U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–239 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

H.R. 5597, ‘‘DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN EXPANSION ACT, WASHINGTON 

COUNTY, UTAH’’; H.R. 5751, ‘‘GOLDEN SPIKE 150TH 

ANNIVERSARY ACT’’; AND H.R. 5875, TO AMEND 

THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT AND THE DINGELL-JOHNSON FEDERAL 

AID IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT, TO PROVIDE PARITY FOR UNITED STATES TERRITORIES 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO MAKE 

TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SUCH ACTS AND 

RELATED LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 

Serial No. 115–46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 6 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory 

of Guam ......................................................................................................... 53 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utah ............................................................................................................... 20 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Aponte-Herna ́ndez, Hon. Jose ́ F., Representative, Puerto Rico House of 

Representatives ............................................................................................. 54 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 56 

Supplemental testimony submitted for the record ................................. 57 

Cox, Dean, Commissioner, Washington County Commission, St. George, 

Utah ............................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Foxley, Doug, Chairman, Transcontinental Railroad, 150th Celebration 

Commission, Salt Lake City, Utah .............................................................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Smith, P. Daniel, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ........................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 10 

Van Dam, Paul, Member, Board of Directors, Conserve Southwest Utah, 

Ivins, Utah ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Department of the Interior, Statement for the record on H.R. 5597 ........... 63 

Department of the Interior, Statement for the record on H.R. 5875 ........... 66 

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

official files .................................................................................................... 67 

Submissions for the Record by Representative Stewart on H.R. 5597 

Access Fund, April 16, 2018, Letter addressed to Rep. Stewart ........... 20 

Conservation Fund, March 27, 2018, Letter to Rep. Stewart ................ 21 

Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 17, 2018, Letter 

addressed to Rep. Stewart .................................................................... 21 

Hooper, Steven B., May 17, 2018, Letter addressed to Senator Hatch 22 

Ivins City Resolution No. 2018–09R ........................................................ 22 

Larkin, Dannielle, May 17, 2018, Letter addressed to Senator Lee ..... 23 

LaVerkin City Resolution No. R–2018–09 .............................................. 24 

Southern Utah Climbers Coalition, Letter addressed to Rep. Stewart 25 

St. George, City of, Resolution No. 2018–04–001R ................................. 26 

Washington City Resolution No. R2018–06 ............................................ 26 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5597, TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE DESERT 

TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, 

WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, ‘‘DESERT 

TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXPANSION ACT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, 

UTAH’’; H.R. 5751, TO REDESIGNATE 

GOLDEN SPIKE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

AND TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD NETWORK, 

‘‘GOLDEN SPIKE 150TH ANNIVERSARY ACT’’; 

AND H.R. 5875, TO AMEND THE PITTMANROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT 

AND THE DINGELL-JOHNSON FEDERAL AID 

IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT, TO PROVIDE PARITY FOR UNITED STATES TERRITORIES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 

TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO 

SUCH ACTS AND RELATED LAWS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Westerman, Curtis, 

Bishop; Hanabusa, Lowenthal, and McEachin. 

Also present: Representatives Stewart, Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n; Bordallo, 

Sablan, and Plaskett. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands of the 

House Natural Resources Committee will come to order. 

The Chair would ask unanimous consent that all Members on 

the witness list testifying on today’s panel be allowed to sit with 

the Subcommittee, give their testimony, and participate in the 

hearing from the dais. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

In addition, I would ask the following Members be allowed to sit 

with the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing for the 

2 

consideration of the bills we have before us today: Mrs. Radewagen 

from American Samoa; Miss Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n from Puerto Rico; Mr. 

Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands; and Ms. Plaskett from 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

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

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

sooner and help Members keep to their schedules. I would ask 

unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening statements be 

made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the 

Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We will be continuing our parliamentary experiment into the individual consideration of bills before us. So, we will hear testimony 

on each of the bills in sequence. If a witness is addressing multiple 

bills, the complete testimony will be heard at one time. After all 

the testimony is heard on the first bill, Members will have 5 

minutes per round to ask questions on that bill. Then we will hear 

from our witnesses on the next bill and repeat that process. 

Be sure to tell us how you think it is working. 

With that, we will begin with opening statements, starting with 

mine. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We have three bills before us today. First we 

will consider H.R. 5751, the Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act, 

sponsored by Natural Resource Committee Chairman Rob Bishop 

of Utah. 

Chairman Bishop’s bill prepares for the sesquicentennial celebration of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, which will 

be celebrated on May 10, 2019. 

The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, which was consummated with the driving of the final spike at Promontory 

Summit, literally transformed America. It finished the great race 

across the frontier between the Union Pacific and Central Pacific 

Railroads. 

I think it is difficult today to fully appreciate how revolutionary 

this event was for our Nation. On that single day, at that single 

moment, for the first time, the American continent was connected 

both by railroad and telegraph. The 3,000-mile journey from New 

York to San Francisco that had taken weeks now took only days. 

Messages that took days to transmit by Pony Express rider now 

took only seconds. 

The Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act will recognize the 

Golden Spike National Historic Site by redesignating it as Golden 

Spike National Historical Park. Additionally, the bill ensures that 

other sites and structures critical to the history, construction, and 

legacy of the Transcontinental Railroad are recognized and linked 

together in a new Transcontinental Railroad Network. 

The bill will also help to restore the Federal Government as a 

good neighbor by ensuring that neighboring landowners and the 

3 

Park Service can work together to expedite minor projects that 

crisscross park and private boundaries. 

Next, we will consider H.R. 5597, offered by Congressman 

Stewart of Utah. H.R. 5597 reflects a well-balanced compromise 

that has been achieved by Congressman Stewart and his staff, who 

have worked diligently with local communities and experts in biology and ecology. 

This bill authorizes a transportation and utility corridor through 

the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in Washington County, 

Utah. The much-needed corridor will reduce traffic congestion 

while simultaneously improving the air quality of the area. 

This legislation also adds 6,800 acres to the Red Cliffs Desert 

Reserve, created in 1996 to provide additional habitat for the 

Mojave Desert tortoise. 

Finally, H.R. 5875, introduced by Delegate Bordallo of Guam, 

seeks to address parity concerns between the 50 states and the 

U.S. territories with regard to the formulas within the PittmanRobertson and Dingell-Johnson conservation programs. While the 

territories are included in the statutory definition of ‘‘states,’’ they 

are not afforded an opportunity to receive an equal share of 

Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funding. Delegate 

Bordallo’s legislation provides the Secretary of the Interior greater 

flexibility in apportioning conservation funds, and requires parity 

between the states and territories with respect to funding for basic 

hunter education programs. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the 

Subcommittee today. I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

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

ON FEDERAL LANDS

We have three bills before us today. 

First, we will consider H.R. 5751, the Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act 

sponsored by Natural Resource Committee Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah. 

Chairman Bishop’s bill prepares for the sesquicentennial celebration of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad on May 10, 2019. 

The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, consummated with the driving 

of the final spike at Promontory Summit, transformed America. It finished the great 

race across the frontier between the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads. 

It is difficult today to remember how revolutionary this event was for our Nation. 

On that day, for the first time, the American continent was connected both by railroad and the telegraph. The 3,000-mile journey from New York to San Francisco 

that had taken weeks, now took only days. Messages that took days by Pony 

Express rider now took only seconds. 

The Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act will recognize the Golden Spike 

National Historic Site by redesignating it as Golden Spike National Historical Park. 

Additionally, the bill ensures that other sites and structures critical to the history, 

construction, and legacy of the Transcontinental Railroad are recognized and linked 

together in a new Transcontinental Railroad Network. 

The bill will also help to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor by 

ensuring neighboring landowners and the Park Service can work together to expedite minor projects that crisscross park and private boundaries. 

Next, we will consider H.R. 5597, offered by Congressman Stewart of Utah. 

H.R. 5597 reflects a well-balanced compromise that has been achieved by Congressman Stewart and his staff who have worked diligently with local communities and 

experts in biology and ecology. 

Specifically, this bill authorizes a transportation and utility corridor through the 

Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in Washington County, Utah. The much 

needed corridor will reduce traffic congestion while simultaneously improving the 

4 

air quality of the area. This legislation also adds 6,835 acres to the Red Cliffs Desert 

Reserve, created in 1996 to provide additional habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise. 

Finally, H.R. 5875, introduced by Delegate Bordallo of Guam, seeks to address 

parity concerns between the 50 states and U.S. territories with regard to the formulas within the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson conservation programs. 

While the territories are included in the statutory definition as ‘‘states,’’ they are 

not afforded an opportunity to receive an equal share of Pittman-Robertson and 

Dingle-Johnson funding. Delegate Bordallo’s legislation provides the Secretary of the 

Interior greater flexibility in apportioning conservation funds and requires parity 

between the states and territories with respect to funding for basic hunter education 

programs. 

I’d like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today and 

look forward to hearing their testimony. With that, I yield back and recognize the 

Ranking Member for her opening statement. 

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

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for providing your testimony for this hearing. 

Today, we are considering three bills related to the management, 

designation, and funding of Federal land that falls under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. 

First, H.R. 5597, introduced by Representative Stewart, amends 

and renews the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan developed by Washington County, Utah. This includes the 6,800-acre 

expansion to Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in exchange for the construction of a 300-foot-wide northern transportation corridor 

through the reserve. 

The proposed transportation corridor would, unfortunately, run 

through the habitat for the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise, and 

would, as determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, violate 

the terms of the Habitat Conservation Plan. While I respect this 

proposal and years-long planning effort for a transportation corridor to accommodate population growth in Washington County, 

the bill precludes the environmental review and public involvement 

process typically required when dealing with habitat of endangered 

or threatened species. 

Disrupting the habitat of the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise 

could set a precedent for counties to supersede habitat conservation 

plans when local development conflicts with the needs of federally 

funded and federally protected species. We can and must work together to ensure that our public lands are managed in a manner 

that balances conservation with economic development. 

Second, Chairman Bishop’s bill, H.R. 5751, redesignates the 

Golden Spike National Historic Site as the Golden Spike National 

Historical Park, and directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program known as the Transcontinental Railroad Network 

within the National Park Service. The completion of the first transcontinental railroad in the United States took place on May 10, 

1869 in Promontory, Utah. The roughly 1,900-mile system of tracks 

that linked the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts for the first time in the 

Nation’s history was built mostly by hand, with workers laboring 

tirelessly to place each spike over the course of 6 years. 

5 

I would like to congratulate Chairman Bishop and all the members of the Utah’s House congressional delegation for the introduction of this legislation. This bill is a fitting commemoration of the 

150th anniversary of the historic connection of the American coasts 

by rail, which had a tremendous impact on our country’s economic 

and cultural development. 

However, I would also like to note that the Golden Spike 

National Historic Site also strives to honor the legacy of early 

Chinese immigrants. Once the site received Federal protection and 

began to develop facilities to accommodate public visitation, administrators selected a unique quartzite stone, which is visible in the 

rock work of the visitor center external walls. 

I am actually reading from the National Park Service website 

that talks about a legacy from the Far East. I am hopeful that in 

the creation of the national park within the National Park Service 

of the Transcontinental Railroad Network, that the work of the 

Chinese immigrants that was a substantial labor force that completed the railroad is also acknowledged. Many of the Chinese 

Americans are attempting to rebuild that history, and I think this 

would be an amazing place for them to start. 

The third bill we will be discussing today is H.R. 5875, from 

Representative Bordallo. This proposal amends the PittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act to allow United States 

territories and the District of Columbia to enjoy equal funding considerations for wildlife restoration efforts, sportfishing, aquatic 

education, wetlands restoration, and boat-related activities. 

Since the inception of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell- Johnson Acts, approximately $18 billion of taxes have been directed 

from sport hunting and fishing to states for conservation and recreation projects. This bipartisan legislation would remove outdated 

and arbitrary caps in current law that prevent our five U.S. 

territories and the District of Columbia from receiving full stateequivalent shares of this Federal funding at no cost to the 

taxpayers. 

I am pleased to see a bipartisan effort to do the right thing, and 

I look forward to learning more of this effort from Representative 

Bordallo. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:] 

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for providing your 

testimony for this hearing. 

Today, we are considering three bills related to the management, designation, and 

funding of Federal land that fall under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. 

First, H.R. 5597, introduced by Representative Stewart, amends and renews the 

Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan, developed by Washington County, Utah. 

This includes a 6,800-acre expansion to Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in exchange for 

the construction of a 300-foot-wide northern transportation corridor through the 

Reserve. 

The proposed transportation corridor would unfortunately run through habitat for 

the threatened Mojave desert tortoise, and would, as determined by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, violate the terms of the Habitat Conservation Plan. 

While I respect this proposal and the years-long planning effort for a transportation corridor to accommodate population growth in Washington County, the bill 

6 

precludes the environmental review and public involvement process typically 

required when dealing with the habitat of endangered or threatened species. 

Disrupting the habitat of the threatened Mojave desert tortoise could set a precedent for counties to supersede habitat conservation plans when local development 

conflicts with the needs of federally-protected species. We can and must work 

together to ensure that our public lands are managed in a manner that balances 

conservation with economic development. 

Second, Chairman Bishop’s bill, H.R. 5751, redesignates the Golden Spike 

National Historic Site as the Golden Spike National Historical Park, and directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to establish a program known as the Transcontinental 

Railroad Network within the National Park Service. 

The completion of the first transcontinental railroad in the United States took 

place on May 10, 1869 in Promontory, Utah. The roughly 1,900-mile system of 

tracks that linked the Pacific and Atlantic coasts for the first time in the Nation’s 

history was built mostly by hand, with workers laboring tirelessly to place each 

spike over the course of 6 years. 

I would like to congratulate Chairman Bishop, and all the Members of Utah’s 

House congressional delegation, for the introduction of this legislation. This bill is 

a fitting commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the historic connection of the 

American coasts by rail, which had a tremendous impact on our country’s economic 

and cultural development. 

The third bill we will be discussing today is H.R. 5875 from Representative 

Bordallo. This proposal amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and 

the Dingell-Johnson Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act to allow U.S. 

territories and the District of Columbia to enjoy equal funding considerations for 

wildlife restoration efforts, sportfishing, aquatic education, wetlands restoration, 

and boat-related activities. 

Since the inception of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, approximately $18 billion of taxes have been directed from sport hunting and fishing to 

states for conservation and recreation projects. This bipartisan legislation would remove outdated and arbitrary caps in current law that prevent our five U.S. 

territories and the District of Columbia from receiving full, state-equivalent shares 

of this Federal funding, at no cost to taxpayers. I am pleased to see a bipartisan 

effort to do the right thing. I look forward to learning more about this effort from 

Representative Bordallo. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. We will now move on to 

consideration of each of the bills. 

We will begin with H.R. 5751. 

I would ask the witnesses to keep their oral statements to 5 

minutes. We have some helpful timing lights to keep you within 

those rails. If you have testimony on more than one bill, we would 

ask that you give all of that testimony within the 5 minutes the 

Chair allotted. 

With that, I will introduce Chairman Rob Bishop to present his 

bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate this opportunity of coming here and 

talking about this bill. 

Next year will be the 150th birthday of this historic event. And 

I think it is bigger than just Golden Spike itself. Not only is the 

Golden Spike the place where the United States was finally unified 

for the first time and we were able to go from ocean to ocean, but 

in that entire area are a whole bunch of other entities that illustrate how transportation has changed the course of America. 

So, we have not only areas in which we talk about pioneers coming in wagons, but other areas in which we talk about trains and 

7 

train transportation, and how that revolutionized America, but also 

within walking distance of the Golden Spike is also an entity that 

was responsible for the motors that put the space shuttle into 

flight. 

There is an entire corridor or area in which we can talk about 

the significance of transportation, and it can be a learning experience for people coming up there. I am excited about the changes 

that could go in this place. It is a significant part of American history, and more people need to have the access that can be provided 

not just by the redesignation, but also by the historic trail system 

that is going to be resurrected, developed. 

We have done this in other areas. This is going to be for transportation now, so I am excited about this. I think it is a good thing. 

And I am looking forward to a heck of a good celebration come May 

of next year, when we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the uniting of this Nation together. I invite you all out to that event. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. With that, we will first hear testimony from 

Mr. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the National Park Service. 

Mr. Smith, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 5751, the 

Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act. 

I would like to submit our full statement on this bill for the 

record, and summarize the Department’s views. 

In addition, I would like to submit a statement for the record on 

H.R. 5597 and H.R. 5875, so that any comments on that would be 

referred to the BLM or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Department supports redesignating Golden Spike National 

Historic Site as Golden Spike National Historical Park, which is in 

keeping with Secretary Zinke’s commitment to highlight lessvisited units of the National Park System as we approach the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the May 10, 1869 Last Spike 

Ceremony marking the completion of the first transcontinental railway. This is a fitting time to enact this redesignation. 

The Department supports the goals of the other provisions of 

H.R. 5751, but has concerns about them and would like to work 

with the Committee on amendments to address those concerns. 

Golden Spike preserves 2,735 acres of land where the Union 

Pacific Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad came together to 

form the first transcontinental railroad. Set in a vast, open landscape mostly unchanged from 1869, it retains an unparalleled concentration of historic transcontinental railroad engineering 

features, archeological sites, and associated cultural landscape elements. It is the only National Park Service unit that preserves 

physical evidence of the construction, completion, and maintenance 

of the transcontinental railroad. 

Golden Spike was first designated a 7-acre national historic site 

on April 2, 1957 by Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. Eight 

years later, Congress authorized the acquisition of approximately 

8 

2,200 acres of land, including 15 miles of historic railroad grade, 

and placed it under NPS administration. The boundary was expanded by 532 acres in 1980, mainly to protect additional cultural 

features. 

Today, Golden Spike is the second-largest national historic site 

in the National Park System. Given its size and the complexity of 

the resources, the Department believes that it is wholly appropriate to redesignate Golden Spike National Historic Site as 

Golden Spike National Historical Park. 

This bill would also establish the Transcontinental Railroad 

Network program. The Department supports the goal of raising the 

profile of other transcontinental railroad sites and resources, and 

promoting opportunities for visitors to learn about this chapter of 

our Nation’s history. However, we note that there has been no 

study conducted to define the significance of the objects or sites 

that would be commemorated or highlighted as transcontinental 

railroad sites and resources. 

The Department would like to work with the Committee to further clarify how the proposed network would function. At the time 

when the Department is focusing resources on reducing the NPS’s 

$11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog and addressing other 

critical National Park Service needs, the network and the infrastructure needed to support it would be difficult to prioritize at this 

time. 

The bill also includes sections regarding activities adjacent landowners may propose to undertake on NPS lands that meet the definition of ‘‘historical crossing’’ and related to invasive species. The 

Department is concerned that these sections would create an unnecessary new process that is too broad and does not align with 

laws, regulations, and policies that generally apply to all NPS 

units. 

In keeping with our desire to be a good neighbor, we would like 

to work with the Committee to address adjacent landowners’ interests and concerns about rights-of-way and special use permits without establishing a park-specific process to address issues that also 

affect other parks. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EXERCISING THE

AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

STATEMENT ON H.R. 5751 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on H.R. 5751, a bill to redesignate Golden Spike National Historic 

Site and to establish the Transcontinental Railroad Network. 

The Department supports redesignating Golden Spike National Historic Site as 

Golden Spike National Historical Park, which is in keeping with Secretary Zinke’s 

commitment to highlight less-visited units of the National Park System (System). 

As we approach the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the May 10, 1869, ‘‘Last 

Spike’’ ceremony marking the completion of the first transcontinental railway, this 

is a fitting time to enact this redesignation. The Department supports the goals of 

the other provisions of H.R. 5751, but has concerns about them, as explained in this 

9 

statement, and would like to work with the Committee on amendments to address 

those concerns. 

Section 3 of H.R. 5751 would redesignate Golden Spike National Historic Site 

(Site) as Golden Spike National Historical Park (Park) and include it in the 

Transcontinental Railroad Network that would be established by Section 4. The Site 

preserves 2,735 acres of land where the Union Pacific Railroad and the Central 

Pacific Railroad came together to form the first transcontinental railroad, linking 

the United States politically, economically and physically. Set in a vast open landscape mostly unchanged from 1869, the Site retains an unparalleled concentration 

of historic transcontinental railroad engineering features, archeological sites, and 

associated cultural landscape elements. It is the only System unit that preserves 

physical evidence of the technology and methods involved in construction, completion, and maintenance of the transcontinental railroad. The National Park Service 

(NPS) operates replica locomotives ‘‘Jupiter’’ and ‘‘No. 119’’ daily in the summer. 

These provide visitors with a unique opportunity to learn about the transcontinental 

railroad. 

The transcontinental railroad was among the greatest technological feats of the 

19th century and represents one of the most ambitious and expensive projects ever 

undertaken by the Federal Government. The daunting task of construction across 

vast expanses of the country, within a relatively short time frame, required the 

government to forge creative partnerships with private corporations to accomplish 

this unprecedented construction feat. The legacy of this government-corporate partnership, and the fierce competition it spawned between rival railroad companies, is 

clearly reflected in the parallel grades and other features. Thousands of people, including Civil War veterans, Buffalo Soldiers, Mormons, and American Indians, as 

well as immigrants from Ireland, China, and other nations, were employed in the 

railroad’s construction, often toiling under the harshest of conditions in some of the 

most remote and difficult landscapes of the West. 

The Site offers a walking trail and two opportunities to drive the transcontinental 

railroad grade and see what workers were building in 1869, including the ‘‘10 Miles 

of Track, Laid in one Day’’ sign where the Central Pacific Railroad built 10 miles 

and 56 feet of track on April 28, 1869. 

