    [House Hearing, 105 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           HEARING ON THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

     H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL HERITAGE
     AREA AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE
                        OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                         APRIL 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 105-85

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

                                   -----------

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-613 cc                   WASHINGTON : 1998

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
    KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                         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           ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee           Samoa
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    RICK HILL, Montana                   DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                      Islands
                                         RON KIND, Wisconsin
                                         LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
                            Allen Freemyer, Counsel
                      P. Daniel Smith, Professional Staff
                        Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

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

    Statements of Members:
        Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Cook, Hon. Merrill, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Nevada............................................     5
        Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     1
        Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York......................................    29

    Statements of witnesses:
        Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a Senator in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Curtis, Wes, Director, Governor's Rural Partnership Office,
          State of Utah..............................................    58
            Prepared statement of....................................    82
        Dmitrich, Hon. Mike, State Senator, State of Utah............    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    68
        Johnson, Randy, Chairman, Emery County Commissioner..........    14
            Prepared statement of....................................    69
        Leavitt, Hon. Michael O., Governor, State of Utah............    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    77
        Martin, Wilson, Program Manager, Utah Department of Community
          and Economic Development...................................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    91
        Meadows, Bill, President, The Wilderness Society.............    56
            Prepared statement of....................................    78
        Owens, Hon. Wayne, President, Center for Middle East Peace,
          testifying on behalf of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance..    45
        Peay, Donald Keith, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North
          American Wild Sheep........................................    41
            Prepared statement of....................................    85
        Petersen, Kent, Emery County Commissioner....................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    71
            Additional material submitted for the record by..........    94
        Shea, Pat, Director, Bureau of Land Management...............    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    74
        Warnick, Richard M., Salt Lake City, Utah, prepared statement
          of.........................................................    84
        Wilson, Bevan K., Emery County Commissioner..................    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    73
            Letters submitted by.....................................    97

    Additional material supplied:
        Community & Wild Lands Futures, ``Disputing Parties Heading
          Onto Cooperative Public Lands Trail''......................   104

    HEARING ON H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL
     HERITAGE AREA AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN
                   THE STATE OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998

            House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
                Park and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
                Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in
    room 334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
    Hansen, (chairman of the Subcommittee) present.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Hansen. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.
    The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes to
    hear testimony on H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National
    Heritage and Conservation Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr.
    Cannon, who represents Emery County.
        I would like to welcome our many friends from Utah who have
    worked very hard on this legislation to bring this proposal and
    that truly balances the needs of the land, and the needs of the
    people, who support these public lands. This legislation has
    been worked on by many interests, State and local governments,
    historic and cultural interest, wildlife interests, and
    recreational interests. Although the administration's testimony
    claims that interests were not represented in this discussion,
    the truth is that all who were interested were invited to
    participate and did participate. Those who wish to sit back and
    throw stones and fail to roll up their sleeves and actually
    work on something in a positive manner, will not and cannot be
    taken seriously. This also applies to the administration.
        The purpose of a hearing such as this is to hear
    constructive comments on how to make this bill better, to
    suggest changes to benefit land or help our local managers, or
    whatever it takes to help perfect legislation. We appreciate
    Mr. Shea coming out to Emery County and the visit we had with
    him. I am not 100 percent sure that the testimony he gives
    today was written by those who have been on the land or even
    knows what the land looks like, but that's something they'll
    have to work out.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        [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.
        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

        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.
        Now, I informed the members of the Subcommittee that I
    intend to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. Senator
    Hatch will be joining me in this effort.
        It's refreshing to me to be able to be involved, as I say,
    on the basis of what people close to the area have to
    recommend. Now, we are often told in Utah during these debates
    over the use of the land, that the future of rural Utah lies
    with tourism.
        Along with you, Mr. Chairman, I went through the hearings
    that were all over the State of Utah, where we were told again,
    and again, and again, and again, by supporters of H.R. 1500
    that rural Utahans could make more money off of tourism than
    they could mining, ranching, agriculture, and timber. I
    remember one witness saying, ``we have a new extractive
    industry in rural Utah as we extract money from the wallets of
    the tourists who come in to see our incredible land.'' Well, if
    that is, indeed, is going to be the future of rural Utah, then
    the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area is a road map as to how we
    will get there. We may need to pay attention to that and keep
    that in mind.
        Now, the proposal would create an advisory council to work
    closely with the land management agencies to promote the
    cooperative use of the lands. I think that's a very logical
    thing to do because we need to recognize that we learn as we go
    along and crafting a single decision in Washington, and then
    imposing it on an area forever and ever without any opportunity
    for fine-tuning and changing as the world changes and as
    people's use of the land develops is very shortsighted. So, I
    applaud the bill for having that in it.
        Now, I am willing to enter into discussions on the Senate
    side of how this bill can be changed and improved. I'm willing
    to look at the question of the designation of Wilderness Study
    Areas beyond county lines. I understand that the Emery County
    people did not go beyond the county line of Emery County. That
    doesn't mean that Congress has to stay within those boundaries,
    and I understand that much of the controversy around this
    proposal has to do with drawing the county line across existing
    WSA's and saying that land beyond that line should not be
    included in the bill.
        While I will start out with the language of the bill as it
    is, I will be willing to have discussions about that issue as
    it goes forward. I think we should understand that in this
    discussion we are not disagreeing on protection of the land. We
    are not disagreeing on which land needs to be protected. The
    only disagreement that I can find comes on the definition of
    how that protection should go 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.
        [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.
        The people of Utah are often told that tourism is the
    future of rural Utah and that the traditional industries of
    mining, ranching, agriculture and timber are relics of the
    past. In good economic times that might be the case. But there
    must be a way to seize upon the tourism opportunities. If
    tourism is the destination for the future, then the San Rafael
    Swell Heritage Area is the roadmap to get Emery County there.
        I believe the primary goal of the Emery County proposal is
    to promote tourism opportunities by designating a nationally
    recognized Heritage Area. However, the resources and the rich
    history of the San Rafael Swell people are invited to see must
    be first protected and enhanced. The proposal would create an
    Advisory Council that will work closely with the land
    management agencies to promote the cooperative use of the
    lands. It ensures that management plans and criteria are
    prepared for the different regions in the Heritage Area to
    preserve their unique qualities. It will promote and arrange
    for cooperative agreements with state and local governments to
    prepare for the inevitable influx of visitors.
        I note with a bit of irony that we are talking today about
    methods by which we may protect public lands and establish a
    method of public input and management prior to the creation of
    the Heritage Area. This is a process that I wish we could have
    undertaken prior to the creation of the Grand Staircase-
    Escalante. I believe what we are involved in today is the
    proper way to proceed with the creation of a special management
    area. That is one reason why I am puzzled by the
    Administration's current opposition. Perhaps we should just
    designate it a National Monument and worry about the details
    later. The administration didn't seem to worry about details
    the last time it decided to set aside a few million acres in
    some type of designation.
        Another important aspect of the proposal is its provision
    for the protection of continued management of one of the
    largest herds of bighorn sheep in Utah. It sets aside a Desert
    Bighorn Sheep Management area that is over 65,000 acres in size
    that has all of the protections of wilderness designation, but
    still provides the state of Utah with the management
    flexibility to properly manage the herd. This is a prime
    example of why a one-size-fits-all wilderness designation is
    not the best solution. If people will drive to Southern Utah in
    a chance that they might see a California condor, imagine their
    excitement to be directed to several designated viewing area
    established for the purpose of seeing Desert Bighoms in their
    most natural of habitats.
        Finally, the proposal will resolve the thorny issue of off-
    road vehicle use by creating semi-primitive areas that are
    restricted in access. This will bring to closure a continuous
    management battle and reduce uncertainty as to what activities
    are permitted.

