SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
48–613 CC
1998
HEARING ON THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APRIL 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–85
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held April 23, 1998
Statements of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Cook, Hon. Merrill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Statements of witnesses:
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a Senator in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Curtis, Wes, Director, Governor's Rural Partnership Office, State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Dmitrich, Hon. Mike, State Senator, State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Johnson, Randy, Chairman, Emery County Commissioner
Prepared statement of
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Leavitt, Hon. Michael O., Governor, State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Martin, Wilson, Program Manager, Utah Department of Community and Economic Development
Prepared statement of
Meadows, Bill, President, The Wilderness Society
Prepared statement of
Owens, Hon. Wayne, President, Center for Middle East Peace, testifying on behalf of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Peay, Donald Keith, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
Prepared statement of
Petersen, Kent, Emery County Commissioner
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted for the record by
Shea, Pat, Director, Bureau of Land Management
Prepared statement of
Warnick, Richard M., Salt Lake City, Utah, prepared statement of
Wilson, Bevan K., Emery County Commissioner
Prepared statement of
Letters submitted by
Additional material supplied:
Community & Wild Lands Futures, ''Disputing Parties Heading Onto Cooperative Public Lands Trail''
HEARING ON H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Park and Public Lands, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in room 334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen, (chairman of the Subcommittee) present.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes to hear testimony on H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Cannon, who represents Emery County.
I would like to welcome our many friends from Utah who have worked very hard on this legislation to bring this proposal and that truly balances the needs of the land, and the needs of the people, who support these public lands. This legislation has been worked on by many interests, State and local governments, historic and cultural interest, wildlife interests, and recreational interests. Although the administration's testimony claims that interests were not represented in this discussion, the truth is that all who were interested were invited to participate and did participate. Those who wish to sit back and throw stones and fail to roll up their sleeves and actually work on something in a positive manner, will not and cannot be taken seriously. This also applies to the administration.
The purpose of a hearing such as this is to hear constructive comments on how to make this bill better, to suggest changes to benefit land or help our local managers, or whatever it takes to help perfect legislation. We appreciate Mr. Shea coming out to Emery County and the visit we had with him. I am not 100 percent sure that the testimony he gives today was written by those who have been on the land or even knows what the land looks like, but that's something they'll have to work out.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 3625 is unique in that the designations fit the land. Many wilderness proposals attempt to force the land to fit the designation, and this just does not work. However, H.R. 3625 takes a very close look at the lands involved and maximizes their potential for what they are. This will protect wilderness, semi-primitive areas, bighorn sheep, scenic easements, history, and recreation.
This administration often talks about balance and new approaches to land management. However, when such a proposal comes along, they simply choose to sit back and sometimes, unfortunately, play partisan politics and let the public land suffer. As one who has been part of more wilderness bills than any man in Congress, I can tell you that I find that very disturbing. If we do not find balanced approaches that can be endorsed by the local people who live in these areas and find cooperative management schemes, our land, our wildlife, our history, and our children will suffer the consequences of playing politics with this thing.
I want to compliment the people from Emery County who work so diligently on this program and all the people who have put the hand of fellowship out to anyone that would talk to them. And, I don't think many of us realize the countless hours that these people have put on preparing this piece of legislation. In fact, as I look back at past administrations, and Presidents, and others who have worked on this, this is the way it should be done. People in the local area working with anyone who will come and work with them should take the time to do it.
And I particularly want to thank Randy Johnson, Kent Petersen, and Bevan Wilson for the great work they've done on this. And, all of those people who were willing to say let's sit down and work this out.
In 1984, we passed a wilderness bill in Utah. It was the Hansen-Garn bill on Forest Service, and it basically worked because we said everybody can be a player. However, we find a lot of people who choose not to be a player, and then when the time of reality comes, then they would come in and complain. I always worry about that.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I guess I've said enough at this time. The sponsor of this bill is Mr. Cannon from the third district in Utah. So, I'll turn the time to him now for any opening remarks that he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this morning and participate in this hearing. As many of you know, the debate over the land use in Utah is a long and complicated history. Having spent most of my own youth on this land, I know and cherish it. No one wants more than I what is best for this unique land.
That is why I am pleased to introduce H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. This bill predicts nearly a million acres with various land designations and including 407,000 acres of wilderness, 193,000 acres of Semi-Primitive Areas, and 66,000 acres in which desert bighorn sheep management will take place, and 27,000 acres called critical environment.
To allow for integrated management and enhancement of the numerous visitor attractions in the area, H.R. 3625 establishes a National Heritage Area for Emery County and parts of Carbon in Sanpete County. It also creates a national conservation area on the beautiful San Rafael Swell, which will allow management that will preserve the dramatic canyon's wildlife and historic sites of the Swell. The plan provides for management a management system which includes a desert bighorn sheep preserve. The often neglected school trust lands of Utah are also addressed in legislation. H.R. 3625 gives the Secretary of Interior three years to trade out any school trust lands impacted by the Heritage Conservation Area.
The beauty of this plan is that it addresses specific concerns and problems with real practical solutions. I wish I could take credit for this impressive plan, but I can't. The local leaders of the area, and the citizens are the source of this conservation plan led by the Emery County Commissioners. They know the land management problems of this area well. I applaud their creativity and careful attention to detail in crafting this bill so that it meets these vexing problems with real-life practical solutions.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If successful, this proposal can be the model for resulting other Federal land management issues across Utah. Already other counties are expressing an interest in pursuing a similar process.
Let me emphasize that H.R. 3625 is a beginning. The text is neither sacred nor cast in stone. We're doing some new things here. We're in new territory. Rather, it builds a starting point from which to resolve the interrelated land management issues in the area. I would encourage the other witnesses and their respective organizations to see today's discussion as a dialogue. This is not a time for rigid positions or knee-jerk reactions, this is a time for constructive suggestions—a time to join the Utah lands solution revolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to participate in this hearing.
As many of you know, the debate over land use in Utah has a long complicated history. Having spent much of my youth on this land, I know and cherish it. No one wants more than I what is best for this unique land.
That is why I am pleased to introduce H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. This bill protects nearly a million acres with various land designations, including 407,000 acres of wilderness, 193,000 acres of semi-primitive areas, 66,000 in a desert bighorn sheep management area, and 27,000 acres of critical environment.
To allow for integrated management and enhancement of the numerous visitor attractions in the area, H.R. 3625 establishes a National Heritage Area for Emery county and parts of Carbon and Sanpete Counties. It also creates a National Conservation Area on the beautiful San Rafael Swell which will allow management that will preserve the dramatic canyons, wildlife and historic sites of the swell.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This plan provides for a management system which includes a Desert Bighorn Sheep preserve.
The often neglected school trust lands of Utah are also addressed in this legislation. H.R. 3625 gives the Secretary of Interior three years to trade-out any school trust lands impacted by the Heritage Conservation area. The beauty of this plan is that it addresses specific concerns and problems with real, practical solutions.
I wish I could take credit for this impressive plan, but I cannot. The local leaders and citizens of the area are the source of this conservation plan led by the Emery County Commissioners. They know the land management problems of this area well. I applaud their creativity and careful attention to detail in crafting this bill so that it meets these vexing problems with real-life practical solutions.
If successful, this proposal can be the model for resolving other Federal land management issues across Utah. Already, other counties are expressing interest in pursuing a similar process.
Let me emphasize that H.R. 3625 is a beginning. The text is neither sacred nor cast in stone. Rather, the bill is a starting point from which to resolve the interrelated land management issues in the area.
I would encourage the other witnesses and their respective organizations to see today's discussion as a dialogue. This is not the time for rigid positions or knee jerk reactions. This is the time for constructive suggestions, a time to join the Utah lands ''solution revolution.''
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
We're privileged to be joined by the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa, a misplaced Utahn.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter.]
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My apologies, Mr. Chairman, for being a little late this morning. I was tied up with another meeting, but I would like to first offer my personal welcome the good Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, and I understand that Governor Leavitt will also be joining us in a couple of minutes, and the members of the Utah delegation.
Yes, I am a transferred Utahan in that sense. I think I missed a call with such a substantial number of the Polynesian community living in the State of Utah. I know the reason why they're all in Utah, Mr. Chairman. They're all preparing to——
Mr. HANSEN. It's called football.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No. Well, other than my cousin, Chris Ma'afala from your alma mater, but I think the reason why the Polynesians decided to live in Utah is that they are preparing for the winter Olympics—[Laughter.]
Like the Jamaicans in the bobsleds, I'm sure they can probably do well also. The slalom I think is what it's called.
But, Mr. Chairman, I do truly want to welcome the members of the Utah delegation for being here, and especially our good friend, Senator Bennett.
Mr. Chairman, the debate on the San Rafael Swell area is not new. Proposals to protect the area have been around since the mid-1930's when a San Rafael Swell National Park was first proposed. The area has also been a focus as part of the long-running Utah wilderness debate, and given its history, it's not surprising that a new proposal, substantially different from what has been considered previously, would generate considerable interest.
And I recall very well, Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago I did join you at a field hearing that we held in Salt Lake City. And, needless to say, it was a very lively, interesting debate from the various sections of the community there in Utah, and I have no doubt that my good friend Mr. Cannon's proposed legislation will, needless to say, also generate some very interesting different points of view.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I know, Mr. Chairman, that probably no one else, in my humble opinion, knows more about this area than you, yourself, and that you've honestly tried several different ways to resolve this impasse.