Golden Spike National Historic Site was first designated a national historic site 

on April 2, 1957, by Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton using the authority of 

the 1935 Historic Sites Act. The Site consisted of 7 acres of land owned by the 

Central Pacific Railway Company. Eight years later, through Public Law 89–102, 

enacted July 30, 1965, Congress authorized the acquisition of approximately 2,200 

acres of land for the Site and placed it under the administration of the NPS. Most 

of the land acquisition, which included 15 miles of historic railroad grade and 

associated archeological features that remained from the construction, was completed in 1966 and 1967. The Site’s boundary was expanded by 532 acres through 

Public Law 96–344, enacted September 8, 1980, mainly to protect additional 

cultural features. 

The NPS encourages Congress to follow a standard pattern of nomenclature for 

units of the System, and prefers that the term ‘‘national historical park’’ be reserved 

for units of greater physical extent and complexity than typical national historic 

sites, which are sometimes smaller than 1 acre with a single historic structure. 

Today, among System units that are designated ‘‘national historic sites,’’ Golden 

Spike, at 2,735 acres, is second in size only to the Sand Creek Massacre National 

Historic Site. Given the Site’s size and the complexity of the resources that are managed at the Site, the Department believes that it is wholly appropriate to redesignate Golden Spike National Historic Site as Golden Spike National Historical Park. 

Section 4 would establish a Transcontinental Railroad Network program 

(Network). The Department supports the goal of raising the profile of other transcontinental railroad sites and resources and promoting opportunities for visitors to 

learn about this chapter in our Nation’s history. However, we note that there has 

been no study conducted to define the significance of the objects or sites that would 

be commemorated or highlighted as transcontinental railroad sites and resources. 

The Department would like to work with the Committee to further clarify how the 

proposed Network would function. At a time when the Department is focusing resources on reducing the NPS’s $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog and addressing other critical national park needs, the Network and the infrastructure 

needed to support it would be difficult to prioritize. 

Section 5 would require the Park Superintendent to enter into agreements with 

adjacent landowners regarding activities the landowners may propose to undertake 

on NPS lands that meet the definition of ‘‘historical crossing.’’ This term is not commonly found in NPS legislation. It is defined in H.R. 5751 as ‘‘a corridor across 

historical railroad rights-of-way within the Park that have been used by adjacent 

10 

landowners in an open manner in the past 10 years for vehicle, farm machinery, 

or livestock travel, or where existing utility or pipelines have been placed.’’ Adjacent 

landowners may propose any activity. H.R. 5751 does not limit the types of proposed activities to only activities that have occurred previously. Within 30 days of 

the notice from an adjacent landowner’s proposed activity, the Park Superintendent 

would be required to approve or disapprove the proposed activity. 

This section would create a Park-specific process and timeline and name the Park 

Superintendent as the official to whom the processes are delegated. NPS superintendents currently have the delegated authority to approve or deny requests from 

stakeholders related to many types of activities on NPS lands, including issuing 

special use permits, approval of amendments, and renewals of existing rights-ofway, pursuant to Director’s Order #53: Special Park Uses. Authority to approve new 

requests for rights-of-way is delegated to NPS regional directors, also pursuant to 

Director’s Order #53. The Department is concerned that this section would create 

an unnecessary new process that is too broad and does not align with laws, regulations, and policies that generally apply to all units of the System. In keeping with 

our desire to be a good neighbor, we would like to work with the Committee to address adjacent landowners’ interests and concerns about rights-of-way without 

establishing a Park-specific process to address issues that other parks also face. 

Section 6 would require the Park Superintendent to authorize adjacent landowners to participate in the eradication of invasive species on NPS land within 30 

days of such a request. This section, like Section 5, would create a Park-specific 

process and timeline and name the Park Superintendent as the official to whom the 

processes are delegated. NPS superintendents currently have the delegated authority to approve or deny requests from stakeholders to participate in eradication of 

invasive species, pursuant to Director’s Order #7: Volunteers-in-Parks. The Department is concerned that Section 6, like Section 5, would create an unnecessary new 

Park-specific process that is too broad and does not align with laws, regulations, and 

policies that generally apply to all units of the System. Again, in keeping with our 

desire to be a good neighbor, the Department would like to work with the 

Committee to address adjacent landowners’ interests and concerns about invasive 

species eradication without establishing a Park-specific process to address issues 

that other parks also face. 

With visitation at Golden Spike National Historic Site on the rise for several 

years now, the NPS looks forward to working with partners to host a grand and 

memorable 150th anniversary event. The sesquicentennial year presents unique opportunities to increase partnerships in support of the park, as well as increase 

awareness and understanding of the transcontinental railroad’s significant role in 

our Nation’s history. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. MCEACHIN TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR

P. DANIEL SMITH

Question 1. I am extremely displeased with the National Park Service’s announcement yesterday that it is proposing to roll back a regulation prohibiting inhumane 

and scientifically unjustified methods of hunting on National Preserve lands in 

Alaska. I have opposed attempts to roll back this regulation and continue to believe 

that these hunting methods have no place on Federal lands. NPS is statutorily mandated to conserve wildlife species on National Preserve lands and in 2015, after an 

extensive, multi-year engagement process, NPS implemented the current commonsense wildlife management regulations. Please explain how the Service can disregard 

all of that work and do a complete 180 on its position. 

Answer. Since the 2015 final rule (Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves, 80 FR 64325) was implemented, Secretary Zinke has issued two Secretarial 

Orders (3347, 3356) regarding how the Department should manage recreational 

hunting and trapping in the lands and waters it administers. These orders include 

direction representing the Secretary’s desire to better collaborate with state, tribal, 

and territorial partners. 

The proposed changes to regulations (Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National 

Preserves, Docket Number 1024–AE38), are part of the National Park Service’s 

(NPS) efforts to work cooperatively with the state of Alaska to ensure that hunting 

regulations for adjacent lands and waters are complementary. Taking into account 

the Secretarial Orders described above, NPS has reconsidered its earlier conclusions 

11 

and has proposed allowing these previously prohibited practices, consistent with the 

goal of aligning its rules with those of the State. 

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2018, and 

is currently open for public comment. NPS will also be conducting an environmental 

assessment of the proposed changes, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

Act. Once the public comment period ends and the environmental assessment is 

completed, the NPS will review the comments and that input will inform the final 

rule, which would also be published in the Federal Register. The final rule would 

be effective 30 days after this publication. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you for your testimony. 

I will defer to the Committee Chairman to make our next 

introduction. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. I appreciate all the witnesses who are here. I 

have worked with almost all of you very significantly over the past. 

But I would like to introduce Mr. Foxley before he gives his testimony this time. 

Mr. Foxley comes from Box Elder County, which is my home 

county, as well. Admittedly, his father was mayor of the other town 

in Box Elder, and he graduated from the wrong high school in the 

county. But despite that fact, he still survived in some particular 

way. 

I met him in the beginning when I was a young legislator and 

he was the Deputy Lieutenant Governor for the state of Utah. 

Since that time, we have worked on a whole number of issues 

specifically to help benefit the state of Utah and its citizens. This 

is only the recent of a whole litany of collaborative efforts we have 

had. I appreciate him being here, although I believe in your vast 

history this is the first time you have actually addressed Congress, 

in which case it isn’t that big of a deal. So, I welcome Mr. Foxley, 

and I appreciate you for recognizing it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Foxley. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG FOXLEY, CHAIRMAN, TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD, 150TH CELEBRATION 

COMMISSION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Mr. FOXLEY. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. Thank you, 

Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Douglas Foxley, and I am 

Chair of the Transcontinental Railroad Celebration Spike 150 

Commission to celebrate and commemorate the ‘‘wedding of the 

rails’’ with the driving of the Golden Spike. The celebration will be 

held at Promontory Summit on Friday, May 10, 2019, as you have 

heard, in Congressman Bishop’s district. 

The Spike 150 Commission was established in early 2017 by an 

act of the legislature and the governor of the state of Utah. I think 

all those who have spoken today have talked about the historical 

importance of this, so I will not go into that. 

I was asked by Governor Gary Herbert to chair this event, and 

I asked Congressman Bishop and my good friend, Spencer Ficklin 

Stokes, to co-chair this event with me. Mr. Stokes was at the 100th 

anniversary celebration, carried on his shoulders, on his father’s 

shoulders, because his father wanted Spencer to appreciate later in 

life that which occurred here. 

12 

At the 100th Celebration of the Driving of the Golden Spike, 

many Federal and state dignitaries came to Promontory Summit, 

along with John Wayne. Mr. Wayne will not be at the 150th 

celebration, at least I don’t think so, but we invite you to join 

Congressman Bishop and also Congressman Curtis, who will be 

celebrating his birthday there, along with Congressman Stewart at 

this landmark event next year. 

To celebrate the 150th, Union Pacific is bringing in from 

Cheyenne, Wyoming two historic steam engines: the 4014, called 

‘‘The Big Boy’’ because it is the largest steam engine ever built, 

along with the 844. They will be at Ogden Union Station in the 

Champagne Pose, where a large gala will be held on the night of 

May 9. Move over, Winter Olympics, we are going to have the big 

celebration. 

The next day, we will have a presentation from a world class historian of Promontory Summit and enjoy a performance by the 

world-renowned Tabernacle Choir, the Utah Symphony, and a yetto-be-announced major guest artist. Yes, the actual Golden Spike 

will hopefully make its reunion debut at the site that day. 

In anticipation of the May 10 event, I met with Congressman 

Bishop and his staff almost a year ago, and they suggested this 

idea of designating the current historic site as a national historic 

park. Congressman Bishop charged me with getting all of the 

ranchers and adjacent landowners, along with the elected Box 

Elder County officials, on board before proceeding with this initiative. I am proud to say that in working with Utah State Representative Scott Sandall, who brought the ranchers together and who 

also happens to be one of the adjacent landowners, we accomplished this task. This effort is supported by the Utah State 

Legislature, the governor of Utah, and the entire Utah congressional delegation. 

Why is this national historic park designation important? Why is 

it worth doing? In the history of this amazing country, this place, 

virtually unspoiled, recognizes that President Lincoln and others 

thought big. President Lincoln envisioned a transcontinental railroad. And even though the Civil War was raging, he encouraged 

Congress to pass the Transcontinental Railroad Act in 1862, which 

they did. We are hoping, actually, to have a copy of that Act on display at the State Capitol building. 

After the Civil War ended, this effort came together, and many 

worked together: Chinese, Mormon Graders, Irish, and Civil War 

veterans of both parties. It is our hope and our belief that if this 

designation occurs, that it will once again re-engage a new generation with the great historic event which occurred here this time. 

Members, I encourage you to support this bill, and I thank you 

for this opportunity of being able to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foxley follows:] 

13 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS S. FOXLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE UTAH

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD CELEBRATION SPIKE 150 COMMISSION

STATEMENT ON H.R. 5751 

Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa and 

members of the Subcommittee, my name is Douglas S. Foxley and I am the Chair 

of the Utah Transcontinental Railroad Celebration Spike 150 Commission to commemorate the ‘‘wedding of the rails’’ with the driving of the Golden Spike. The 

celebration at Promontory Summit will take place on May 10, 2019, in Congressman 

Bishop’s district. The Spike 150 Commission was established in early 2017 by an 

act of the Utah State Legislature and governor of the state of Utah. 

One of the most iconic and life-altering events in America’s history—the 

completion of the Transcontinental Railroad—happened in Utah on May 10, 1869. 

Through a series of activities and events, the Spike 150 Commission aims to inspire, 

educate, and reflect on the Transcontinental Railroad legacy as it unifies Americans 

to see that great things are possible with vision, hard-work, dedication, and 

collaboration. 

As you know, but for the Civil War, this event was the most historic event of the 

19th century. It was at the time the equivalent of the moon shot. Ironically, a hundred years later rockets made near the site by Orbital ATK allowed man to walk 

on the moon. 

I was asked by Governor Gary Herbert to chair this event and I asked Congressman Bishop’s and my good friend Spencer Ficklin Stokes who is here today to cochair this event with me. Mr. Stokes was at the 100th anniversary celebration, 

carried on his shoulders by his father to appreciate what it signified. At the 100th 

Celebration of the Driving of the Golden Spike, many Federal and state dignitaries 

came to Promontory Summit along with John Wayne. Mr. Wayne will not be at the 

150th celebration, at least I don’t think so, but we invite you to join Congressman 

Bishop and the many other dignitaries slated to attend this landmark event next 

year. 

To celebrate the 150th, Union Pacific is bringing in from Cheyenne, Wyoming two 

historic steam engines: the 4014, called ‘‘The Big Boy’’ because it is the largest 

steam engine ever built along with the 844. They will be at Ogden Union Station 

in the ‘‘Champagne Pose’’ where a large Gala will be held on the night of May 9. 

The next day we will have a presentation from a world class historian at 

Promontory Summit and enjoy a performance by the world renowned Mormon 

Tabernacle Choir, the Utah Symphony, and a yet-to-be announced major guest artist. Yes, the actual Golden Spike will hopefully make it’s reunion debut on-site that 

day too. 

In anticipation of the May 10 event, I met with Congressman Bishop and his staff 

almost a year ago where they suggested the idea of designating the current National 

Historic Site as a National Historical Park. Congressman Bishop charged me with 

getting all of the ranchers and adjacent landowners along with the elected Box 

Elder County officials on board before proceeding with this initiative. I am proud 

to say that in working with Utah State Representative Scott Sandall, who brought 

the ranchers together and who also happens to be one of the adjacent landowners, 

we accomplished this task. This effort is supported by the Utah State Legislature, 

the governor of Utah, and the entire Utah congressional delegation. 

Why is this National Historical Park designation important? Why is this worth 

doing? In the history of our amazing country, this place, virtually unspoiled, recognizes that President Lincoln and others ‘thought big.’ President Lincoln envisioned 

a transcontinental railroad and even though the Civil War was raging, he encouraged Congress to pass the Transcontinental Railroad Act in 1862 which they did. 

In fact, President Lincoln personally established the eastern terminus of the 

railroad, Mile Marker Zero, in Council Bluffs, Iowa. 

After the Civil War, attention was focused on bringing this vision to life. 

Competing groups, one from the east, The Union Pacific, and one from the west, The 

Central Pacific Railroad, started their Race to Promontory and neither side at the 

time knew where the they would meet. Construction of this nationally unifying 

project was performed by many ethnic and cultural groups including the Chinese, 

African Americans, Irish, Mormon Graders, veterans of the Civil War from both 

sides, and many others. They were successful in achieving this amazing accomplishment with their picks and shovels, their horsepower, and black powder. The country 

was finally connected coast to coast by rail and telegraph. A journey from New York 

City to San Francisco now took only a week instead of months. 

It is the hope of Mr. Stokes, myself, and the Commission that we will connect the 

next generation of young men and women who will be carried on the shoulders of 

14 

their parents that day. We hope that they will take it upon themselves the duty 

and obligation to think big and find ways that we can continue to unite and connect 

this great country together but also to the entire world. 

For this, along with many other reasons, the Commission to Celebrate the 150th 

Anniversary of the Driving of the Golden Spike overwhelming supports 

Congressman Bishop’s H.R. 5751 redesignating the Golden Spike National Historic 

Site and establishing the Transcontinental Railroad Network. I hope that this 

Committee takes the appropriate action to make this happen thereby honoring and 

preserving this historic site and the effort by so many Americans to unite our 

Nation by rail. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you very much. That concludes 

our testimony on H.R. 5751. We will now move to questions on the 

bill. I will begin. 

Mr. Foxley, you mentioned Lincoln. I have a town in my district 

named Lincoln. It was formed in 1859. But it was not named after 

Abraham Lincoln, it was named after Charles Lincoln Wilson, who 

was one of the directors of the California Central Railroad. It was 

testimony to how important the railroad was to my district. 

So, I may be a little biased in this. The first depot on the transcontinental route moving out of San Francisco and Sacramento was 

actually in Rocklin and later moved to Roseville, where the Union 

Pacific still has a major yard. You can travel the foothills in my 

district and still see the original tunnels, original railwork that 

were part of the first transcontinental railroad route. 

I also have Sutter’s Mill in my district, which was, of course, the 

genesis of the Gold Rush. But what really made California economically, and what really made California an integral part of the 

Nation was the transcontinental railroad, so this is a pretty big 

deal, I think, for the country and particularly the many parts of it 

that were integral to the railroad itself. 

I guess the only question I really have is how would this network 

that you have mentioned work? Or maybe Mr. Smith can address 

that, as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the network would be akin to what 

we have now in the Underground Railroad to Freedom Network. It 

could be akin to the Civil Rights Sites Network that was just 

passed by Congress this last year and signed into law by the 

President. 

We do recommend that there be some type of a theme study or 

a resource study done so that we would really be able to find the 

truly significant sites that would be associated with this important 

happening of the transcontinental railroad. But we have those two 

exact examples, which went through theme studies so that we 

would know exactly what we were talking about that would be included in that type of network. 

Obviously, it would relate most directly to those areas on that 

first line connecting transcontinentally. But then again, there may 

be people who make a case for other sites along that line. And that 

is why a study would really help us see what is most significant. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And does this include the authority for the 

study? 

Mr. SMITH. I am sorry? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Does this include the authority for the study? 

15 

Mr. SMITH. At this current time it does not. We would request 

that that be added to the bill. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. And that is the concern that you 

expressed regarding your deferred maintenance backlog and the 

other resource demands on the Department? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, those are certainly our concerns. But Congress 

is giving us studies at this time, and we do find the money for 

studies, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. When you look at the broad history of this 

country, and those seminal moments that really were turning 

points, I think that the meeting of the rails at Promontory is a 

sadly neglected part of our history, because it really did make a 

quantum leap in the connectivity of the country. It literally joined 

the country together. We don’t really appreciate that today. But 

when you think about that quantum leap of weeks to cross the continent down to days, from days to send a message across the 

continent to minutes and even seconds, it really was remarkable. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with both 

your remarks and Chairman Bishop’s remarks about the national 

significance of this rail line being completed in Utah, yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Mr. FOXLEY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, Mr. Foxley? 

Mr. FOXLEY. If I may, my great-grandfather, General Lot Smith, 

had been mustered out of the Mormon Battalion, and was actually 

at Sutter’s Mill when gold was discovered. He was called back to 

Salt Lake City by Brigham Young. It took him 31⁄2 weeks to get 

from Sutter’s Mill to Salt Lake City. So, I would be extremely supportive of what is going on here, but as you know, your city of 

Sacramento has an amazing railroad museum, the premier railroad 

museum. And we are hoping that sites like that: Reno, Omaha, 

Ogden, and others, would be incorporated in this network. It is a 

great story to be told. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Even better. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Smith, the bill authorizes adjacent landowners to participate 

in the removal of invasive species on Park Service land. I assume 

that you have had this done before. How does that process work? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. The Park Service across the country, in removing invasive species, has asked for all the help we can get. We have 

many programs where we have volunteers who help us do that. I 

am not familiar with the exact species that have overtaken the 

natural species of sagebrush and all that used to be there. But obviously, if there are issues where invasives need to be removed, we 

would coordinate and cooperate with landowners to help us accomplish that. 

Anything that helped this landscape appear as it did in 1869 

would be something that, from the historical aspect, we would try 

to recreate. 

Ms. HANABUSA. You mentioned this yourself in your testimony, 

but the bill does not authorize any additional money for the management of the Golden Spike National Historic Site. Do you 

16 

anticipate the need for additional funds to carry out what is anticipated by this bill? 

Mr. SMITH. At this time I don’t. I do know that we are working 

currently to prepare to update the exhibits that will be at the 

visitor center there. 

There is deferred maintenance. The visitor center is a Mission 66 

visitor center, so I know we have deferred maintenance monies 

that we will certainly be concentrating on to help that facility be 

ready for this anniversary. 

As far as staffing at this time, we do not think that this would 

be necessary. And the network would not necessarily be run out of 

Golden Spike National Historical Park. That would probably be run 

out of Washington, as we run those other sites currently. 

Ms. HANABUSA. The bill also authorizes the National Park 

Service to enter into agreements with adjacent landowners to expedite approval of projects within existing historical crossings. The 

terms of the agreement includes a 30-day time limit for approving 

the actual permit. Is that a sufficient amount of time for you? 

Mr. SMITH. In some cases it might not be. As the superintendent 

at Colonial National Historical Park, I issued not hundreds, but 

certainly close to 100 special use permits. Those permits, when 

they are negotiated, in this case with landowners, can be very flexible. They can be established for up to 5 years before they have to 

be renewed. They can be amended. 

One of the reasons I would like to coordinate and cooperate with 

the Committee is that I think it could be done under the existing 

special-use permits that park superintendents have at their disposal. If there is something more unusual that I don’t understand 

about the situation there at Golden Spike, I certainly would take 

that in consideration as we look for a way to resolve that. 

On some of these things, there might be Section 106 consultation 

that is required, and that type of thing. But a special use permit, 

once it is negotiated between the park and the landowners, it 

shouldn’t take any time at all to execute. And I would be very surprised if it is really quite the problem that the bill seems to think 

it is. 

I would say that I do not know the total specifics of the adjacent 

landowners next to this rather linear corridor that we have, but I 

had a 23-mile parkway that I was able to do special-use permits 

on while I was 10 years at Colonial, so I think there is a way to 

do that under existing processes that the Park Service has. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I think you can probably work with the 

Committee to have both, so that if for some reason your specialuse permit doesn’t work, that this provision could then kick in. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Congresswoman, I look forward to that being 

something that we work together to make sure we assure that the 

Park Service’s concerns are covered, but also that adjacent landowners have their issues covered. 

Again, Secretary Zinke wants us to be a good neighbor, and I will 

work to make sure that we assure that in this bill. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And, remember, we are looking at less than a 

year for the opening of this event, so you have to move very 

quickly, Mr. Smith. 

17 

Mr. SMITH. I am very much aware of that. And with the two 

chairmen looking at me, I certainly don’t need much more 

direction. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. With that I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate both of you here, testifying 

on this. 