    Resolution begins with the first few steps

        A comparison of acreage shows that under the proposal we
    protect 987,651 acres in Emery County under four different
    protective measures nearly half of that being wilderness by the
    strictest definition. The opponents to the Heritage Area
    proposal would protect 1,049,000 acres in Emery County as
    wilderness. The difference between the two proposals is under
    100,000 acres. Yet, using the same tired, old rhetoric
    opponents branded the proposal ``anti-wilderness'' before it
    was even introduced. It was labeled an anti-wilderness bill
    because we disagree not on protection, but on definition.
        It must be made clear that this proposal was not intended
    to be a wilderness bill alone. Wilderness is just one component
    of a larger land management process. With that in mind, I
    challenge the Board Members of the Southern Utah Wilderness
    Alliance to participate in a process with the administration,
    the Utah delegation and Emery County Commissioners which we
    might try to resolve the differences in this proposal. I would
    be happy to lead those discussions. I would venture that if we
    all sat in a room without staff for an afternoon, we could
    reach a consensus.
        A closer inspection reveals that there is quite a bit of
    good in this bill. If these lands are really in peril as we
    heard all throughout the last debate, failure to participate in
    the process is like the individual trapped on his roof by
    rising flood 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.
        In last year's wilderness debate, Members were implored by
    some individuals in the environmental community to act with
    vision and concern, not just for ourselves, but for our
    children. We heard a plea for ``visionary.'' I applaud the
    architects of this proposal for showing that kind of vision,
    which bridges the gap between many competing uses and puts
    forth a plan that will allow for the protection of this special
    area while promoting a wise plan for its management for the
    future.
        Granted, translating that vision to legislative language
    can be difficult. H.R. 3625 has several rough edges around it
    that need to be smoothed out. I will introduce companion
    legislation that in its first draft will be very similar. But I
    recognize that the process is just beginning. I am open for
    comments from both sides. Perhaps we will need to tighten
    legislative language, or look at some boundaries and I am
    willing to do that. I have already read the statement that Mr.
    Shea has submitted and I will admit he raises several good
    points that I am willing to entertain.
        Mr. Shea praised the Emery County officials last week and
    referred to the proposal in the Utah press last week as ``a
    step in the right direction.'' He stated: ``The ideas in the
    bill have a lot of merit. It is a step in the right direction.
    It recognizes wilderness. It involves people in a very direct
    process for having their perspectives heard.''
        I was encouraged when I read those comments in the Deseret
    News last week. But I read the printed statement of Mr. Shea
    today and I hope he will elaborate on why--if these ideas have
    such merit--has the Administration so willingly waved the veto
    pen before the public hearing process has even gotten underway.
    It does not bode well for the process and it sends a very clear
    and very unfortunate message to the local people: ``If your
    attempts fail to meet our predetermined outcome, your efforts
    are of no use to us.''
        Let me say to the Administration, rather than saying no,
    give us a chance to work with you. If we are able to cooperate,
    perhaps we will be successful in our efforts and at the end of
    this Congress we will have taken the first small steps to
    resolving the larger wilderness debate. I hope this could be
    the case.
        I appreciate the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity
    to testify today. I look forward to hearing the comments of the
    panelists today.

        Mr. Hansen. Without objection, your full statement will be
    in the record and all of the statements given today in their
    entirety will be in the record, and anyone, of course, is free
    to abbreviate their statements if they're so inclined.
        We'll now hear from Congressman Cook.