I understand that Mr. Pat Shea with the Bureau of Land Management will also be representing the administration to give his points of view concerning this legislation. And with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I do look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning. And, I hope we will resolve this problem.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Our friend from Nevada, our sister State, Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I'm very pleased to be here to join you and my colleagues in support of this bill. I also welcome my colleague from Utah, including the Governor. I'd like to say that those of us in Nevada are very interested as well as those in Utah of the outcome of this bill. We think it's a very important bill. In fact, I think it's such a swell bill, I would order—ask all my colleagues to support it as well.
[Laughter.]
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. I just knew somebody would come up with that joke.
We're very privileged to have our Senator, Robert Bennett, and our colleague, Mr. Merrill Cook, Representative of the Second District.
Senator Bennett, we'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator BENNETT. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement that I would submit for the record, and then make a few comments about it.
It was about three years ago that Senator Hatch and I sat in this room with the Governor and testified in favor of the Utah Wilderness Bill perhaps a little naively because we thought, at that time, we could get a resolution to this issue. All we did was set off a extremely bruising debate with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars spent in national advertising, heavy lobbying, and, unfortunately, a great deal of acrimony ended up in simply solidifying the position of polarization rather than moving toward a solution.
And, when it became apparent that neither side was going to get its way on the wilderness issue, the citizens of Emery County sat down around the table and undertook what has become a 2-year process in an effort to reach a consensus to bridge the gap between the polarized positions that have been taken. I not only applaud that as a logical thing to do, but I am interested to realize that that activity is in full compliance with both the language and the spirit of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
A lot of people in the debate over the previous bill forgot that during the debate of the Wilderness Act, very specifically, priority was to be given to the attitudes of the people on the ground, the people who are closest to the wilderness designation. The people who live in and around it should have their opinions given priority over the opinions of people who are far away.
I grew up in Salt Lake City. I am not familiar with these lands in terms of my youth, as Congressman Cannon is, and former Congressman Owens is. I really approach this from the position of a complete newcomer. And so, I am delighted that the people who are closest to it have been the people who have created this solution. And, I think in response to the specific requirement of the 1964 Wilderness Act those of us who do not live there, those of us who do not have our lives firmly entwined with this land on a day-to-day basis need to pay attention—close attention to the opinions of those who do. The law requires it, as well as common sense.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I informed the members of the Subcommittee that I intend to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. Senator Hatch will be joining me in this effort.
It's refreshing to me to be able to be involved, as I say, on the basis of what people close to the area have to recommend. Now, we are often told in Utah during these debates over the use of the land, that the future of rural Utah lies with tourism.
Along with you, Mr. Chairman, I went through the hearings that were all over the State of Utah, where we were told again, and again, and again, and again, by supporters of H.R. 1500 that rural Utahans could make more money off of tourism than they could mining, ranching, agriculture, and timber. I remember one witness saying, ''we have a new extractive industry in rural Utah as we extract money from the wallets of the tourists who come in to see our incredible land.'' Well, if that is, indeed, is going to be the future of rural Utah, then the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area is a road map as to how we will get there. We may need to pay attention to that and keep that in mind.
Now, the proposal would create an advisory council to work closely with the land management agencies to promote the cooperative use of the lands. I think that's a very logical thing to do because we need to recognize that we learn as we go along and crafting a single decision in Washington, and then imposing it on an area forever and ever without any opportunity for fine-tuning and changing as the world changes and as people's use of the land develops is very shortsighted. So, I applaud the bill for having that in it.
Now, I am willing to enter into discussions on the Senate side of how this bill can be changed and improved. I'm willing to look at the question of the designation of Wilderness Study Areas beyond county lines. I understand that the Emery County people did not go beyond the county line of Emery County. That doesn't mean that Congress has to stay within those boundaries, and I understand that much of the controversy around this proposal has to do with drawing the county line across existing WSA's and saying that land beyond that line should not be included in the bill.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While I will start out with the language of the bill as it is, I will be willing to have discussions about that issue as it goes forward. I think we should understand that in this discussion we are not disagreeing on protection of the land. We are not disagreeing on which land needs to be protected. The only disagreement that I can find comes on the definition of how that protection should go forward, and one of the things that has occurred in my experience since I've been a Senator is a recognition that there are many definitions. There are many ways to protect the land. And one of the reasons we have found ourselves at an impasse in the past is that stakes have been planted, positions taken on the assumption that everything is either or. You either have development or you have wilderness, and there is nothing in between, and there is nothing that either side will accept.
The fact is, of course, that there are plenty of opportunities in between full development and full wilderness, and many of them make more sense for the land than either of those extreme alternatives. This proposal recognizes that truth and was worked out by people of different points of view who came up with sensible ways to protect the land, and at the same time, protect the interests of the people who live close to it.
So, with that in mind, I hope that those of the other side of the issue three years ago would be willing to participate in a process that would involve the administration, the Utah delegation, Emery County Commissioners, and others to see if we can't resolve any remaining differences. I think perhaps if the principals could sit in a room without staff and P.R. people whispering in their ears as to how a press release might read, or how a fundraising letter might be affected, we could probably resolve this in an afternoon.
With that Mr. Chairman, as I said, I will submit my full statement for the record. I'll be happy to answer any questions the Committee might have at this time.
I will tell you in advance that we have a vote scheduled at 9:30 a.m. and I, therefore, will have to leave and I apologize that I'll not be able to stay here and hear the testimony of my colleagues. I'll be happy to respond to any questions any member of the Committee might have.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee today. It was almost three years ago when Senator Hatch and I sat in this room with the Governor and testified in favor of the Utah Wilderness bill. After the bruising debate last Congress, I didn't think that I would be back before the Subcommittee so soon, but it is a pleasure to be here.
I first want to congratulate the Emery County Commissioners and the Emery County Public Lands Council for their excellent work in preparing the proposal we will refer to as the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area. Two years ago, when it became apparent that neither side was going to get its way on the wilderness issue, citizens of Emery County sat down around the table and undertook a two-year process in an effort to reach a consensus on how to bridge the gap in opinions on public lands management in their county. These individuals recognized that there are many more facets to public lands management than just wilderness. The proposal you have before you today that has teen introduced by Congressman Cannon is a result of their work.
The San Rafael Proposal: Common Ground—Common Sense
I am pleased to begin my remarks by informing the members of the Subcommittee today that I intend to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. I am delighted that Senator Hatch will be joining me in this effort. After the pummeling we received at the hands of our well-funded opponents in the 104th Congress, I am somewhat surprised that we are so willing to jump back into these murky waters. What would possibly compel us to do this?
In an era when government is supposed to have been reinvented to allow for a common-sense approach, it is refreshing when initiatives originate from somewhere other than I Street or Capitol Hill. The San Rafael Swell National Heritage Area embodies the spirit of compromise. In an area that encompasses well over one million acres rich in diversity of uses, resolving all of the conflicts is bound to be difficult. This is a good faith effort to resolve several competing ideas of public land use. When this proposal was presented, it was done so with the understanding that not everyone would be happy with the conclusions. But it was a good step in the right direction.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The people of Utah are often told that tourism is the future of rural Utah and that the traditional industries of mining, ranching, agriculture and timber are relics of the past. In good economic times that might be the case. But there must be a way to seize upon the tourism opportunities. If tourism is the destination for the future, then the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area is the roadmap to get Emery County there.
I believe the primary goal of the Emery County proposal is to promote tourism opportunities by designating a nationally recognized Heritage Area. However, the resources and the rich history of the San Rafael Swell people are invited to see must be first protected and enhanced. The proposal would create an Advisory Council that will work closely with the land management agencies to promote the cooperative use of the lands. It ensures that management plans and criteria are prepared for the different regions in the Heritage Area to preserve their unique qualities. It will promote and arrange for cooperative agreements with state and local governments to prepare for the inevitable influx of visitors.
I note with a bit of irony that we are talking today about methods by which we may protect public lands and establish a method of public input and management prior to the creation of the Heritage Area. This is a process that I wish we could have undertaken prior to the creation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante. I believe what we are involved in today is the proper way to proceed with the creation of a special management area. That is one reason why I am puzzled by the Administration's current opposition. Perhaps we should just designate it a National Monument and worry about the details later. The administration didn't seem to worry about details the last time it decided to set aside a few million acres in some type of designation.
Another important aspect of the proposal is its provision for the protection of continued management of one of the largest herds of bighorn sheep in Utah. It sets aside a Desert Bighorn Sheep Management area that is over 65,000 acres in size that has all of the protections of wilderness designation, but still provides the state of Utah with the management flexibility to properly manage the herd. This is a prime example of why a one-size-fits-all wilderness designation is not the best solution. If people will drive to Southern Utah in a chance that they might see a California condor, imagine their excitement to be directed to several designated viewing area established for the purpose of seeing Desert Bighoms in their most natural of habitats.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the proposal will resolve the thorny issue of off-road vehicle use by creating semi-primitive areas that are restricted in access. This will bring to closure a continuous management battle and reduce uncertainty as to what activities are permitted.
Resolution begins with the first few steps
A comparison of acreage shows that under the proposal we protect 987,651 acres in Emery County under four different protective measures nearly half of that being wilderness by the strictest definition. The opponents to the Heritage Area proposal would protect 1,049,000 acres in Emery County as wilderness. The difference between the two proposals is under 100,000 acres. Yet, using the same tired, old rhetoric opponents branded the proposal ''anti-wilderness'' before it was even introduced. It was labeled an anti-wilderness bill because we disagree not on protection, but on definition.