Mr. Foxley, if I could just ask you, is there private-sector 

involvement in this project? 

Mr. FOXLEY. Yes, there is. The state of Utah, in the recent 2018 

general legislature, appropriated $1 million for the celebration. 

In addition, Union Pacific Railroad has given us a very signifi- cant grant. They will contribute over $1 million, not only in money, 

but also in other things. 

The O.C. Tanner Foundation has given us a grant. If you were going to put a dollar amount on it, it would be in excess of $1 

million, to have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Utah 

Symphony, a major guest artist, and others. Several prominent 

families and foundations in Utah have promised and will be committing money to this event. 

This is, I think, an excellent example of a public-private partnership. We are working in conjunction with this site. We can make 

the site an even more attractive site for visitors and others. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Smith talked briefly about the network that we 

are establishing at the same time. Do you also think that that is 

going to bring attention, maybe visitation, to some of the lesserknown areas of interest that are around there that are all 

connected with this same story of history? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think that is what happens with 

these types of networks. It brings the type of national attention to 

get to a site in Utah that has that national significance. 

So, I think that when the network is established, it would bring 

more attention and certainly possibly more visitation to the historical park. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I actually was asking Mr. Foxley for 

that one, but I do appreciate your answer. It was a good one. 

Mr. SMITH. I apologize. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, no, that is fine. 

I am totally fascinated and happy that you are in the position 

you are right now. You have shown your ability to work marvels 

in every assignment that you have had. That is why I am totally 

confident in your ability of making sure that the network we have 

for the Underground Railroad, as well as the African-American 

Civil Rights Network will go forward. And I am also totally confident that this network will go forward, too, and will be managed 

brilliantly. 

So, if you want authorization for a study, I promise you, you 

have it. It is going to be in the bill. 

At the same time, I also want you to know to be careful. He 

wrote the bill. If he had my ideas in it, you may not like it nearly 

as much as the one you already have here. 

Mr. Foxley, are there some parts of history, though, that can be 

emphasized simply by making this change, and maybe some increases in not only the programs at the visitation facility? 

18 

Mr. FOXLEY. One of the things we are working in conjunction 

with the Utah State Parks, Box Elder County, and others is to augment activities next year at the site, which will hopefully drive 

visitorship at the park. There will be a lot of attention brought 

upon this. Major media, both national and local, are highlighting 

what is going to happen here. And we want patrons who will come 

to the site to have a good experience. 

Close to the historic site, there is a world-renowned public land 

art, the spiral jetty. And there are many things of interest. We 

want to tie all of these together so that people can come to Box 

Elder County, and especially Brigham City, and eat at the Idle Isle, 

and enjoy the Golden Spike. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And I appreciate your emphasis on 

Brigham City and not your hometown of Tremonton. You are getting that down properly. 

Mr. FOXLEY. It pains me, but I understand the politics of the 

Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. If I can have you wearing purple instead of red, is 

that taking it too far? 

Mr. FOXLEY. Maybe socks. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the testimony. I am 

looking forward to this event next year. I think it is a significant 

one for the history of this country, and something which we have 

to remember. I will yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Are there further questions on H.R. 5751 by members of the 

Committee? 

Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Hanabusa. I was pleased to be asked by Chairman Bishop to be a 

co-sponsor of this, and that delights me. As was referred to by Mr. 

Foxley, I share a birthday with this commemoration. And I can’t 

imagine a better way to celebrate my birthday than to have the 

Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing to me and the railroad. I just want 

to express my support not only for this bill, but for the celebration, 

as well. 

Because I shared my birthday with this, I think as a young man, 

when this was taught to me in school, I paid special attention. And 

I am worried that many of our youth don’t appreciate what has 

happened there, and the commemoration. Mr. Foxley, maybe you 

can address any efforts we are making through the public schools 

to help them with an awareness of this issue, and anything that 

we can do here on a congressional level to bring awareness to the 

issue. 

Mr. FOXLEY. Thank you very much, Congressman. We have been 

working with the State Office of Education Superintendent, Sid 

Dixon. I am pleased to say that the Beverley Taylor Sorenson Arts 

Foundation is going to emphasize this project next year in grades 

K through 6. There is also a revised curriculum which is being developed for the high schools. There are library kits, there is going 

to be a massive effort. 

19 

Craig Jessop, the former conductor of the Mormon Tabernacle 

Choir, is working with Kurt Bestor and others to have songs sung. 

There will be major coverage of the events, which will be broadcast 

that day to all of the public schools in Utah through KSL TV and 

others. So, it is a major effort. 

We have also reached out to many of the communities, in particular the Chinese-American community. It is our hope that while 

we cannot change the past, we can write the future. It is the hope 

of our commission that the signage at the site will be in both 

English and Chinese, for our Chinese friends and visitors. 

We are also hoping, and are working with a major foundation at 

this time, to have a film in Chinese for our Chinese tourists, so 

they can appreciate what happened here. 

I think, as was mentioned in earlier comments, this site—and I 

didn’t realize this until I got involved with this—how important 

this is to many communities, but in particular the Chinese communities. I recently addressed a group of Chinese historical workers. 

Congresswoman Grace Meng from New York was there, and others. 

But this site is important, and we need to make certain that this 

is a time when we are uniting all groups who worked on this site. 

Mr. CURTIS. That is fantastic. Finally, let me just express my appreciation. The efforts that you have described, with that comment 

and earlier about the private partnership, demonstrate a tremendous amount of work on your part and on the Committee’s part. 

Let me just say it is impressive, and I look forward to participating 

with the celebration next year. 

Mr. FOXLEY. I think you don’t realize, but you accepted an invitation to be an honorary chair, along with Congressman Stewart and 

Congressman Bishop. 

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, I didn’t mention that because I haven’t done 

any work. But I am pleased to be honorary chair, as well. 

Mr. FOXLEY. We are willing to do it for you, as long as you pass 

the bill. 

Mr. CURTIS. Good. Thank you. I yield my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. John has to realize when you are 149 you forget 

these things. 

Mr. CURTIS. That is true. I might also just interject that as a 

Chinese speaker, I am really pleased to hear about the work that 

has taken place with that community, and would offer my services 

as an honorary chairman if I can be helpful in that regard at all. 

Thank you. I yield my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That concludes our hearing on H.R. 5751. 

Mr. Smith, I know you have submitted written testimony on the 

bills before us, and at this point both you and Mr. Foxley are certainly welcome to stay, but you are also free to go. Thank you 

again for your testimony. 

Mr. FOXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Next we will hear H.R. 5597, and the Chair 

would introduce Congressman Chris Stewart to explain the bill. 

20 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS STEWART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Chairman. And before Mr. Foxley 

leaves the room I would like to welcome him and other members 

from my home state. And I would like to thank the Chairman and 

Ranking Member, Chairman Bishop, the Full Committee members, 

as well as members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you regarding my bill. 

This is a long title, hang in with me here, The Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act. Hereafter, we will just 

call it H.R. 5597. And Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent 

that the letters of support be added to the record. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

ACCESS FUND

April 16, 2018 

Hon. CHRIS STEWART, 

323 Cannon House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act, Washington County, 

Utah 

Dear Congressman Stewart: 

Access Fund and the local rock climbing community in Washington County, Utah 

have been closely tracking the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

Expansion Act—Draft Bill (HCP) which proposes creating additional 6,865 acre reserve for tortoise habitat known as Zone 6. Legislative language of the bill has not 

yet been disclosed to the public. 

The proposed boundary of Zone 6 encompasses numerous highly valued rock 

climbing resources (cliffs and boulders) known as Moe’s Valley and the Zen area. 

Moe’s Valley (Zone 6) is an international climbing destination that draws climbers 

both locally and from around the world to experience high quality rock climbing. 

Access Fund and the local climbing organization Southern Utah Climbers Association (SUCA) support continued access to Moe’s Valley are committed to continued 

stewardship of the climbing area and the surrounding environment. 

We request language be included in the HCP bill that explicitly notes ‘‘rock 

climbing as an appropriate recreational activity’’ within the proposed Zone 6 under 

the HCP. In addition, existing trails to access climbing resources should be recognized and allowed along with appropriate stewardship and maintenance within Zone 

6. Access Fund and SUCA are available to provide detail maps and locations of all 

existing climbing resources and access trails within Zone 6 to assist in land use 

planning efforts associated with the HCP bill. 

Thank you for your consideration of adding language to list ‘‘rock climbing as an 

appropriate recreational activity’’ within Zone 6 of the Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Conservation Plan Expansion Act—Draft Bill. Access Fund and SUCA have the 

experience, local contacts, and resources to help planners craft alternatives that encourage climbing while sustaining the health, diversity and productivity of this important habitat. Feel free to contact me via telephone (303–552–2843) or email 

(katie@accessfund.org) to discuss this matter further. 

Sincerely, 

KATIE GOODWIN, 

Public Land Associate 

21 

THE CONSERVATION FUND, 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

March 27, 2018 

Hon. CHRIS STEWART, 

323 Cannon House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act 

Dear Congressman Stewart: 

The Conservation Fund (TCF) is a national nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization 

dedicated to preserving America’s land legacy by acquiring and protecting open 

space, wildlife habitat, and historic sites throughout the nation. TCF also assists 

partners in business, government, and the nonprofit sector with projects that integrate economic development and environmental protection. 

Through its distinct vision of environmental protection while advancing economic 

vitality, TCF has worked closely with Washington County and the State of Utah for 

over thirty years protecting over 117,00 acres. We replace the premise of ‘‘or’’ with 

the promise of ‘‘and’’ believing we can have a healthy environment and vibrant economy; protect nature and create jobs; conserve natural resources and use them 

sustainably; and support development and develop responsibly. 

We have also been involved with Washington County in furtherance of implementing the original Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) agreement and support its 

renewal and continuation. We have reviewed the draft ‘‘Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Conservation Plan Expansion Act’’ providing for the expansion of the Washington 

County HCP and believe it represents a continued balanced approach consistent 

with the goals and objectives of TCF. Expanding the HCP by creating an additional 

6,865 acre reserve, renewing the HCP agreement for an additional 25 years, and 

including many other conservation and recreation provisions as set forth in the legislation, will ensure the County’s commitment to conserve resources vital to the area 

while using them in a way that invigorates future prosperity and the conservation. 

On behalf of TCF we are glad to support this important legislation and look forward to continuing our work and partnership with Washington County and the 

State of Utah advancing future environmental protection and economic vitality. If 

you have any questions or concerns about the role of TCF, or our support for this 

effort, please contact me directly at (702) 655–8167 or via email at 

mford@conservationfund.org. 

Sincerely, 

MIKE FORD, 

Nevada and Southwest Director 

DIXIE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, 

ST. GEORGE, UTAH

May 17, 2018 

Hon. CHRIS STEWART, 

323 Cannon House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Support for the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act 

Dear Congressman Stewart: 

The Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (Dixie MPO) supports the Desert 

Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act based on our understanding that 

The Act would accelerate this area’s ability to build critical transportation facilities, 

particularly the Northern Corridor and the Western Corridor. 

The Act preserves open space, adds protections to the Mohave Desert Tortoise, 

protects current recreational activities that are conducive to tortoise habitat, and 

allows for needed transportation development in the greater St. George area. These 

goals are consistent with those of our long-range Regional Transportation Plan and 

are respectful of both the natural and built environments of this area. 

22 

The Act, while serving to prevent Utah School and Institutional Trust Land 

(‘‘SITLA’’) development through the creation of Zone 6, protects the Desert Tortoise 

and would still allow future development of two major roads of regional significance: 

The Northern Corridor—a vital transportation facility planned to prevent traffic 

gridlock, improve air quality, and aid economic development within the St. George 

Urban Area, and the Western Corridor (needed to meet transportation demands in 

2040 and beyond). 

We must be able to build the transportation and utility infrastructure necessary 

to meet the needs of our growing community. We need the Northern Corridor, The 

Western Corridor, and the ability to get water and electricity into the area. The bill 

ensures we can meet these needs and offsets any negative impact on the desert 

tortoise and other environmental concerns. 

Thank you for your consideration and efforts on our behalf. Our area needs this 

bill. 

Sincerely, 

MYRON W. LEE, MPA, 

Director. 

May 17, 2018 

Hon. ORRIN HATCH, 

United States Senate, 

104 Hart Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Re: Support for the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act 

Dear Senator Hatch: 

I write you in support of the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

Expansion Act. The Act preserves open space, protects the Mohave Desert tortoise, 

protects current recreational activities that are conducive to tortoise habitat, and allows for needed transportation development in the greater St. George area. It is a 

great bill and should be passed! 

I live in the St. George area and recreate on our public lands regularly. The 

proposed Zone 6 will prevent the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

(‘‘SITLA’’) from developing an area where people commonly mountain bike, run, 

hike, and rock climb. Also, this bill will not only protect these lands but also insure 

the continued use of this area for special events that we have personally been part 

of over the past decade. The area helps enhance to the beauty of the St. George area 

and draws many tourists in that support our local economy. The area also has a 

thriving desert tortoise population as well. 

Please support this bill and help it get passed. Our area really needs it. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN B. HOOPER, 

St. George, Utah 

RESOLUTION NO. 2018–09R 

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DESERT 

TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN EXPANSION BILL 

WHEREAS, the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) has expired and needs to be renewed; 

WHEREAS, Ivins City has benefited from the HCP since 2006 by having open 

recreation space in the tortoise reserve and the ability to work easily with the 

County for tortoise recovery; 

WHEREAS, the city would like the HCP to be renewed so that the residents can 

continue to benefit from the HCP; 

23 

WHEREAS, the utility development protocols (UDPs) are essential to the 

continued growth and vitality of the cities in Washington County; 

WHEREAS, the northern corridor is an important part of the infrastructure plan 

for future growth in the County; and 

WHEREAS, the creation of Zone 6 of the HCP ensures more open recreation 

space, mitigates for impacts from the northern corridor, and assists in tortoise 

recovery; and 

WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Ivins City for the bill to 

be passed. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IVINS 

CITY, STATE OF UTAH, AS FOLLOWS: 

That the Ivins City Council supports the Washington County Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Bill. 

This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City 

Council. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE IVINS CITY COUNCIL, STATE OF UTAH, 

ON THIS 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2018 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 

AYE NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT 

Dennis Mehr ................................................................................... X 

Cheyne McDonald ........................................................................... X 

Jenny Johnson ................................................................................ X 

Miriah Elliott .................................................................................. X 

Ron Densley ................................................................................... X 

CHRIS HART, MAYOR

ATTEST: 

Kari Jimenez, City Recorder 

May 17, 2018 

Hon. MIKE LEE, 

United States Senate, 

361 Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Re: Support for the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act 

Dear Senator Lee: 

I write you in support of the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act. The Act preserves open space, protects the Mohave Desert tortoise, protects current recreational activities that are conducive to tortoise habitat, and allows 

for needed transportation development in the greater St. George area. This bill is 

a great example of positive collaboration between government entities and considers 

the needs and wants of the local citizens. I believe it should be passed! 

I live in the St. George area and recreate on our public lands regularly. I personally participate in the local cycling, hiking, and climbing communities, thus I know 

how important both Zone 6 and the current Desert Tortoise habitat areas are to 

those who love to recreate in the majestic beauty of Southern Utah. This bill protects areas important to these communities. The proposed Zone 6 will prevent the 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands (‘‘SITLA’’) from developing an area 

where people commonly mountain bike, hike, and rock climb. The area also has a 

thriving desert tortoise population that will benefit if this bill is passed. 

Please support this bill and help it get passed. Our area needs it. 

Sincerely, 

DANNIELLE LARKIN, 

St. George, Utah 

24 

LA VERKIN CITY 

RESOLUTION NO. R–2018–09 

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DESERT 

TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN EXPANSION BILL 

WHEREAS, the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

(‘‘the HCP’’) has expired and needs to be renewed; and 

WHEREAS, LaVerkin City (‘‘the City’’), a municipality within Washington 

County, Utah, has benefited from the HCP since 2006 by having open recreation 

space in the tortoise reserve and the ability to work easily with the County for 

tortoise recovery; and 

WHEREAS, the City would like the HCP to be renewed so that the residents can 

continue to benefit from the HCP; and 

WHEREAS, the utility development protocols (UDPs) provided for therein are 

essential to the continued growth and vitality of the municipalities in Washington 

County; and 

WHEREAS, the northern corridor is an important part of the infrastructure plan 

for future growth in the County; and 

WHEREAS, the creation of Zone 6 of the HCP ensures more open recreation 

space, mitigates for impacts from the northern corridor, and assists in tortoise 

recovery; and 

WHEREAS, the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation 

Plan Expansion Bill (‘‘the Bill’’), currently proposed to be introduced in Congress 

later this Spring: 

• Expands the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve and orders the renewal of the HCP; 

and 

• Addresses the route for and construction of the northern corridor in 

Washington County; and 

• Re-implements the UDPs; and 

• Clarifies and/or otherwise cleans up the Bureau of Land Management (‘‘the 

BLM’’) Resource Management Plans (‘‘the RMPs’’) 

WHEREAS, passage of the Bill by Congress is in the best interest of the citizens 

of the City. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the LaVerkin City Council: 

1. That the City Council hereby declares and publishes its support for the 

Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

Expansion Bill proposed to be introduced in Congress, for consideration and 

possible action, in the Spring of 2018; and 

2. That this Resolution shall be effective upon adoption; and 

3. That the City hereby declares that (a) if any part of this resolution shall be 

declared invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this resolution; (b) all resolutions or policies in conflict herewith are 

hereby repealed; and (c) this resolution shall take effect immediately upon 

passage. 

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 18th day of April, 2018. 

RICHARD M. HIRSCHI, MAYOR

ATTEST: 

Christy Ballard, City Recorder 

25 

SOUTHERN UTAH CLIMBERS COALITION

Hon. CHRIS STEWART, 

323 Cannon House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act—Washington 

County, Utah 

Dear Congressman Stewart: 

As president of the Southern Utah Climbers Coalition, I would like to voice our 

organizations support of the expansion to the Red Cliffs Desert Conservation area, 

via your bill. 

The area that comprises the expansion has been a vital area for numerous forms 

of outdoor recreation to both the residents of and visitors to Washington County. 

As the growth of the area accelerates the few remaining areas of open space close 

to town become even more of a refuge for both recreationalists as well as a wide 

range of endemic species like the endangered desert tortoise. 

The proposed Zone 6 expansion in your bill features numerous areas for rock 

climbing, bouldering, mountain biking, hiking, rappelling, and even responsible off 

road vehicle usage on already existing 4wd roads. These uses have historically coexisted with numerous desert species that call the cliffs and rocks home. Several 

recreational uses in Zone 6 have attained world renowned status such as the 

bouldering in Moe’s Valley, the rock climbing on the Zen Wall, and the mountain 

biking on the Zen Trail. These uses draw outdoor recreationalists from all over the 

world and as such are the fuel that powers the tourist sector of the Southwestern 

Utah economy. 

We request that language be included in the HCP bill that explicitly notes these 

uses as ‘‘appropriate recreational activities within the proposed Zone 6 of the HCP.’’ 

It might be valuable to note that public law 111 which brought the HPC into the 

conservation program included language that requires the building of the roads such 

as the new corridor road, and also requires recognition of existing roads in conservation zones which are necessary and used to access the recreation. There is one road 

on the February map shown as a ‘‘proposed trial’’ that provides access to the Zen 

wall and the upper gap climbing areas. Many times folks with disabilities have 

hired guiding services for zip lining or climbing in these areas and this dirt road 

that runs from east to west, less than 1⁄4 mile long, has very light traffic, but needs 

to be included as a continued access road for motorized travel on zone 6 to access 

recreation, otherwise it would not comply with Public law 111, and the provisions 

of the Congressional Disabilities Act. Everything else in the map and bill we support and are grateful for you and the WCWCD commissioner’s, the local City 

councils, the TC committee in working hard to congressionally recognize such uses 

as required continued access. 

Thank you for your consideration of this additional language to the bill. The 

Southern Utah Climbers Coalition has been involved in the preservation of the 

areas within this proposed expansion since 2004 and has worked with SITLA since 

that time to foster understanding of the unique nature and value of this area to 

local recreationalists. We also have a program in place working with state parks 

and other areas within the conservation zones to regulate new climbing, bolting, 

clean up areas, and are actively involved in managing and protecting both the recreational and the habitat in the existing areas and will continue to do so for the 

new zone 6. The turtle habitat numbers have increased in zone 6, we believe it is 

directly related to the recreational uses scaring away natural predators and being 

present to protect the species and the land we all want preserved for further 

generations to come. 

Sincerely, 

TODD GOSS, 

President 

26 

RESOLUTION NO. 2018–04–001R 

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DESERT 

TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN EXPANSION BILL 

WHEREAS, the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) has expired and needs to be renewed; 

WHEREAS, St. George City has benefited from the HCP since 2006 by having 

open recreation space in the tortoise reserve and the ability to work easily with the 

County for tortoise recovery; 

WHEREAS, the city would like the HCP to be renewed so that the residents can 

continue to benefit from the HCP; 

WHEREAS, the utility development protocols (UDPs) are essential to the 

continued growth and vitality of the cities in Washington County; 

WHEREAS, the northern corridor is an important part of the infrastructure plan 

for future growth in the County; and 

WHEREAS, the creation of Zone 6 of the HCP ensures more open recreation 

space, mitigates for impacts from the northern corridor, and assists in tortoise 

recovery; and 

WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of St. George City for the bill 

to be passed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. 

GEORGE CITY IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, that the city council 

supports the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

Expansion Bill. 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of St. George, this 

5th day of April, 2018. 