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

        Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the
    opportunity to speak on this important issue regarding the
    conservation of the San Rafael Swell encompassed in H.R. 3625.
    The San Rafael Swell is certainly one of the most beautiful and
    ecologically diverse areas in the State of Utah, and it
    deserves to be conserved and protected.
        I commend the Emery County Commissioners and my Utah
    colleagues on the work they've put into this bill to create a
    sensible, balanced bill. Do I think H.R. 3625 solves the
    wilderness debate in Utah? No, I don't, but H.R. 3625 is a good
    initiative by local government to work out the problems in
    their local area and, in this case, Emery County, Utah. This is
    a good start toward resolving wilderness and public land
    management issues in Utah.
        As we consider H.R. 3625, we know this is a solution that
    will drastically improve conditions and habitat in Emery County
    while preserving ecologically sensitive and vital areas within
    the San Rafael Swell. We also don't know that we'll have a lot
    more work to do. H.R. 3625 is a good approach toward balancing
    economic and recreation opportunities, which is important to
    the citizen of my district in the Salt Lake Valley, while
    preserving this wilderness may be the most diverse and
    beautiful areas of the Swell, which is also important to my
    constituents. H.R. 3625 preserves one of the largest bighorn
    sheep herds in the State through the creation of the San Rafael
    National Conservation Area.
        This designation of a National Conservation Area will allow
    the State to monitor and successfully manage the sheep herd
    while limiting and controlling access to this vital wildlife
    resource. H.R. 3625 also will allow for vital restoration and
    conservation of many other habitats in the San Rafael Swell
    benefiting many species within the National Conservation Area.
        This bill creates more than 400,000 acres of wilderness as
    well as preserving many of the most vital and interesting areas
    from Utah's history. As open space continually declines due to
    population growth pressures, these areas will offer unique
    recreational and historical opportunities for generations. Many
    of these sites chronicle the important part mining had in
    Utah's economic development, as well as preserving and
    chronicling sites along the Outlaw Trail within the Swell,
    which is a vital heritage for both Utah and the Nation.
        These areas deserve to be protected and shared as a
    remembrance for ourselves and for future generations. By
    preserving these areas, we will preserve who we were. These can
    serve as an inspiration for future generations to achieve
    greater things than either we or our ancestors thought
    possible.
        Finally, H.R. 3625 fairly balances the economic needs of
    the 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:]

     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.
        Given the fact that the whole approach is now being taken
    from our good friend, Congressman Cannon, the proposed
    legislation takes into full consideration the views and the
    concerns of the local communities who will be directly affected
    by this legislation.
        And as you had noted earlier also, I think the statement of
    Governor Leavitt reaffirms the concept that is now being
    proposed is that we do this on an incremental basis. I'm
    curious to see how we're going to do this, and, hopefully, that
    our friends from the Bureau of Land Management will have their
    points of view taken in consideration, if this is possible and
    feasible under the circumstances.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both Senator
    Bennett and Congressman Cook for their testimonies.
        Mr. Hansen. Congressman Cannon.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just reiterate what I've said many times in the
    past. I deeply appreciate the intellect, and capability, and
    camaraderie we have in this delegation and I want to thank
    Senator Bennett and Congressman Cook for coming in and sharing
    their thoughts with us. We certainly look forward to working
    with them as well as with you, Mr. Chairman, on this bill and I
    appreciate your efforts to come over here today.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, thanks.
        I had only one question relating to the exercise of water
    rights by the Federal Government here. Perhaps either Senator
    Bennett or Congressman Cook could address the issue of water
    rights or perhaps the author of the bill. But, I'm curious as
    to--it's under section 407, Senator--whether or not the Federal
    Government acquiring a water right in that section would
    preempt State Water Right laws on the beneficial use of those
    water rights.
        Senator Bennett. No, it would not.
        Mr. Gibbons. That's all. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett, we appreciate you being with us today. We
    know you're busy and have things to do. Thanks so much for
    coming over to our side. We appreciate it. We'll look forward
    to hearings when your bill is introduced on the other side.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        Congressman Cook, would you like to join us on the dais? We
    are privileged to have you here. We know you have other things
    to do, but if you have time, we'd love to have you.
        Mr. Cook. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd love
    to. I do have responsibilities with the Aviation and Banking.
        Mr. Hansen. I understand.
        We'll now turn to the next panel, the Director of the
    Bureau of Land Management, a Utah native, Pat Shea. We're glad
    that Pat could be with us. Senator Mike Dmitrich, one of my old
    colleagues from way back, will be with us on this panel; Emery
    County Commissioners Randy Johnson, Kent Peterseon, and Bevan
    Wilson. If you'd all like to come forward and take your places,
    we'd appreciate it.
        At the request of Director Shea, we'll ask the Utah folks
    to go first. So, Mike, are you ready?

     STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DMITRICH, STATE SENATOR, STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Dmitrich. Yes.
        Mr. Hansen. We'll turn to Mike. Let me say that we normally
    operate under a 5-minute rule, and that is our rule in this
    Committee, and that thing right in front of you is just like a
    traffic light: green you start; yellow you wrap up, and red, I
    gavel you down, which really won't happen today because I want
    to hear your testimony, but if you could stay it close to that
    area, I'd really appreciate it.
        Senator Dmitrich, we'll hear from you, sir.
        Mr. Dmitrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Committee. It is of great pleasure that I address you today.
    I'm addressing you on an issue of great importance, not only to
    my constituents, but to all the American people.
        In Emery County, a county bigger than some New England
    States, lies one of the last great undiscovered national
    treasures, the San Rafael Swell--a place where the shores are
    long, vanished oceans. At every turn, there are signs of
    ancient Jurassic eras. Through the Swell passes the Old Spanish
    Trail, and cowboys can still be seen working. It is an area
    rich in biodiversity, both plant and animal. However, like many
    areas in the West, it is rich not only in beauty, but mineral
    wealth, grazing potential, and other uses which make human life
    possible.
        For decades, the various user groups have been also,
    literally, at war. Many groups on all sides have staked out
    extreme positions over which they have declared no compromise,
    no surrender, no quarter asked, none given. The result has been
    an area in managerial confusion. Such a situation is extremely
    difficult for local elected officials, and local area resource
    managers from the State and Federal agencies.
        However, not all voices have been strident and unyielding.
    Environmentalists, resource people, recreation groups from both
    in and out of the area have spent, literally, thousands of
    hours forging a plan to manage the San Rafael Resource Area in
    a sensible and thoughtful way.
        You have before you H.R. 3625, which is a legislative
    embodiment of that effort and an emblem of their dedication to
    reason and compromise. It is a commitment from both the
    citizens of Carbon and Emery Counties, and those who don't live
    there, but who loves those lands to care for them and to use
    them responsibly now and forever. There are those who can, and
    will, cite the specifics better than I.
        However, let me state that H.R. 3625 creates approximately
    630,000 acres of National Conservation Area from which
    industrial development will be banned, but in which
    conventional tourism and livestock will be allowed. In
    addition, over 300,000 acres would place in the wilderness or
    primitive designations. Again, I will leave the real details to
    others, but what I want to do is give you some reasons to vote
    for this proposal and not a blanket wilderness designation.
        For those who constituency lies east of the hundredth
    meridian, voting for wilderness always seems a safe and popular
    vote. However, as all of us who answer to the voters know what
    appears popular today can turn to voter resentment and anger
    tomorrow. If you enact, as some would have you do, a simple
    blanket wilderness designation for the San Rafael, the law of
    unintended consequence may begin to work with a vengeance.
        First of all, since wilderness precludes many kinds of game
    management techniques, such as providing salt or water
    bubblers, you may be causing great harm to the just reemerging
    bighorn sheep herd found on the Swell. You will hear testimony
    on that later. It goes against our intuition, but some of those
    species cannot any longer survive without human intervention. A
    game manager supports this proposal.
        Often wilderness precludes most kinds of archaeological
    work which would be criminal in this area so rich in Native
    American history. It may also mandate the destruction of some
    historical sites because they are the works of the ``hand of
    man.'' Furthermore, since the only allowed means of travel in
    wilderness areas are foot and horseback, many of the wonders of
    this area will be denied to your constituents who are elderly
    and handicapped. Those people deserve access to the lands as
    well.
        What might appear to be easy vote has many land mines in
    it. In the end, your constituents will be grateful that you
    took the thoughtful approach and did what is right for people
    and animals, for history and for culture, and for the
    opportunity to enjoy the land which they, hopefully, journey to
    my State senate district.
        That said, let me state that I am not an opponent of
    wilderness designation. Some of the earlier proposals did have
    too little wilderness. There must be pristine and quiet places
    in the evermore hectic world where a person can enjoy nature as
    God created it.
        Please note that an area larger than Rhode Island has been
    excluded from mineral development, and I am happy to say that
    there are several wilderness designations as part of the
    overall plan, but these are designations thoughtfully done,
    rather than done as part of a cynical numbers game. These areas
    contain the type of scenic wonders the original sponsor of the
    1964 Wilderness Act had in mind. Besides, I have great
    sympathies with endangered species.
        I am a rural Democrat that has survived the legislative
    process in the State of Utah for 30 years.
        [Laughter.]
        I can tell you this battle has been going on during that
    greater part of my 30 years of service. It is time for this
    battle to end. It is time to, finally, say no to narrow
    interests, and to say yes to the vast majority of Americans who
    know in their hearts that there's room for all of us. It is
    time to do the right thing, instead of the easy thing, for the
    wildlife, for the people of Emery County, for the people of the
    State of Utah, and all of America.
        Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you, Chairman
    Hansen, for allowing this hearing. I have also submitted with
    my testimony of copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, which I
    sponsored in the State legislature which had both hearings in
    the House and Senate and passed with only 6 negative votes out
    of the 104 legislators.
        It is my pleasure to be here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dmitrich may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Were you the sponsor of that bill, Senator?
        Senator Dmitrich. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. And that passed? Out of 104, only 6 opposed it?
        Senator Dmitrich. There were six negative votes.
        Mr. Hansen. And that was in favor of Congressman Cannon's
    bill?
        Senator Dmitrich. Yes. That is in favor--the senate
    resolution has all the stuff that Congressman Cannon has in his
    bill.
        Mr. Hansen. So, in effect, the State legislature is solidly
    behind this legislation?
        Senator Dmitrich. Solidly.
        Mr. Hansen. The people of Utah, in other words?
        Senator Dmitrich. In fact, the negative votes--there was
    not any testimony given in the senate. It was just a negative
    vote.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator Dmitrich. We appreciate you
    being here.
        Chairman of the Emery County Commissioners, Randy Johnson.
    The time is yours, sir.

