lieu of taxes for these lands. I very much support you on that.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I am looking forward to all your support

when that appropriation bill comes up and all the good things that

Mr. Meadows’ group is going to say about it.

Thank you so much. We’ll adjourn and this will end this hearing,

and thanks to everyone for coming.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 a.m., the Committee adjourned subject to

the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
68

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DMITRICH,

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, it is with great pleasure that I address you today, not simply because I do not get to address

such an august body often, but because I am addressing you on an issue of great

importance not only to my constituents but to all of the American people. In Emery County, a county bigger than some New England states, lies one of the last great undiscovered national treasures, the San Rafael Swell. The cliffs were the

shores of long vanished oceans. at every turn there are the signs of the ancient Jurassic era, through the swell passes the old Spanish Trail and cowboys can still be

seen working, it is an area rich in biodiversity both plant and animal, however, like

many areas in the west, it is rich not only in beauty, but mineral wealth, grazing

potential, and other uses which make human life possible.

For decades, the various user groups have been, almost literally, at war. Many

groups, on all sides, have staked out extreme positions over which they have declared ‘‘No compromise, no surrender,’’ ‘‘No quarter asked, none given.’’ The result

has been an area in managerial confusion, such a situation is extremely difficult for

local elected officials and local area resource managers from the state and Federal

agencies.

However, not all voices have been strident and unyielding. Environmentalists, resource people and recreation groups, from both in and out of the area, have spent

literally thousands of hours forging a plan to manage the San Rafael resource area

in a sensible and thoughtful way. You have before you H.R. 3625, which is the legislative embodiment of that effort and an emblem of their dedication to reason and

compromise. It is a commitment from both the citizens of Carbon and Emery counties, and those who don’t live there but who love these lands, to care for them and

to use them responsibly now and forever.

There are those who can, and will, cite the specifics better than I, however, let

me state that H.R. 3625 will create a 630,000 acre national conservation area from

which industrial development will be banned but in which conventional tourism and

livestock will be allowed. In addition, over 300,000 acres will be placed in wilderness

or primitive designations.

Again, I will leave the real details to others, but what I want to do is give you

some reasons to vote for this proposal and not a blanket wilderness designation. For

those whose constituencies lie east of the 100th meridian, voting for wilderness always seems a safe and popular vote. However, as all of us who answer to the voters

know, what appears popular today can turn to voter resentment and anger tomorrow. If you enact, as some would have you do, a simple blanket wilderness designation for the San Rafael, the law of unintended consequences may begin to work with

a vengeance.

First of all, since wilderness precludes most kinds of game management techniques, such as providing salt or water bubblers, you may be causing grave harm

the just reemerging big horn sheep herd. You still hear testimony on that later. It

goes against our intuition, but some of these species cannot any longer survive without man’s intervention. the game managers support this proposal.

Often, wilderness precludes most kinds of archeological work which would be

criminal in this area so rich in Native American history. It may also mandate the

destruction of some historical sites because they are the works of ‘‘the hand of man.’’

Furthermore, since the only allowed means of travel in wilderness areas are foot

and horseback, many of the wonders of this area will be denied to your constituents

who are elderly or handicapped. Those people deserve access to the lands as well.

What might appear to be an easy vote has many land mines in it. In the end your

constituents will be grateful that you took the thoughtful approach and did what

is right for people and animals, for history and culture, and for their opportunities

to enjoy the land when they hopefully journey to my state senate district.

That said, let me state that I am not an opponent of wilderness designation. Some

of the earlier proposals did have too little wilderness. there must be pristine and

quite places in this ever more hectic world where a person can enjoy nature as God

created it. Please note that an area larger than Rhode Island has been excluded

from mineral development. I am happy to say that there are several wilderness designations as part of this overall plan, but these are designations thoughtfully done

rather than done as a part of a cynical numbers game. These areas contain the type

of scenic wonders the original sponsors of the 1964 Wilderness Act had in mind.

Besides, I have great sympathies with endangered species. I am a rural Utah

Democrat. Nonetheless, I have survived to become the senior person in the Utah

legislature. I can tell you, this battle has been going on during the greater part of

my 30 years of service. It is time for this battle to end. It is time to finally say no

to the narrow interests and say yes to the vast majority of Americans who know
69

in their hearts that there is room for us all. It is time to do the right thing—instead

of the easy thing—for the wildlife, for the people of Emery County, Utah and all

of America. Thank you for this opportunity and thank you, Chairman Hansen for

holding this hearing.

STATEMENT OF RANDY G. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER

Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on this important bill.

I have spent a great deal of time trying to think of what I might say to you that

has not been said before, and which might in some small way portray how important I believe this new approach to public lands management really is.

I believe that I should first let you know of my involvement in public lands matters so that you will understand my perspective on these issues.

I am Chairman of the Emery County Board of Commissioners. Emery County is

a county about the size of Connecticut which is 92 percent state or federally owned.

I am also Chairman of the Utah Association of Counties Public Lands Oversight

Committee, a member of the National Association of Counties Public Lands Steering

Committee, and Chairman of the Rural Public Lands County Council.

Lastly, I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Utah Lands Foundation,

the only resolution-oriented environmental organization in Utah.

Consequently, public lands issues consume a great amount of my time. I want you

to understand that I am excited to testify today, because I believe that what is before you is truly a landmark bill. H.R. 3625 has the potential to change the entire

field of discussion, and could lead us into an era of public lands problem-solving if

we are willing to let it.

The challenge will be in prying ourselves loose of the stalemate we have created.

As stated in an April 14, 1998 Deseret News editorial: ‘‘Perhaps a miracle—a big

one at that—would move key players off dead center, or, more accurately, from the

outer extremes. Beyond that, there doesn’t appear to be much hope of exorcising the

intransigence of wilderness advocates who are perfectly satisfied with the status

quo. Defacto wilderness is as sacrosanct as officially designated wilderness. There

is no incentive for wilds advocates at loggerheads with others to budge, which is

the root of the stalemate.’’

I am here today to ask you for that ‘‘big miracle.’’

I must also ask the question, if there is a general refusal to come to the table

and look for solutions, then what kind of future have we defined for ourselves? Isn’t

it time to re-evaluate our public lands management philosophy? I believe that we

must ask ourselves: What kind of a war have we created—and who benefits?

I assert to you that the Emery County Plan solves problems. It addresses the

needs of all stakeholders. It works for the best good of the land itself. And, most

importantly, it is a manageable plan. Surely this is a wonderful opportunity to move

away from the stalemate described so well by the Deseret News.

I think it is important for you to know that I consider myself an environmentalist.

But, I am not allowed to be one because I do not believe that we should make wilderness of every possible piece of land that we can force into some semblance of

qualification, ignoring man’s impacts while making a crime of historic uses.

Wilderness was meant to apply only to those exemplary lands which truly qualify.

It was never intended as a management tool for all public lands. Nor should it be.

Some environmentalists, in their eagerness to lock up the land, have made villains

of those who mined uranium and other resources when our nation had a great need

for those products, and have portrayed local elected officials as thugs and land barons. This is truly unfortunate, because the sustainability of those lands has been

critical to our use of the land since the 1800’s. This is evidenced by the fact that

the beauty and wonder of this area has been so well preserved over the years that

the entire nation is focused on it today.

This is at the heart of the Emery County bill. It is our firm belief that natural

history and human heritage are just as important and deserving of protection and

recognition as are slick rocks. We also believe that the current status of polarization

and acreage quotas is harmful—harmful to the land, harmful to the people who use

and enjoy the land, and harmful to the nation. Surely our beautiful lands deserve

more than junk science and exaggerated and manipulated statistics. Surely they deserve our best efforts. Certainly we are capable of prescribing a management philosophy that meets the needs of the land while assuring that we can also carefully

manage the resources which come from the lands.