It must be made clear that this proposal was not intended to be a wilderness bill alone. Wilderness is just one component of a larger land management process. With that in mind, I challenge the Board Members of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to participate in a process with the administration, the Utah delegation and Emery County Commissioners which we might try to resolve the differences in this proposal. I would be happy to lead those discussions. I would venture that if we all sat in a room without staff for an afternoon, we could reach a consensus.
A closer inspection reveals that there is quite a bit of good in this bill. If these lands are really in peril as we heard all throughout the last debate, failure to participate in the process is like the individual trapped on his roof by rising flood waters who turns back the rescuers in the boat because he is sure the helicopter is on its way. My point is that lands can be protected by designations other than just wilderness.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In last year's wilderness debate, Members were implored by some individuals in the environmental community to act with vision and concern, not just for ourselves, but for our children. We heard a plea for ''visionary.'' I applaud the architects of this proposal for showing that kind of vision, which bridges the gap between many competing uses and puts forth a plan that will allow for the protection of this special area while promoting a wise plan for its management for the future.
Granted, translating that vision to legislative language can be difficult. H.R. 3625 has several rough edges around it that need to be smoothed out. I will introduce companion legislation that in its first draft will be very similar. But I recognize that the process is just beginning. I am open for comments from both sides. Perhaps we will need to tighten legislative language, or look at some boundaries and I am willing to do that. I have already read the statement that Mr. Shea has submitted and I will admit he raises several good points that I am willing to entertain.
Mr. Shea praised the Emery County officials last week and referred to the proposal in the Utah press last week as ''a step in the right direction.'' He stated: ''The ideas in the bill have a lot of merit. It is a step in the right direction. It recognizes wilderness. It involves people in a very direct process for having their perspectives heard.''
I was encouraged when I read those comments in the Deseret News last week. But I read the printed statement of Mr. Shea today and I hope he will elaborate on why—if these ideas have such merit—has the Administration so willingly waved the veto pen before the public hearing process has even gotten underway. It does not bode well for the process and it sends a very clear and very unfortunate message to the local people: ''If your attempts fail to meet our predetermined outcome, your efforts are of no use to us.''
Let me say to the Administration, rather than saying no, give us a chance to work with you. If we are able to cooperate, perhaps we will be successful in our efforts and at the end of this Congress we will have taken the first small steps to resolving the larger wilderness debate. I hope this could be the case.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to hearing the comments of the panelists today.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, your full statement will be in the record and all of the statements given today in their entirety will be in the record, and anyone, of course, is free to abbreviate their statements if they're so inclined.
We'll now hear from Congressman Cook.
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRILL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this important issue regarding the conservation of the San Rafael Swell encompassed in H.R. 3625. The San Rafael Swell is certainly one of the most beautiful and ecologically diverse areas in the State of Utah, and it deserves to be conserved and protected.
I commend the Emery County Commissioners and my Utah colleagues on the work they've put into this bill to create a sensible, balanced bill. Do I think H.R. 3625 solves the wilderness debate in Utah? No, I don't, but H.R. 3625 is a good initiative by local government to work out the problems in their local area and, in this case, Emery County, Utah. This is a good start toward resolving wilderness and public land management issues in Utah.
As we consider H.R. 3625, we know this is a solution that will drastically improve conditions and habitat in Emery County while preserving ecologically sensitive and vital areas within the San Rafael Swell. We also don't know that we'll have a lot more work to do. H.R. 3625 is a good approach toward balancing economic and recreation opportunities, which is important to the citizen of my district in the Salt Lake Valley, while preserving this wilderness may be the most diverse and beautiful areas of the Swell, which is also important to my constituents. H.R. 3625 preserves one of the largest bighorn sheep herds in the State through the creation of the San Rafael National Conservation Area.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This designation of a National Conservation Area will allow the State to monitor and successfully manage the sheep herd while limiting and controlling access to this vital wildlife resource. H.R. 3625 also will allow for vital restoration and conservation of many other habitats in the San Rafael Swell benefiting many species within the National Conservation Area.
This bill creates more than 400,000 acres of wilderness as well as preserving many of the most vital and interesting areas from Utah's history. As open space continually declines due to population growth pressures, these areas will offer unique recreational and historical opportunities for generations. Many of these sites chronicle the important part mining had in Utah's economic development, as well as preserving and chronicling sites along the Outlaw Trail within the Swell, which is a vital heritage for both Utah and the Nation.
These areas deserve to be protected and shared as a remembrance for ourselves and for future generations. By preserving these areas, we will preserve who we were. These can serve as an inspiration for future generations to achieve greater things than either we or our ancestors thought possible.
Finally, H.R. 3625 fairly balances the economic needs of the people who make the San Rafael Swell area their home. We must remember that any decision we make regarding designation and management of public lands will have significant impact on these people. This bill remembers the people and their needs, as well putting forth a viable and vigorous management and preservation plan for the San Rafael Swell.
This bill may not be perfect, and it doesn't claim to end the wilderness debate in Utah, but it does balance the needs between preservation, wilderness, wildlife management, and human interaction with public lands in the San Rafael Swell. I would call that a win for everyone, especially for the San Rafael Swell.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRILL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this important issue regarding the conservation of the San Rafael Swell encompassed in H.R. 3625.
The San Rafael Swell is one of the most beautiful and ecologically diverse areas in the state of Utah, and deserves to be conserved and protected. I commend the Emery County Commissioners and my Utah colleagues on the work they have put into this bill to create a sensible, balanced bill. Do I think H.R. 3625 solves the Wilderness debate in Utah? No I don't. But, H.R. 3625 is a good initiative by local government to work out the problems in their local area, in this case Emery County, Utah. This is a good start towards resolving Wilderness and public lands management issues in Utah, and as we consider H.R. 3625 we know this is a solution that will drastically improve conditions and habitat in Emery county, while preserving ecologically sensitive and vital areas within the San Rafael Swell. We also know we have more work to do.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Congressman Cook.
Questions for Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook?
Let me just say this: I think they both hit upon one point that has to be made, and that is the BLM wilderness-park wilderness issue; this bill does not resolve it, but it is a step. It is one step into the issue. It would be an incremental step. It finally would break the logjam, and I honestly think that if we don't seem to be able to take it all in one bite, that this should be a very logical approach to do it—somewhat tying into what Governor Leavitt will probably testify to when he walks in about a step forward, and think this is a very progressive way.
The gentlemen from American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGO. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions, only to compliment Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook for their fine statements.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given the fact that the whole approach is now being taken from our good friend, Congressman Cannon, the proposed legislation takes into full consideration the views and the concerns of the local communities who will be directly affected by this legislation.
And as you had noted earlier also, I think the statement of Governor Leavitt reaffirms the concept that is now being proposed is that we do this on an incremental basis. I'm curious to see how we're going to do this, and, hopefully, that our friends from the Bureau of Land Management will have their points of view taken in consideration, if this is possible and feasible under the circumstances.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook for their testimonies.
Mr. HANSEN. Congressman Cannon.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Let me just reiterate what I've said many times in the past. I deeply appreciate the intellect, and capability, and camaraderie we have in this delegation and I want to thank Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook for coming in and sharing their thoughts with us. We certainly look forward to working with them as well as with you, Mr. Chairman, on this bill and I appreciate your efforts to come over here today.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, thanks.
I had only one question relating to the exercise of water rights by the Federal Government here. Perhaps either Senator Bennett or Congressman Cook could address the issue of water rights or perhaps the author of the bill. But, I'm curious as to—it's under section 407, Senator—whether or not the Federal Government acquiring a water right in that section would preempt State Water Right laws on the beneficial use of those water rights.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator BENNETT. No, it would not.
Mr. GIBBONS. That's all. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Senator Bennett, we appreciate you being with us today. We know you're busy and have things to do. Thanks so much for coming over to our side. We appreciate it. We'll look forward to hearings when your bill is introduced on the other side.
Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Congressman Cook, would you like to join us on the dais? We are privileged to have you here. We know you have other things to do, but if you have time, we'd love to have you.
Mr. COOK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd love to. I do have responsibilities with the Aviation and Banking.
Mr. HANSEN. I understand.
We'll now turn to the next panel, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, a Utah native, Pat Shea. We're glad that Pat could be with us. Senator Mike Dmitrich, one of my old colleagues from way back, will be with us on this panel; Emery County Commissioners Randy Johnson, Kent Peterseon, and Bevan Wilson. If you'd all like to come forward and take your places, we'd appreciate it.
At the request of Director Shea, we'll ask the Utah folks to go first. So, Mike, are you ready?
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DMITRICH, STATE SENATOR, STATE OF UTAH
Mr. DMITRICH. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. We'll turn to Mike. Let me say that we normally operate under a 5-minute rule, and that is our rule in this Committee, and that thing right in front of you is just like a traffic light: green you start; yellow you wrap up, and red, I gavel you down, which really won't happen today because I want to hear your testimony, but if you could stay it close to that area, I'd really appreciate it.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator Dmitrich, we'll hear from you, sir.
Mr. DMITRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. It is of great pleasure that I address you today. I'm addressing you on an issue of great importance, not only to my constituents, but to all the American people.
In Emery County, a county bigger than some New England States, lies one of the last great undiscovered national treasures, the San Rafael Swell—a place where the shores are long, vanished oceans. At every turn, there are signs of ancient Jurassic eras. Through the Swell passes the Old Spanish Trail, and cowboys can still be seen working. It is an area rich in biodiversity, both plant and animal. However, like many areas in the West, it is rich not only in beauty, but mineral wealth, grazing potential, and other uses which make human life possible.