          STATEMENT OF RANDY JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, EMERY COUNTY
                             COMMISSIONERS

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Can you pull that mike just a little closer?
        Mr. Johnson. I will do that.
        Can I just make one point very quickly for the sake of
    everyone here that, while the San Rafael was most aptly named
    after earlier users of the Spanish Trail and most rightly would
    be pronounced San Rafael, in deference to the wonderful mix
    between human heritage and the beautiful land, we've always
    called it the San Rafael and it must be the San Rafael. It's
    just as true and natural as ``Easter,'' in which most of you
    would think back here in this part of the Nation is some sort
    of a down-easter wind, but it really means rolling Easter eggs
    and having a picnic on Easter weekend down in the desert. So
    these things mixed with this land, and I wanted to make that
    point very quickly.
        Mr. Hansen. I won't comment at this time.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    on this important bill. I have spent a great deal of time
    trying to think of what I might say to you which would portray
    how important, I believe, that this new approach to public
    lands management really is.
        I'm chairman of the Emery County Board of Commissioners.
    I'm also chairman of the Utah Association of Counties, Public
    Lands Oversight Committee; a member of the National Association
    of Counties Public Lands Steering Committee, and chairman of
    the Rural Public Lands County Council. I am also chairman of
    the board of directors of the Utah Lands Foundation, a
    resolution-oriented environmental organization based in Utah,
    and I'll speak mostly from that perspective today.
        Obviously, public lands issues consume a great amount of my
    time. I want you to understand that I believe that what is
    before you is truly a remarkable landmark bill. H.R. 3625 has
    the potential to change the entire field of discussion and
    could lead us into an era of public lands problem solving if we
    willing to let it. The challenge would be in prying ourselves
    loose of the stalemate we have created.
        As stated in an April 14, 1998 Desert News editorial
    ``Perhaps a miracle, a big one at that, would move key players
    off dead center or more accurately from the outer extremes.'' I
    am here today to ask you for that big miracle. I must also ask
    the question, if there is a general refusal to come to the
    table and look for solutions, then what kind of future have we
    defined for ourselves? Isn't it time to reevaluate our public
    lands management philosophy? I believe that we must ask
    ourselves what kind of war have we created and who benefits.
        I assert to you that the Emery County plan solves problems.
    It address the needs of all stakeholders. It works for the best
    good of the land itself, and most importantly, it is a
    manageable plan. Surely, this is a wonderful opportunity to
    move away from the stalemate described so well by the Desert
    News.
        Emery County has searched that natural history and human
    heritage are just as important and deserving of protection and
    recognition as our scenic vistas. We also believe that the
    current status of protection, and the current status of
    polarization and acreage quotas is harmful--harmful to the
    land, harmful to the people who use and enjoy the land, and
    harmful to the Nation. Certainly, we are capable of prescribing
    a management philosophy that meets the needs of the land while
    assuring that we can also carefully manage the resources which
    come from the lands. We believe that Emery County has done just
    that.
        H.R. 3625 is the only proposal that protects the entire San
    Rafael Swell. It is the only proposal that provides specific
    protection to one of Utah's largest herds of bighorn sheep. It
    is the only proposal that has started from the land upward
    drawing nearly all stakeholders to the table. And it is the
    only land management proposal that recognizes all the values of
    the land and works for truly manageable preservation of all
    those values. The National Heritage Area part of the plan
    addresses the wonderful blend of man and nature which is unique
    to the San Rafael. Here the footprints of history trace
    themselves across the rugged beauty of the Swell. Dinosaur
    remains scatter the area, focusing on the Cleveland-Lloyd
    Dinosaur Quarry, one of the largest sources of fossil remains
    in the world. There is also ample evidence of early and Native
    American cultures throughout the heritage area with many
    examples of their wonderful history preserved in rock art.
        Further, the heritage of the early settlers of this harsh
    and unforgiving land is woven into the area, and is every much
    as deserving of protection as recognition as the rocks
    surrounding them. Such treasures as Sid's Leaps, Swasey's
    Cabin, and Temple Mountain are as much a part of the San Rafael
    Swell as sand, and wind, and deep canyon draws. The Heritage
    Area works to identify and protect these and other wonderful
    sites for the enjoyment of all who come to the Swell San
    Rafael.
        Few other places in the world can provide such an ample
    supply of heritage sites. Access to these destinations will be
    accomplished by means of existing and long-used roads and
    trails. Most importantly, the ever-increasing flow of tourists
    will find a greatly enhanced visit to San Rafael Swell while we
    are able to better manage the flow of people and better protect
    the more pristine of the San Rafael lands. This wonderful blend
    of man and his world is the very heart and soul of this plan.
    Tracking the various footprints of natural history and human
    heritage through the San Rafael Swell gives the breath of life
    of these lands and causes all who become hooked by the
    excitement and mystery of the area to take some share of
    ownership in the process of preservation and protection.
        It is a user-friendly plan, and everyone benefits from its
    manageable approach. The National Conservation Area works to
    preserve the more pristine areas of the San Rafael, and various
    levels of protection as dictated by the land itself. In more
    than 600,000 acres, the NCA not only includes huge tracks of
    wilderness designation, but it goes well beyond wilderness and
    its protective layers. It recognizes the largest bighorn sheep
    herd in Utah and makes provisions to manage and protect that
    wonderful resource. It also withdraws the entire San Rafael
    Swell from oil drilling, timbering, and mining.
        Some will say we have withdrawn protection from many acres.
    What they really mean is that we are protecting those lands in
    ways other than wilderness--ways that are just as permanent,
    just as effective, and in many cases, much more protective than
    wilderness. Another criticism is that wilderness is permanent.
    Other protections are not.
        And, Mr. Chairman, we are here before you to seek
    congressional designation which would make this hybrid eagle
    system management concept permanent, providing protection for
    the San Rafael Swell for many generations to come.
        If you say the sand lands of the San Rafael need
    protecting, we say we agree. If you say there needs to be a
    wilderness experience available to anyone who seeks it, we say
    we agree. If you say we should preserve some of our precious
    lands for future generations, we say we agree. If you say there
    are some areas where no new roads should be built, and no new
    mining should occur, we say we agree, but if you say that
    wilderness is the only way to achieve these things, then we
    say, we do not agree. We believe that we must reevaluate our
    public lands management philosophy. We must look at the
    conflict we have created, and ask ourselves where are we going
    and who benefits.
        I close my testimony with the words of Thomas Jefferson
    directly from walls of the Jefferson Memorial: ``I am not an
    advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but
    laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of
    the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more
    enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths
    discovered, and manners and opinions change, with the change of
    circumstances institutions must advance also to keep up with
    the times.''
        And I ask you once again for the big miracle. Let us move
    to a new hybrid form of manageable protection. Let us
    accomplish the purposes of the San Rafael Swell National
    Heritage Conservation Area.
        Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Excellent testimony. Thank you.
        Commissioner Petersen. We'll turn time to you, sir.