Members of the Council Voting Aye 

Jimmie Hughes 

Michele Randall 

Joe Bowcutt 

Bette Arial 

Ed Baca 

CITY OF ST. GEORGE 

JONATHAN T. PIKE, MAYOR

ATTEST: 

Annette Hansen, Deputy City Recorder 

WASHINGTON CITY RESOLUTION R2018–06 

A RESOLUTION OF WASHINGTON CITY SUPPORTING THE 

WASHINGTON COUNTY DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION 

PLAN EXPANSION BILL 

WHEREAS, the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) has expired and needs to be renewed; and 

WHEREAS, Washington City has benefited from the HCP since 2006 by having 

open recreation space in the tortoise reserve and the ability to work easily with the 

County for tortoise recovery; and 

WHEREAS, the city would like the HCP to be renewed so that the residents can 

continue to benefit from the HCP; and 

WHEREAS, the utility development protocols (UDPs) are essential to the 

continued growth and vitality of the cities in Washington County; and 

27 

WHEREAS, although the northern corridor is an important part of the infrastructure plan for future growth in the County; the City Council has grave concerns 

about the close proximity of the northern corridor (as currently proposed) to 

Washington City homes and the additional traffic which would flow onto 

Washington Parkway once it connects to the northern corridor and the City Council 

is looking for all possible mitigations prior to that occurring; and 

WHEREAS, the creation of Zone 6 of the HCP ensures more open recreation 

space, mitigates for impacts from the northern corridor, and assists in tortoise 

recovery; and 

WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Washington City for the 

bill to be passed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 

WASHINGTON CITY IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, that the city council 

supports the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan 

Expansion Bill. 

VOTED UPON AND PASSED by the City Council at a Regular Meeting held on 

the 25th day of April, 2018. 

Washington City 

KENNETH F. NEILSON, MAYOR

Attest: 

Danice B. Bulloch, MMC City Recorder 

Mr. STEWART. One of the counties I am honored to represent in 

Utah’s 2nd District is Washington County. This is a place unlike 

anywhere else in the world. It is home to beautiful red rocks of 

southern Utah, and it spreads across a stunning landscape from St. 

George to Zion National Park. Washington County is one of the 

fastest-growing counties not only in Utah, but actually in the entire 

Nation. And clearly, for a good reason. For those of you who have 

had a chance to visit this stunning part of the country, you would 

understand why. 

In 2009, the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, known as 

the NCA, was added to the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve through legislation sponsored by my good friend, former Senator Bob Bennett, 

and signed into law by President Obama. The law clearly states 

that the government entities identify one or more alternatives for 

a northern transportation route. However, this corridor has not 

been implemented, and my bill seeks to fully implement congressional intent of this bipartisan compromise by authorizing a 

northern corridor route that is desperately needed. 

Over the last year, Federal and state biologists have been working tirelessly with Washington County, the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Services, and other stakeholders to form a compromised 

solution that would create a convenient corridor that would reduce 

traffic congestion, improve air quality, and allow the county’s economy to flourish. 

But also, and this is important, to minimize the effects on the 

desert tortoise and its designated conservation area. 

The plan that resulted from this coalition has become H.R. 5597, 

my legislation that is being discussed today. The plan consists of 

a 300-foot-wide corridor that disrupts, and please listen to this, this 

28 

is important, it disrupts 147 acres of the NCA, but makes up with 

that by more than 6,000 acres of prime tortoise habitat. 

If I could invest $147 and get more than $6,000 back I would certainly do that, and I think this is a good example of where we have 

made extraordinary progress in protecting this prime habitat. 

Not only does this bill protect the tortoise, but it also continues 

to protect recreational activities in the area, such as hiking, biking, 

and rock climbing, something that I love to do. It will allow residents and visitors alike to continue to enjoy the beauty of this 

region. 

The corridor created by the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation 

Plan is essential to the growth of Washington County, and the legislation has the support of cities surrounding the county. 

I am confident that it will benefit the current and future 

residents of Washington County and the tortoise population. The 

corridor is a big win for the conservation efforts for the desert 

tortoise and for the county, and I urge this Subcommittee to support this important legislation. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize a good 

friend of mine, someone who I greatly respect, Washington County 

Commissioner, Dean Cox. He is new to the position of a commissioner, but he has been working tirelessly for the county for many 

generations and he is doing a wonderful job, and he is a man that 

I have great respect for. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you very much. We will now hear 

from Mr. Paul Van Dam, a member of the Board of Directors for 

Conserve Southwest Utah. He comes to us today from, is it Ivins, 

Utah? Ivins. 

Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL VAN DAM, MEMBER, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, CONSERVE SOUTHWEST UTAH, IVINS, UTAH 

Mr. VAN DAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Committee. My pleasure to be here today. My name is Paul Van 

Dam, and I represent Conserve Southwest Utah, which is a local, 

grass-roots conservation organization in Washington County. We 

have over 10 years’ experience with the matter under 

consideration. 

I was Executive Director of the organization in 2008, when a bill 

involving the Northern Corridor, the road now included in 

H.R. 5597, first brought it to the public’s attention. I also testified 

in January of 2016 at a hearing on the issue in St. George, where 

Mr. Stewart was also present. 

Congressman Stewart’s bill deals with more than just the 

Northern Corridor. But this is the thrust of the bill. We have 

watched this effort to get a highway through critical habitat evolve 

in the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, most of which is now Red Cliffs 

NCA, with county and national leaders taking many approaches. 

Our written testimony provides background and information to 

support our position, and reinforces our opposition to current efforts to force a road that was never formally planned during the 

29 

official reserve process. My oral testimony focuses on significant 

issues pertaining to the bill, but not all of our concerns. 

The highway is incompatible with protections of the threatened 

Mojave Desert tortoise and other protected species, and was clearly 

presented in the May 15, 2018 letter by the Desert Tortoise 

Council, which is the definitive desert tortoise organization containing biologists dedicated to the furtherance of the tortoise. I 

present their letter to be included in the record. 

The purpose of the reserve and NCA is to provide permanent 

habitat protection to the threatened tortoise. The reserve was a 

mitigation for the take, harm or death, of tortoises that opened up 

over 300,000 acres in Washington County for growth and economic 

development, as is made clear on the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve 

website information. The ESA specifically prohibits a take via habitat destruction, which a highway would certainly do. It is scientifically false that the road could enhance the habitat. 

Other transportation solutions exist that have not been seriously 

considered by our local government. With no independent review, 

we do not feel that leaders and planners have done the due diligence necessary to deal with infrastructure in our county. 

Proposed Zone 6, as mentioned by the Congressman, is not 

mitigation, and should not be presented as such. The addition of 

Zone 6 on 7 or 8 miles from the existing reserve NCA is a disconnected area containing a segment of tortoise habitat, and cannot be 

accepted as mitigation for several reasons. 

One, the best habitat of Zone 6 is not equal to the prime habitat 

in Zone 3. 

Two, Zone 6 habitat is already protected under ESA and NEPA. 

Zone 3 is, in itself, mitigation. So, Zone 6 would become mitigation 

for mitigation. Zone 6 cannot be a land bank. Damage to one protected habitat cannot be balanced by another protected habitat. 

Local governments should not get more control of the habitat. 

The county commission controls the Habitat Advisory Committee, 

exerts play of control on the ACP administration, and appoints a 

local HCAC representative, usually from government. The utility 

development protocol that works with the HCP allows utility development project decision making to rest with the commissioners if 

there are conflicts. Some development projects should not have 

been allowed during tortoise inactive seasons, but were. 

The county needs to renew the HCP and its take permit to harm 

or kill tortoises to allow further development. The bill circumvents 

the ESA and usurps U.S. Fish and Wildlife responsibilities. The 

bill does not encourage fiscal responsibility—$100 million dollars 

have been spent on buying land inside the reserve that was private 

land, public, or other land. BLM has traded land outside the reserve for the private land in the reserve. Fish and Wildlife grants 

have been spent buying land. The bill undermines these expenditures. Adding a $100 million road to these potentially wasted expenditures is not fiscally acceptable. 

Finally, but importantly, the bill sets a bad precedent, nationally. 

Nowhere is a local government allowed authority to decide take 

and mitigation requirements. Any local government could use this 

bill as precedent to remove protections for listed species. That may 

30 

be the sponsor’s purpose, but it is certainly not good for our NCA 

or others in this great country. 

Utah’s effort to wrest control of public land is clearly evident. An 

open process resulting in the HCP and RPM is opposed to this bill 

that resulted from closed-door meetings—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Van Dam, I am afraid I am going to have 

to interrupt you there. 

Mr. VAN DAM. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The time has expired. 

Mr. VAN DAM. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. It is quite all right. It happens all the time. 

But we do try to keep to the schedule. But your testimony in full 

will be in the record, and I am sure you will have the opportunity 

to elaborate on those remarks shortly. 

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONSERVE SOUTHWEST UTAH ON H.R. 5597 

This testimony provides the historical and logical reasons H.R. 5597 should not 

pass. It is presented in terms of a summary of the history, the proposed bill and 

our issues with it; and is then followed by the details providing the basis for our 

position. 

SUMMARY

Introduction 

Conserve Southwest Utah (CSU) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony 

to the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee on 

this matter that is very dear to the citizens of Washington County and, due to the 

precedent-setting nature of this bill, of great importance to American citizens. 

As a local grassroots conservation organization in Washington County we have 

over 10 years of detailed experience with the subject of this bill. We have regularly 

attended Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee meetings (the committee that 

oversees the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, 

most of which is now Red Cliffs National Conservation Area—RCNCA) and public 

meetings held by county elected officials and the BLM. We have met face-to-face 

with local elected officials and organized public forums in attempts to reach understanding and resolution. We organized citizen participation in the development of 

the 2006 ‘‘Vision Dixie’’ long-range county development concept, the 2009 Omnibus 

Public Lands Management Act (OPLMA), the 2016 Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs) for the two National Conservation Areas (NCAs), and testified in the 2016 

field hearing for the Federal Lands Subcommittee. Hundreds of us have spent thousands of volunteer hours achieving the protections that this bill would throw aside. 

We have watched this effort to enable a highway through critical habitat evolve 

over these many years. Our testimony will provide background information and 

bring the Subcommittee up to date on current efforts by Congressman Stewart and 

our county elected officials to force a road where one was never formerly planned 

and certainly never approved. 

Thank you for your consideration of our thoughts and concerns on the matter 

under review today. Additionally, thank you for your service to this Nation and its 

citizens. We look forward to a well-considered decision from this body. 

Summary of H.R. 5597 

The following describes our understanding of the bill. The sections of the bill are 

referenced below in ‘‘Issues with H.R. 5597.’’ 

—Section 1 provides a short title for the bill. 

—Section 2 provides definitions. 

—Section 3 describes the HCP Amendment directed by the bill. 

—3a states that the Department of the Interior (DOI) must approve an HCP 

amendment and renew the permit in accordance with this and other 

applicable laws. 

31 

—3b and c states that the county and the BLM will manage Zone 6 as they 

manage the other zones (to enhance the natural values of such lands, 

including wildlife habitat). 

—3d states RMP amendment requirements, addressing the HCP, recreation 

and easements. 

—3e and f defines ‘‘mitigation credits,’’ stating that Zone 6 can be used to 

mitigate damage in other zones, including the highway, and to mitigate 

‘‘take’’ (tortoise harm or death) throughout the county. 

—3g states that the DOI must accept the amendment within a year. 

—3h states there are no other effects to the HCP. 

—Section 4 addresses RMP/NCA Adjustments, requiring the DOI to amend 

RMPs to incorporate this act, with coordination and cooperation of local 

governments. 

—Section 5 addresses the RCNCA, stating the existing Rights-of-Way (ROW) 

will remain in tack, provides for the highway, and disallows BLM from water 

rights. 

—Section 6 addresses the BDWNCA, stating that ROWs are not to be more 

restrictive than RCNCA, disallows the BLM from water rights, and preserves 

grazing rights. 

Summary of Our Position 

H.R. 5597 takes a tremendous leap backward for Washington County, Utah, by 

undermining the open, transparent citizen engagement that created the Red Cliffs 

Desert Reserve/National Conservation Area (Reserve/RCNCA) and the Beaver Dam 

Wash National Conservation Area (BDWNCA) many years ago. These sensitive 

habitats and scenic signature vistas of our area represent the best of the National 

Landscape Conservation System, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill also takes a tremendous leap 

backward for the entire country by undermining the ESA and NEPA by basically 

giving control of listed species to a local government. To grant the provisions defined 

in H.R. 5597 would not only do irreparable damage to our local public lands but 

also undermine the foundation of these basic environmental protections across the 

entire country. There are appropriate processes in place to fairly address the 

county’s issues, using scientific and proper alternatives analyses. The county has 

refused. 

Background 

Washington County and the city of St. George in the far southwest corner of Utah 

is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. Over half the land in the county 

is federally-managed, including its signature landscape, a large section of rugged, 

red-rock canyon, plateau and mesa area immediately bordering the northern urban 

area. In the 1980s, after many years of study, the Mojave Desert tortoise was listed 

as ‘‘threatened’’ under the Endangered Species Act. A Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) was adopted in 1990 to allow growth and economic development of 300,000 

acres of habitat while protecting 62,000 acres of land, 45,000 of which is BLMmanaged. The HCP, while offering permanent protection, requires periodic renewal 

every 20 years (it has now lapsed). A layer of permanent protection was added by 

the creation of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in the 2009 OPLMA. 

Public support for these protections has been very high at every step. 

These protections presented a challenge not unlike many cities face: an area bordering an urban center that cannot be developed. Washington County’s local governments welcomed the HCP elements that enabled growth and economic development 

to continue but have chaffed at those elements restricting development on the protected federally-managed public lands. Utah and Washington County have a long 

history of resisting Federal influence, especially in public lands. The stage has been 

set for this end-run around public support for protections and around bi-partisan 

laws enacted to protect these lands. 

Local governments agreed to the HCP because it was more acceptable than consulting individually with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on every development proposal in tortoise habitat. Due to this agreement, development and 

subsequent loss of desert tortoise habitat in most of Washington County was permitted to continue because the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve and the Red Cliffs 

National Conservation Area were permanently set aside and protected. The HCP 

process under the Endangered Species Act has generally worked well in Washington 

County up to this point and provides a win-win scenario, enabling growth and economic development and habitat protection. To build a highway through the 

32 

designated critical protected area (Zone 3) now will encroach on the already limited 

desert tortoise habitat and violate the spirit and letter of the law agreed upon years 

ago. (See ‘‘MAPS’’.) 

H.R. 5597 is the latest installment of a series of actions by Washington County 

to force a highway through protected habitat. Their latest twist is to propose an addition to the HCP (Zone 6, an unconnected parcel of mostly BLM- and SITLAmanaged land) as mitigation for damage done by the highway to tortoises and their 

habitat in the prime Zone 3 area of the Reserve/NCA. 

The proposal is presented by the county as a win-win-win: habitat and the tortoise 

win because the highway will do no harm and an expanded habitat is recognized; 

the people win because gridlock is eliminated, and the economy will not suffer. This 

is an erroneous characterization: it is actually a lose-lose-lose: 

• Habitat will be significantly damaged (as evidenced by scientific consensus). 

• Zone 6, even though it is already protected by the ESA, will decline (only 

superficial short-term protections are proposed and the Western Corridor 

highway will inflict the same damage as the proposed Northern Corridor 

highway). 

• The Northern Corridor highway will not solve our traffic issues. 

• The action to reverse the environmental protections will damage our economy 

rather than help it. 

The public lands in Washington County contribute to our quality of life, providing 

areas for world class outdoor recreation, protecting water quality and clean air as 

well as providing wildlife habitat. CSU works to ensure the irreplaceable cultural, 

scenic, ecological and scientific values are protected and properly conserved. We 

hope that county, state and national leaders will work with us, too. 

The Red Cliffs Desert Reserve/National Conservation Area 

Looking at the area where the proposed Northern Corridor Highway would be built, through 

the prime habitat of the Mojave Desert tortoise, taken from the existing highway through the 

habitat, the Red Cliffs Parkway. 

See ‘‘The History’’ for more details. 

Issues with H.R. 5597 

This section describes our major issues with the bill. A reference is provided for 

each issue to the pertinent section of the bill summarized in ‘‘Summary of 

H.R. 5597.’’ 

Highway Incompatibility With Protection 

The purpose of the Reserve and NCA is to provide permanent habitat protection 

for the threatened Mohave Desert tortoise. The Reserve was a mitigation for the 

‘‘take’’ (harm or death) of tortoises in habitat opened for growth and economic development. A highway must be prohibited as it would be counter to the purpose of the 

HCP and NCA. The ESA specifically prohibits a ‘‘take’’ via habitat destruction, and 

the highway would certainly do that. The county has argued (Washington Parkway 

Study) that a highway will not harm and may indeed enhance the habitat. This 


30239.001.eps
33 

position is scientifically false (See Desert Tortoise Council Report) and has no support in the scientific community. The county will argue they were given assurances 

the highway would be allowed. This position is also false, as evidenced by meeting 

minutes of the county’s Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee (HCAC). 

Ref: This issue pertains to the bill’s section 3a (which requires applicable laws to 

be followed, which state, in essence, that a highway is not allowed), b and c (which 

state that the NCA is to be managed to enhance the habitat, which a highway does 

not do), and section 5 (which directs the highway to be allowed). 

Best map available to us, showing the 6 zones and the proposed highway (black line in middle). 

Highway Not Needed 

(See ‘‘Transportation Studies and Modeling’’ for more details) 

There is no need for the highway—other solutions exist that have for some reason 

not been considered by our local governments, such as mass transit, zoning to avoid 

choke points, revisions to existing roads, additional interstate connections. The 

county has fixated on what they erroneously believe is the one and only solution. 

No independent or public review has been allowed. 

Ref: This issue pertains to the underlaying presumption of the bill that the 

highway is needed. 

Zone 6 Not Mitigation 

The addition of Zone 6, a discontinuous area containing a segment of tortoise 

habitat, cannot be accepted as mitigation for a highway through the Reserve’s 

original prime Zone 3 habitat for several reasons: 

(a) By law a highway cannot be mitigated. 

(b) Some of proposed Zone 6 is not habitat, and even the best habitat in Zone 

6 is not comparable for mitigation of prime habitat in Zone 3 where the 

proposed highway would be located. 

(c) The proposed Zone 6 habitat area will be in danger from the planned Western 

Corridor highway. 

(d) The proposed Zone 6 habitat area is already protected by the ESA and 

NEPA. 

(e) The existing Reserve/NCA, including Zone 3, is itself a mitigation for the 

habitat destruction throughout Washington County. That leaves the proposed 

Zone 6 ‘‘a mitigation for a mitigation,’’ which should not be allowed. 

(f) It is also proposed that Zone 6 be used as a ‘‘land bank’’ for further damage 

to the current Reserve/NCA habitat and other listed species throughout the 

county. This concept is invalid: damage to one protected habitat cannot be 

balanced by another protected habitat. 


30239.002.eps
34 

Ref: This issue pertains to bill’s section 3e, which declares how Zone 6 is to be 

used for mitigation of damage in Zone 3 and elsewhere in the county. 

Local Government Usurping Federal Authority 

There is still some property to develop in tortoise habitat within the county, and 

since the prior HCP is expired, the county needs to renew it and its ‘‘take’’ permit 

(to harm or kill tortoises). This bill, and the HCP amendment it directs the BLM 

to approve, allows the county to usurp the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

responsibilities and issue the ‘‘TAKE PERMIT RENEWAL’’ for 25 years. The 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of listed species through direct 

harm or habitat destruction, which this highway certainly does. However, the ESA 

allows a ‘‘take’’ if there is an approved HCP. Therefore, the county needs to renew 

the HCP and the take permit to allow continued development, and this bill is their 

vehicle to circumvent the ESA to get this unneeded highway at the same time, in 

exchange for the Zone 6 habitat that is already protected and not a viable 

mitigation. 

Ref: This issue pertains to bill’s section 4, which in ambiguous language puts the 

county in control of habitat impact decisions over the judgment of the BLM and 

USFWS, allowing existing laws (OPLMA, ESA, NEPA) to be ignored. 

Fiscal Irresponsibility 

$60–100 million have been spent on buying land inside the reserve, with more expense pending. For 20 years BLM has traded their land outside the reserve for the 

private land inside the reserve. Fish and Wildlife grants for millions of dollars have 

been spent on buying land inside the HCP to preserve tortoise habitat. H.R. 5597 

undermines the basic purpose of these expenditures. 

Ref: This issue pertains to the assumption that any bill should support fiscallyresponsible actions. 

Setting a Bad National Precedent 

Even more significant than the localized issues above are the nation-wide, multistate issues of completely undermining the basic concepts and processes of the ESA 

and NEPA. Nowhere in the country is a local government allowed this authority to 

decide ‘‘take’’ and mitigation requirements. Any local government could use this bill 

as a precedent to remove protections for threatened or endangered species. 

Ref: This issue pertains to the bill’s sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, which when implemented for Washington County, Utah, would open the same considerations for any 

county in any state. 

Redundant/Confusing/Misleading Elements in the Bill 

There are many detailed issues with the bill. A number of them stem for misinterpretations county officials had with the Resource Management Plan (RMP). These 

misinterpretations were cleared up in a number of meetings with the BLM and it 

was agreed that the RMP was correct, yet these issues are again brought up in this 

bill, as if they had not been resolved. They should be removed from the bill. 

The title of the bill is misleading, implying that the primary purpose is to expand 

and enhance the habitat for threatened or endangered species in Washington 

County. Its real purpose is to direct a highway to be built through prime sensitive 

habitat for a listed species, and to upset Federal control of environmental 

protections. 

Ref: This issue pertains to the bill’s sections 1, 5 and 6, which each have elements 

that are redundant to elements already in the approved Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) for the NCAs or are redundant/confusing. 