We believe that Emery County has done just that. H.R. 3625 is the only proposal

that protects the entire San Rafael Swell. It is the only proposal that provides spe70

cific protection to one of Utah’s largest herds of Bighorn Sheep. It is the only proposal that has started from the land upward, drawing nearly all stakeholders to the

table. And, it is the only land management proposal that recognizes all the values

of the land and works for truly manageable preservation of those values.

The Emery County proposal is based on two principles:

(1) Man is not an intruder in his own world; and (2) Man is capable of protecting and preserving all the values of the land, while carefully utilizing the

basic and essential resources the land provides.

The National Heritage Area part of the plan addresses the wonderful blend of

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

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

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

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

American cultures throughout the Heritage Area, with many examples of their wonderful history preserved in rock art. Further, the heritage of the early settlers of

this harsh and unforgiving land is woven into the area, and is every much as deserving of protection and recognition as the rocks surrounding them. Such treasures

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

Rafael Swell as sand and wind and deep canyon draws.

The Heritage Area works to identify and protect these and other wonderful sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

pristine of the San Rafael lands.

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

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

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

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

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

The National Conservation Area works to preserve the more pristine areas of the

San Rafael in various levels of protection as dictated by the land. In more than

600,000 acres, the NCA not only includes huge tracts of wilderness designation, but

it goes well beyond wilderness in its protective layers. It recognizes the largest

Desert Bighorn Sheep herd in Utah and makes provisions to manage and protect

that wonderful resource. It also withdraws the entire San Rafael Swell from oil

drilling, timbering, and mining.

With our National Heritage/Conservation Area proposal, Emery County has created a protective blanket which actually fits the land, and works to recognize and

preserve all the wonderful qualities of that land.

Some environmentalists will say we have withdrawn protection from many acres.

What they really mean is that we are protecting those lands in ways other than

wilderness—ways that are just as permanent, just as effective, and in many cases,

much more protective than wilderness.

Another criticism of optional forms of protection is that wilderness is permanent,

others are not. But, Mr. Chairman, we are here before you to seek congressional

designation which would make this hybrid ecosystem management concept permanent, providing protection for the San Rafael Swell for many generations to come.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee——

if you say that the lands of the San Rafael need protecting, we say, ‘‘We

agree!’’

If you say that there needs to be a ‘‘wilderness experience’’ available to anyone who seeks it, we say, ‘‘We agree!’

if you say we should preserve some of our precious lands for future generations, we say, ‘‘We agree!’’

if you say there are some areas where no new roads should be built, and no

new mining should occur, we say, ‘‘We agree!’’

But——

if you say that wilderness is the only way to achieve these things, then we

say, ‘‘We do not agree.’’
71

We believe that we must reevaluate our public lands management philosophy. We

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

and who benefits from the continual contention.

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

Jefferson Memorial:

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

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

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

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

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

times. . . .’’

We ask you, once again, for that ‘‘Big miracle.’’ Let us move to a new, hybrid form

of manageable protection. Let us accomplish the purposes of the San Rafael Swell

National Heritage/Conservation Area.

I thank you.

STATEMENT OF KENT PETERSEN, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONER

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

I am a member of the Emery County Commission. I am pleased to be able to talk

to you about H.R. 3625, The San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area, National

Conservation Area.

Most of the people in Emery County live along the western side of the county between the mountains of the Wasatch Plateau on our west and the San Rafael Swell

to our east. Our homes and our farms are in the valleys, fed by the streams which

originate in the mountains. Our cattle spend their summers and get fat in these

mountains. The coal for the power plants which provide jobs for our people are in

these mountains. Even though much of our wealth comes from the mountains Our

Hearts are in the San Rafael Swell. It is where we go when we want to be alone,

and it is where we take our visitors when we want to show them something special.

When our people come home after they have been away for a while, the Swell is

always one of the first places they want to visit.

The San Rafael Swell is a land of scenic beauty, but it is much more than this.

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

throughout the world come from the Cleveland Lloyd Quarry operated by the BLM

on the northern edge of the Swell. Rock art, and other remnants of the early Native

Americans, abounds throughout the Swell. Butch Cassidy and the Robbers Roost

gang frequented the Swell and used it as a getaway route after more than one robbery. Cowboys have managed their livestock on the swell from the early 1870’s until

today. They also named most of the landmarks and places of interest. These are

only a part of the history and heritage we will be protecting and promoting with

the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area.

We know these are public lands belonging to the people of the United States. We

support the right of the people all around this country to be able to visit these lands,

and to have a say in the management of them. We feel very strongly, however, that

those of us who live next to these lands, and who have spent our lifetimes on or

near them, must have a large say in how these lands are managed.

Decisions and solutions dropped down from on high, without input from local citizens are very disruptive. They require a strong police presence to force people to

follow new rules which often make no sense. Solutions that are sensible, and have

a strong local support, police themselves.

This is a plan developed at the local level with strong consideration of national

interests. It will protect some very important lands. It will protect and manage the

wildlife who live on these lands. It will manage the people who visit and use these

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

lands home.

The citizens of Emery County have a long history of caring for the land. In the

late 1890’s and early 1900’s a person could tell the location, from the valley floor,

of the sheep and cattle herds on the mountains by the clouds of dust they kicked

up from the severely over grazed land. Large herds of cattle from the area, and from

outside the area, even from outside of the state, were grazing uncontrolledly on the

public lands. Local citizens petitioned the government for the establishment of the

Manti National Forest. Through cooperative efforts of the local ranchers and the

Forest Service the lands have recovered and are once again very productive.

In 1992 Project 2000, A Coalition for Utah’s Future, a broad based public interest organization, decided to try to resolve the Utah Wilderness issue. Emery
72

County volunteered to be the pilot county for this effort. We met with a widely diverse group of stakeholders to see if we could come to a consensus resolution.

The stakeholders included members of state and national environmental groups,

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

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

years. We did not reach a consensus resolution because in 1995 the debate changed

to focus on H.R. 1745, the Utah wilderness bill. The two sides became polarized and

it was impossible to work for consensus.

These discussions, however, provided the impetus for the development of H.R.

3625, The San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. They also led

to the formation of the Emery County Public Lands Council. It is a broad-based

group of local citizens who meet on a regular basis to discuss, and resolve, public

land issues. We have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU’s) with the BLM,

Forest Service, and State Agencies. We decided if we were going to have a say in

our destiny we would have to become proactive and seek workable solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

very similar visions for Sid’s Mountain, a key portion of the Desert Bighorn Sheep

Management Area in H.R. 3625. They differed only in the methods for accomplishing their vision. George, the environmentalist thought it should be made a part

of a large wilderness area. Montell said that it should always remain wild and that

its location would ensure that it would. H.R. 3625 will satisfy both their visions.

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

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

inside the boundary would be the most effective method for managing the San

Rafael Swell. The addition of the National Heritage Area will protect and manage

various heritage and historical sites within the NCA and throughout Carbon and

Emery Counties.

The National Conservation Area provides protection for 630,000 acres. Inside of

this area are wilderness areas, semi-primitive nonmotorized areas, an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) to protect the view from the Interstate 70, and

the Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area. There are also wilderness areas and

semi-primitive nonmotorized areas outside of the NCA in Carbon and Emery Counties.

The Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area provides protection for the sheep

while allowing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to use all the tools it needs

to keep the herd viable. The Desert Bighorn Sheep is very susceptible to disease,

and over population is the greatest threat to a herd. Careful management is necessary to keep the herd healthy. The management area will also provide for watchable wildlife areas, scientific study of the sheep, and educational opportunities for

the public.

The semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas provide the ideal management conditions

for several areas in the San Rafael Swell. They provide for wilderness recreation

and isolation away from the usual human activities while recognizing the existence

of man made features such as existing roads.

Most of the areas on the San Rafael Swell listed in H.R. 1500 are protected within

the NCA either as wilderness, or semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas. Additional

areas are protected within the NCA and as semi-primitive nonmotorized areas outside of the NCA boundaries. These designations protect the land while recognizing

valid existing rights.

The visual ACEC provides protection for the unique visual corridor along I-70, a

major transcontinental highway. Thousands of travelers drive across the San Rafael

Swell daily. Their view will be protected and we will develop methods for informing

them about what they are seeing.

I am sure that after careful study you will agree that H.R. 3625 is the ideal management tool for the San Rafael Swell and for all of Emery and Carbon Counties

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

in the west.

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

Hansen for holding this hearing.
73

STATEMENT OF BEVAN K. WILSON, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONER

Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee: I come before you today as an Emery County Commissioner and as a native son of Emery

County. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on a matter that is of vital importance to all of us.

During the debate on the 1996 Utah Wilderness Bill, Senator Bill Bradley raised a question that is central to my discussion today. Senator Bradley asked ‘‘How do

we achieve a balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America’s natural heritage

while providing opportunities for economic growth and development across our public lands?’’ That is a question that we in Emery County have been pondering for

over a decade.

The ten thousand citizens of Emery County live on tiny islands of private land

surrounded by a sea of public land. Nine of every ten acres are owned and controlled

by government, either Federal or state. These lands not only surround us; they sustain us. Water is our most limited and precious natural resource. Every drop of

water we use comes from public land. Ranching is our dominant agricultural enterprise. Much of the forage for our livestock comes from BLM or Forest Service land.

Emery County is the number-one coal producing county in Utah. Most of our coal

comes from Federal coal leases. Public land has always provided most of our recreational opportunities, and our growing tourism industry is inseparably tied to

those lands. Huntington native Edward Geary has written that these lands ‘‘. . . form

the proper edge of the sky.’’ In a very real sense these lands define our cultural and

economic horizons as well.

Public land issues have always been important to us, but they assumed a new

importance during the BLM wilderness inventory process. Hundreds of local citizens

attended public hearings and offered comments on the wilderness EIS. At about

that time Emery County developed an Economic Development Council and hired

Scott Truman as its first director. Much of Scott’s time was occupied with public

land issues. In the mid-eighties Scott and others proposed the creation of a National

Park on the San Rafael Swell. That concept was abandoned because of local opposition. Some viewed a National Park as a single-use designation that would not address other national and local needs. Others simply did not want to see that level

of tourism development on the Swell.

Since that time public land issues have occupied most of the County Commission’s

time. Others will detail the process that led to the introduction of H.R. 3625. Suffice

it to say, the Commissioners and Public Lands Council met with numerous stakeholder groups, listened to hours of testimony, held dozens of meetings, and considered every conceivable land protection strategy before developing our proposal. I

wish to make it clear that H.R. 3625 is our proposal. We are deeply indebted to the

Utah Congressional Delegation for helping us express our wishes in legislative language.

What does H.R. 3625 do? First, it protects public land. It bans mining, logging,

tar sands development and oil and gas exploration on approximately one million

acres. Some would have you believe that this bill somehow lessens existing protections. It does not. It protects lands now identified by the BLM as wilderness study

areas. It protects lands in the center of the San Rafael Swell that are not identified

as wilderness study areas. It provides specific protection to the Sids Mountain area,

which is home to one of Utah’s largest Bighorn Sheep herds.

Second, H.R. 3625 sets the stage for a tourist industry that respects the environment and local culture. It does this by blending a National Heritage Area with a

carefully selected mix of protective measures, including wilderness. Some paint tourism as the answer to all of Southern Utah’s environmental and economic problems,

and wilderness as the ultimate tourist attraction. I know something of tourism. For

ten years I operated a trading post on Route 66 in Flagstaff, Arizona. My customers

included native Hopis and Navajos, as well as tourists on route to the Grand Canyon, Sunset Crater, and the Petrified Forest. During those ten years I learned about

tourism’s seasonal booms and busts. The year was divided into ‘‘the season’’ and the

‘‘off season.’’ If you didn’t do well during ‘‘the season,’’ the ‘‘off-season’’ got mighty

long. I learned that the whole family had to work to make a living on tourism

wages. We all worked long hours to make ends meet. I learned about the need to

diversify. I was involved in the operation of a wholesale oil and gas distributorship,

a truck-stop and trading post. I bought and sold livestock. Additionally, I operated

a wholesale ice company, steak house and other businesses.

I have no doubt that tourism will assume a growing importance in Emery County’s economy. Emery County is relatively close to Utah’s population centers. A visitor from Salt Lake City can spend his entire vacation in Emery County without

even having to purchase fuel locally. If we base our tourism industry on traditional
74

‘‘windshield’’ tourism, we will have to attract a huge number of visitors, because per

capita spending will be so low. We don’t want to do that. That type of tourism would

severely impact our public lands and compromise our cherished rural lifestyle. We

hope to develop ‘‘value-added’’ tourism which will provide an enhanced experience

to a smaller number of visitors. A National Heritage Area is a natural fit for that

type of tourism. Protective designations such as the Bighorn Sheep Management

Area also provide opportunities for sustainable tourism.

The Bighorn Sheep Management Area was developed in cooperation with wildlife

managers and land managers primarily to protect the sheep and their habitat. The

Area also provides unique opportunities for visitors to view Bighorn Sheep. Wildlife

watching is a growing industry. In 1991, out-of-state visitors spent $983,000 on

wildlife-watching trips in Utah. By 1996, that figure had grown to $1.4 million. Recently, two Public Lands Council members were explaining this concept to a National Public Radio reporter, while traveling through the Buckhorn Draw. As if on

cue, a herd of thirteen bighorns moved out of a gully, up a cliff face, and paused

on top of a large boulder. The reporter was thrilled by his first encounter with bighorns in the wild. Guides and outfitters will be able to provide that experience to

others in perpetuity, if we adopt a plan that manages both lands and people. The

Bighorn Sheep Area is only one example of the sustainable, value-added tourism opportunities created by H.R. 3625.

I repeat Senator Bradley’s question: ‘‘How do we achieve a balanced, reasonable

plan for conserving America’s natural heritage while providing opportunities for economic growth and development across our public lands?’’ I believe that H.R. 3625

comes closer to answering that question than any proposal yet offered.

Emery County’s public lands and its culture are inseparably linked. Our lands

and culture have survived the rise and demise of free-range grazing. They have survived the uranium boom and bust. They have survived the roller coaster trend of

the coal economy. The question yet to be answered is, can they survive tourism and

the service-based economy of the New West? Our challenges are great. We believe

that H.R. 3625 will help us meet those challenges now and in the future.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you.

STATEMENT OF PAT SHEA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity

to testify on H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation

Act. Though Representative Cannon’s bill is predicated upon the local community’s

genuine concern for the preservation, conservation and interpretation of very significant heritage resources present in the San Rafael Swell and its surrounding region,

there are numerous problems with the bill’s approach to these issues which require

us to oppose it today. And although the bill seeks a goal we support—to encourage

and facilitate a collaborative approach among Federal land managers, local governments, agencies, and other concerned organizations to protect certain heritage and

natural resource values within the area—we have some alternative suggestions on

how to accomplish that goal. The San Rafael Swell region is being ‘‘discovered’’ and

all of us must acknowledge and deal with the impacts, both positive and negative,

of that fact. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the largest land holding

in the area and has two land use management plans in place to provide management direction to these lands—the San Rafael Race Management Plan. and the

Price Resource Area Management Framework Plan. The Utah Resource Advisory

Council (RAC), established by Secretary Babbitt, offers an existing mechanism to

begin looking at the impacts and solutions to the region’s growing tourism economy.