         STATEMENT OF KENT PETERSEN, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONER

        Mr. Kent Petersen. Thank you, Chairman Hansen. I appreciate
    being here, members of the committee.
        Most of the people in my county live along between the
    mountains of the Los Plato and the San Rafael Swell to our
    east. Now much of our wealth comes from these mountains. Our
    water comes from these mountains. Our coal is in these
    mountains, but our hearts are in the San Rafael Swell. It's
    where we go when we want to be alone, and it's where we take
    our visitors when we want to show them something special. And
    when our people leave for a time and come home, the Swell is
    the first place they want to visit. The San Rafael Swell is a
    land of scenic beauty, but it is much more than this. It has a
    unique history and heritage.
        Remnants of the early Americans abound throughout the
    Swell. Butch Cassidy and the Robbers Roost frequented the
    Swell. Cowboys have managed their herds on the Swell from the
    early 1870's until today, and abandoned uranium mines remind us
    of the Atomic Era.
        Now we know these are public lands belonging to the people
    of the United States. We support the right of the people all
    around this country to be able to visit these lands and have a
    say in the way they are managed, but we feel very strongly that
    those of us who live next to these lands and who have spend our
    lifetimes on or near them, must have a large say in how these
    lands are managed.
        Now the citizens of my county have a long history of caring
    for the land. In the late 1890's and early 1900's a person
    could tell a location, from the valley floor, of the sheep and
    cattle herds on the mountains by the clouds of dust they kicked
    up from the severely eroded lands. Local citizens petitioned
    the government for the 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.
        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.
        ``Now he looked like just a regular feller with maybe a
    story to tell, and he asked if I could please help him to check
    out the San Rafael Swell. We jumped in my four-wheel drive
    pickup and went out to take a look at the place, and I could
    tell that he liked the desert, from the looks that he got on
    his face.
        ``When we got to our first grazing allotment, I stopped the
    pickup and sat there to wait. It was his job, because of where
    he was sitting, to get out and open the gate. He got back in
    and was cussing, and when I looked down I started to hoot. He
    hadn't looked where he was stepping, and he had green stuff all
    over his boot.
        ``And then he explained how he didn't like cattle, said
    they should be banned from the land. They ruined the wilderness
    experience. Kind of hard for an old cowboy to understand, but I
    showed him the canyons and pinnacles caused by erosion from
    millenniums untold, and we marveled at the colors and stillness
    as we watched nature's beauties unfold.
        ``We saw signs of the old ones, the Freemont, who left
    their messages carved in the stone, and we saw diggings left by
    the miners and some petrified dinosaur bones. We saw the
    remains of an old homestead cabin right next to a cool flowing
    spring. We showed how this land could be helpful and the next
    season heartless and mean.
        ``We got back to town, and I left him. I forgot him, and
    I'm sure he forgot about me, and then I saw him about a month
    later on the late evening news on TV. He explained how this
    land should be set aside as a wilderness for backpackers and
    friends and get rid of those cows and the cowboys and those
    four-wheel drive trails.
        ``It seemed like a lot of folks listened. They were starved
    for the touch of the land. They just wanted a place to be all
    alone. It was a feeling we could all understand. They got to
    thinking of us as intruders. It was their land they wanted to
    preserve. It was theirs, and we no longer belonged on it. We'd
    been here for as long as we deserved.
        ``Well, we talked to our Senators and Congressmen,
    explained in detail of our fight. We wrote letters and talked
    to each other. We put up one hell of a fight. We thought for a
    while we were winning. We held rallies and parades with our
    friends, but, just like it says in the good book, eventually
    all things have to end.
        ``We lost, but I guess it's been all right. There's plenty
    of things here to do. We now live on a big reservation, and
    they put all the cows in the zoo.''
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hansen. Very well done.
        Commissioner Wilson, thank you for being with us. We'll
    turn the time to you, sir.