Lack of Public Engagement 

(See ‘‘The History,’’ especially ‘‘Public Process’’ below for details) 

The listing of the Mojave Desert tortoise and the creation of the HCP, the 

OPLMA, the NCAs and the RMPs all had many opportunities for public engagement 

and input which had significant impact on the end products. By contrast, H.R. 5597 

had almost no opportunity for public engagement or input. It was developed in private and in a hurry. Our local elected officials are the first to complain about 

Federal Government actions that do not allow local engagement, and yet they foster 

that very action. Perhaps they think local engagement only applies to those with 

elected status and not their constituencies. The development of this bill is a very 

poor example of an open and transparent process. 

Ref: This issue pertains to the assumption that any bill should have adequate 

public engagement opportunities in an open and transparent manner. 

35 

THE DETAILS

The History 

The historical background in Washington County of the Mojave Desert tortoise, 

the protections afforded it and the public engagement processes used to grant the 

protections are presented below. 

Washington County: Growth and the Tortoise 

Washington County, in the southwest corner of Utah, was a quiet area of slow 

growth until the advent of affordable air conditioning for homes and cars and until 

I-15 was completed between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. This made the area 

tolerable in the heat of summer and accessible year around. Thanks to its climate 

and its environment based in the scenic vistas of protected, federally-managed 

public lands, it was discovered as a tourist and outdoor recreation mecca. There was 

not much need for transportation planning, and ‘‘ring roads.’’ And it started to grow. 

The Mojave Desert tortoise was long known to be in danger in the early 1980s, but 

it was not an issue until the growth started. When it was listed as a threatened 

species, with plenty of warning and communication, the growth was just starting 

to build, and the listing threatened the growth. 

HCP and Reserve Purpose 

In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Mojave Desert tortoise as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This would have impeded development on private and state lands in the county. 

In 1995, local officials signed an agreement to establish a Habitat Conservation 

Plan (HCP) to protect habitat of the tortoise by establishing a Reserve, named the 

Red Cliffs Desert Reserve. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Section 10 

incidental take permit which allowed for the loss of approximately 1,100 desert 

tortoises and 12,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat during land development over 

the next 20 years. In trade, 300,000 acres of private and state land were released 

for growth and economic development. 

HCPs are developed to reduce the regulatory burden on private and state landowners while addressing the habitat needs of listed species. The HCP gave economic 

certainty to be able to develop those lands outside the Reserve. Washington County 

and this Reserve, have some of the highest density of endangered, threatened and 

special status species in Utah. The only road improvement mentioned in the HCP 

was to improve the Red Hills Parkway, which was done. New roads were not 

allowed. 

1993 Steering Committee meeting minutes make no mention of a needed highway 

corridor. Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee meeting minutes from 1996– 

1998 when the Reserve was first being established make only one cursory reference 

to a road through the Reserve with no details. All other references pertain to existing roads. 

Washington County Growth & Conservation Act 2006 

In 2006 Senator Robert Bennett and Congressman Jim Matheson together with 

Washington County commissioners created the Washington County Growth & 

Conservation Act of 2006, which dealt mainly with the designation of wilderness 

areas, but also contained a provision for a Northern Corridor. This was the bill that 

spawned the creation of Citizens for Dixie’s Future (now CSU). Citizen opposition 

to the road and land transfer was strong and resulted in a public process named 

Vision Dixie that involved nearly 3,000 county citizens, an effort we believe the 

county thought would bolster their position. It did not. Although the process revealed strong support for a good transportation network it did not clearly support 

a road through the Reserve. Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee (HCAC) 

meeting minutes in 2006 when the Washington County Growth & Conservation Act 

was being developed reveal the road was clearly rejected by a majority of committee 

members. 

Washington County citizens have repeatedly voiced the opinion that this amazing 

area deserves protection by rejecting the 2006 Lands Bill and supporting our local 

Vision Dixie process in 2007 that preferred protection of sensitive and scenic public 

lands such as those now enacted as NCAs. Vision Dixie’s Principle 3 states, ‘‘Guard 

our ‘Signature’ Scenic Landscapes.’’ 

Omnibus Public Lands Bill 2009 

The Bennett/Matheson bill languished until 2008 when it was revived for inclusion in an omnibus bill. In Subtitle O in the Omnibus Public Lands Management 

Act (OPLMA) of 2009 there is a provision for BLM to do a comprehensive Travel 

and Transportation Management Plan, in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 

36 

and Management Act (FLPMA); the Secretary of Interior in consultation with 

appropriate Federal agencies, state, tribal, and local government entities (including 

the County and St George, Utah), and the public, identify one or more alternatives 

for a northern transportation route in the County. The language in that bill does 

not, by any reasonable interpretation, require the Northern Corridor to be built: it 

required the identification of options to be considered for a northern transportation 

route in the County, in consultation with agencies, local entities, the state, tribes, 

and the public in development of the BLM’s Travel Management Plan. These routes 

were to then be reviewed in accordance with Federal environmental law for suitability. The Lands Bill does not require BLM to designate a northern transportation 

route in the Transportation Management Plan. 

Not long before the 2008 version of the Washington County Land Bill was finalized as part of the 2009 OPLMA, Citizens for Dixie’s Future (now Conserve 

Southwest Utah) was contacted by Representative Jim Matheson’s aide to discuss 

support for the latest version, and was assured the highway was not included. Bill 

sponsor Senator Robert Bennett’s April 22, 2008 on S. 2834 hearing comment 

makes it clear: ‘‘Congressman Matheson and I have made significant changes to the 

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

new national conservation area. We have removed the designations for the Lake 

Powell Pipeline Corridor and the Northern Corridor that bisected the Red Cliffs 

Desert Reserve.’’ 

Red Cliffs NCA Creation 

In 2009, the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) was established by U.S. 

Congress (Public Law 111–11), adding a layer of permanent protection to the Red 

Cliffs Desert Reserve Mojave Desert tortoise habitat. In 2015, the draft Resource 

Management Plan (RMP), which further studied and rejected a highway through the 

NCA, was released for public comment, causing much distress to county leaders. 

BLM was following laws set up by Congress to protect this habitat. 

44,725 acres within the 61,000-acre Red Cliffs Desert Reserve were designated as 

NCA. Here is what is clearly stated in Section 1974 of the OPLMA concerning the 

NCA and its purpose. The purpose of the NCA is ‘‘to conserve, protect, and enhance 

for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, 

wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the National Conservation Area; and to protect each species that is located 

in the NCA and listed as a threatened or endangered species on the list of threatened 

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

of 1973.’’ Once the NCA was created, work began on the Resource Management Plan 

and the Travel Management Plan with this ‘‘purpose’’ as the driving force for the 

BLM’s decision making. 

County Challenge 

Our current local elected representatives today want to rescind the county’s past 

agreements, which protected the publicly-managed habitat in the Reserve in exchange for ease of development of 300,000 acres of habitat in privately and stateheld lands. This agreement included disallowing a highway through the protected 

lands. Now that those lands are mostly developed, our representatives seem to think 

reneging on the agreement is an honorable course of action, so they have encouraged our Federal elected officials to undermine the prior Federal laws to allow a 

highway by proposing this new legislation in Congress. 

Several efforts have been made to try and force this road in the past. In 2013 an 

application for a right-of-way (ROW) that would have authorized construction, operation and maintenance of the four-lane highway through public land was made by 

the county. The case was set aside and remanded to BLM for further action. 

Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a bill in the Senate May 2017, directing BLM to 

scrap its excellent RMP that took 4 years of study and offered many opportunities 

for public comment. This is because the RMP does not allow a four-lane highway 

through the reserve. This bill has not gone to committee and sits in Congress. 

Representative Chris Stewart’s 2017 bill H.R. 2423 (Washington County, Utah, 

Public Lands Management Implementation Act. To implement certain measures 

relating to management of Washington County, Utah required by Public Law 111– 

11) claimed the highway was in the Public Law 111–11. That is untrue and the title 

of bill is very deceptive. It was not in the 2009 bill and in fact was deleted from 

the bill by Utah’s Senator Bennett in 2008 as shown in April 2008 congressional 

testimony mentioned above. Rep. Stewart’s bill passed a house committee, but never 

went to Floor vote of the Full House and it never allowed public comment before 

it was introduced. 

37 

Now the county has again enlisted the help of Congressman Stewart to run 

H.R. 5597 that adds a section of SITLA and BLM land known as Zone 6 as theoretical mitigation for the highway in Zone 3. 

HCP Renewal 

In 2016 the 20-year HCP came up for renewal. At this point, the county is operating under the old HCP that has been extended by the USFWS while the county 

works in ‘‘good faith’’ to renew the permit. The Washington County Commission 

needs to renew the HCP because there are still private and state lands that could 

be developed in county. However, they also want to amend the HCP renewal to 

allow the highway in legislatively protected prime habitat—Zone 3—in exchange for 

less-desirable habitat in the proposed Zone 6 that also has a proposed major highway on its western border. This concept is the basis for Rep. Stewart’s new bill, 

Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Expansion Act. 

The county commissioners asked all the cities to pass a resolution to support the 

bill. But legislative language of the bill had not at that time been disclosed to the 

public and they told CSU the bill’s text would be disclosed after introduction in 

Congress. In essence, Washington County’s town and city leaders were being asked, 

it appeared, to support that about which they had few if any details. 

Many questions remain. What is the proposed budget for managing Zone 6, who 

would pay for this management, and would there be a long-term funding commitment sufficient to provide the required high level of public education, resource monitoring, and law enforcement to ensure that the Zone 6 mitigation objectives are 

actually achieved. 

Public Process 

Until the last couple of years, the Reserve/NCA RMP process seemed very open 

and transparent. The HCP and Reserve creation process was very open and public 

and had large engagement in the community. The HCP steering committee had 

members from Federal and local government, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, environmental organizations, mayors, developers, and more. The meetings were open to 

the public and members of the audience were allowed to make public comments. 

However, in spite of the Northern Corridor being reputed to have been such an important matter and in plans for decades, early meetings (January and February 

1993) made no mention of this critical infrastructure so necessary in the minds of 

current leaders for Washington County’s future. However, Ron Thompson, 

Washington County’s water manager, did mention in the first Steering Committee 

meeting that 1993 had been a banner year for growth and developers were losing 

money due to the hold up in HCP planning. So, it was clear the area was growing 

rapidly and yet no mention of the road. 

The Reserve was established and all seemed to be going well. Then during the 

early days of the Washington County Growth & Conservation Act of 2006, which 

gave rise to the very Vision Dixie process mentioned earlier (see ‘‘Washington 

County Growth & Conservation Act 2006’’). After that, with modification of the 2006 

bill and passage in 2009 established the NCAs, providing direction to the BLM for 

their Resource Management Plan, the public felt comfortable that the road issue 

had been somewhat settled. 

The RMP public process began in June 2010 with open houses for public involvement in the process. 269 members of the public and representatives from Federal 

agencies, as well as state and local governments attended. In 2015, the public was 

invited to comment on the draft RMP which was finalized by the BLM’s Record of 

Decision (ROD) in December 2016, which has led us to this challenge by Congressman Stewart and county leaders to overturn the ROD regarding the road and some 

other matters. 

In 1993, meeting minutes show that the HCP Steering Committee became the 

Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee (HCAC). The HCAC has held open meetings during which the public has been allowed to make comment and share their 

thoughts and concerns. In early 2015 the issue of HCP renewal came up since the 

20-year permit would expire in 2016. From then until 2017 the HCAC conducted 

open work meetings focused on the renewal process. 

In 2017 things changed. The Washington County commissioners decided to take 

the renewal process under their wing and started holding closed meetings to discuss 

the Northern Corridor issue. The result of those meetings was their plan to expand 

the Reserve by adding the proposed Zone 6 to be used as mitigation for the building 

of the Northern Corridor, resulting in the bill before us today. This process has been 

the antithesis of the previous open and transparent efforts to engage the public and 

account for their input. 

38 

In March of this year, the county presented its idea to the citizens of Washington 

County and asked local city and town leaders to support the county’s efforts to expand the Reserve and build the highway. The county’s meeting was well attended 

but that meeting, and a St. George meeting, revealed much opposition to the road 

and pitted recreationists against conservationists. By adding Zone 6, a heavily recreated area, to the H.R. 5597 bill, with the threat that if not added recreational activities might be stopped due to development, leaders effectively set up a red 

herring. Zone 6 land had not been developed for many years, apparently due to soil 

and geological issues, but it was enough to scare the recreational community into 

thinking they needed to support the Northern Corridor to get their Zone 6. 

The 2017 county effort that led to this bill did not provide the public process citizens needed on this important matter. CSU has asked Federal and local leaders to 

please support the prior agreements understood by constituents to have been made 

in good faith. We’ve asked they support an open and transparent decision-making 

process, environmental protection as our brand, economic development with, not instead of, environmental protections, a transportation vision for the future rather 

than an unneeded highway. All of these elements support a well-balanced quality 

of life for Washington County’s constituents. 

Transportation Studies and Modeling 

Studies do not support need for the road. In 2007, UDOT’s study of ideas for a 

Northern Corridor dealt with the county’s preferred route (Red Hills Parkway to I15 at MP 13) in a chapter titled: ‘‘Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Further Consideration.’’ There it was stated that the Northern Corridor Alternative 

would not meet the objective of minimizing impacts to the reserve. The city of St. 

George, UDOT, and FHWA determined that the anticipated implementation challenges and potential environmental effects, as previously described, would be substantial and thereby eliminated the Northern Corridor Alternative from further 

consideration. Of course, that was before this new idea of adding a Zone 6 to provide 

mitigation for the highway acres used, but the addition of Zone 6 does not eliminate 

the environmental issues considered in the transportation report. 

The 2011 Washington Parkway Cost/Benefit Study and the 2015–2040 Regional 

Transportation Plan revealed the road would not relieve traffic congestion on other 

busy roads. As noted, the road had been eliminated from further consideration in 

UDOT’s 2007 study. Options to deal with ever-increasing traffic in Washington 

County have been suggested but ignored. HCAC 2006 meeting minutes include a 

suggestion by committee members to consider a further-north, outside the Reserve/ 

NCA option, which local elected officials have rejected. 

There is already a highway, Red Hills Parkway, which goes across the NCA and 

was included in the HCP. There are alternatives for a highway that would by-pass 

the NCA that have not been properly considered. The data used to back up the 

model used to determine the need for this highway has not been opened to public 

scrutiny although CSU has asked for that data. 

In a 2012 letter from our organization to the Utah Department of Transportation 

regarding ‘‘Comments on the Proposed UDOT Feasibility Study for a Northern 

Corridor Parkway Through the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve’’ CSU stated that if UDOT 

proceeds to study the feasibility of a Northern Corridor route, we suggested that it 

should look at more than just traffic needs and projections and take into consideration the reasons why in 2006 seven members of the Habitat Conservation Advisory 

Committee voted unanimously against allowing the Northern Corridor. 

The reason for that 2006 highway rejection by the HCAC—a road bisecting Zone 

3 would cause irreparable harm—is still reasonable today as we consider 

H.R. 5597’s suggested changes to mitigate for the highway’s acceptance. 

Washington County officials assert that the UDOT study, 2012 Washington 

Parkway Study, done by UDOT’s biologist showed that culverts could be installed 

to ‘‘actually help’’ the tortoise population. It has not been established that culverts 

would help. If the road is built, there will be no ‘‘undoing’’ it. In fact, the Desert 

Tortoise Council has challenged UDOT’s biological study with their own biology. So, 

it’s one biologist and his study, for which he was paid by the state and could provide 

questionable findings given that it’s not an ‘‘independent’’ study, against a group 

whose mission is to support the well-being of the Mojave Desert tortoise. 

The proposed Northern Corridor highway’s purpose is to alleviate traffic around 

two I-15 exits by taking traffic around them, through the Reserve, connecting the 

next exit north to a new intersection on the existing highway that bisects the 

Reserve (as was approved by the original HCP), basically moving the congestion 

point. It is very unclear if this proposal has any real utility. There has been no 

known technical or public review of the traffic model indicating this change makes 

any significant difference. It is likely that the model merely extrapolated existing 

39 

traffic on existing roads, with no other improvements made, and no consideration 

of significant mass transit or the retirement/tourist demographic. Our elected officials (our county commissioners, city councils and Congressman Stewart) have described this road as ‘‘essential’’ to Washington County, yet they have not supplied 

any definition of that label or evidence that it is true. It is doubtful that they know 

what alternatives to bisecting the protected habitat could address the same traffic 

concerns. Dictating this highway as the solution is not justified. 

There is a need for alternative ways to carry the ever-increasing traffic in 

Washington County. A more robust transit system seems to be on the horizon. CSU 

has made several suggestions that have not been considered: 

• Run the Travel Demand Models with the Northern Corridor excluded from 

the assumptions to study other singular or combinational options to meet our 

transportation needs. 

• Include more robust multimodal transportation projections in the modeling 

(expanded transit, Active Transportation, circulator trolleys, vanpools, future 

light rail). 

• Modify General Plans from the political subdivisions to project desired future 

land use and destinations rather than relying on current plans that are constantly changing with rezoning approvals, and often need updating to reflect 

the rapid pace of development in the County. 

• Complete the Southern Parkway as a through-traffic bypass route. 

• Remove or drastically modify I-15 through Washington City and downtown 

St. George in order to reconnect as many surface streets as possible in the 

congested core of the metro area. 

• Give incentives to industrial and distribution businesses in the old industrial 

park by the Middleton Tunnel to move to the Fort Pierce Industrial Park to 

eliminate much of the heavy truck traffic using Exit 8-St George Boulevard 

and Exit 10-Green Springs. 

• Ask Intermountain Health Care to give DRMC employees transit passes and 

start van pools for shift workers to reduce automobile traffic. (DSU has led 

the way by partnering with SunTran transit system on free transit passes for 

students with a valid DSU student ID.) 

REFERENCES

H.R. 5597 and proposed HCP amendment: 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr5597/text 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/HCP-Amendment-3-22-18.pdf 

Prior hearing testimony: 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/Van-Dam-Paul-public-hearingtestimony-Jan-22-2016.pdf 

Desert Tortoise Council findings—highway impact on tortoise habitat: 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/Desert-Council-Stewart-letter-May16-2018.pdf 

MAPS

Proposed Northern Corridor highway through existing Reserve Zone 3: 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/Northern-Corridor-map-2018.pdf 

Proposed Western Corridor highway through proposed Reserve Zone 6: 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/Western-proposed-highway-map.pdf 

Proposed Zone 6: 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/ZONE-6.pdf 

Various options for Northern Corridor (blue is the proposed): 

http://conserveswu.org/wp-content/uploads/HCP-Northern-Corridor-mapBLM.pdf 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chair will now defer to Mr. Stewart to 

make the introduction of our next witness. 

40 

Mr. STEWART. Once again, Chairman, thank you. I have introduced Commissioner Cox already. Once again, he is just a great 

leader in the community, and has enormous respect. 

So, Commissioner Cox. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN COX, COMMISSIONER, WASHINGTON 

COUNTY COMMISSION, ST. GEORGE, UTAH 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, 

and Ranking Member Hanabusa, for the opportunity to testify in 

support of H.R. 5597. I especially want to thank Representative 

Chris Stewart for his work on this balanced legislation, which is 

vital to the future of the desert tortoise and Washington County, 

Utah. I also thank the city councils, recreation enthusiasts, and 

conservation organizations that supported this effort. 

I am proud of this bill and the process we followed to develop 

balanced solutions. H.R. 5597 expands and extends the Desert 

Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan in Washington County by adding 6,835 acres of new, high-quality tortoise habitat called the Red 

Cliffs Desert Reserve Zone 6. 

For the past 22 years, Washington County has managed the 

HCP. We are not new at species recovery, and we are darn good 

at it. Our HCP boasts the highest densities of tortoise throughout 

its range by a significant margin. We have also taken far fewer 

than our permit authorized. The tortoises we did remove from developing areas were successfully relocated to the reserve, where 

they are now thriving. And many are reproducing. 

While we cannot control wildfire or drought, our HCP has been 

successful and has held out as a model in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s HCP handbook. The original HCP agreement expired in 2016. We have continued to manage the HCP on a 

temporary extension. For over a year, we have met with representatives of Federal and state agencies and other stakeholders, including conservation groups, recreation enthusiasts, and others. 

One of our goals was to negotiate an extension that would be 

good for the tortoise and help the county and our cities deal with 

the rapid growth we are experiencing. According to data released 

by the U.S. Census Bureau earlier this year, the St. George Metro 

Area is the fastest-growing city in the United States. This growth 

has funded our HCP. Our development fees are 2⁄10 of 1 percent of building costs, at $250 an acre. The county has raised approximately $15 million, which is more than $6 million than what was 

originally budgeted and committed when the HCP was signed in 

1996. 

For more than 20 years, since before the creation of the reserve, 

the county has had a transportation route on our long-term plan 

that we call the Northern Corridor. As we worked on the HCP 

renewal, it became clear that we needed to tackle the issues of utility access and transportation. We consulted with Federal and state 

desert tortoise biologists and traffic engineers to find the optimum 

combination of traffic flow and tortoise movement as we sought a 

new alignment for the roadway. 

The new 4-mile-long route proposed in the bill is located as close 

to the NCA’s southern boundary as is feasible. The 300-foot-wide 

corridor is 4.3 miles long, covering only 147 acres of the Red Cliffs 

41 

Reserve. I want to emphasize, however, that the roadway crosses 

only 1.9 miles of the National Conservation Area and impacts only 

65 acres. 

H.R. 5597 does not circumvent the procedures required by the 

Endangered Species Act and its accompanying regulations. That 

means the combination of building this new road and adding Zone 

6 must not be detrimental to the recovery of the tortoise. 

H.R. 5597 provides more than ample mitigation for the full implementation of Public Law 111–11, as mitigation. 