The RAC process is based on a recognition that there should be local solutions to

issues of public land management, but not local dictates. Unfortunately, H.R. 3625

employs the National Heritage Area model for addressing some of these issues, a

model which has been used primarily in the eastern United States in areas of predominantly privately-owned lands. It is not a model that is well-suited to the public

land management issues of the San Rafael Swell region.

Finally, though the recognition of the need to protect some areas in wilderness

status is gratifying, unfortunately the proposal was not developed with involvement

by all major interests. The wilderness areas proposed for the region encompassed

by the proposal fall far short of previous wilderness bills considered in this Subcommittee, and indude management prescriptions which are incompatible with wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Given these deficiencies, if passed

in its present form, the Secretary would recommend that the President veto H.R.

3625.
75

Although we oppose this bill, we support the concept of a collaborative approach

to recognizing the values of and developing means to protect cultural sites of national and local significance within the San Rafael Swell region. I will outline some

proposed alternatives to accomplishing this goal later in my testimony. Before doing

so, however, I will discuss in detail five major problem areas in the bill.

San Rafael Regional Heritage Council and the San Rafael Swell National

Conservation Area Advisory Council

First, the two councils proposed in H.R. 3625 do not include representation by a

broad enough spectrum of public land constituencies who have legitimate concerns

about the management of the resources on the public lands encompassed by the proposal. These public lands belong to all Americans, and all Utahns, and Americans

who live elsewhere in Utah and elsewhere in the United States have a legitimate

stake in the management of these resources. This really should come as no surprise

to anyone on this Subcommittee who has sat through the years of debate over these

issues. Successful resolution of management issues in the region will require a more

inclusive approach.

Transplanting the national heritage area designation concept, which has been

used predominantly in the eastern United States where mostly non-Federal lands

are involved, to the San Rafael Swell region where there are large holdings of federally administered lands, does not work well. H.R. 3625 only vaguely identifies what

entities will comprise the Heritage Council and how they will operate. The participation of local government entities, such as county governments, is essential if the

Council is to succeed, but the procedure identified in the legislation leaves doubt as

to which entities will actually participate. It is also not clear how entities will be

represented on the Council. The use of the term ‘‘council’’ implies that entities would

appoint representatives, but it is not clear if this is intended or whether these entities form some sort of a coalition of interested organizations. The NCA Advisory

Council has more detailed requirements for representation than the Heritage Council, but is also vague as to the spectrum of interests that would be represented.

Provisions for the Heritage Council also conflict with, or at least lead to confusion

about, who is responsible for planning and management responsibilities which

FLPMA requires BLM to administer. H.R. 3625 fails to clearly articulate what the

relationship will be between Federal land managers in Carbon, Emery and Sanpete

counties and the proposed San Rafael National Heritage Council. The legislation

charges the Council with completing and implementing a management plan for the

lands and resources within the national heritage area, yet there is no provision for

how this plan interfaces with BLM’s San Rafael Resource Management Plan or the

land use plans of the Forest Service which also manage lands in the area. Section

105(b)(4) requires the plan to ‘‘detail appropriate land and water management techniques,’’ but is unclear as to whether, or how, such decisions by the Heritage Council would amend BLM’s San Rafael Resource Management Plan.

The title of Section 108 implies that the San Rafael National Heritage Council has

the status of a Federal agency. If so, the Council must operate under the laws and

regulations which govern Federal agencies, such as the Archeological Resources Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, etc. Yet Section 107(b)

limits the Secretary from requiring ‘‘land use restrictions’’ when providing the technical and financial assistance required by the legislation. This may, in effect, limit

the Secretary from complying with the requirements of these laws when assisting

the Council in implementing its management plan.

The application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the

FLPMA to the preparation of a management plan by the Heritage Council is unclear. It is not clear whether this bill envisions NEPA compliance. Secretarial approval or disapproval of the plan, however, would require such compliance. Further,

BLM’s role in the management plan is uncertain. The plan would constitute a major

Federal action for the Federal lands, yet it is not clear whether BLM would be the

‘‘lead agency,’’ for purposes of compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. Who would pay for the preparation of an EIS, BLM or the Heritage

Council, is not stated.

Given these problems, I suggest that the BLM, the State of Utah, the county governments, ana other interested parties cooperate in doing an in-depth survey of the

unique heritage resources, recreation resources, and tourism infrastructure of the

San Rafael Swell region. After the information is available the various participants

should make recommendations regarding implementation of the heritage area concept or other approaches for developing gateway communities which could be applied in the San Rafael Swell area. By fully involving all parties in a such a survey,

buy-in to the management plan would be more likely.
76

RS 2477 Right-of-Way Assertions

RS 2477 was adopted by Congress in 1866 and granted a right-of-way for the construction of highways across public land not reserved for public uses. When FLPMA

was passed in 1976, Congress repealed RS 2477, but did not terminate valid rightsof-way existing on the date of FLPMA’s enactment.

Rights-of-way validly acquired pursuant to RS 2477 provide access to and across

Federal lands for States and local governments, and the general public. Historically,

these rights-of-way have not presented many problems for Federal land managers,

because in general their existence is obvious and unquestioned.

In recent years, however, there has been controversy over whether certain claimed

access routes are ‘‘highways’’ that were ‘‘constructed’’ pursuant to RS 2477. This controversy causes uncertainty for Federal land managers charged with managing and

protecting Federal lands according to current environmental, land use, and national

security laws.

The matrix identified as roads on the map referenced in the legislation indudes

many routes which are wash bottoms, abandoned and unmaintained mining exploration routes, and trails impassable to vehicular traffic. We are concerned that labeling these areas as minor roads on the map could, if it became law, establish

these routes as RS 2477 rights-of-way.

These so-called minor roads appear to be within many of the areas proposed as

wilderness or for semi-primitive nonmotorized designation, and legislatively establishing them as rights-of way, is confusing, unmanageable, and incompatible with

the purposes of these areas. According to this legislation, such roads would have a

setback of 100 feet on either side, creating swaths 200 feet wide through areas ostensibly managed as wilderness. All of the minor roads should be removed from this

map, and no roads should extend into, or run through areas proposed for wilderness.

This bill is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve contentious RS 2477 claims.

National Conservation Area

The San Rafael Swell region of Utah has long been recognized as having highquality geological, archeological, historical, paleontological, wildlife, and scenic resources of national significance. The natural and cultural values of these lands have

caused much of it to be included in BLM’s wilderness study areas and in wilderness

legislative proposals dating back more than a decade. Furthermore, in 1989, BLM

proposed an 876,000 acre National Conservation Area for the area in its San Rafael

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

Although H.R. 3625 would designate an NCA boundary (except for a mineral

withdrawal) it does not provide substantive protections for the important heritage

and natural resources of the San Rafael Swell area. Moreover, it creates an unnecessary Advisory Council which would represent a narrow segment of the population

interested in the management of the NCA. The bill’s Section 203 unwisely reinvents

FLPMA’s well-understood and tested multiple-use and sustained yield definitions.

As a general matter, BLM does not support any bill whose effect would be to reinvent FLPMA. FLPMA evolved in 1976 from the decade-long investigation by the

Public Land Law Review Commission, led by prominent western Congressmen and

Senators. The final product is a statute which has given BLM numerous flexible

tools to accomplish a variety of land management goals with input from people

across the spectrum of interests.

Finally, the NCA proposed in H.R. 3625 would dedicate an area proposed by many

including the BLM, for wilderness to the intensive management of bighorn sheep,

in part for export to other regions. The ecological cost of ‘‘ranching’’ bighorn sheep

is not known and needs to be examined closely for resource trade-offs, including loss

of wilderness values.