For decades, the various user groups have been also, literally, at war. Many groups on all sides have staked out extreme positions over which they have declared no compromise, no surrender, no quarter asked, none given. The result has been an area in managerial confusion. Such a situation is extremely difficult for local elected officials, and local area resource managers from the State and Federal agencies.
However, not all voices have been strident and unyielding. Environmentalists, resource people, recreation groups from both in and out of the area have spent, literally, thousands of hours forging a plan to manage the San Rafael Resource Area in a sensible and thoughtful way.
You have before you H.R. 3625, which is a legislative embodiment of that effort and an emblem of their dedication to reason and compromise. It is a commitment from both the citizens of Carbon and Emery Counties, and those who don't live there, but who loves those lands to care for them and to use them responsibly now and forever. There are those who can, and will, cite the specifics better than I.
However, let me state that H.R. 3625 creates approximately 630,000 acres of National Conservation Area from which industrial development will be banned, but in which conventional tourism and livestock will be allowed. In addition, over 300,000 acres would place in the wilderness or primitive designations. Again, I will leave the real details to others, but what I want to do is give you some reasons to vote for this proposal and not a blanket wilderness designation.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For those who constituency lies east of the hundredth meridian, voting for wilderness always seems a safe and popular vote. However, as all of us who answer to the voters know what appears popular today can turn to voter resentment and anger tomorrow. If you enact, as some would have you do, a simple blanket wilderness designation for the San Rafael, the law of unintended consequence may begin to work with a vengeance.
First of all, since wilderness precludes many kinds of game management techniques, such as providing salt or water bubblers, you may be causing great harm to the just reemerging bighorn sheep herd found on the Swell. You will hear testimony on that later. It goes against our intuition, but some of those species cannot any longer survive without human intervention. A game manager supports this proposal.
Often wilderness precludes most kinds of archaeological work which would be criminal in this area so rich in Native American history. It may also mandate the destruction of some historical sites because they are the works of the ''hand of man.'' Furthermore, since the only allowed means of travel in wilderness areas are foot and horseback, many of the wonders of this area will be denied to your constituents who are elderly and handicapped. Those people deserve access to the lands as well.
What might appear to be easy vote has many land mines in it. In the end, your constituents will be grateful that you took the thoughtful approach and did what is right for people and animals, for history and for culture, and for the opportunity to enjoy the land which they, hopefully, journey to my State senate district.
That said, let me state that I am not an opponent of wilderness designation. Some of the earlier proposals did have too little wilderness. There must be pristine and quiet places in the evermore hectic world where a person can enjoy nature as God created it.
Please note that an area larger than Rhode Island has been excluded from mineral development, and I am happy to say that there are several wilderness designations as part of the overall plan, but these are designations thoughtfully done, rather than done as part of a cynical numbers game. These areas contain the type of scenic wonders the original sponsor of the 1964 Wilderness Act had in mind. Besides, I have great sympathies with endangered species.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am a rural Democrat that has survived the legislative process in the State of Utah for 30 years.
[Laughter.]
I can tell you this battle has been going on during that greater part of my 30 years of service. It is time for this battle to end. It is time to, finally, say no to narrow interests, and to say yes to the vast majority of Americans who know in their hearts that there's room for all of us. It is time to do the right thing, instead of the easy thing, for the wildlife, for the people of Emery County, for the people of the State of Utah, and all of America.
Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you, Chairman Hansen, for allowing this hearing. I have also submitted with my testimony of copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, which I sponsored in the State legislature which had both hearings in the House and Senate and passed with only 6 negative votes out of the 104 legislators.
It is my pleasure to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dmitrich may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Were you the sponsor of that bill, Senator?
Senator DMITRICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. And that passed? Out of 104, only 6 opposed it?
Senator DMITRICH. There were six negative votes.
Mr. HANSEN. And that was in favor of Congressman Cannon's bill?
Senator DMITRICH. Yes. That is in favor—the senate resolution has all the stuff that Congressman Cannon has in his bill.
Mr. HANSEN. So, in effect, the State legislature is solidly behind this legislation?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator DMITRICH. Solidly.
Mr. HANSEN. The people of Utah, in other words?
Senator DMITRICH. In fact, the negative votes—there was not any testimony given in the senate. It was just a negative vote.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator Dmitrich. We appreciate you being here.
Chairman of the Emery County Commissioners, Randy Johnson. The time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF RANDY JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Can you pull that mike just a little closer?
Mr. JOHNSON. I will do that.
Can I just make one point very quickly for the sake of everyone here that, while the San Rafael was most aptly named after earlier users of the Spanish Trail and most rightly would be pronounced San Rafael, in deference to the wonderful mix between human heritage and the beautiful land, we've always called it the San Rafael and it must be the San Rafael. It's just as true and natural as ''Easter,'' in which most of you would think back here in this part of the Nation is some sort of a down-easter wind, but it really means rolling Easter eggs and having a picnic on Easter weekend down in the desert. So these things mixed with this land, and I wanted to make that point very quickly.
Mr. HANSEN. I won't comment at this time.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on this important bill. I have spent a great deal of time trying to think of what I might say to you which would portray how important, I believe, that this new approach to public lands management really is.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm chairman of the Emery County Board of Commissioners. I'm also chairman of the Utah Association of Counties, Public Lands Oversight Committee; a member of the National Association of Counties Public Lands Steering Committee, and chairman of the Rural Public Lands County Council. I am also chairman of the board of directors of the Utah Lands Foundation, a resolution-oriented environmental organization based in Utah, and I'll speak mostly from that perspective today.
Obviously, public lands issues consume a great amount of my time. I want you to understand that I believe that what is before you is truly a remarkable landmark bill. H.R. 3625 has the potential to change the entire field of discussion and could lead us into an era of public lands problem solving if we willing to let it. The challenge would be in prying ourselves loose of the stalemate we have created.
As stated in an April 14, 1998 Desert News editorial ''Perhaps a miracle, a big one at that, would move key players off dead center or more accurately from the outer extremes.'' I am here today to ask you for that big miracle. I must also ask the question, if there is a general refusal to come to the table and look for solutions, then what kind of future have we defined for ourselves? Isn't it time to reevaluate our public lands management philosophy? I believe that we must ask ourselves what kind of war have we created and who benefits.
I assert to you that the Emery County plan solves problems. It address the needs of all stakeholders. It works for the best good of the land itself, and most importantly, it is a manageable plan. Surely, this is a wonderful opportunity to move away from the stalemate described so well by the Desert News.
Emery County has searched that natural history and human heritage are just as important and deserving of protection and recognition as our scenic vistas. We also believe that the current status of protection, and the current status of polarization and acreage quotas is harmful—harmful to the land, harmful to the people who use and enjoy the land, and harmful to the Nation. Certainly, we are capable of prescribing a management philosophy that meets the needs of the land while assuring that we can also carefully manage the resources which come from the lands. We believe that Emery County has done just that.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 3625 is the only proposal that protects the entire San Rafael Swell. It is the only proposal that provides specific protection to one of Utah's largest herds of bighorn sheep. It is the only proposal that has started from the land upward drawing nearly all stakeholders to the table. And it is the only land management proposal that recognizes all the values of the land and works for truly manageable preservation of all those values. The National Heritage Area part of the plan addresses the wonderful blend of man and nature which is unique to the San Rafael. Here the footprints of history trace themselves across the rugged beauty of the Swell. Dinosaur remains scatter the area, focusing on the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, one of the largest sources of fossil remains in the world. There is also ample evidence of early and Native American cultures throughout the heritage area with many examples of their wonderful history preserved in rock art.
Further, the heritage of the early settlers of this harsh and unforgiving land is woven into the area, and is every much as deserving of protection as recognition as the rocks surrounding them. Such treasures as Sid's Leaps, Swasey's Cabin, and Temple Mountain are as much a part of the San Rafael Swell as sand, and wind, and deep canyon draws. The Heritage Area works to identify and protect these and other wonderful sites for the enjoyment of all who come to the Swell San Rafael.
Few other places in the world can provide such an ample supply of heritage sites. Access to these destinations will be accomplished by means of existing and long-used roads and trails. Most importantly, the ever-increasing flow of tourists will find a greatly enhanced visit to San Rafael Swell while we are able to better manage the flow of people and better protect the more pristine of the San Rafael lands. This wonderful blend of man and his world is the very heart and soul of this plan. Tracking the various footprints of natural history and human heritage through the San Rafael Swell gives the breath of life of these lands and causes all who become hooked by the excitement and mystery of the area to take some share of ownership in the process of preservation and protection.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a user-friendly plan, and everyone benefits from its manageable approach. The National Conservation Area works to preserve the more pristine areas of the San Rafael, and various levels of protection as dictated by the land itself. In more than 600,000 acres, the NCA not only includes huge tracks of wilderness designation, but it goes well beyond wilderness and its protective layers. It recognizes the largest bighorn sheep herd in Utah and makes provisions to manage and protect that wonderful resource. It also withdraws the entire San Rafael Swell from oil drilling, timbering, and mining.
Some will say we have withdrawn protection from many acres. What they really mean is that we are protecting those lands in ways other than wilderness—ways that are just as permanent, just as effective, and in many cases, much more protective than wilderness. Another criticism is that wilderness is permanent. Other protections are not.