For these impacts on the reserve and the NCA, the county is 

prepared to add an additional 6,835 acres of prime tortoise habitat, 

most of which is owned by the State of Utah School and 

Institutional Trust Lands. Not only are the state lands in that area 

developable, but they are also highly recreated. Rather than allowing the area to be developed and lose the recreation and tortoise 

habitat, we are proposing to add area to the reserve, manage recreation, and use it to mitigate for the possible impacts from utility 

and transportation development. 

Thank you for giving us a chance to speak to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEAN COX, WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSION

STATEMENT ON H.R. 5597 

Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, and Ranking Member 

Hanabusa for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 5597, the Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act. I especially want to thank Representative Chris Stewart for his work on this balanced legislation which is vital to the 

future of the desert tortoise and of Washington County, Utah. I also want to thank 

all of the City Councils, recreation enthusiasts and conservation organization that 

supported this effort which were referenced by Rep. Stewart. 

I am proud of this bill and the process we followed to develop balanced solutions 

to help expand the habitat for the threatened Mojave desert tortoise while planning 

for the welfare of our citizens. H.R. 5597 expands and extends the Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Conservation Plan in Washington County by adding 6,835 acres of new 

high-quality tortoise habitat called Red Cliffs Desert Reserve—Zone 6 (Zone 6). In 

1996, the County entered into an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Utah Department of Wildlife 

Resources, and city partners to create a habitat conservation plan, or HCP, for the 

Mojave desert tortoise. For the past 22 years, Washington County has been managing the HCP, with the help of state and Federal partners, for the recovery of the 

Mojave desert tortoise. We aren’t new at species recovery. We are good at it. Our 

HCP boasts the highest densities of tortoise throughout its range by a significant 

margin. We have also ‘‘taken’’ far less tortoises than our permit authorized. The 

tortoises we did remove from developing areas were successfully relocated to the 

Reserve where they are thriving, and many are reproducing. While we cannot control wildfire or drought, our HCP has been successful and is held out as a model 

in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s HCP Handbook. 

The Red Cliffs Desert Reserve that we created as part of the HCP has become 

a popular recreation spot, a valuable area of open space, and a real asset for educating the public about the tortoise. The incidental take permit that is also part of 

the HCP agreement has allowed continued development of private property in the 

county through a process where developers work with the county to clear and protect tortoises. The original HCP agreement expired in 2016 and we have continued 

to manage the HCP on a temporary extension subject to negotiations of a long-term 

extension of the HCP. 

For over a year, we have met with representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Services, the Utah 

State School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), the Dixie 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and other stakeholders including conservation groups and recreation enthusiasts. One of our goals was to negotiate an 

extension that would be good for the tortoise and help the County and our cities 

42 

deal with the rapid growth we are experiencing. According to data released by the 

U.S. Census Bureau earlier this year, the St. George metro area is the fastestgrowing city in the United States. There were an estimated 165,662 people in 2017 

in the designated metro area, which includes most of Washington County, up 4 

percent from 2016. This brings many challenges that include managing transportation alternatives, including increased use of transit, providing for utilities and 

land use decisions. 

This growth has funded our HCP. Our development fees are .2 percent of building costs and $250 per acre. The County has raised approximately $15 million which 

is over $6 million more than originally expected and committed to by the 1996 HCP. 

For more than 20 years, since before the creation of the Reserve, the County has 

had a transportation route on our long-term plan that would move traffic from the 

east to west in the densely populated part of the county. Just like with the utilities, 

the routes are limited by out stunning geography. 

We call the future transportation route the Northern Corridor. As the population 

grows, the city surface streets that allow east/west transport will be inadequate to 

handle the demand. We don’t want cars bottlenecking and idling on our city streets. 

Our traffic experts have been saying for decades that for a Northern Corridor route 

to carry enough east/west traffic to help ease the congestion, it will have to pass 

through the Reserve. 

As we worked on the HCP renewal, it became clear that we needed to tackle the 

issues of utility access and transportation. A small portion of the Northern Corridor 

route must cross the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA). We have consulted with Federal and state desert tortoise biologists and traffic engineers to find 

the optimum combination of traffic flow and tortoise movement as we sought a new 

alignment the roadway. (Attachment #1—Northern Corridor Alignments Map). The 

new 4-mile long route proposed in the bill is located as close to the NCA southern 

boundary as is feasible. The 300-foot wide corridor is 4.3 miles long covering only 

147 acres of the Red Cliffs Reserve. I want to emphasize that the roadway crosses 

only 1.9 miles of the National Conservation Area created in P.L. 111–11 (the 2009 

Omnibus Public Lands Act) impacting only 65 acres. The route minimizes fragmentation of habitat and requires two large span bridges that would allow tortoises 

to pass below without ever noticing a road. It will also include large culverts designed for tortoise connectivity. H.R. 5597 does not circumvent the procedures required by the Endangered Species Act and its accompanying regulations. That 

means that the combination of building this new road and adding Zone 6 must not 

be detrimental to the recovery of the desert tortoise. 

Water and power lines that run across the Red Cliffs Reserve are necessary to 

supply the needs of our growing population. Much of our communities’ groundwater 

is in the sandstone aquifers in the Reserve. In 1996, the partners in the HCP recognized that need, so we jointly and cooperatively developed utility development protocols that set standards for how utility development and maintenance can be 

managed to avoid harm to the tortoises. The utility development protocols have been 

in place and working for years. In fact, Congress recognized the value of the protocols when it codified their applicability to the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area 

in Public Law 111–11. The language of the bill specified that the creation of a 

National Conservation Area didn’t affect the continued use of the utility development protocols in the areas where the Reserve and National Conservation Area 

overlap. 

H.R. 5597 provides more than ample mitigation for full implementation of 

P.L. 111–11. Public Law 111–11 (which was signed by President Obama in 2009) 

created the 45,000 acre Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) and directed 

BLM to identify a transportation/utility corridor across the NCA. The corridor is 

vital to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. 

As mitigation for these impacts on the Reserve and NCA, the County is prepared 

to add an additional 6,835 acres of prime tortoise habitat, called Zone 6, 

(Attachment #2—Zone 6 Map) most of which is owned by the State of Utah’s School 

and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). Not only are the state lands 

in that area developable, but they are also highly recreated. As we studied the area, 

we learned that the tortoise densities there are higher than densities in the 

Reserve. Rather than allow the area to be developed and lose the recreation and 

the tortoise habitat, we are proposing to add the area to the Reserve, manage the 

recreation, and use it to mitigate for possible impacts from utility and transportation development. 

Washington County biologists and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

conducted comprehensive tortoise surveys in the proposed Zone 6 during the spring 

of 2017. The tortoise density is actually higher than our estimate for the rest of the 

Red Cliffs Desert Reserve. Approximately 30 percent of our tortoise observations 

43 

were of juvenile tortoises, indicating a growing reproductive population. Washington 

County also initiated a citizen science project in the adjacent areas soliciting tortoise 

observations by local trail users. Citizens have submitted photos and locations of 

over 80 tortoises they encountered while hiking or biking on trails in the area. This 

data, in combination with our survey results and historic sightings, indicate a 

healthy tortoise population that would be a valuable addition to the Red Cliffs 

Desert Reserve. Protection of these lands from development will also benefit 

federally endangered plants and other sensitive species unique to our area. 

The acres not necessary to mitigate for the Northern Corridor will be banked 

against future needs as was done in the Clark County, Nevada desert tortoise HCP. 

In summary, the bill, if passed into law would: 

• Expand the HCP by creating an additional 6,865-acre reserve with rich desert 

tortoise habitat known as Zone 6, 

• Renew the HCP agreement for 25 years, 

• Require Washington County and the BLM to manage Zone 6 in accordance 

with the provisions of the existing HCP agreement, 

• Apply the existing utility development protocols to include Zone 6 as well as 

other areas covered by the HCP, 

• Allow for recreation to continue in Zone 6 on designated trails, including 

hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV use on designated roads, 

• Provide mitigation credits for the tortoises protected in Zone 6, 

• Allow for the eventual construction of a northern corridor crossing 4.3 miles 

of the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, 

• Require BLM to amend the existing plans to accommodate Zone 6, 

• Clarify the width of the right of way (ROW) for Old Highway 91 as a 300 

foot ROW on federally managed lands, 

• Clarify that the NCAs are not entitled to any Federal water rights, and 

• Preserve existing utility and grazing rights in Beaver Dam Wash. 

I really appreciate the work that Congressman Stewart and his staff have put in 

with us on solving these problems. Passage of this bill creates a win for all of the 

stakeholders. Thank you. 


30239.003.eps
44 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you for your testimony. 

That concludes our testimony on H.R. 5597. We will now go to 

the Committee questions, and I will begin. 

Mr. Cox, I grew up in Southern California. As a kid, I found 

desert tortoises very easy to please. One of the over-arching objectives of this Subcommittee is to be a good neighbor to local communities. Does this bill have the full support of Washington County? 

Mr. COX. This bill is really necessary for us. I appreciate your 

position. Being from Southern California, we share a lot of things 

in common with you, in fact, a lot of desert tortoise habitat. 


30239.004.eps
45 

In California and, in fact, anyplace else in its habitat, the highest 

density of tortoise is just over seven animals per square kilometer. 

In Washington County, we have more than 15 tortoises per square 

kilometer on the average, and this area that we are planning to 

add has surveyed, and we estimate that it has more than 500 

tortoises in it. 

This little piece of roadway that we would need to develop the 

Northern Corridor we estimate would disturb 10 to 20 animals. 

And we would work very hard to make that disturbance as absolutely minimal as possible by designing porosity and other factors 

in the road to maintain the integrity of that for—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me get back to the principal question I 

have, and that is do the local communities of Washington County 

support this bill? 

Mr. COX. Oh, yes. We have resolutions that support it—and I am 

a little hard of hearing, but we have resolutions that support from 

St. George City, which has about half of the county’s population. 

In addition, Washington City has passed a resolution of support, 

La Verkin has passed one, Ivins has passed one, Hurricane has 

just passed it, and Santa Clara has it on their agenda. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. These are all the elected representatives of the 

people of Washington County? 

Mr. COX. That is correct. I would say this would represent more 

than 80 percent of the county’s population. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Commissioner Cox, how did you come upon 

that title, ‘‘Commissioner’’? 

Mr. COX. How did I do what? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How did you come upon that title of yours, 

‘‘Commissioner’’? Was that conferred upon you by a majority of the 

voters? 

Mr. COX. Yes, I was elected by the voters of Washington County 

and I received 75 percent of the vote of the county. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Just out of curiosity, Mr. Van Dam, which 

voters in the jurisdictions of Washington County do you represent? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Well, I am simply a former attorney general of the 

state of Utah, the only Democrat to be elected in a long time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, but do you represent any of the 

communities currently in Washington County? 

Mr. VAN DAM. No. I represent none of the communities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Did you represent a homeowners association 

within Washington County? 

Mr. VAN DAM. No, I represent an organization that is interested 

in—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Commissioner Cox. How did you 

come upon this new habitat? How was it selected? 

Mr. COX. This has been a very intriguing process. We have 

known for some time that the area west of Bloomington, south of 

Santa Clara, west of St. George, had a lot of tortoises. It was also 

pre-eminently state institutional trust land property. 

We have developed a close working relation with SITLA and 

many other entities and recognized that the renewal of the HCP 

is good for the county, it is good for our residents. And SITLA 

wanted to know, really, what they could do to help. This investment is good for the state institutional trust lands because it 

46 

allows them to move forward with other lands in more developable 

areas of the county. 

We had the Department of Wildlife Resources do transects. In 

fact, more than 340 kilometers of transects were done to get an accurate count or estimation of the number of tortoise in this Zone 

6. This really is great mitigation. It is going to be consistent with 

a process we called Vision Dixie, which calls for us to preserve our 

signature scenic landscapes and maintain our air and water quality 

by keeping our vital transportation system functional and moving. 

It serves all of those purposes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Just one final question and that is, is there a 

precedent for this kind of arrangement? 

Mr. COX. I am actually not aware if this precedence has happened someplace else in an NCA. But I can tell you that Public 

Law 111–11—that is the omnibus act that was the Washington 

County lands bill—directed the BLM to identify one or more routes 

for a northern corridor. They failed to do that. We feel that there 

is a lot of precedence from Congress for this route, and we are 

working hard to make that also environmentally secure. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Van Dam, you were finishing your testimony when you ran 

out of time. Is there anything more you would like to add before 

I ask you any questions? 

Mr. VAN DAM. I would just like to respond to some of the information that has gone back and forth here, because there is another 

side to that. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Yes. Well, we will get to that with the questions. 

Mr. VAN DAM. No, I was virtually to my last two lines thanking 

you for the opportunity in the time I had left. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Oh. Just so that I am clear, you are here 

representing the Conserve Southwest Utah organization? 

Mr. VAN DAM. That is correct. 

Ms. HANABUSA. What is your position with the Conserve 

Southwest Utah? 

Mr. VAN DAM. I am a member of the board and an advisor. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And is this conservation organization in 

Washington County? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA. It is? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Exclusively. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So, it deals only with Washington County, the 

subject of this testimony today. 

Mr. VAN DAM. That is correct. 

Ms. HANABUSA. You also mentioned that you were the elected attorney general in the state of Utah. The only Democrat, I think you 

said. 

Mr. VAN DAM. Yes, a lonely Democrat in Utah. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So, when this whole thing occurred, and I am 

talking about the existing Habitat Conservation Plan and what 

happened in Washington County, were you in the position of the 

attorney general at that time? 

Mr. VAN DAM. When what occurred, ma’am? 

47 

Ms. HANABUSA. When the Habitat Conservation Plan was 

established under the Endangered Species Act. 

Mr. VAN DAM. No, I was not. I was a new resident of Washington 

County. I had lived in Salt Lake City. I have owned property in 

Washington County for over 40 years and I moved there 10 years 

ago. This is about the same time I moved down. 

Ms. HANABUSA. OK. You wanted to clarify some points that were 

being made. And as I was listening to Mr. Cox it seemed like there 

was not an agreement on certain things like the road. Can I have 

your position on that? 

Mr. VAN DAM. One of the things that bothers me is that in 2008, 

our Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson at the time 

passed a bill, an omnibus bill, that affected much of the property 

in our county. And in that bill it is commonly said that it provided 

for a northern corridor. 

And the fact of the matter is that that bill did not pass in its 

first iteration and underwent extensive changes. When it got back 

for re-passage, that part of it had been taken out, because the bill 

provided for a right-of-way for the Lake Powell pipeline, and it provided for a northern corridor. And that had been taken out of the 

bill. And the Senator said in a public statement that those two 

things had been changed. 

The other thing is it is very important to understand that even 

though they say they are only going through a small part of this 

preserve, that is not technically correct, because they are going 

through another part of the reserve that is not rated in the same 

way. And the allegation that our tortoise population is the highest 

among these types of tortoises is correct, but it has declined 40 

percent over the last 7 years. So, it is not doing as well as we 

would like it to do, but doing better than other places in the 

country. 

Our great fear is that the precedent established by allowing a 

road, a highway through an NCA is going to be a very difficult 

matter for us to deal with. So, we would rather not have that as 

a precedent. 

Ms. HANABUSA. In your written testimony, you were talking 

about the Omnibus Public Lands Bill of 2009, and you were talking 

about the original bill of 2006, and that it languished all the way 

through, and when it finally passed—these are the series of bills 

that you are talking about, right? 

Mr. VAN DAM. Yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA. In the short period of time that you have left, 

when you said that the population of tortoises have declined about 

40 percent from what they were when you originally moved there, 

is that correct? 

Mr. VAN DAM. That is correct. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And what caused the decline? 

Mr. VAN DAM. There have been natural wildfires, there have 

been upper respiratory problems we have had there, and the habitat that they are in now is not like the habitat that they had when 

they lived in the valley and had to be removed some 20 years ago. 

It is just simply a more difficult place for them to survive. 

But our county then had 300,000 acres opened up for development and for people by moving the tortoises up. We really feel 

48 

strongly that should be left alone at this point. They have given up 

everything they could and this is their habitat. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. We are out of time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions on this bill? 

Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, thank you. 

Commissioner, it is nice to have you here in Washington, DC. I 

do have some questions, but I would actually prefer to yield my 

time to Congressman Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. I would like to thank my friend, Mr. Curtis. And 

I will be brief, so we can retain some time for you, if I could. 

Commissioner Cox, I am going to read you the language—and 

this is not a press release, this is not a private statement, this is 

not a comment in front of a group of people—this is the actual language of the bill, as it currently exists, not something that was removed or deleted in an omnibus. This is the language of the bill. 

It clearly states that the government entities identify one or more 

alternatives for a northern transportation route. 

As you read that, can you read that in any other way than it 

would allow you and encourage what they foresaw, and that is the 

necessity for this road to eventually be built? 

Mr. COX. I can’t read that any other way, and I have read that 

bill several times. It is quite clear that the BLM was directed to 

identify one or more routes in its travel management plan. 

Mr. STEWART. So, it seems to me that this current law, what we 

are doing here is just complying with the intent of Congress, as expressed in this piece of legislation. 

Mr. COX. It is consistent with it. And in fact, the utility development protocols are also in Public Law 111–11, and they are clearly 

defined. It states that BLM may use these protocols in its resource 

management plan. The BLM chose not to do that in the Record of 

Decision that was signed in December of 2016. And had they had 

done that, as I feel was the intent of Congress, this wouldn’t be 

necessary in this bill again today. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, thank you. I agree with you on that. 

One other thing I want to mention is, look, let me just state the 

obvious. It is your intention, and you representing, as you said, 75 

percent of the voters, but more broadly, you do represent, as the 

leader, the commissioner there. This county that I love and represent, they want to protect this tortoise. Have you ever talked to 

anyone who does not want to protect this tortoise? 

Mr. COX. No, I haven’t. I think that the desert tortoise is dear 

to all of us. And that is why we have taken such effort to make 

sure that the tortoises that have been displaced with this growth 

have actually been relocated and are thriving. 

In Nevada, California, and other places that has not happened. 

They have just bulldozed over them. But we care about the 

tortoise—— 

Mr. STEWART. Which is my point, and that is—you alluded to it 

and mentioned some of it, and that is the remarkable achievement 

of the county under county leadership and others to talk about the 

tortoise population. 

49 

Could you give us an idea? Do you know the answer to the question, have these tortoise populations increased under this county 

plan, or decreased over the last—— 

Mr. COX. I could tell you that the tortoise population decreased 

from when the plan was signed to 2007. In 2005 and 2006, 

Washington County was ravaged by fire. I am sure all of our 

friends from California can relate to the fire. In fact, in those 2 

years, 25 percent of all 1,500 square miles in Washington County 

burned. It was an unfortunate event, and it had tortoise mortality. 

But I actually have reports from the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, page 9, and we have that in the record, that says since 

2007 tortoise populations within the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve appear to have stabilized, and there is no evidence of further declines 

in tortoise densities. 

In fact, the population trend since 2007 has not only stabilized, 

but it is a positive trend, according to the figures on pages 46 and 

47 of that report. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. And I guess there is nothing that you 

or anyone else could have done about those fires. 

Mr. COX. It was an unfortunate thing. But we had years of 

drought, and then massive amounts of water that caused a lot of 

fuel. We had the cheatgrass invasion that fueled that. And the important thing is those populations have stabilized and are growing 

for the past 11 years. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

Mr. Curtis, I yield the remaining 15 seconds to you. I was selfish, 

I apologize. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CURTIS. No problem. In those few seconds, I think I would 

just like to confirm. 

Your county, I am assuming, is growing like the rest of the state 

and you are under huge pressures for growth and planning. And 

I know you don’t have time to answer that question, but I would 

like to make sure that is on the record. Thank you. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions on this bill? 

Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question first is 

for Mr. Van Dam. You are a Washington County resident. Would 

you say that part of the reason that you live there is because of 

the beautiful protected lands? Tell us how you see this highway 

corridor would affect the integrity of these protected spaces. 

Mr. VAN DAM. My concern with this highway corridor, and I do 

love the county and I am living there happily, is that it sets a 

precedent in the most protected area, a precedent that I know a lot 

of other people in this country would like to follow. And I think we 

have to be very careful with precedent. 

I have Senator Bennett’s words here. And after his bill in 2008 

had been changed, he said, ‘‘We have removed the corridor designations for the Lake Powell pipeline corridor and the northern 

corridor that bisected the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve.’’ That is his 

own quote. 

The Northern Corridor was meant for a different purpose than 

what it is being quoted for here, because it was meant to take off 

50 

from our main highway, I-15, and go quite a ways up a highway 

that goes north. Its purpose was quite different than what the commissioner is making it to be. 

The other thing you need to know is this road is going to meet 

up with another road. There is a road called the Red Hills Parkway 

that goes around and carries most of the traffic northward above 

the city. This road duplicates that road, and then it actually joins 

that road about a mile from Highway 18 that they want to get people to. And there is going to be a traffic jam there of epic proportions because this road coming across the reserve and going into 

an existing parkway that is only a four-lane parkway, eight lanes 

then going that direction, does not resolve the traffic problem. 

Another one of our issues is that independent studies have not 

been concluded to see what else could be done to move traffic more 

efficiently in that direction. This is not even a resolution to their 

problem. 

So, the corridor has a lot of negative aspects to it, and it will not 

solve the problem. As the fastest-growing community or county and 

state in the Nation, our community is absolutely an amazing thing 

to watch. You can almost see it grow from up on the hill. This road 

does not solve the problem, that’s for sure, because of its very 

design. I don’t know if anything more can be done, and I believe 

nothing more can be done. 

But the fact that it joins up with the very road it is supposed 

to supplement a mile before the junction with the main highway 

will be a traffic nightmare of almost unimaginable proportions. And 

we think that a lot better can be done than endangering endangered species. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Following up, have you spoken to the original 

administrator of the Washington County Habitat Conservation 

Plan about this proposed corridor? And what did he say about it? 