School and institutional trust lands exchange process

Sections 204, 222, and 406 of H.R. 3625 all deal with acquiring non-Federal lands

inside various designations and exchanging them for Federal lands outside those

areas. These sections do not provide a uniform approach to accomplish such land

exchanges, creating confusion. Combining the provisions of Section 204(a)(1), 204(b),

and Section 222(b) to replace Section 406 would provide a consistent and reasonable

approach to these land exchanges. Section 406’s requirement of acquisition of all

lands within two years, without any sharing of the associated costs, is unreasonable.

The land exchange process should allow the Secretary to work with the State of

Utah to complete mutually acceptable exchanges.

Wilderness

I commend the proponents of this bill for recognizing areas that should be designated wilderness. Nevertheless, the proposed wilderness is 80,000 acres smaller
77

than the BLM proposed in the previous Administration. Moreover, it allows excessive access by vehicles on virtually any historically used route in a wilderness which

is drastically out of step with the Wilderness Act of 1964. The wilderness proposal

outlined in H.R. 3625 is not the product of an inclusive process. Until we have such

a process, we will not have a workable resolution of the wilderness issue.

Thank you for allowing me to testify regarding this legislation before your Sub- committee. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, STATE OF UTAH

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about the San

Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act.

The protection of public lands in the State of Utah is an issue of national significance. The Federal Government administers more than 65 percent of the land in

the State. These lands include some of the most spectacular scenery to be found

anywhere in the world. The public lands in Utah are also host to a variety of activities and uses, and in many cases, the center of a good deal of controversy.

For decades now Utahns, along with many concerned people living outside the

state, have waged contentious battles over how these lands should be managed and

protected.

In my State of the State address in January 1997, I recounted a marvelous event

I was privileged to experience here in the nation’s capitol. In September of 1993,

I was among those gathered on the White House lawn to witness a handshake that

would change the course of history as Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin clasped

hands in a gesture that bridged decades of bitterness and strife between Israelis

and Palestinians with the signing of the Oslo peace accords. Across the street in Lafayette Park, protesters from both sides loudly chanted their objections.

As I told the citizens of my state, ‘‘We’re not talking about world peace, but our

state, for decades has been divided on the wilderness issue. It is time, now, to say

enough fighting, to begin building on what unites us. Each of us shares a love for

the land, and each of us shares a common desire to preserve sensitive lands. Let

us begin with those lands on which there is substantial agreement. I’d like to say

to the extremes on both sides of this debate, let’s quit protesting in Lafayette Park,

come to the table, and after 20 years let’s stop fighting and start protecting land.’’

At that time I proposed a different approach to addressing these issues. I suggested that rather than deal with a statewide proposal that included enormous acreages and even larger political and emotional stakes, we needed to take a different

road. I suggested that we deal with these public lands issues by means of an incremental approach, in which we would deal with areas or regions one at a time, piece

by piece, as we worked our way a step at a time toward a total solution.

I have been convinced for a quite some time that if we are going to break the

impasse over wilderness and the protection of public lands, we must begin by designating some wilderness somewhere in order to begin the process. This initial step,

this first success, would be a critical catalyst for setting in motion the string of

events that could ultimately break the gridlock and move toward resolution.

In presenting this incremental approach, I emphatically stated that it could not

be successful unless it were accomplished through valid pubic processes and active

involvement on the part of the numerous stakeholders associated with the issues.

The San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is a remarkable

example of the innovation and quality that can occur when public processes are allowed to take root and develop in a natural and healthy way. This proposal is the

fruit of years of discussion and soul-searching within Emery County, and in collaboration with an array of stakeholders.

The product of this effort is a proposal that addresses the protection requirements

of the lands in a manner that is both far-reaching and environmentally sound. It

considers the protection and management needs of an entire ecosystem. It is a

unique proposal that could only be designed by those who are closest to the lands

and who understand its intricacies and nuances.

This is an excellent example of the virtue of an open incremental approach. It

clearly demonstrates the fact that there is indeed much common ground upon which

to work.

This proposal is truly a local initiative. It was not developed by outsiders nor by

state or Federal Government agencies. But at the same time, Emery County officials

did not do their work behind closed doors. This bill is the result of interaction and

input from numerous sources from across the political spectrum.

Its conception occurred as the result of a significant planning process known as

the Emery County Wild Lands Futures Project. This process, which was sponsored
78

by the Coalition for Utah’s Future—a private non-profit organization working to

build consensus on major Utah issues—received strong support and involvement

from my administration. Emery County reluctantly but courageously volunteered to

be the pilot county in testing the potential for building consensus in these thorny

matters.

The Midlands Futures Project brought an array of stakeholders to the table to participate in facilitated discussions aimed at identifying common interests and

shared values with regards to the BLM lands of the San Rafael Swell. Participants

included representatives from local, state, and Federal agencies, as well as user

groups representing recreation, hunting, water development and industrial interests. There were also many significant environmental organizations seated at the

table, including the Utah Wilderness Association, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society.

It was through these meetings that the walls of mistrust began to crumble, and

people in the room discovered that their individual agendas were all driven by the

same underlying motivation—a deep and sincere love for the lands and a desire to

do right by them for current and future generations.

Though the process was never completed because of intensified battles from both

sides of the issues, important seeds had been planted in Emery County—seeds

Emery County continued to cultivate and nourish, and which today have blossomed

into a proposal that is without precedent in the Utah public lands debate.

Consider what Emery County has proposed: Protection of 240,000 acres of wilderness. Areas we would all agree should be wilderness. Beyond wilderness the bill also

proposes a National Conservation Area that gives statutory protection to the San

Rafael Swell. In a bold step for which they have been widely criticized by many of

their sister counties, they have removed the threat of commercial extractive development by proposing to exclude oil drilling, mining, and timbering activities from the

Swell.

For many other acres of critical lands that don’t quite fit the requirements of wilderness designation, they have innovatively applied an additional layer of protection

in the form of semi-primitive non-motorized designation.

To their credit, Emery County officials have looked toward the future, and are

proposing to further enhance the value of this public lands resources by creating

something very new to Utah—a National Heritage Area. In doing so, they will be

preserving and sharing with the nation an intriguing piece of western American history and culture.

They have also recognized the importance of another significant asset that is part

of the San Rafael Swell—the Desert Bighorn Sheep. Their concept of creating a

Desert Bighorn Sheep management area to provide opportunities for public education and observation of these magnificent animals in their natural settings adds

an important new dimension of conservation to the National Conservation Area.

All in all, this is a proposal that is environmentally sound and secure. It protects

and preserves the lands, the habitat, the wildlife, and the spirit of a spectacularly

scenic and varied landscape. It is a proposal that has my full support and encouragement.

It is difficult to overemphasize how important this proposal is toward setting in

motion the processes and discussions that can ultimately resolve critical public land

concerns within the State of Utah. All eyes are focused upon this bill. If it is successful, it is natural to assume that other successes will follow, and that these successes will follow a similar process of public involvement and environmental sensitivity that will serve both state and national interests.

Indeed, if there can be hope for peace in the Middle East, then surely there can

also be hope for meaningful progress in preserving and protecting the national and

local interests associated with Utah’s spectacular public lands treasure. The San

Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is certainly a worthy representative to lead the way toward reaching this essential objective. It is my hope

that in the very near future we can all clasp hands in another handshake of success

that will change the course of the future, and that will leave a lasting legacy for

generations to come.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. MEADOWS, PRESIDENT, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am William H. Meadows,

President of The Wilderness Society, and I am pleased to come before you today to

discuss a matter of great significance for our nation’s public lands: the protection

of the magnificent red rock canyons and other public lands in Utah. We have met

together to discuss these important lands before, most recently when I testified last
79

June regarding H.R. 1952, the ‘‘Utah Wilderness and School Trust Lands Protection

Act of 1997,’’ introduced by Representative Chris Cannon last year. I am also pleased to be sharing the panel with Representative Wayne Owens today, a Utah native who loves the state, its public lands resources, and wild lands.