        STATEMENT OF BEVAN K. WILSON, EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONER

        Mr. Wilson. My pleasure.
        Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member and members of the
    Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today as
    an Emery County Commission and as a native Democrat of Emery
    County. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on a matter
    that is of vital importance to all of us.
        During the debate on the 1996 Utah wilderness bill, Senator
    Bill Bradley raised a question that is central to my discussion
    today. Senator Bradley asked, ``How do we achieve a balanced,
    reasonable plan for conserving America's natural heritage while
    providing opportunities for economic growth and development
    across our public lands?'' This is a question that we in Emery
    County have been pondering for over a decade.
        The 10,000 citizens of Emery County live on tiny islands of
    private land surrounded by a sea of public land. Nine of the
    every ten acres are owned and controlled by government, either
    Federal or State. These lands not only surround us; they
    sustain us. Water is our most limited and precious natural
    resource. Every drop of water we use comes from public land.
    Ranching is our dominant agricultural enterprise. Much of the
    forage for our livestock comes from BLM or Forest Service land.
        Emery County is the No. 1 coal-producing county in Utah.
    Most of our coal comes from Federal coal leases. Public land
    has always provided most of our recreational opportunities, and
    our growing industry is inseparably tied to those lands.
        Public land issues have always been important to us, but
    they assumed a new importance during the BLM wilderness
    inventory process. Hundreds of local citizens attended public
    hearings and offered comments on the wilderness EIS. Since that
    time public land issues have occupied most of the county
    commissioners' time.
        Suffice it to say, the commissioners and Public Lands
    Council met with numerous stakeholder groups, listened to hours
    of testimony, held dozens of meetings, and considered every
    conceivable land protection strategy before developing our
    proposal. I wish to make it clear that H.R. 3625 is our
    proposal. We are deeply indebted to the Utah congressional
    delegation for helping us express our wishes in legislative
    language.
        What does H.R. 3625 do? First, it protects public land. It
    bans mining, logging, tar sands development, and oil and gas
    exploration on approximately one million acres. Some would have
    you believe that this bill somehow lessens existing protection.
    It does not. It protects lands now identified by the BLM as
    Wilderness Study Areas. It protects land in the center of the
    San Rafael Swell that are not identified as Wilderness Study
    areas. It provides specific protection to the Sid's Mountain
    Area, which is home to one of Utah's largest bighorn sheep
    herds.
        Second, H.R. 3625 sets the stage for a tourist industry
    that respects the environment and local culture. It does this
    by blending a National Heritage Area with a carefully selected
    mix of protective measures, including wilderness. Some paint
    tourism as the answer to all of southern Utah's environmental
    and economic problems, and wilderness as the ultimate tourist
    attraction.
        I have no doubt that tourism will assume a growing
    importance in Emery County's economy. Emery County is pretty
    close to Utah's population center. A visitor from Salt Lake
    City can spend his entire vacation in Emery County without even
    having to purchase fuel locally. If we base tourism industry on
    traditional ``windshield'' tourism, we will have to attract a
    huge number of visitors because per capita spending will be so
    low.
        We don't want to do that. That type of tourism would
    severely impact our public lands and compromise our cherished
    rural lifestyle. We hope to develop ``value-added'' tourism
    which will provide an enhanced experience to a smaller number
    of visitors. A National Heritage Area is a natural fit for that
    type of tourism. Protective designations, such as the Bighorn
    Sheep Management Area, also provides opportunities for
    sustainable tourism.
        The Bighorn Sheep Management Area was developed in
    cooperation with wildlife managers and land managers primarily
    to protect the sheep and their habitat. The Area also provides
    unique opportunities for visitors to view bighorn sheep.
    Recently two Public Land Council members were explaining their
    concept to a National Public Radio reporter, while traveling
    through the Buckhorn Draw.
        As if on cue, a herd of 13 bighorns moved out a gully, up a
    cliff face, and paused on top of a large boulder. The reporter
    was thrilled by his first encounter with bighorns in the wild.
    Guides and outfitters will be able to provide that experience
    to others, in perpetuity, if we adopt a plan that manages both
    lands and people. The bighorn sheep area is only one example of
    the sustainable, value-added tourism opportunities created by
    this H.R. 3625.
        I repeat Senator Bradley's question, ``How do we achieve a
    balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America's natural
    heritage while providing opportunities for economic growth and
    development across our public lands?'' I believe that H.R. 3625
    comes closer to answering that question than any proposal yet
    offered.
        Emery County's public lands and its culture are inseparably
    linked. Our lands and culture have survived the rise and demise
    of free-range grazing. They have survived the uranium boom and
    bust. They have survived the roller coaster trend of the coal
    economy. The question yet to be answered is: Can they survive
    tourism and the service-based economy of the New West? Our
    challenges are great. We believe that H.R. 3625 will help us
    meet those challenges now and in the future.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        We are honored to have Pat Shea, Director of the Bureau of
    Land Management, with us. Director Shea met with us in Emery
    County and has been very good to work with in this issue. We
    appreciate you being with us. We'll turn the time to you,
    Director Shea.