And, Mr. Chairman, we are here before you to seek congressional designation which would make this hybrid eagle system management concept permanent, providing protection for the San Rafael Swell for many generations to come.
If you say the sand lands of the San Rafael need protecting, we say we agree. If you say there needs to be a wilderness experience available to anyone who seeks it, we say we agree. If you say we should preserve some of our precious lands for future generations, we say we agree. If you say there are some areas where no new roads should be built, and no new mining should occur, we say we agree, but if you say that wilderness is the only way to achieve these things, then we say, we do not agree. We believe that we must reevaluate our public lands management philosophy. We must look at the conflict we have created, and ask ourselves where are we going and who benefits.
I close my testimony with the words of Thomas Jefferson directly from walls of the Jefferson Memorial: ''I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances institutions must advance also to keep up with the times.''
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I ask you once again for the big miracle. Let us move to a new hybrid form of manageable protection. Let us accomplish the purposes of the San Rafael Swell National Heritage Conservation Area.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Excellent testimony. Thank you.
Commissioner Petersen. We'll turn time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF KENT PETERSEN, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. KENT PETERSEN. Thank you, Chairman Hansen. I appreciate being here, members of the committee.
Most of the people in my county live along between the mountains of the Los Plato and the San Rafael Swell to our east. Now much of our wealth comes from these mountains. Our water comes from these mountains. Our coal is in these mountains, but our hearts are in the San Rafael Swell. It's where we go when we want to be alone, and it's where we take our visitors when we want to show them something special. And when our people leave for a time and come home, the Swell is the first place they want to visit. The San Rafael Swell is a land of scenic beauty, but it is much more than this. It has a unique history and heritage.
Remnants of the early Americans abound throughout the Swell. Butch Cassidy and the Robbers Roost frequented the Swell. Cowboys have managed their herds on the Swell from the early 1870's until today, and abandoned uranium mines remind us of the Atomic Era.
Now we know these are public lands belonging to the people of the United States. We support the right of the people all around this country to be able to visit these lands and have a say in the way they are managed, but we feel very strongly that those of us who live next to these lands and who have spend our lifetimes on or near them, must have a large say in how these lands are managed.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now the citizens of my county have a long history of caring for the land. In the late 1890's and early 1900's a person could tell a location, from the valley floor, of the sheep and cattle herds on the mountains by the clouds of dust they kicked up from the severely eroded lands. Local citizens petitioned the government for the establishment of the Manti National Forest, and now these lands are once again very productive.
In 1992, Project 2000, a Coalition for Utah's Future, a broad-based public interest organization, decided to try to resolve the Utah Wilderness issue. Emery County volunteered to be the pilot county for this effort. We met with a widely diverse group of stakeholders to see if we could come to a consensus resolution.
The stakeholders include State and national environmental groups, extractive industries, ORV users, ranchers, government agencies and local citizens. We worked for about two years and didn't reach consensus because the debate changed to be focused on H.R. 1745 and the sides became polarized.
However, these discussions provided the impetus for the development of this bill. We decided if we were going to have a say in our destiny we would have to become proactive and seek workable solutions.
While meeting with Project 2000, we found that our goals for the land were not all that different from most of the environmental community. We all wanted the San Rafael to remain forever as it is today. The differences were in how we were to accomplish our goal.
We determined we all wanted the land protected, but we also found that wilderness was not the only method and is often not the best method. It is, in fact, a non-management tool. We studied various protection methods and determined that a national conversation area with various protection schemes inside the boundary would the most effective method for managing the Swell.
And NCA provides protection for about 630,000 acres; and inside this area are wilderness, semi-primitive nonmotorized areas, an ACEC to protect the view from Interstate 70 and the Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area. There are also wilderness and semi-primitive areas outside the NCA in both Carbon and Emery Counties.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now the Desert Bighorn Area provides protection for the sheep while allowing Utah DWR all the tool it needs to keep the herd viable. Careful management is necessary for this. It also provides for watchable wildlife areas, scientific study of the sheep and educational opportunities for the public.
The semi-primitive areas provide the ideal management conditions for several areas in the San Rafael Swell. They provide for the wilderness experience while recognizing existing conditions.
Now most of the H.R. 1500 areas in the Swell are protected within the NCA either as wilderness or semi-primitive areas or by the NCA itself. Additional areas are protected outside of the NCA as both wilderness and semi-primitive. These designations protect the land while recognizing existing conditions.
I am sure that after careful study you will agree that H.R. 3625 is the ideal management tool for the San Rafael Swell and for all of Emery and Carbon Counties in Utah. Let's try a new solution for an old problem.
And I thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kent Petersen may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner Petersen. Before you leave the mike, though, I've often been interested in the poem you have about the San Rafael Swell. So I'll take the prerogative of the Chair and ask you if you'd like to read that.
Mr. KENT PETERSEN. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm disobeying one of the cardinal rules of a cowboy poet by appearing without my hat, but:
''I remember the first time I saw him, kind of hanging around by the store. His arms and his legs were both sunburned, and his nose was all peeled and sore. His boots had soles like a waffle, tacky shorts that had long since seen their best, and he wore an old faded blue t-shirt with a big 'Save the whales' on his chest.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Now he looked like just a regular feller with maybe a story to tell, and he asked if I could please help him to check out the San Rafael Swell. We jumped in my four-wheel drive pickup and went out to take a look at the place, and I could tell that he liked the desert, from the looks that he got on his face.
''When we got to our first grazing allotment, I stopped the pickup and sat there to wait. It was his job, because of where he was sitting, to get out and open the gate. He got back in and was cussing, and when I looked down I started to hoot. He hadn't looked where he was stepping, and he had green stuff all over his boot.
''And then he explained how he didn't like cattle, said they should be banned from the land. They ruined the wilderness experience. Kind of hard for an old cowboy to understand, but I showed him the canyons and pinnacles caused by erosion from millenniums untold, and we marveled at the colors and stillness as we watched nature's beauties unfold.
''We saw signs of the old ones, the Freemont, who left their messages carved in the stone, and we saw diggings left by the miners and some petrified dinosaur bones. We saw the remains of an old homestead cabin right next to a cool flowing spring. We showed how this land could be helpful and the next season heartless and mean.
''We got back to town, and I left him. I forgot him, and I'm sure he forgot about me, and then I saw him about a month later on the late evening news on TV. He explained how this land should be set aside as a wilderness for backpackers and friends and get rid of those cows and the cowboys and those four-wheel drive trails.
''It seemed like a lot of folks listened. They were starved for the touch of the land. They just wanted a place to be all alone. It was a feeling we could all understand. They got to thinking of us as intruders. It was their land they wanted to preserve. It was theirs, and we no longer belonged on it. We'd been here for as long as we deserved.
''Well, we talked to our Senators and Congressmen, explained in detail of our fight. We wrote letters and talked to each other. We put up one hell of a fight. We thought for a while we were winning. We held rallies and parades with our friends, but, just like it says in the good book, eventually all things have to end.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''We lost, but I guess it's been all right. There's plenty of things here to do. We now live on a big reservation, and they put all the cows in the zoo.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. Very well done.
Commissioner Wilson, thank you for being with us. We'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF BEVAN K. WILSON, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. WILSON. My pleasure.
Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member and members of the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today as an Emery County Commission and as a native Democrat of Emery County. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on a matter that is of vital importance to all of us.
During the debate on the 1996 Utah wilderness bill, Senator Bill Bradley raised a question that is central to my discussion today. Senator Bradley asked, ''How do we achieve a balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America's natural heritage while providing opportunities for economic growth and development across our public lands?'' This is a question that we in Emery County have been pondering for over a decade.
The 10,000 citizens of Emery County live on tiny islands of private land surrounded by a sea of public land. Nine of the every ten acres are owned and controlled by government, either Federal or State. These lands not only surround us; they sustain us. Water is our most limited and precious natural resource. Every drop of water we use comes from public land. Ranching is our dominant agricultural enterprise. Much of the forage for our livestock comes from BLM or Forest Service land.
Emery County is the No. 1 coal-producing county in Utah. Most of our coal comes from Federal coal leases. Public land has always provided most of our recreational opportunities, and our growing industry is inseparably tied to those lands.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Public land issues have always been important to us, but they assumed a new importance during the BLM wilderness inventory process. Hundreds of local citizens attended public hearings and offered comments on the wilderness EIS. Since that time public land issues have occupied most of the county commissioners' time.
Suffice it to say, the commissioners and Public Lands Council met with numerous stakeholder groups, listened to hours of testimony, held dozens of meetings, and considered every conceivable land protection strategy before developing our proposal. I wish to make it clear that H.R. 3625 is our proposal. We are deeply indebted to the Utah congressional delegation for helping us express our wishes in legislative language.
What does H.R. 3625 do? First, it protects public land. It bans mining, logging, tar sands development, and oil and gas exploration on approximately one million acres. Some would have you believe that this bill somehow lessens existing protection. It does not. It protects lands now identified by the BLM as Wilderness Study Areas. It protects land in the center of the San Rafael Swell that are not identified as Wilderness Study areas. It provides specific protection to the Sid's Mountain Area, which is home to one of Utah's largest bighorn sheep herds.
Second, H.R. 3625 sets the stage for a tourist industry that respects the environment and local culture. It does this by blending a National Heritage Area with a carefully selected mix of protective measures, including wilderness. Some paint tourism as the answer to all of southern Utah's environmental and economic problems, and wilderness as the ultimate tourist attraction.