I understand that Rep. Owens will focus much of his testimony on the specific areas

affected by H.R. 3625. With that in mind and in light of Representative Cannon’s

ongoing efforts with respect to the management of public lands in Utah, I will focus

my remarks on the national implications of this legislation by highlighting key comparisons between H.R. 3625 and Representative Cannon’s earlier bill. I believe that

such comparisons will best explain the position of The Wilderness Society on ‘‘The

San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act.’’ Before I begin, however, I would like to acknowledge the work of many in Emery, Carbon, and Sanpete Counties who have sought to address the important issues before us, as well as the efforts of Representative Cannon and Governor Leavitt. I

would also like to express the willingness of The Wilderness Society to sit down with

any parties committed to the sound resolution of wilderness issues in Utah, to work

cooperatively to find a lasting approach to the sound management and protection

of public lands and wilderness resources in that great state.

1. Scope of Legislation:

Introduced in 1997, H.R. 1952 addressed the designation of some 1.8 million acres of BLM wilderness in a ‘‘statewide’’ fashion, while H.R. 3625 addresses wilderness

designation for public lands in two Utah counties: Emery and Carbon. [H.R. 3625

also makes additional non-wilderness designations for Sanpete County.] H.R. 3625

creates a total of 407,468 acres of wilderness designations in these two counties, a

designation that is roughly 143,000 acres smaller than the Wilderness Study Area

acreage in these counties, and roughly 666,000 acres smaller than the wilderness

designations that would be made by H.R. 1500, ‘‘America’s Redrock Wilderness Act,’’

which The Wilderness Society supports. On a positive note, the wilderness designations of H.R. 3625 seem intended to take effect immediately upon enactment, while the wilderness designations contained in H.R. 1952 were entirely contingent on the completion of the state/Federal

land exchange outlined by this earlier bill. In addition, we are pleased that H.R.

3625 does not contain H.R. 1952-like language allowing the State to pick which Federal lands it would acquire in exchange for state trust lands within designated wilderness areas. H.R. 1952 contained this potential ‘‘sweetheart’’ land exchange deal

for state, at Federal taxpayers’ risk and expense. Our concerns with the scope of H.R. 3625, however, are three-fold: First, it does

not address the full range of wilderness quality lands in Utah. Second, even in those

counties in which it does make wilderness designations, it actually reduces the level

of protection that wilderness resources currently receive, by eliminating WSA protection for over 140,000 acres. These ‘‘former’’ WSAs (which are currently receiving

interim protection as wilderness) will no longer be managed to protect their wilderness values. Without wilderness quality protection, these lands may be lost to development activities including road construction and ORV use. Third, H.R. 3625 only

protects some 40 percent of the wilderness designations contained in H.R. 1500.

2. Wilderness Release:

H.R. 1952 contained ‘‘hard’’ release language that would have expressly prohibited the BLM from protecting the wilderness values of lands not designated as wilderness under that legislation. Furthermore, under H.R. 1952, public lands in Utah

could never again be considered for wilderness protection. H.R. 3625, on the other

hand, contains non-standard, but apparently ‘‘soft’’ wilderness release language, improved language that—as we currently interpret it—would allow for the future wilderness consideration of all remaining BLM lands in the state. In addition, H.R.

3625 does not appear to undercut the BLM’s authority to chose to protect wilderness

values as part of a multiple-use management approach to ‘‘released’’ lands.

[H.R.3625 releases 143,000 acres of WSAs to multiple-use management, lands that

are currently protected as if they were wilderness. (Sect. 304)]

3. Wilderness Protection and Management:

One of The Wilderness Society’s chief concerns with the wilderness area bound- aries of both H.R. 1952 and H.R. 3625 is that these boundaries appear too-often to

be drawn according to political lines or other non-ecological factors (e.g., both bills

‘‘cut’’ canyons in half and often follow county rather than natural boundaries). Of

equal importance, however, is the matter of how both bills govern management of

those lands which they do designate as wilderness. Unfortunately, both bills contain

non-standard and damaging wilderness management language affecting a variety of

management issues and resources. We believe that such exceptions to standard wil80

derness management are both inappropriate in Utah and set a dangerous precedent

for future wilderness legislation, nationally. The damaging wilderness ‘‘exceptions’’

of H.R. 1952 and H.R. 3625 include provisions related to: • Reserved wilderness water rights and water developments: In Utah and else- where in the arid West, wilderness areas must be protected from the future

drain-off of their streams and other water resource ‘‘lifelines.’’ Yet the water

rights provisions of both H.R. 3625 (Section 407) and H.R. 1952 expressly deny

Congressional reservation of a water right sufficient to sustain these magnificent desert lands. Furthermore, both bills contain provisions forcing the Federal

Government to apply for a water right consistent with Utah state law. These

provisions do not provide any real opportunity for water for wilderness resources, as Utah state water laws do not recognize wilderness resources as an

appropriate recipient of water.

In the two most recent BLM wilderness bills enacted for arid Arizona and

California, Congress reserved a quantity of water sufficient to maintain the integrity of the wilderness ecosystem. Both bills balanced the needs of water

rights holders with that of the wilderness users and wildlife—H.R. 3625 does

not.

Additionally, Section 407 (d) of H.R. 3625 appears to be written to open the door for inappropriate water developments and dam construction in wilderness.

As worded, this section seems to allow almost unlimited expansion of existing

water developments (and the access thereto) without any regard for the impact

of such expanded developments on wilderness resources.

• Grazing management: During passage of The Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent wilderness debates, Congress has attempted to balance the continuation of pre-existing grazing operations in areas designated as wilderness with

the protection of Federal range resources and other legitimate planning and

management concerns. TWS believes the language of both H.R.3625 and H.R.

1952 would alter the existing balance between grazing and the protection of resources within wilderness areas, and could be interpreted as providing the BLM

with less ability to protect range resources within wilderness areas than on nonwilderness public lands.

Section 303 of H.R. 3625 undermines existing Secretarial authority to enforce reasonable regulations and policies to manage grazing in wilderness areas to

prevent undue resource degradation. Section 4(d)(4)(2) of The Wilderness Act

states that pre-existing grazing of livestock in wilderness ‘‘shall be permitted to

continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the

Secretary.’’ Language reflecting the Secretary’s ability to provide such appropriate guidance for the management of pre-existing grazing in wilderness has

been included in subsequent wilderness legislation (the California Desert Protection Act, for example).

Furthermore, the grazing guidelines which Congress developed during passage of the Colorado Wilderness legislation during the 96th Congress—which

have provided the standard for grazing management in wilderness—also emphasize that all reasonable measures must be taken to minimize the impact of

grazing activities on wilderness character and to protect other resource values.

• Other road and motorized use issues, and Native American motorized access:

Road development and vehicular/ORV use constitute one of the largest threats

to wilderness resources in certain areas of Utah and elsewhere in the West. Unfortunately, several provisions of H.R. 3625 appear drafted so as to allow dangerous road/vehicular damage to wilderness and public lands, including the bills

sections related to ‘‘fish and wildlife management,’’ ‘‘Native American cultural,’’

grazing, ‘‘valid existing rights,’’ and other uses. Each of these sections breaks

with existing legal and administrative precedents for the protection of the fundamental roadless and wild nature of Federal wilderness areas.

• State fish and wildlife agency authority in wilderness: The Wilderness Act

specifically allows for the continued jurisdiction of state fish and wildlife agencies over matters related to the management of fish and wildlife populations.