Mr. VAN DAM. If I may, sir, my hearing is not very good. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Have you spoken to the original administrator 

of the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan regarding 

the proposed corridor? And what did he say about it? 

Mr. VAN DAM. The proposed corridor is not favored by the 

administrator. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. It is not? 

Mr. VAN DAM. That is correct. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. You mentioned you were the former attorney 

general. Do you think that building a highway through a national 

conservation area is in keeping with the legislation that protected 

the Red Cliffs in 2009? I think you mentioned a little bit about that 

earlier. 

Do you think that this is consistent with the legislation that led 

to the protection of Red Cliffs in 2009? Is building a highway 

through this national conservation area consistent with that 

legislation? 

Mr. VAN DAM. It certainly is not consistent with it. And it is almost unthinkable, because of what was gone through 20 years ago 

in establishing the reserve and establishing the NCA was a very 

long and difficult process. And everything that has gone on since 

then for 20 years, in buying all the property within there, preserving the tortoises, spending an amazing amount of time and 

51 

effort is basically undone in the sense that this highway now, a 

300-foot-wide—think about that for just a minute, a 300-foot-wide 

corridor. That is a football field wide going across there. And the 

amount of miles that they say it is going to go across is quite minimal, compared to—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am sorry, but—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I am going to have to yield back, but thank you 

for your answer. 

Mr. VAN DAM. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions? 

Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, let me do this quickly, then. 

Commissioner Cox? Why do you need the road? Very quickly. 

Mr. COX. We need the road because the county is growing. My 

wife is on the school board. I am honored to have her sitting behind 

me. But she told me the other day that we have 33,000 children 

in our K through 12 program. Two-thirds of Washington County’s 

growth is internal growth. I am a fifth-generation native, and this 

highway is necessary to protect our water, our air, and to be able 

to move efficiently without being stuck in gridlock. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is not just moving people. You are also having 

utility corridors in the same area. Correct? 

Mr. COX. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. That same area? 

Mr. COX. That is the reason for the width. And then we want to 

put a bike path on it, too. A lot of people want to be able to ride 

a bike or walk—— 

Mr. BISHOP. No, don’t put the bike, that would be recreation. 

That is obviously what people are not talking about here. 

I am assuming you did studies on this stuff. 

Mr. COX. Yes. In fact, I am not a traffic engineer, but UDOT has 

many of them, and UDOT would be the lead agency on this road. 

Their traffic engineers tell us it would carry 32,000 cars per day. 

Mr. BISHOP. I have been down there a lot. Last time I was there, 

I told you, 3 days and it rained every day. So, when you need to 

break the drought again, just invite me back down. 

Mr. COX. We need you to come back. It is getting dry again. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am appreciative of what you are talking about, the 

rehabilitation of the species that actually is not native to 

Washington County in the first place, but I hate to say this. I was 

here while these bills were going forward, and I was working with 

Senator Bennett and Congressman Matheson because I was on the 

Committee and they were not. 

It is interesting that this bill, the one that was actually finally 

passed in an omnibus that talks about our process being poorly 

run, was never heard in any place on the House side. They didn’t 

give Mr. Matheson a hearing on this bill at all. It had one hearing 

in the Senate before it was actually placed in an omnibus bill. 

But it is very clear, from the discussions with all of them, that 

the idea of a proposal was to have a road in this area, but not presupposed where that road actually would be. And that is why it 

was always there, that is why the language is there, that is why 

this is a long time coming, but needs to be there. 

52 

Mr. Stewart, I have 2 minutes left. Do you have anything you 

would like to use for my time? 

Mr. STEWART. I will go very quickly, Chairman, thank you. 

I just want to be clear, you have consulted with traffic and 

transportation experts on this plan? 

Mr. COX. We have. This road has been a key part of our transportation plan, and the Dixie Metropolitan Transportation 

Organization—— 

Mr. STEWART. OK, and I am going to accelerate, because I only 

have a few minutes. So, they conclude that this route, is the 

best—— 

Mr. COX. It is not the very best route for a road in terms of being 

the least expensive to construct. We also talked with biologists, 

Fish and Wildlife, and others, and that is why we brought the 

boundary of the road much farther to the south, so that it would 

not bifurcate the reserve. 

Mr. STEWART. OK, so experts were consulted and this was their 

conclusion? 

Mr. COX. That is right. This would cost a little bit more to 

build—— 

Mr. STEWART. But, all around, the best—— 

Mr. COX. It would meet those transportation needs. 

Mr. STEWART. Now, let’s consider this, and we have to go quickly—let’s suppose that you are not authorized to do this, that 

Congress prohibits you from doing this road. Tell us the result of 

that. Because it seems to me that, environmentally, we take a step 

backward instead of forward if that is the outcome. 

Mr. COX. What happens is we start having our major intersections fail. Currently, right now, intersection 10 on I-15 is failing. 

That is Washington. As you look at the plans, they just ripple on 

out and come into St. George. 

If you come down on President’s Day weekend right now, you 

will queue up for half-a-mile before you are able to get on the freeway. And that intersection hasn’t failed yet. It will be interminable 

when our population is 10 times larger. 

Mr. STEWART. When we have a larger population and failed 

transportation systems, are there environmental impacts from 

that? 

Mr. COX. It is going to absolutely degrade our air and water 

quality because of the number of cars that cannot move efficiently. 

They will just be stuck in gridlock. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. And for those of us who live on the Wasatch 

Front, which is the area around Salt Lake City, who have air 

inversions and other poor air quality that you don’t have, we are 

trying to—— 

Mr. COX. That could be coming our way if we don’t get this. 

Mr. STEWART. We are trying to make it so you don’t become like 

Salt Lake City, with the air inversions and that. 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Mr. STEWART. All right, thank you. 

And again, to the Chairman and the Ranking Member, thank 

you for letting me participate in this hearing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Further questions on the bill? 

53 

Seeing none, that concludes our hearing on H.R. 5597. I want to 

thank both of you for joining us today and for traveling all this way 

to be here. Again, you are most welcome to stay if you would like. 

If you have better things to do, you are certainly welcome to leave. 

With that, we will take up our final bill, H.R. 5875, and the 

Chair would recognize Miss Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n of Puerto Rico to 

present the bill. 

I am sorry, I apologize, that was for an introduction. The Chair 

recognizes Ms. Bordallo to present the bill. My apologies. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. I want to thank Chairman 

Bishop for being with us today, and of course Chairman McClintock 

and Ranking Member Hanabusa for putting my bill on the hearing 

schedule today. 

H.R. 5875 is supported by all six Members representing U.S. 

territories and the District of Columbia, and would fix a problem 

that has gone overlooked for decades and decades. This bipartisan 

bill would amend two Federal laws, the Pittman-Robertson and the 

Dingell-Johnson Acts, to provide parity for the five territories and 

DC with the 50 states under those laws’ Federal funding formulas. 

These laws would provide Federal funding to support fish and 

wildlife conservation and enhance hunting, sportfishing, boating, 

and other outdoor recreational opportunities at no cost to the taxpayers. Each state territorial fish and wildlife agency receives a 

yearly allocation of this Federal funding from the U.S. Department 

of the Interior. However, current Federal law places arbitrary caps 

on how much funding the five territories and DC can receive. 

For example, each state is guaranteed at least a 1 percent share 

of the yearly Pittman-Robertson apportionment, with the Secretary 

of the Interior having the discretion to award more funding based 

on population and other factors. However, current law caps Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the other territories’ shares at just 1⁄6 of 1 

percent. That means that all five territories combined receive less 

than a single state’s Pittman-Robertson allocation each year. 

The bill would fix this to provide each territory the minimum 

1 percent allocation guaranteed for each state. For DingellJohnson, current law also caps arbitrarily the territories and DC’s 

yearly allocations. Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia are 

each capped at just 1⁄3 of 1 percent for Dingell-Johnson funding. 

Puerto Rico’s yearly share is capped at just 1 percent, despite a 

population greater than nearly two dozen states. Their population 

today averages about 3.7 million. The bill would fix this by removing these arbitrary caps to allow the Secretary of the Interior to exercise his or her full discretion in allocating the Dingell-Johnson 

funding to each territory and DC, based on the same criteria that 

is applied to the states. 

The bill would also make technical changes in the U.S. Code to 

correct typos, drafting errors in these laws, and make them all 

more reader-friendly. 

Finally, it is important to remember that when we talk about the 

five territories and DC, we are talking about more than 4.4 million 

54 

Americans. Some laws were put on the books, Mr. Chairman, before many of the territories or DC had elected Members to the 

House. In fact, the Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act was 

passed in Congress in 1937, before many of us were born. That is 

the cause of a lot of these parity issues, in my mind. 

Absent Federal support, many conservation projects and programs in the territories simply will never happen, as limited 

territorial budgets often struggle to meet our residents’ basic needs. 

Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

for this hearing, and my original co-sponsors from the territories 

and DC for their support. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much for your testimony. Now 

I will introduce the delegate from Puerto Rico, Miss Gonza ́lezColo ́n, to introduce our witness. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your time. And I want to thank you, the Ranking Member, 

and my friend, Ms. Bordallo, for letting me participate with this 

bill, and all the territory delegates for this bipartisan initiative. 

I think this is part of the efforts that we are doing for making 

justice for all the Americans that are living in the territories for 

having equal participation and lifting the cap on many other 

issues. 

I want to welcome especially Mr. Jose ́ Aponte-Herna ́ndez, who is 

a former Speaker of the House in Puerto Rico, and I have known 

him for many years. He is a very experienced legislator. He was 

a former Speaker of the House, and currently is the Chair of the 

Federal Relations Committee in the House. He has a lot of experience in many issues in the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, 

and I do know that he is a fighter for equality on the island. And 

he knows, because he is chairing a lot of the issues of the application of Federal laws on the island actually with the local agencies, 

in terms of revealing the unequal treatment in those Federal 

programs. 

I am happy that he actually made it today, and I know that 

today the governor of Puerto Rico has his message to the budget, 

and he is here. So, thank you for coming on a short notice. I look 

forward to his testimony and his insight on this subject. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is by means of introducing Mr. Aponte, 

who is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE ́ F. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ, REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Bishop from the Natural Resources Committee, Chairman 

McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the 

Subcommittee of Federal Lands. Thank you to the Committee and 

the Committee’s leadership for convening this hearing and for the 

opportunity to address this honorable Committee in support of the 

H.R. 5875. 

Any legislation that promotes greater equality for all living 

under the U.S. flag is more than welcomed. I congratulate 

Congresswoman Bordallo and my Resident Commissioner 

55 

Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, as well as Congresswoman Norton, Congressman 

Sablan, and Congresswomen Radewagen and Plaskett for cosponsoring this bipartisan initiative. 

H.R. 5875 would promote equality and justice in treatment for 

the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia in the assignment 

of funds for fish and wildlife restoration that are raised by taxes 

on hunting and fishing supplies. Currently, a very low, fixed 

amount of these funds is assigned to DC, Puerto Rico, and the rest 

of the U.S. territories. These are mostly islands where outdoor activities are a major economic factor and an essential element of the 

quality of life, and DC, which is one of the most important watersheds on the continent. 

The importance of these issues for the U.S. territories is not 

inferior to the other regions of the Nation. The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources employs these funds 

to support maintenance of sports fisheries which represent some 

$70 million a year in economic activity and to provide hunter location. The Department is extremely dependent of these funds, even 

in normal times. And I should not need to say we are not in normal 

times. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior announced that of this pro- gram, Puerto Rico will get about $3.5 million this fiscal year for 

fisheries, which is equivalent to the amount assigned to the smallest states; and another $3.5 million for wildlife restoration, which 

is $1.3 million less than the amount assigned to smaller states. 

Each of other territories receive only about a third of this amount. 

The information may seem insignificant in the face of national 

budgets, but are relevant for communities in economic distress who 

have the same obligation to comply with conservation policies as 

any other jurisdiction in the United States. This bill improves their 

treatment in an area that will foster economic development. 

As a devout and staunch supporter for statehood for Puerto Rico, 

I am not only in favor of more equitable treatment for the island, 

but full parity with all the rights and responsibilities it entails: 

precisely the same principles that guide our service bases for our 

call for appropriate treatment for our living in the United States. 

We should not be expected to settle for less. This happens in too 

many aspects: health care, infrastructure, public safety, and security. We need to make sure it is corrected. 

I support H.R. 5875. I respectfully urge the Members to look beyond this Committee’s jurisdiction at programs under the jurisdiction of all committees you sit in where these U.S. territories that 

are under the same flag get treated unequally. I count on you to 

do what is right, and I thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aponte-Herna ́ndez follows:] 

56 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSE ́ F. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

AND STATUS RELATIONS

STATEMENT ON H.R. 5875 

Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman; Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member; and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you to the Committee and Subcommittee leadership for convening this hearing and allowing me to address you in support of 

H.R. 5875. 

Any legislation that promotes greater equality for all who are living under the 

U.S. flag is more than welcomed. I appreciate and welcome the opportunity to support such an effort and congratulate Congresswoman Bordallo, Resident 

Commissioner Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, Congresswoman Holmes Norton, Congressman 

Sablan, and Congresswomen Radewagen and Plaskett for co-sponsoring this bipartisan initiative. 

H.R. 5875 would promote equality and justice in treatment for the U.S. 

Territories and the District of Columbia in the assignment of funds for fish and 

wildlife restoration that are raised by taxes on hunting and fishing supplies, under 

the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Federal 

Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. 

Currently, a very low fixed amount of these funds are assigned to DC, Puerto Rico 

and the rest of the U.S. Territories. This is because rather than the formula for the 

rest of the states, which fixes a minimum and a maximum of funding to be adjusted 

according to geography and participants in outdoor activity, the formula for the 

territories established fixed amounts, which for some programs must then be split 

six ways amongst the U.S. Territories. 

However, five of those jurisdictions are tropical insular areas where the natural 

environment and the enjoyment of outdoor activity are major factors in their economies and their quality of life. For instance, DC is in the middle of the Chesapeake 

watershed, one of the most important aquatic systems in the East Coast. So, the 

need for attention to these issues in these regions is of no less importance than in 

other parts of the Nation. 

FISHING IN PUERTO RICO

Fishing in Puerto Rico is both recreational and commercial at both sea and fresh 

water lakes. We have over 1,000 commercial fishermen whom generate $7 million 

($7,000,000) a year in wholesale and $21 million ($21,000,000) in retail activity. The 

over 150,000 recreational fishermen in both seawaters and lakes generate over $70 

million ($70,000,000) a year in economic activity. 

Especially in the aftermath of the recent weather events and disasters, runoff, 

silting, and contamination from the disaster debris have impacted many of our bodies of water. One of our most important freshwater lakes, Lake Guajataca, suffered 

from damage to the dam structure, requiring it to be partly emptied. Sea fishing, 

of course, suffered enormous losses to the boat fleet and to the shore facilities for 

fishermen. Our commercial fishermen are mostly small scale, community based, not 

corporate entities. Fisheries have also suffered for years from the presence of 

invasive species like lionfish. 

HUNTING IN PUERTO RICO

Each year some 5,000 hunting licenses are issued in Puerto Rico. Hunting in the 

main island of Puerto Rico is limited to birds, with a pigeon season running from 

September to October (which did not happen this year due to the disaster situation); 

a waterfowl season in November and early December; while in the offshore natural 

reserve of Mona Island, there are both shotgun and bow-and-arrow hunting seasons 

from December to March to control the populations of wild goats and hogs. The 

Hunter Education Program in Puerto Rico is supported, in the face of its limited 

funding, by certified volunteer instructors who lend their expertise to new wouldbe sportsmen. 

In both cases the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resources needs to make sure they are properly cared for, and the Department is 

extremely dependent on these Federal funds even in normal times. However, we are 

not in normal times. I do not have to remind the enormous disaster recovery task 

and our public finances situation. Too often nature protection is left behind when 

money is short. Having these programs available enables the Department to manage the recreational fisheries and wildlife populations to sustain much needed 

economic activity. 

57 

FUNDS THIS YEAR

From the Department of the Interior’s own announcement for Fiscal Year 2018, 

we see that, out of these funds, for fishery restoration Puerto Rico received 

$3,519,175, just the exact minimum quantity given to the smallest states such as, 

for example, Delaware, who have a much smaller geographic extension and smaller 

number of bodies of water. Meanwhile, on the side of wildlife restoration, we received $3,452,263 which is about $1.3 million less than the least of the states. The 

other Territories ended up receiving about a third of what Puerto Rico receives, in 

each of the different programs. Now, these amounts may seem little in the face of 

the national budgets of hundreds of billions, but it is significant for our economies, 

and invaluable for communities in tight economic times who also need to comply 

with the same conservation standards and policies as the other jurisdictions in the 

Nation. 

In Puerto Rico, we were a bit more fortunate than our brothers in other U.S. 

Territories since we got about a half percent more of the funding but still, we stand 

for fairer treatment for all. As a devoted and staunch supporter of statehood for 

Puerto Rico I am not only in favor of more equitable treatment for the Island, but 

of full parity, with ALL the rights AND responsibilities it entails. Precisely, the 

same principles that guide our claim serve as a basis for our call for proper treatment for all living in the United States, who should not be expected to settle for 

less. This happens in too many aspects—health care, infrastructure, public safety 

and security—we need to make sure it is corrected. 

I fully support H.R. 5875 and respectfully urge the Members to look beyond this 

Committee’s jurisdiction, at programs under the jurisdiction of all committees you 

sit in, where these U.S. Territories that are under the same flag get treated unequally. I count on you to do what is right, and I thank you for your attention. 

Supplemental Testimony Submitted for the Record 

PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

May 31, 2018 

Hon. TOM MCCLINTOCK, Chairman, 

Hon. COLLEEN HANABUSA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Federal Lands, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Extension of Remarks and Correction of Testimony on H.R. 5875 

Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa: 

During the Legislative Hearing of the Subcommittee on May 22, 2018, a question 

was raised by the Chair and by Congressman Sablan of the Northern Marianas, on 

whether the Federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing supplies, to be shared with 

the territories under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the 

Dingell-Johnson Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, were collected in Puerto 

Rico. 

At the time, this question was answered in the affirmative. However, this answer 

was based on a misapprehension about the question itself. Further consultation 

with the Puerto Rico Secretary of Natural and Environmental Resources indicates 

to us that though taxes and fees are levied on these sales in Puerto Rico, these are 

not the same as the Federal excise tax referred to in these laws. It is necessary 

therefore for me to provide you this clarification and correction, to the effect that 

this question should have been answered in the negative. I would not wish for it 

to be seen that there was any intention to mislead the Subcommittee or the 

Members, as the Chairman made very strong statements of sympathy in the face 

of such a situation, which I greatly appreciate. 

The disparity in treatment is still an issue for all the territories, and I respectfully 

submit this correction of my testimony so that the Subcommittee may have the 

proper information in its record to act upon H.R. 5875. 

Best regards, 

JOSE ́ F. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ, 

58 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much for your testimony. We 

will now go to Committee questions. I will begin. I just have one 

question, either for Mr. Aponte or Ms. Bordallo, whoever can help 

me on it. 

I was not clear from the briefing materials. These funds are 

financed by fees that are paid for from the purchase of hunting 

equipment, ammunition, archery equipment, correct? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Chairman, if you give me the opportunity, I want my advisor to translate to be sure that I am answering correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Sure. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. That is all right? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Of course. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. No, the funds are used at fisheries, the 

location of the people, the hunters, and other things that—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, I understand that. But the funds are actually financed by fees that are paid for by the purchases of hunting 

equipment? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Correct, OK. If I walked into a sporting goods 

store in San Juan, would I be paying these fees? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, I would be paying the fees as a consumer 

in Puerto Rico, but I wouldn’t have equal access to those fees 

through these programs. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. That is right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, basically, I would be paying for the 

programs, but not receiving the benefits. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. That is right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That seems to be pretty open and shut to me. 

That is all I have for questions. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I just have one, if anybody can answer it. Do you 

know how much money you have lost over the years, whether you 

go 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, by not having basically an equitable 

position? 

Mr. Sablan, do you know? 

Anybody know? 

[Pause.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. It is not a matter of losing the funds, it is just 

a matter of we are not being able to expand at all. And fishing is 

one of our most popular sports on Guam, and we are just at a 

standstill. 

And, of course, I think I mentioned it in my opening statement, 

that it goes a long way to cover sportfishing and other recreational 

activities on Guam. We are just not given ample funding, so it has 

depleted over the years. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. In terms of population, Puerto Rico 

ranks 29 and receives $3.4 million about Pittman, $3.5 Dingell. 

Iowa is 30 and receives $11.5 and $4.5. This is part of the disparity 

that we were living in Puerto Rico about funding. 

59 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Anyone else? Yes. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Ms. Ranking Member. In the 

case of the territories, we never receive the same amount of funds 

in proportion with the rest of the states. It is like a cap to the territories. So, even when we are paying in the exact same rate, we are 

not receiving the same reimbursement to the territories. It is like 

we are capped. This is happening in other Federal programs. We 

are not receiving the same reimbursement, in this case to the 

territories, for the same purpose. 

What the bill is asking is to having the same proportion to the 

territories. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I understand that is what the bill is asking for. 

I was just trying to get a feel and—— 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Sorry to interrupt you again, in the case 

of Puerto Rico, we have not made the study of how much funds we 

have lost. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I think you just gave me funds. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. For the last years. 

Ms. HANABUSA. It was $11-point-something million and $4.5 versus $3.5 and $3-point-something. I was just trying to get a ballpark of—— 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. States with less population than Puerto 

Rico receive more funds than Puerto Rico. The cap that established 

the law does not benefit Puerto Rico and the people of Puerto Rico, 

to give the same opportunities and to comply with all the laws that 

we have to comply with in Puerto Rico to establish and to receive 

the funds. So, it is a negative opportunity to Puerto Rico. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Hanabusa, could I give a stab at this? 