I have no doubt that tourism will assume a growing importance in Emery County's economy. Emery County is pretty close to Utah's population center. A visitor from Salt Lake City can spend his entire vacation in Emery County without even having to purchase fuel locally. If we base tourism industry on traditional ''windshield'' tourism, we will have to attract a huge number of visitors because per capita spending will be so low.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We don't want to do that. That type of tourism would severely impact our public lands and compromise our cherished rural lifestyle. We hope to develop ''value-added'' tourism which will provide an enhanced experience to a smaller number of visitors. A National Heritage Area is a natural fit for that type of tourism. Protective designations, such as the Bighorn Sheep Management Area, also provides opportunities for sustainable tourism.
The Bighorn Sheep Management Area was developed in cooperation with wildlife managers and land managers primarily to protect the sheep and their habitat. The Area also provides unique opportunities for visitors to view bighorn sheep. Recently two Public Land Council members were explaining their concept to a National Public Radio reporter, while traveling through the Buckhorn Draw.
As if on cue, a herd of 13 bighorns moved out a gully, up a cliff face, and paused on top of a large boulder. The reporter was thrilled by his first encounter with bighorns in the wild. Guides and outfitters will be able to provide that experience to others, in perpetuity, if we adopt a plan that manages both lands and people. The bighorn sheep area is only one example of the sustainable, value-added tourism opportunities created by this H.R. 3625.
I repeat Senator Bradley's question, ''How do we achieve a balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America's natural heritage while providing opportunities for economic growth and development across our public lands?'' I believe that H.R. 3625 comes closer to answering that question than any proposal yet offered.
Emery County's public lands and its culture are inseparably linked. Our lands and culture have survived the rise and demise of free-range grazing. They have survived the uranium boom and bust. They have survived the roller coaster trend of the coal economy. The question yet to be answered is: Can they survive tourism and the service-based economy of the New West? Our challenges are great. We believe that H.R. 3625 will help us meet those challenges now and in the future.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate your testimony.
We are honored to have Pat Shea, Director of the Bureau of Land Management, with us. Director Shea met with us in Emery County and has been very good to work with in this issue. We appreciate you being with us. We'll turn the time to you, Director Shea.
STATEMENT OF PAT SHEA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. SHEA. Thank you. I would like to submit a written statement that was provided to the Committee.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
Mr. SHEA. And I will summarize that testimony. I do think H.R. 3625 is predicated on a genuine local concern that is shared certainly by this Administration for preservation, conservation, and interpretation of invaluable national assets; and the San Rafael Swell certainly is one of those.
Indeed, many decades ago it was recognized as a area of great importance by my relatives who happened to help settle Emery County, and I should recognize that Bevan Wilson is a second cousin, just so there's no confusion here, and it's sort of nice and symbolic that we've got the two Republicans sort of book-ended by the endangered species, Utah Democrats.
I want to make a couple of points: The BLM does have two plans in place. One is the San Rafael Resource Management Plan, and the other is the Price Resource Area Management Framework Plan, and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties that we in the Bureau have had is how we try to reconcile those plans that are in place with the legislation. I don't say it's impossible, but we are still in the process of trying to do that, and much of my testimony will be focused on some areas of concern that we have.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are pleased that the legislation recognizes I think a very valuable contribution that the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, has introduced to the BLM process, and that is the Resource Advisory Committees. The RAC process I think has moved us away from the process of confrontation into recognized arenas of dialogue with each different group having a place at the table, to participate in that dialogue.
And so I think that is an important principle; although, consistent with Congressman Canon's agility, he has introduced in it a new concept, and I think we need to discuss that new concept very much up front and see how it can be reconciled with the 1964 Wilderness Act.
So instead of doing something inadvertently that results in litigation, I think we have an obligation to the people to deal with it directly, and if indeed we are trying to amend the Wilderness Act by this legislation, we ought to recognize that. If we are not, then we ought to make a clear declaration that we are not, but we shouldn't inadvertently slip into it.
No, it also creates or proposes a National Heritage Area, and we in the BLM certainly have had experience with National Heritage Areas, and we think they are very important models where the predominance of the land that you are dealing with is in private ownership. We don't think that that model necessarily has an immediate application where the predominant land is public land, as it is in the San Rafael Swell; not to say that there isn't something that can't be worked out there.
Now, we do think, again, because of the importance, and I would say the fundamental conservative nature of recognizing past legislation, namely the 1964 Wilderness Act; we believe as an administration that this bill inadvertently seeks to amend that Act, and therefore the Department, the Secretary and I, would recommend the veto if this legislation was to become law. So I need to make that message very clear, that we in the present form would not be able to endorse this legislation and would recommend a veto on it.
Now, having said that, like I said, I hope we can find some areas of engagement, and certainly our meeting in Emery County and our going out to the San Rafael Swell was a step in the right direction. And I'd like to, for constructive purposes, mention a couple of things that, as the Director of BLM, I am more interested in trying to do.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You'll notice the map there has stars which are designated as Heritage Areas, under this legislation. What I would like to do is enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Emery and Carbon County and see if we couldn't do a systematic survey to make sure that either under the existing framework, which I would point to as a San Rafael Resource Management Plan or the Price Resource Area Management Framework Plan.
We could provide the kind of protection—I don't think anybody disagrees that this area is vulnerable to an explosive growth in tourism and we need to have the infrastructure in there that allows to preserve those Heritage Areas. We just don't think we need to have the kind of legislation that's proposed, and reasonable people can disagree on that, but as an interim measure I would invite serious discussion and hopefully memorialization of that, of a Memorandum of Understanding, for a recognition by survey method of those areas for heritage designation.
I think within the bill itself, and I would point to section 105, there is not a clear delineation of what the relationship is between the Heritage Council, that is proposed, and the existing Resource Advisory Committee or the existing plans that have gone through the FLPMA process that is our organic Act.
We also don't believe that the bill was clear on how the two councils created under the Act would use or be obligated to use either NEPA process or FLPMA, and until there is clarity on that I think we need to be very cautious in this area.
I also think we are trying to, in some senses, back door the problem of the 2477 roads. On the map it says, ''minor roads.'' Some of those roads are really river bottoms, and they may have been used as jeep trails, but I think the definition of a road is quite clear, and obviously that matter is being litigated, and I don't think we should by passing legislation attempt to—without clearly identifying the effort—to amend the law as to what a definition of a road is. And so we would respectfully request that the designation ''minor roads'' be taken off the map.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me try to use an analogy. My grandmother was a school teacher in Emery County, and she is the one that taught me how to make ice cream; and I remember as a kid always sitting there turning the handle and putting more salt on it because that was going to make it freeze up a little quicker.
And I would suggest that this legislation is a great formula for old-style, heavy cholesterol ice cream. I think we have decided for health reasons that perhaps old-style ice cream isn't always the healthiest thing. It certainly may taste the best, but I think frozen yogurt is a national standard, and I think we are obligated to stick with the national standard unless we choose at a national level to change it.
And so, with all due respect, I come down on the side of frozen yogurt, and my friends from Emery County are proposed old-fashioned ice cream; and you are all are going to have to decide, and it's certainly within your power, under Article 1 of the Constitution, to amend it; but if you are going to set a national standard of ice cream, let's call it ''ice cream.'' Let's not try to kid ourselves and say that we are really are serving frozen yogurt when it's not frozen yogurt.
So that may be an abstraction, but I think people of Utah will understand it, and I would be open to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shea may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much for your testimony.
The gentleman from American Samoa, for a question to the panel.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been sitting here listening to the various testimonies, and without question, there has been a lot of issues brought forth for the Subcommittee's consideration, and a lot of times I think the members of the Committee are bothered by the fact that sometimes there are friends from downtown at the Bureau of Land Management who tend to dictate things from Washington, but never really have been out there in the western country to find out what it means to have cow manure under your boots or something of that sort.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I'd like to ask Mr. Shea, as a native Utahan, you are quite familiar with this area that is being considered in this proposed legislation?
Mr. SHEA. I should also recognize that at one point in my legal career I represented Carbon County, and they sued Emery County over coal royalty disputes, and it was a sort of Hatfield and McCoy dispute, and it's a sign of the changing times that Mike Dmitrich, a known Utah Democrat from Carbon County, is now representing Emery County.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Shea, I notice in your statement that you made an interesting observation about the proposed legislation, that basically the provisions and the concept underlining the proposed legislation is in reference to how we deal with wilderness areas among the eastern seaboard States, where privately owned lands are predominant, and the futures of how we do this federally in terms of resolving some of the problems.
And you are suggesting in your statement here that the basic rudiments of this legislation really touch on the concerns of private landowners without touching on the fact that major portions of the State is federally owned land. And I think we go back to this same issue that I know that our good chairman has been very concerned about is the fact that so many of our western States are owned practically by the Federal Government, as opposed to so many of our eastern States who don't have this problem of Federal ownership.
And I noticed also in your statement that when it comes to federally owned lands, you are talking about all of America versus the State of Utah. And our good friends from Utah are saying, ''Look, the place is in our State. Why can't we have an approach where there is a balanced approach to development as well as preserving the environment?'' I think this is basically where we are at.
And my good friend Mr. Cannon proposes, hopefully, a balanced approach. I noticed that Senator Bennett commented earlier that the provisions to this bill is in compliance in his opinion—in compliance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Would you care to comment on that?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHEA. I respectfully disagree. Again, I think what we are trying to do in designating some portions of it as semi-primitive and then making exceptions as to mechanical or mechanized use of the wilderness area, we are inadvertently or indirectly amending the 1964 Act. So I would respectfully disagree.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I also noted in your statement that you did list several of the current Federal enactments: the Archeological Resources Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the NEPA, the FLPMA, the Environmental Impact Statements, whatever else that is thrown in there.