The language of H.R. 3625 (Section 408) broadens the existing situation under

The Wilderness Act to the point that state fish and game agencies could apparently undertake almost any fish or wildlife related management activity, including water impoundments, dam or road construction, motorized use, and other

significant development activities with no apparent restrictions. This language

is unnecessarily and dangerously broad.

• Mandatory Federal acquisition of non-governmental lands: Both H.R. 1952

and H.R. 3625 force the Secretary to offer to acquire lands from non-governmental entities if such lands are located not only within, but also adjacent to

lands designated as wilderness. Given the limited funding available to the Fed81

eral Government, the Department of Interior must be very selective in

prioritizing lands to acquire. We see no reason to force the Secretary to offer to acquire lands that are not actually within wilderness designations. Finally, with respect to wilderness protection and management, we must note that the ways in which H.R. 3625 is worse than H.R. 1952. Specifically, H.R. 3625 contains language (which H.R. 1952 does not) that would harm wilderness values

by adversely affecting management of:

• ‘‘Valid existing rights:’’ Section 222(a) of H.R. 3625 dangerously expands existing precedents concerning so-called valid existing rights (VERs) to include protection of ‘‘full exercise of those rights.’’ As drafted, this section would severely

undercut the Secretary’s current authority to exercise some control over access

to and exercise of VERs. (Sect. 222 & 302) Under such sections, development

interests could argue that the ‘‘full exercise’’ of their rights would require the

construction of roads, full motorized vehicular access, and/or the installation of

facilities that are incompatible with wilderness designations. Could open the

door for increased ‘‘blackmail’’ development proposals in wilderness (i.e., aggressively proposed ‘‘development’’ plans that are made by private interests in the

sole hope that the Federal Government will pay to stop them.)

• Cultural/paleo resources: H.R. 3625 threatens both wilderness and cultural/

paleo resources by allowing ‘‘means of discovery conventional to the science of

archeology, including customary means of ingress and egress.’’ Management of

wilderness lands is appropriately geared to a higher protection standard than

that of other public lands. ‘‘Customary’’ archeological practices that might be appropriate on non-wilderness Federal lands may well be completely inappropriate

in wilderness areas. For example, the language of H.R. 3562 could well be interpreted to include road construction and motorized access including large earthmoving equipment. (Sect. 402) Such uses/activities would seriously degrade wilderness values.

• Communication towers: Section 207 states nothing in Act shall be construed as prohibiting Secretary from authorizing installation of communications equipment in conservation area for public safety purposes. Communications towers

are most frequently located on ridgetops that are visible for many miles, such

development would seriously impair the ‘‘untrammeled’’ character of wild lands

and should be subject to the strictest of appropriate regulations. We are concerned that this Section could be interpreted so as to actually facilitate the installation of inappropriate communications towers in wilderness, by allowing an

abuse of the ‘‘public safety’’ test.

• 2477 road claims: The set-back provisions regarding ‘‘roads and rights-of-way as boundaries’’ (Section 408(c)) expressly recognize so-called ‘‘County Class D’’

roads, which are closely associated with R.S. 2477 road claims. In recent years,

we have seen an explosion of such road claims in Utah, many of which prove

bogus on closer examination. We are concerned that H.R. 3625 appears to give

validation to such controversial road claims. In addition, non-wilderness setback strips along such ‘‘roads’’ minimize wilderness protection and maximize inappropriate road and vehicular access into these wild and magnificent lands. If

H.R. 3625 is to include provisions against ‘‘buffer zones’’ (Section 408(b)) because they extend wilderness-like protection outside of wilderness areas, it

should not include ‘‘anti-wilderness buffers’’ that extend development and

mechanized travel into the heart of wild areas.

4. Non-Wilderness Issues:

Because it contains designations other than wilderness, certain of H.R. 3625’s

troubling provisions also affect management of non-wilderness Federal lands—National Conservation Area, Semi-primitive Areas, etc.

One of the most distressing aspects of H.R. 3625 is its language that threatens

to give inordinate local control over management of these Federal lands. In the

management of National Heritage Area(s) (NHA) for example, the Secretary (Sect.

104) could make a local government/group the NHA ‘‘management entity.’’ A local

governmental or private interest that assumed management entity status would

have a great deal of discretion in decisions affecting both planning and management

of these Federal lands. If such a local entity took on this management status, then

the Department’s role in managing these Federal lands is largely relegated to one

of providing technical support (Section 107). In addition, Sect. 106’s vague wording

also appears to give local government/interests an inappropriate role in implementing NHA plan. While it is clear that local governments and interests have a

strong and legitimate interest in the management of these Federal lands, we do not

feel it is appropriate to turn over management authority for Federal lands to local

control in the manner proposed by H.R. 3625.
82

With respect to management of the National Conservation Area, Section 222 of

H.R. 3625 requires that the BLM ‘‘cooperate’’ with the NCA Advisory Council created in Section 205. This ‘‘cooperation’’ requirement appears to greatly exceed current BLM requirement under FLPMA to ‘‘consult’’ with all interests during management/planning for Federal wilderness.

In addition, H.R. 3625 restricts the Secretary’s ability (Section 401) to manage

grazing and protect Federal resources (NCA, Semi-primitive Areas) in non-wilderness areas. H.R. 3625’s language governing management of pre-existing grazing

within areas of the NCA and in the Semi-Primitive Areas outside of the NCA appears to thwart agency protection of these lands. We assume that the intent of this

Section is to establish that the designation—in and of itself—of the NCA or the

semi-primitive areas conveys no additional requirements on the management of

grazing. However, the actual wording of Section 401 appears to eliminate almost all

BLM authority to assure that grazing on these lands is managed so as to protect

Federal resources.

Section 407 expressly prohibits reserved Federal water rights for the National

Conservation Area and Semi-Primitive Areas established by H.R. 3625 and allows

for the nearly unconstrained expansion of existing water developments in these

areas. Such provisions undercut the protections that this bill claims to provide these

Federal lands.

Conclusion

The mission of The Wilderness Society (TWS) directs us to ensure that the integrity and beauty of America’s wild lands are protected unimpaired for future generations. We have established two goals: to build and sustain a nationwide network of

wild lands; and, to ensure that customs and practices affecting wild lands embody

the land ethic. As described by Aldo Leopold and Robert Marshall who were instrumental in the founding of The Wilderness Society in 1935, the land ethic, ‘‘changes

the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land community to plain member

and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members and also respect for the

community as such.’’

Our vision for the future has at its core the commitment to secure and maintain

the essential benefits and values of wilderness: habitat for the diversity of plant and

animal species, pure air and water, natural beauty, physical recreation, spiritual renewal, scientific research and the opportunity to educate ourselves and our children

about the proper place of humanity in the great tapestry of the natural world. We

see Congressionally designated wilderness areas as the core of the national network

of wild lands which we seek: a network also comprised of protected and well managed forest, park, refuge, and public lands.

To summarize, Mr. Chairman: We must oppose H.R. 3625 because we believe that

it: (1) provides wilderness designation for an inadequate acreage of wilderness quality lands in the state and in the San Rafael area; (2) threatens wilderness resources

in Utah and on other BLM lands nationally by failing to provide true wilderness

protection for the public lands which it designates as wilderness; (3) releases lands

currently protected as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) to management practices

that may degrade their wilderness values; (4) makes non wilderness Federal land

designations that do not adequately protect these special areas and their wilderness

resources; and (5) threatens to cede an inappropriate level of control over Federal

land and wilderness management to local governments and interests.

We thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

STATEMENT OF WES CURTIS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR’S RURAL PARTNERSHIP OFFICE,

STATE OF UTAH, AND MEMBER, EMERY COUNTY PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate

this opportunity to talk to you about a remarkable proposal for protecting one of

the nation’s unique public lands and heritage treasures—the San Rafael Swell.