Ms. HANABUSA. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I think because these funds are going to be spread 

around all the states, it is going to be impossible to figure out what 

would have been. 

However, based on what he was saying, what a typical state 

would be, you are probably in the $8 to $10 million range of what 

the territories could be receiving, or at least Puerto Rico could have 

received that they did not. It would be different for every other 

territory. But I guess the right answer is ‘‘a lot.’’ 

Ms. HANABUSA. Yes. I am just trying to get to ‘‘a lot.’’ That is all 

I want to get to. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. It is almost $36 million a year. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thirty-six for CNMI? 

Mr. SABLAN. No, for—— 

Ms. HANABUSA. Oh, for everything? 

Mr. SABLAN. Everybody. 

Ms. HANABUSA. OK, OK. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Also, Ranking Member Hanabusa, I want to mention that this is not a fault of anybody who put these laws together 

way back in 1937. We were not even Members of Congress then. 

It was just the states, and now we want to straighten this out, to 

be able to get a fair—— 

Ms. HANABUSA. We weren’t a state, too. In 1947, Hawaii was not 

a state. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is right. 

60 

Ms. HANABUSA. Neither was Alaska. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is true. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Further questions? 

Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 

point out that I know we all know that Pittman-Robertson funds 

come from sales of ammunition and firearms and other sporting 

goods equipment, but I believe it also receives funding from boat 

engines and fuel purchases. 

And maybe give Mr. Aponte a moment to elaborate on the significance of the sportfishing business in Puerto Rico, and possibly the 

level of funding that these guides contribute on a yearly basis. 

If you can get my southern English without help, you will be 

doing very well. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. The translator may need help. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. The funding supports the hunting and 

the fishery. And any other information that you and the Committee 

need I can provide later to the Committee. 

But we use the funds in the development of the activities that 

were from tourism and—not only for tourism, for the people in 

Puerto Rico and to commerce—our people in Puerto Rico that have 

to fight with the disparities and the opportunities that we don’t 

have because of our situation under the U.S. flag. 

And we now have the challenge to develop the economy of Puerto 

Rico after Hurricanes Irma and Maria. And we were using funding 

to restore Puerto Rico, and the opportunity that changed the law 

and gave us more funding, H.R. 5875 increased the opportunities 

to develop Puerto Rico because we don’t have to use our funding, 

the amount that we have now that is not too much, to develop the 

hunting and fishery. We have the opportunity to support and to 

break disparities and bring close opportunities to Puerto Rico. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 

point out that if Puerto Rico is actively engaged in funding the 

Pittman-Robertson Act, then they should be receiving funds from 

that. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And I just, on a personal note, want to compliment your translator, who seems to be fluent in Spanish, 

English, and Arkansan. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions? 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. First I want to thank 

Representative Aponte-Herna ́ndez. Thank you for agreeing to testify on my bill. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I did invite witnesses from Guam, 

but you know it is quite a trip. And at this short notice—21 flying 

hours—so they regretfully said that they could not make it. But I 

do thank the Representative from Puerto Rico. 

61 

I have a couple of questions to ask you, Representative. I am 

sure that you feel strongly, as I do, that the U.S. territories should 

be given equal access to Federal programs and funding, on parity 

with the 50 states. 

Do you agree that the state equivalent share of PittmanRobertson and Dingell-Johnson funding provided by this bill will 

support projects and programs that otherwise might never get adequate local funding? Do you think, if we change this and we—— 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Definitely. 

Ms. BORDALLO. It will? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Definitely. I point out in my written 

statement that too often programs like this suffer when there is a 

fiscal deficiency. Right now, when focus of all the discretionary 

funding is on the disaster recovery, and the importance of being 

able to categorize funds to things as natural protection, is better 

for Puerto Rico. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Another question I have. Can you 

please speak to how increased Federal Pittman-Robertson and 

Dingell-Johnson funding will help Puerto Rico and other territories 

better serve their local sportsmen communities? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Yes. In many of these territories, outdoors activities have important opportunities. It is a key attraction 

for tourism or recreation opportunities. So, they enforce the development of the island and our economy, and it is better for all of 

us. 

And the way that Puerto Rico increases and develops positively 

the economy, the Congress and mainland have the benefits also because we are less dependent and have more opportunities to 

develop in our way. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. The popularity of hunting and fishing 

in the territories is not reflected in the license sales reported to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For example, Guam does not require fishing licenses. And I expect that this is the same in other 

territories. 

My question is, can you please speak to the popularity of hunting 

and fishing in Puerto Rico? I think you have issued 5,679 hunting 

license sales reported in 2017. Is this correct? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. It is? OK, so why is it so important that Puerto 

Rico, the other territories, and the District of Columbia receive 

state-equivalent funding under all Federal programs? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Why? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Why? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Because we are a territory and we 

don’t have the same equal rights as all the people under the flag 

of the United States. This is not what our Nation was—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Founded on. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. They ask for equal rights and democracy in all the world, but the people in the territories don’t have 

the same rights that the people in the 50 states. So, we have to 

change that, and to present our Nation like the best one in the 

world, but not in words, in action. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Representative AponteHerna ́ndez. You put that very well. I agree with you. 

62 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

Further questions? 

Miss Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

add for the record some issues that Mr. Aponte just brought up in 

his statement. And he just pointed out that we issued 5,000 hunting licenses in Puerto Rico. 

And on our island, we have a lot of areas, not just for fishing and 

hunting, but for many recreational importance for the islanders. I 

mean not just in Puerto Rico—Guam, American Samoa, and the 

rest of the islands. This is $21 million in retail activity, so this is 

an important area on the island, with over 150,000 recreational 

fishermen, both in sea waters and lakes that generate over $70 

million in economic activity. 

So, this is the importance of this kind of a bill. If we don’t adjust 

this kind of reimbursement of the money, assigned to the education 

programs for the hunters, and in the case of Puerto Rico, and this 

is one of the questions I have for Representative Aponte. In 2009, 

the fisheries restoration and Puerto Rico funding were $4 million, 

and that dropped to around $3.5 million, that is correct? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. That is right. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. And that $3.5 million continues to be in 

that range over the last 4 years? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. That is right. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. So, that drop of $500,000 needs to be 

matched in a 25 percent by the Government of Puerto Rico? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Yes, we have to match it. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. So, we are not receiving the fund from 

the Department of the Interior on a free basis. Puerto Rico needs 

to match the amount of funds from the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. About 25 percent. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. So, we are not receiving the funds on a 

free level. We need to match those resources. Is that correct? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. That is right. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. OK, so the bill would need to keep at 

least the minimum of resources. In some cases, we are receiving 

less than the rest of the states, even when we are selling more 

licenses or more equipment than any other state. Correct? 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Yes. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. One of the areas that we are experiencing here is that with the resources of sea, lakes, licenses for 

fishermen and hunters, if we want to keep our resources all together, and we have suffered enormous losses to the boat fleet and 

to the shore facilities for fishermen after the hurricanes, those resources are deeply needed. 

And that is the reason I want to thank Congresswoman Bordallo 

for having this bill, and Chairman Bishop for allowing this hearing, 

because it is important to have a bill that completes—I mean we 

have Mona Island, we have Vieques, we have Culebra. 

And we have a new sport, the sport of bow and arrow for hunting 

seasons from December to March to control the population of wild 

goats and hogs, among others. I do know that many states have 

63 

their populations; we have ours, too. So, this is an issue that affects 

a lot of areas on the island. And I know Guam has theirs. So, if 

we don’t have the same resources to manage those issues, we will 

never be able to assign resources from the state level to manage 

those. 

I want to thank Representative Aponte for being here today and 

giving us the information from the Department of Natural 

Resources from the island in terms of the statistics and any other 

further information that the Committee may request from the state 

level, even if it is licenses, if it is local money, or matching funds 

for the state level so we can provide it. I know the rest of the territories may do the same thing because at the end we just want to 

have the information that is needed to make a greater bill. 

So, thank you for that. Thank you, Representative Aponte. And 

with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Any other questions? 

Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Just one. And my question is to the Chairman, if 

I may. You had one question early on. Could you repeat that question again? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. The question was, do the residents of 

Puerto Rico pay the fees that go into these programs? The answer 

was yes. Do they have full access to the benefit of these programs 

that they are paying for? The answer was no. That was pretty 

clear-cut to me. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. No, that was all. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You yield back? 

Mr. SABLAN. [Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. Any further questions? 

Well, seeing none, that will conclude this hearing. 

Representative Aponte, I want to thank you especially, not only 

for the trip you made on short notice, but also for staying through 

the full hearing to give your testimony, guidance, and expertise, 

which is much appreciated. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you for the questions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. There may be additional questions from 

Members. If there are, they will submit those in writing, and we 

will keep the record open for 10 business days to receive your 

responses. 

If there is no further business to come before the Subcommittee, 

the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STATEMENT ON H.R. 5597, DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

EXPANSION ACT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior (Department) to present 

views on H.R. 5597, the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Expansion Act, 

Washington County, Utah. The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) to renew the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan with an amendment; amend the Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) St. George Field Office and the Beaver Dam Wash and Red 

64 

Cliffs National Conservation Areas (NCA); and designate transportation and utility 

corridors through these two NCAs. 

The Department recognizes the work of Congressman Stewart and other members 

of the Utah delegation to address a wide array of resource issues and management 

concerns in Washington County. Secretary Zinke is committed to restoring full collaboration and coordination with local communities, working with partners to promote multiple use on public lands, and making the Department a better neighbor. 

The Department supports the bill’s goals of providing economic certainty to the communities of Washington County. We would welcome the opportunity to work with 

the sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few clarifying amendments, time frames, 

and to ensure consistency of implementation with other laws. 

BACKGROUND

Washington County, Utah, covers nearly 2,500 square miles, and is among the 

fastest growing counties in the country, with a population increase of 52 percent between 2000 and 2010. Population growth has direct impacts on public lands within 

the county and poses management challenges for a variety of resources. For over 

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

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

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

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

public process, including meetings between private landowners and state and 

Federal land managers, to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that allowed 

for continued growth while ensuring protection of the threatened Mojave desert 

tortoise. The HCP Implementation Agreement, signed by Washington County, the 

state of Utah, the city of Ivins, the BLM, and the USFWS in February 1996, established the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve (Reserve), a multi-jurisdictional wildlife reserve 

of 61,022 acres largely composed of Federal and state lands. 

The HCP expired in 2016 and Washington County has requested an extension of 

the permit with an amendment to facilitate the Northern Corridor Highway route 

through the Reserve. The County is in ongoing discussions with the USFWS to 

renew the HCP. This includes consideration of the proposed highway construction. 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 

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

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

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

U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service. 

The congressionally-designated boundary of the Red Cliffs NCA encompasses 

approximately 44,725 acres of public land managed by the BLM, including about 70 

percent of the Reserve, with additional state and private lands. The Act also states 

that the purposes of the Red Cliffs NCA are ‘‘to conserve, protect, and enhance for 

the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, 

wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific 

resources.’’ 

OPLMA also directed the BLM to identify one or more alternatives for a ‘‘northern 

transportation route in the County’’ as part of a comprehensive travel management 

plan and in consultation with Washington County, the city of St. George, and other 

local governments. 

St. George Resource Management Plans 

Based on the congressional direction in OPLMA, the BLM prepared RMPs for the 

Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs. As required by the Act, the BLM also prepared an amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP to identify and manage 

priority biological conservation areas and to facilitate the development of a comprehensive travel management plan. The BLM signed Records of Decision 

completing this planning process on December 21, 2016. 

H.R. 5597

H.R. 5597 requires the Secretary to amend and renew the Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Conservation Plan, and to amend the RMPs for the St. George Field Office 

and the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs. In addition, the bill requires the 

Secretary to grant transportation and utility corridors through both NCAs, prevents 

the Secretary from acquiring water rights, and includes a number of other miscellaneous provisions. 

65 

Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment & Renewal (Section 3) 

Section 3 of H.R. 5597 requires the Secretary (after receipt of a proposal from 

Washington County) to renew the HCP and issue associated permits for a period 

of 25 years and accept an amendment to the Reserve, which would expand it by approximately 6,900 acres (‘‘Zone 6’’) as depicted on the legislative map, and allow for 

construction of a highway through the Reserve. Under the bill, Washington County 

would manage Zone 6 in conformity with the HCP, and the Secretary would manage 

the Federal lands in Zone 6. Concurrently with the HCP amendment and renewal, 

the Secretary would be required to amend, within 1 year, the St. George Field Office 

Resource Management Plan to manage Federal lands within Zone 6, provide for the 

management of species consistent with the HCP, and include certain Utility 

Development Protocols. 

USFWS has been working with Washington County, BLM, and other partners to 

explore options to meet the transportation needs of the County and address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act for renewal of the HCP. A primary consideration is how to meet the original intent of OPLMA while minimizing impacts 

to desert tortoise. County, state, and Federal biologists are currently analyzing potential measures to reduce the impact of the highway such as bridging and culverts. 

Washington County has proposed to offset remaining impacts by adding Zone 6 to 

the Reserve, of which the BLM owns about 3,500 acres and the state owns about 

3,200 acres. This area is separated from the Reserve boundary by 3 miles, but has 

tortoise densities comparable to the area that would be affected by the proposed 

highway. 

The Department will work cooperatively to address potential conservation strategies raised in Section 3 of H.R. 5597, as well as issues and impacts associated with 

the proposed highway construction through the ongoing plan renewal process. 

Section 3 states that Washington County would manage the proposed Zone 6 area, 

which is currently composed of lands managed by the state of Utah, private property, and BLM-managed public lands. The Department would like to work with the 

sponsor and Subcommittee to clarify the intent of this provision. In addition, we 

would like to work with the sponsor to clarify the timeline for the HCP. The Department would like to work with the bill’s sponsor and the Committee to clarify the 

intent and scope of certain language in section 3 of the bill as related to application 

of mitigation credits. Finally, the Department would welcome the opportunity to develop a legislative map for this section that meets the sponsor’s needs. 

Resource Management Plan Amendments (Section 4) 

Section 4 of H.R. 5597 requires the BLM, within 1 year, to amend the RMPs for 

the Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash NCAs and to amend the St. George Field 

Office RMP Amendment. This section further requires that these RMP amendments 

be: (1) in accordance with section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); (2) in coordination and cooperation with Washington 

County, Utah, St. George City, other political subdivisions within the County, and 

the Washington County Water Conservancy District; and (3) consistent with the 

bill’s other provisions and the HCP. 

The Department recommends minor technical modifications to this section to ensure the language is consistent with the sponsor’s intent regarding the time frame 

for completing the planning process. The Department recommends that the RMPs 

be completed at the same time as the HCP to enhance coordination efforts. We look 

forward to working with state, tribal, and local government partners on this important planning process. 

Red Cliffs & Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas (Sections 5 & 6) 

Section 5 of the bill designates a 150-foot wide transportation and utility corridor 

in each direction from the centerline of State Route 18 through the Red Cliffs NCA; 

prohibits the Secretary from acquiring any water rights within or related to any 

land or interest in land within the NCA; and requires the Secretary to grant to the 

state of Utah or to one or more units of local government a 300-foot wide right-ofway for the northern transportation and utility route as referenced in OPLMA and 

as identified on the legislative map. Section 5 also directs the Secretary to adhere 

to certain Utility Development Protocols for new and existing utility management 

within the NCA. 

Section 6 of H.R. 5597 designates a 150-foot wide transportation and utility corridor in each direction from the centerline of old U.S. 91 through the Beaver Dam 

Wash NCA; prohibits the Secretary from acquiring any water rights within or related to any land or interest land within the NCA; and states that access to utilities 

and grazing permits and maintenance of utilities located within the NCA shall be 

preserved. This section also directs the Secretary to adopt Utility Development 

66 

Protocols for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of utilities 

within the NCA that are no more restrictive than those developed for the Red Cliffs 

NCA. These protocols must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, including the identification and consideration of potential impacts to fish and wildlife 

resources and habitat. 

The Department is committed to being a good neighbor and to restoring full 

collaboration with local communities. As such, we support this Section’s goals of providing economic certainty to and meeting the infrastructure needs of Washington 

County. The Department notes that the legislative map referenced in Section 5 does 

not reflect current land status data. We would welcome the opportunity to develop 

such a map for this section. 

Sec. 5(d) and Sec. 6(b) would prohibit the Secretary from acquiring water rights 

or water rights related to any land or interest in land in the NCAs. As consistent 

with Federal and state law, the ability for the Federal Government to acquire water 

rights from willing sellers is important to ensure adequate management of the designated areas—both the lands within the NCAs and the public lands included in the 

Reserve. If acquired, water rights would be used for campgrounds, visitor facilities, 

recreation resources, livestock grazing, and administrative uses that are in conformance with Utah water law. 

The Department notes that the current RMP for the Beaver Dam Wash NCA 

authorizes a 150-foot wide transportation and utility corridor along old U.S. 91 

through the NCA, and livestock grazing consistent with section 1975(e)(4) of 

OPLMA in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the ecological, scenic, 

wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific 

resources of the NCA. 

CONCLUSION

The Department is committed to working with state, tribal, and local partners to 

manage public lands in Washington County. We support the goal of addressing the 

infrastructure needs of growing rural communities. As such, the Department would 

welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few 

modifications to the bill as it moves forward through the legislative process. Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide this statement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STATEMENT ON H.R. 5875, TO AMEND THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE

RESTORATION ACT AND THE DINGELL-JOHNSON FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH

RESTORATION ACT

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (P-R Act), passed in 1937, along 

with the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (D-J Act), passed in 1950, 

authorize grant programs that provide critically important funding to states and 

territories for administering state fish and wildlife programs and for implementing 

on-the-ground wildlife and sport fish conservation. Revenues for the Wildlife 

Restoration Program are derived from excise taxes on firearms, ammunitions, 

archery equipment, and arrow components. Revenues for the Sport Fish Restoration 

program are derived from excise taxes on fishing equipment, motorboat and small 

engine fuels, and import duties. The source of funding creates a ‘‘user-pay-userbenefit’’ cycle of success. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department), through the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) program, apportioned approximately $1.1 billion in Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration grants 

to all 50 states and 6 U.S. territories in Fiscal Year 2017. These grants provided 

essential support for state agencies to conserve fish and wildlife species and their 

habitats, and to enhance opportunities for boating, angling, hunting, and recreational shooting. Through the funding that has been distributed, nearly 10 million 

students have been trained in hunter education and over 7 million hours have been 

contributed by volunteers to hunter education and safety training. In addition, 

through this funding, 455 million acres are maintained for wildlife restoration and 

wildlife recreation nationwide, and habitat improvements have been made on 2 

million surface acres of reservoirs and lakes. 

If enacted, H.R. 5875 would amend the P-R Act to remove the apportionment 

caps of one-half of one per centum for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and onesixth of one per centum for Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to establish apportionment 

67 

parity with the states for one-half the revenues accruing from taxes imposed on 

pistols, revolvers, bows, and arrows and to increase apportionments for Guam, 

American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands under the Wildlife and Conservation Restoration Account. 

Additionally, it would amend the D-J Act to remove the per centum apportionment 

caps for the territories and the District. 

The Department is committed to its mission of restoring trust and fulfilling 

insular responsibilities, and recognizes the importance of their respective natural resources. We are analyzing the proposed amendments to the P-R and D-J Act and 

how the overall apportionments to states and territories would be affected under 

H.R. 5875. We would be happy to provide an analysis to the Committee, detailing 

the bill’s impacts to the WSFR program, to inform further consideration. 

As the Committee considers H.R. 5875, the Department would like bring the 

Committee’s attention to a challenge in the administration of these Acts. The Fish 

and Wildlife Programs Improvement and National Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 (‘‘Act’’) (Pub. Law 106–408, Nov. 1, 2000), Section 9 (a)(2) 

provides that: 

. . . administrative funds may be used only for expenses for administration 

that directly support the implementation of this Act that consist of (2) 

personnel costs of employees who directly administer this Act on a parttime basis for at least 20 hours each week, not to exceed the portion of those 

costs incurred with respect to the work hours of the employee during which 

the employee directly administers this Act, as those hours are certified by 

the supervisor of the employee. (emphasis added; 114 Stat. 1764) 

FWS WSFR staff possesses expertise in managing financial assistance programs, 

and are experienced in applying best business practices, fiscal efficiencies, and fair 

resource allocation to each activity. However, WSFR staff work on a myriad of programs causing difficulty in meeting the requirements of Section 9(a)(2). We would 

like to work with the Committee on finding a solution to this issue. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Rep. Bishop Submission on H.R. 5597 

—Statement for the Record, State of Utah School & 

Institutional Trust Lands Administration, dated May 29, 

2018 

Rep. Stewart Submissions on H.R. 5597 

—Letter addressed to Rep. Stewart from Washington County 

Convention & Tourism, Kevin Lewis, Director of Tourism, 

dated May 17, 2018 

—Letter addressed to Rep. Stewart from GRO Promotion, 

Cimarron Chacon, President, dated March 26, 2018 

Mr. Van Dam Submissions on H.R. 5597 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva from citizens of Southwest Utah, dated May 15, 

2018 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Rob Bishop from the Desert 

Tortoise Council, dated May 15, 2018 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva from organizations opposing H.R. 5597, dated May 

15, 2018 

68 

—Letter addressed to Ranking Member Grijalva from Bill 

Mader, dated May 1, 2018 

Rep. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n Submissions on H.R. 5875 

—Statement for the Record by Tania Va ́squez Rivera, 

Secretary of the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources, dated May 22, 2018 

—Letter addressed to Chairman McClintock and Ranking 

Member Hanabusa from Delegate Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, dated 

June 1, 2018 

Æ