Now I noticed Mr. Cannon's bill does note those Federal laws, and in your statement you suggest that it doesn't put enough teeth really in saying whether or not these Federal laws can fully apply to the proposed bill. Am I wrong in——
Mr. SHEA. No, you are correct in that. I think, quite frankly, that's probably one of the most difficult problems Congress faces today is finding ways with new legislation, like Mr. Cannon's, as to how it relates to past legislation. And that's why I said I really felt my testimony was a fairly conservative statement, because it does seem to me a very important, conservative principle that you don't invent something entirely new. It has a relationship to what preceded it, and in this bill that's unclear.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, as I recall, three or four years ago I personally attended, along with my good friend from New York, with Chairman Hansen—we had a field hearing in Salt Lake City on the proposed rule in this bill that the chairman then introduced. And I was under the clear impression that the Bureau of Land Management is supposedly working very closely with the various factions in Utah, politically, socially, economically.
And where are we? I mean, why the continuation of the problems that we are faced with? This is about the fifth bill that is being introduced now in trying to resolve this impasse. In your honest opinion, is the Bureau of Land Management, with all its resources, sincerely trying to resolve this with the leaders of Utah?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHEA. I believe it is. I think one of the frank problems we have in Utah is that when people indicate that everybody has been invited to the table, that may be an accurate statement as to a portion of the meal, but they're certainly not there for the preparation of the meal.
And I think it's important to recognize, from the BLM's perspective, that if you are going to have a guest, they have a right, I believe, under the Federal Constitution, to participate not only in the dessert or the main course, but also in the preparation. And I think it's in the preparation where there has been an absence of representation.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I also noticed that you commented about the two management plans in place by the Bureau of Land Management with its current efforts to deal or address these two basic areas, the San Rafael Swell. May I ask you: Was there an Indian name in place before the Spaniards came into this place?
Mr. SHEA. Undoubtedly there was. Unfortunately, at least the pre-European entry into North America name was never captured, so undoubtedly the natives at the time had a term for it, but I don't know that we in the modern era know what that term was.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, do you think there will be a problem that we can introduce a bill to change the name San Rafael Swell to the real true Native American name that it should have designated? I am just curious about that.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, and I'll wait for another round. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Gentlemen, thank you.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I can't help looking at this group and being struck by a fact. On the wall in my office somebody has posted a joke that appeared in one of the offbeat Utah papers that had a sign saying, ''Entering Utah. Next Democrat 436 miles.'' And yet, three-fifths of this panel is Democrats, and maybe the most remarkable thing is I think we can both characterize everyone on this panel as our friends. It's an interesting fact.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have to apologize, Randy, about infecting people with San Rafael because that's my problem, and it's not that I don't know that you say ''San Rafael,'' but having spoken Spanish for some period of my life, I just fall into that pattern. It reminds of where my daughter is going to school in southern Virginia, at a town where most westerners would pronounce it ''Buena Vista'' but, you know, when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking. In Virginia, at least, they call it ''Buna Vista'' down there. The town is famous because that's where statewide apparently campaigns in Virginia begin with regularity.
Let me begin by commending the panel. I appreciate the efforts that have gone in. I would like to point out that ice cream is not yogurt. They are two different things, and you can enjoy them both, if you like yogurt.
[Laughter.]
Let me begin by asking some questions, and there's one other thing I wanted to say just as a matter of preparatory comment. I believe it was the Deseret News recently, Pat, you talked about dominion and stewardship; and frankly, that is what I would—you also referred to yourself as a conservationist, which is something I—I view myself as that—and frankly, I believe that if we can move forward in the context of weighing the concepts inherent in those three words: this is, dominion, stewardship and conservationist; I think we can make some progress.
And frankly, I appreciate the clarity of your response to the bill and hope that we can have a continuing dialogue. You know, one of the things that just concerns me is the continued reference to the fact that not everyone was invited to participate in this process. I am not sure that if we asked the county commissioners who were reaching out to people or you, Mr. Chairman—I am inclined to ask you why you think people weren't involved, because I know of many, many outreach attempts to everyone that has an interest down there.
I am not sure that all of them decided they wanted to come to the full dinner or even the preparation, but why is it you think that people were not involved in this discussion or involved in only a limited way?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHEA. Certainly, on my time in Utah, most recently when we were in Carbon and Emery County, I had discussions with people, particularly from the conservation community who were not part of the preparation, didn't know about the preparation. At a point at which it had been formulated, they were then invited to make comment and, quite frankly, didn't feel they were welcome at the table, but were going through somewhat of a formalistic ''now is your 5 minutes to make a statement on it,'' and then, ''thank you very much.''
Now I want to quickly add, and I specifically want to address the three county commissioners, I think there's a real potential for a continued reaching-out process. And I think Governor Leavitt and the Utah delegation have made an effort in that direction, and I don't think we're back in 1992 and 1994 or 1996. I think we are making some progress, but there needs to be a chance for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, for the Sierra Club, for other folks who, quite frankly, a few years ago were not entirely welcome in the area, to be engaged in a discussion on this.
Mr. CANNON. Are you familiar with the attempts by the Commission and by me to involve those two particular groups that you've referenced?
Mr. HANSEN. Could I ask the gentleman to suspend? Could I ask unanimous consent that the Governor of the State of Utah be allowed to sit on the dais? Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
Back to the gentleman.
Mr. CANNON. I think I missed my time again, but are you referring particularly to the SUWA and Sierra Clubs, and are you familiar with our attempts—my attempts and the county commissioners' attempts—to draw them into the discussion?
Mr. SHEA. Congressman, as we were bouncing along the road to go out to the Swell, you described for me the details that you had had as an outreach, and I certainly then and now commend you for that effort. All I am saying is that as the process was initially being formulated, there needed to have been more participation than there was.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CANNON. Let me, at the end of my time, just ask—read a quote and ask—it may not be our fault that they were not at the table. SUWA ran an article in the May 30, 1994 issue of High Country News which stated that, ''SUWA is unwilling to negotiate the issues, and the SUWA steers clear of consensus.'' Moreover, the ad encourages the use of lawsuits over consensus-building or advisory committees, yet even states that ''if this allows our critics to label us as extremists, then we are extremists.''
I mean, is it possible that we are never going to be able to draw the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance into this discussion?
Mr. SHEA. It's certainly possible. I don't think it's likely.
Mr. CANNON. In your mind will that be the end of the discussion? In other words, can this one group hold up any progress any progress in public lands in Utah?
Mr. SHEA. No.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you, and I do have some other questions on the next round.
Mr. HANSEN. We'll have another round. I'll deviate from the questions at this time, and we'll call upon the Governor of the State of Utah to give his presentation.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, GOVERNOR, STATE OF UTAH
Governor LEAVITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My purpose today is to speak in support of the San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act. This is consistent with what I have believe was an important process question for us, and that we have been talking about these issues related to public lands and wilderness now for more than 20 years, and we are making very little progress.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have called upon the citizens of our State to recognize that the most important thing that we can begin to do is to begin to agree on what we can agree on, and there are some important areas on which I think we can agree.
I have been advocating the idea of using an incremental approach. There are large tracts of wilderness that I believe everyone agrees upon, and I would very much hope that we could begin to make wilderness. This would not be all the wilderness that is necessary. There is still a broad debate on how much and where it should be, but there is at least 250,000 acres on the table here from a community-up effort that's being offered as agreement, and it's my clear view that we should continue forward.
There are some other very good ideas in this initiative that I am impressed with. The whole idea of being able to create the reserve for the bighorn sheep is a very exciting idea. I've got a prepared statement. In the interest of time, I'd just like to submit that and I'd like to respond to any questions that you would like to direct to me, but my purpose is to be here today to express my enthusiastic support for moving forward on things on which we can agree.
There are some very good innovations here that we should be taking very seriously.
[The prepared statement of Governor Leavitt may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Without object, the entire testimony will be included in the record.
I'd ask the members of the Committee, as they direct their questions, the Governor is willing to respond to questions as well as the panel which is before us at this time.
I do appreciate your opening statement, Governor, and basically I feel that the legislation that has been put forth by Representative Cannon basically fills the need that you were talking about years ago as far as an incremental approach to this probelm. This is a step into it.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It does not resolve all of the wilderness areas on BLM. It doesn't even come close, but it starts the process moving in a very creative way, by the people of Emery County and the good work of Senator Mike Dmitrich in the Senate and the House. So I really think we are on the right track at this particular point.
Of course, here we are to work out the details and see if we can come up with something that would be constructive. We'll have another round because I understand Congressman Cannon wants another round, and we'll now turn to our friend from New York, Mr. Hinchey, for any questions he may have for the Governor or the panel.
Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming Governor Leavitt. It's such a pleasure to see you once again, sir. It's always a pleasure to have you here with us.
I have no particular questions to pose to the Governor at this time, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening statement that I would like to make at whatever time you deem that to be appropriate.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman is recognized for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by saying that this bill demonstrates that there are some things I think on which we can all agree. We can agree that the lands covered by this bill are worthy of protection for their natural characteristics, not for their exploitive value.