This bill is the product of years of work and a long process of public involvement.

It is a marvelous manifestation of local initiative acting in the national interest. It

is also a manifestation of a significant change in attitude and perspective on the

part of the residents of Utah’s Carbon and Emery Counties.

As recently as a few years ago, Emery County was one of the leaders in opposing

wilderness designation and other environmental protection schemes. They strongly

resisted what was viewed as imposed solutions from Washington that threatened,

rather than enhanced, local culture and lifestyles. Fortunately this attitude began

to change once county leaders set aside the emotions of the moment and took a close
83

look at what they truly valued. In doing so it became clear that protecting this public lands treasure was vitally important to the people of Emery County. To understand our interest in the future of the San Rafael Swell, one must understand our love for this land and our strong connection to it. Like everyone else, we

marvel at its scenic beauty. But to us this land is more than beautiful scenery. This

land has shaped our culture, our communities, our thinking, and our hearts. It is

part of our lives.

We have a love not only for the land, but for the heritage and legacy it has given us. This land tells the stories of our past—the tales of who we are and how we came

to be.

It is important to note that the bill you have before you is environmentally sound. It has been carefully crafted to ensure that every needful protection is in place, because we knew this proposal would have to stand up to intense scrutiny. This bill

reflects the keen sense of responsibility we feel to protect this public lands treasure

and to pass it on as a legacy to future generations. We are puzzled when we hear certain factions, who seem to have little interest

in finding workable solutions, denounce this bill as inadequate and then sum up

their opposition by parroting the tired and worn phrase they have applied to every

lands proposal of this decade by saying this is an ‘‘anti-wilderness bill.’’ They then

imply that this bill leaves thousands of acres unprotected because it releases them

from Wilderness Study status. They imply that wilderness designation is the only

means for protecting these lands, and that anything else is ‘‘anti-protection.’’ In

making these statements they are not telling the whole story. The truth is this: H.R. 3625 is a wilderness bill—and a whole lot more!

A weakness inherent in all the past and current wilderness proposals, regardless of their total acreages, is that they are one-dimensional in their focus. They offer

‘‘slice and dice’’ protections but don’t preserve the integrity of the whole. They focus

on lands and acres, not on eco-systems. H.R. 3625 is the only proposal from any quarter that offers protection for the en- tire San Rafael Swell. It not only designates 407,000 acres of wilderness, it goes beyond this to protect the environment and integrity of an entire eco-system. It not

only addresses the needs of the lands, it addresses other needs as well—such as

habitat and wildlife management and cultural and historic preservation. This is the only proposal that withdraws the threats of oil drilling, mining, and timbering from the entire San Rafael Swell—a remarkable concession for a rural

county with an economy based on mineral extraction. This is the only proposal that provides special protection and management for the desert bighorn sheep, as well as opportunities for watchable wildlife and public education at the same time.

One of the great success stories of the San Rafael Swell is that of the desert big- horn sheep. The Sid’s Mountain herd began with the transplanting of a small herd

of sheep in the late 1970s. Now the Swell is home to one of the largest herds in

the state, and it has been used as transplanting stock for many other herds, both

inside and outside the state of Utah.

We take great pride in this locally. In fact, we have selected the desert bighorn

sheep as the symbol of our National Conservation Area.

This is the only proposal that preserves another critical component of the San

Rafael Swell—a component every bit as priceless and threatened as the lands—that

of the history and heritage of the San Rafael Swell region.

This bill is a protection measure in every sense of the word. The purpose of a National Conservation Area is to protect resources. The purpose of a National Heritage

Area is to protect and perpetuate cultural and historic resources.

The questions we pose to any and all, are these: In what way does this proposal

fail to protect the resources of the San Rafael Swell? What specific threats to these

lands have we failed to address? If there are any, we want to be the first to know—

and we will be the first to address them.

We have learned an important lesson through the course of developing this proposal that we wish to share. We have learned that a locally initiated, locally driven

approach such as this one has an important side-benefit attached to it. We have

found that it leads to local buy-in, local ownership, and local pride in the proposal.

As a result the local residents become part of the solution instead of part of the

problem. With this buy-in and community pride the local public becomes the eyes

and ears to help monitor and protect against abuse. This represents an important

and positive shift in attitude from days past.

It would be a sad day for the future of the public lands debate, a sad day for local

initiative, a sad day for the national environmental interest, and a sad day for the

lands themselves if this proposal were rejected simply because it doesn’t carry the

popular label of the day.
84

On the other hand, passage of this bill would be a triumph for compromise and

common sense; a triumph for hope—for hope of resolving difficult public lands issues

in a sound and sane manner. It would be a triumph for the lands, for the habitat,

for the wildlife, for the environment, for the history and heritage of the American

West, and for the nation as a whole.

This is truly an extraordinary proposal—or maybe we should just call it a ‘‘Swell’’

proposal. Instead of being satisfied with standard issue, one-size-fits-all khakis, the

people of Emery County elected to begin with a new piece of cloth. By taking this

cloth to the designer and the tailor, they have come up with something quite different from the designs and fashions of the past. They have come up with something

better, for in this case, the cloth has been tailored to be a perfect fit—a perfect fit

for the needs of the lands, a perfect fit for the eco-system, and a perfect fit for the

American people.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for providing the opportunity to address this Committee.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. WARNICK, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. Chairman:

My name is Rich Warnick. As a member of the Utah Wilderness Association, I

was one of the authors of our original Utah Bureau of Land Management wilderness

proposals in 1985, which first advocated a series of regional wilderness bills. I later

served as the BLM ranger at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry from 1987 to

1989, and also monitored wilderness study areas on the San Rafael Swell and Desolation Canyon.

It is with a feeling of cautious optimism that I offer my comments on H.R. 3625,

the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. I ask that this statement be included in the hearing record.

Local support is the key to wilderness designation in Utah. In the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, our last successful wilderness bill, the areas that received designation were the ones with the strongest local constituencies. It is indeed encouraging

that Carbon and Emery Counties have put together this proposal. I believe it can

become the catalyst for a long-delayed compromise on this issue.

As you know, the Utah Wilderness Association worked hard to achieve consensus

on a San Rafael wilderness package. In a four-year process facilitated by the Coalition for Utah’s Future, UWA put into practice the principle that more progress can

be made when parties focus on solving problems instead of trying to win battles.

This process aided the formation of the Emery County public lands council. The

‘‘handshake agreement’’ reached between UWA and Emery County in March, 1995

represented a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, the present bill does not reflect that

agreement. If it did, I would have no doubt that Congress would approve it.

The amount of wilderness designation in the bill is inadequate. Leaving aside Sids

Mountain, only approximately half of the area that deserves wilderness protection

on the San Rafael Swell is included. The bill’s proposal for Desolation Canyon is

about 100,000 acres short of an adequate designation—it also uses county lines as

wilderness boundaries.

I believe the wilderness areas in this bill fall short simply because some elected

officials have an unjustified fear of the National Wilderness reservation System and

its relationship to economies. National conservation areas can augment wilderness

designation, but they should not substitute for it. New negotiations will be needed

to achieve a genuine compromise.

H.R. 3625 also contains unprecedented management language. Title IV, sections

402, 403, 404, 405, 407 and 408 should be changed. Wilderness area management

is adequately addressed in the Wilderness Act and relevant agency management

policies.

Everyone who hailed the proclamation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National

Monument ought to support the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area. The Bureau of Land Management has not been able to take care of and interpret the abundant paleontological, archaeological and historic sites on the San Rafael Swell as

well as it should. I fully support the proposal for a national heritage area.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129