We can agree that their economic future lies with the uniqueness of the land and its importance to the Nation, and we can agree that they are not ordinary places, not simply leftover lands deserving of obscurity.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps most importantly the very basis of this hearing is the recognition that these are Federal lands and therefore owned by all the American people and lands that all the American people have a legal and financial interest in and that they should have——
Mr. HANSEN. Could I ask the gentleman to briefly suspend? I think we have a group of students who are interested in watching this. Why don't you youngsters come up and just use this bottom tier here, if you would, and we'd be just pleased that you could join us for a few moments.
I appreciate the gentleman from New York's courtesy in suspending his statement at this time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Certainly.
Mr. HANSEN. Just walk all the way around and we'll probably get most of you on here. If you would like to sit down in those chairs, we'll take as many as we can. Now you'll all be graded on this, so take good notes, will you?
[Laughter.]
Thank you, gentleman from New York, for suspending. We'll turn the time back to you, sir.
Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that these are lands in which all the people of our country have a deep legal and financial interest, and they are lands in which, as they come to know about them, I believe we'll have an even deeper interest in as well.
The premise of the bill that we have before us, which I think is a very creative piece of legislation, is that these lands are deserving of a special status and distinction in the national arena, worthy of the attention of all Americans, and I certainly very strongly agree with that idea.
However, that brings me to my first concern about the bill. We've been hearing quite a bit in the Committee in the past two years about the importance of consultation on public land issues. Yet the bill was apparently put together very quietly and developed as if the lands were only of local interest in Emery County.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The owners of the lands were not consulted. The bill was introduced just as the House was going into recess three weeks ago. Yet markup has already been scheduled. It would be hard for me to think of a bill as complex as this that was rushed through the Subcommittee process as quickly as this one has.
Nevertheless, I am glad that various people will be here today to comment on the broader national interest in these lands. I will keep my own comments on that subject.
First, Mr. Chairman, you know of my strong interest in Heritage Areas, and I am pleased to see the idea being applied in the West as it was with Cache La Podre. It is a further demonstration that the interests of the East and the West in such programs are not as different as some would say they are.
Throughout our long discussions of Heritage Areas, both before you began chairing the Subcommittee and since, Mr. Chairman, you have rightly emphasized that Heritage Area proposals must fit certain criteria, such as prior study by the National Park Service, and that a Heritage Area designation must serve a national interest and not simply the local, economic interest. I hope consideration will be given to how those standards apply in this particular case.
Secondly, I am concerned about some of the terms of the special management areas proposed under the bill. I know, for example, that very little is said about how the ''National Conservation Area''—that phrase I put in quotes—will be managed, only that it will be managed by an advisory committee whose membership will be almost exclusively composed of Utah residents.
Fond as I am of the many friends that I have made in Utah over the last several years, I must say again that these are lands owned by all the people and that all the people will be footing the bills, but they will have little representation on this committee under the provisions of this legislation.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am concerned about the Bighorn Sheep Management Area. I wonder whether it makes sense to manage an area for the protection of a single species. My broader concerns about these areas concern their purposes.
The first purpose stated for the conservation area is to concern the resources for future generations, and again, of course, we can agree on that; but it's a broad statement. What are the resources involved? Is there a conservation for the future compatible with the other stated purposes, such as ORV use for example?
As you would probably expect, I am leading up to my concerns about how the bill treats wilderness. It states several purposes that seem to be the same purposes as wilderness designation, but it severely restricts such designation. By my calculations, it would designate even less area as wilderness than the bill you withdrew from consideration over two years ago, Mr. Chairman.
It would end protection for 140,000 acres that are currently Wilderness Study Areas, and I think that is a very important consideration indeed. Its provisions on road claims would effectively foreclose wilderness designations on much of the area in question which in my judgment would defeat the goals of conservation.
In the past two years I have heard you and others praise wilderness, and I have heard Governor Leavitt praise wilderness, but it still seems that the goal is to reduce the supply of this precious commodity to the smallest number possible. As you know, I believe we have too small a supply of wilderness lands in their natural state as it is, and I believe we should make the strongest effort possible to preserve the wilderness we have.
I have spent 18 years working to protect the remaining wilderness in my home State, and I am committed to protecting the wilderness that we all share ownership of, wherever it may exist across the country. I believe a large percentage of the lands covered by this bill are eligible for wilderness designation and should be protected as wilderness, instead of trying to develop various new kinds of land management categories that fall short of wilderness designation. I realize full well that many people fear the word ''wilderness'' and resist designation because of those fears.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The same was true when we were designating wilderness in New York a century ago, but you might take the opportunity to put those fears to rest by sharing all the eloquent comments that you have made about the value of wilderness during our discussions of your eastern wilderness with the people of Emery County. That might help to bring us closer to a resolution on the future of these lands and help to educate the whole country on why these lands truly are worthy of national interest.
And although I think the bill is an interesting and creative exercise, particularly in the way that it seeks to employ the designation of national Heritage Areas; I think that unfortunately it falls far short of what we ought to be doing as a Committee and as a Congress with regard to exercising and expressing our deep respect and appreciation of the uniqueness of this particular part of our country.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me that opportunity.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, is recognized for questions for the panel, opening statement and questions to the Governor.
Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I was not here earlier to begin the hearing, but I had other commitments. I appreciate and acknowledge the presence of the Governor and the work that has been done on this proposal. I am not very familiar with it, but I understand that the management entity that's included in the bill in terms of management of the national lands is such that it does not have significant representation or at least majority representation by the Department of Interior at the BLM. Director Shea is here. I acknowledge his presence, and that's a concern. Is it not, Director Shea?
Mr. SHEA. You are correct.
Mr. VENTO. I think the—you know, the idea of—in terms of dealing with wilderness measures in the past, we have in fact tried to have special I guess for the Forest Service to have some national recreation areas and deal with these in a different way in terms of trying to provide or accord some protection in addition to the wilderness protection; and I think that his bill tries to mix that with the BLM in this BLM area and doesn't embrace the entire State.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This only addresses what portion of the State and Utah, Governor, is this about—this I know is three counties—is this about a quarter of the issue at hand in terms of the 20 million acres of wilderness the BLM that lands that are present?
Governor LEAVITT. I can't give you an exact percentage. It may be even be a smaller percentage than that.
Mr. VENTO. I am just trying to get an idea——
Governor LEAVITT. The important thing is it's progress.
Mr. VENTO. Director Shea, has the BLM done some studies with regards to the National Conservation Area or with regards to a Heritage Area in this, which of course is an entirely different entity than wilderness? I know there have been some wilderness studies, but has there been any analysis or any type of formal study of this process?
Mr. SHEA. We have two plans in place, as I mentioned earlier: the San Rafael Plan and the Price Plan, but we were not involved in the formulation of this legislation, and one of the things I suggested, particularly on the heritage side, is I do think that there is a great deal of administrative flexibility to do a survey between BLM and the people of Emery County and Carbon County to look at the heritage side.
On the conservation side, I think you're absolutely correct that we have a problem with trying to say this is wilderness but it's not quite wilderness under the 1964 definition, and my earlier statement was that I think Congress has the power to legislate whatever way they want, but for purposes of clarity if it in fact is wilderness area; they ought to comply with the 1964 law or amend it specifically.
Mr. VENTO. The issue here of course is that there has been—do we have any ACECs? Is there any other land designations in these areas that are already present or not?
Mr. SHEA. There is one in the near area. We are proposing than an NCA is part of this bill. The original proposal was for 890,000, and this covers 630,000.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that, Mr. Chairman, most of the time we would try to get some analysis I know on the formal bill that we had with Heritage Areas we actually had had some provision that provided for some money to try and get some parameters around the type of Heritage Areas that we are talking about.
Of course, that addresses, as the Director has pointed out, areas that are largely private land. How much private land is involved in this entire complex that we are talking about, this million acres?
Mr. SHEA. There is none in this—well, it's 630,000 acres.
Mr. VENTO. There is no private land at all?
Mr. SHEA. There are school trust lands and State trust lands, but there are no private lands.
Mr. VENTO. Currently, the management entity that—the idea of putting that in place was because there was substantial cross ownership of land. Is there a significant amount of State land in here?
Mr. SHEA. Not a significant amount, but there is some. I did point out in my testimony that the conservation areas were traditionally where the predominant nature of the land was private and that this was unusual here.
Mr. VENTO. Now I noticed that, but I was just wondering what the amounts were that we're trying to address. So I mean, the issue, Mr. Chairman, is, you know, not only that, but I understand that this anticipates a trade out of the school sections, this legislation does, so then it would be practically exclusively national land. Is that correct?
Mr. SHEA. Yes. If you could direct your attention to the map over there, the white portions of the wilderness areas, both the dark green and the light blue, as I understand it, are either State trust lands or school trust lands, but in the exchange process, which in my reading of the bill is not clear as to what process we would use for that exchange, then it would become solely Federal.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENTO. Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that I'll study the bill more carefully, but I think that if is a start of a negotiating position I guess it's fine. In terms of how we are going to deal with—in other words, segmenting and trying to deal with issues that we can deal with and agree upon, but obviously there are a lot of changes from what is a Heritage Area and what are National Conservation Areas.
I understand that the conservation area is all Federal except for the State trust lands, and the Heritage Area encompasses all Emery and Carbon Counties and includes private lands as well. So, I don't know how we can sort through it, but if the Heritage or Conservation Areas can help in terms of—obviously, your bottom line is hard relief.
Mr. HANSEN. I think it's a little sad that the two gentlemen from Minnesota and New York—I know