       STATEMENT OF PAT SHEA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Shea. Thank you. I would like to submit a written
    statement that was provided to the Committee.
        Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
        Mr. Shea. And I will summarize that testimony. I do think
    H.R. 3625 is predicated on a genuine local concern that is
    shared certainly by this Administration for preservation,
    conservation, and interpretation of invaluable national assets;
    and the San Rafael Swell certainly is one of those.
        Indeed, many decades ago it was recognized as a area of
    great importance by my relatives who happened to help settle
    Emery County, and I should recognize that Bevan Wilson is a
    second cousin, just so there's no confusion here, and it's sort
    of nice and symbolic that we've got the two Republicans sort of
    book-ended by the endangered species, Utah Democrats.
        I want to make a couple of points: The BLM does have two
    plans in place. One is the San Rafael Resource Management Plan,
    and the other is the Price Resource Area Management Framework
    Plan, and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties
    that we in the Bureau have had is how we try to reconcile those
    plans that are in place with the legislation. I don't say it's
    impossible, but we are still in the process of trying to do
    that, and much of my testimony will be focused on some areas of
    concern that we have.
        We are pleased that the legislation recognizes I think a
    very 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.
        You'll notice the map there has stars which are designated
    as Heritage Areas, under this legislation. What I would like to
    do is enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Emery and
    Carbon County and see if we couldn't do a systematic survey to
    make sure that either under the existing framework, which I
    would point to as a San Rafael Resource Management Plan or the
    Price Resource Area Management Framework Plan.
        We could provide the kind of protection--I don't think
    anybody disagrees that this area is vulnerable to an explosive
    growth in tourism and we need to have the infrastructure in
    there that allows to preserve those Heritage Areas. We just
    don't think we need to have the kind of legislation that's
    proposed, and reasonable people can disagree on that, but as an
    interim measure I would invite serious discussion and hopefully
    memorialization of that, of a Memorandum of Understanding, for
    a recognition by survey method of those areas for heritage
    designation.
        I think within the bill itself, and I would point to
    section 105, there is not a clear delineation of what the
    relationship is between the Heritage Council, that is proposed,
    and the existing Resource Advisory Committee or the existing
    plans that have gone through the FLPMA process that is our
    organic Act.
        We also don't believe that the bill was clear on how the
    two councils created under the Act would use or be obligated to
    use either NEPA process or FLPMA, and until there is clarity on
    that I think we need to be very cautious in this area.
        I also think we are trying to, in some senses, back door
    the problem of the 2477 roads. On the map it says, ``minor
    roads.'' Some of those roads are really river bottoms, and they
    may have been used as jeep trails, but I think the definition
    of a road is quite clear, and obviously that matter is being
    litigated, and I don't think we should by passing legislation
    attempt to--without clearly identifying the effort--to amend
    the law as to what a definition of a road is. And so we would
    respectfully request that the designation ``minor roads'' be
    taken off the map.
        Let me try to use an analogy. My grandmother was a school
    teacher in Emery County, and she is the one that taught me how
    to make ice cream; and I remember as a kid always sitting there
    turning the handle and putting more salt on it because that was
    going to make it freeze up a little quicker.
        And I would suggest that this legislation is a great
    formula for old-style, heavy cholesterol ice cream. I think we
    have decided for health reasons that perhaps old-style ice
    cream isn't always the healthiest thing. It certainly may taste
    the best, but I think frozen yogurt is a national standard, and
    I think we are obligated to stick with the national standard
    unless we choose at a national level to change it.
        And so, with all due respect, I come down on the side of
    frozen yogurt, and my friends from Emery County are proposed
    old-fashioned ice cream; and you are all are going to have to
    decide, and it's certainly within your power, under Article 1
    of the Constitution, to amend it; but if you are going to set a
    national standard of ice cream, let's call it ``ice cream.''
    Let's not try to kid ourselves and say that we are really are
    serving frozen yogurt when it's not frozen yogurt.
        So that may be an abstraction, but I think people of Utah
    will understand it, and I would be open to any questions you
    might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shea may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        The gentleman from American Samoa, for a question to the
    panel.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have been sitting here listening to the various
    testimonies, and without question, there has been a lot of
    issues brought forth for the Subcommittee's consideration, and
    a lot of times I think the members of the Committee are
    bothered by the fact that sometimes there are friends from
    downtown at the Bureau of Land Management who tend to dictate
    things from Washington, but never really have been out there in
    the western country to find out what it means to have cow
    manure under your boots or something of that sort.
        And I'd like to ask Mr. Shea, as a native Utahan, you are
    quite familiar with this area that is being considered in this
    proposed legislation?
        Mr. Shea. I should also recognize that at one point in my
    legal career I represented Carbon County, and they sued Emery
    County over coal royalty disputes, and it was a sort of
    Hatfield and McCoy dispute, and it's a sign of the changing
    times that Mike Dmitrich, a known Utah Democrat from Carbon
    County, is now representing Emery County.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Shea, I notice in your statement that
    you made an interesting observation about the proposed
    legislation, that basically the provisions and the concept
    underlining the proposed legislation is in reference to how we
    deal with wilderness areas among the eastern seaboard States,
    where privately owned lands are predominant, and the futures of
    how we do this federally in terms of resolving some of the
    problems.
        And you are suggesting in your statement here that the
    basic rudiments of this legislation really touch on the
    concerns of private landowners without touching on the fact
    that major portions of the State is federally owned land. And I
    think we go back to this same issue that I know that our good
    chairman has been very concerned about is the fact that so many
    of our western States are owned practically by the Federal
    Government, as opposed to so many of our eastern States who
    don't have this problem of Federal ownership.
        And I noticed also in your statement that when it comes to
    federally owned lands, you are talking about all of America
    versus the State of Utah. And our good friends from Utah are
    saying, ``Look, the place is in our State. Why can't we have an
    approach where there is a balanced approach to development as
    well as preserving the environment?'' I think this is basically
    where we are at.
        And my good friend Mr. Cannon proposes, hopefully, a
    balanced approach. I noticed that Senator Bennett commented
    earlier that the provisions to this bill is in compliance in
    his opinion--in compliance with the provisions of the
    Wilderness Act of 1964. Would you care to comment on that?
        Mr. Shea. I respectfully disagree. Again, I think what we
    are trying to do in designating some portions of it as semi-
    primitive and then making exceptions as to mechanical or
    mechanized use of the wilderness area, we are inadvertently or
    indirectly amending the 1964 Act. So I would respectfully
    disagree.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I also noted in your statement that you
    did list several of the current Federal enactments: the
    Archeological Resources Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the
    Endangered Species Act, the NEPA, the FLPMA, the Environmental
    Impact Statements, whatever else that is thrown in there.
        Now I noticed Mr. Cannon's bill does note those Federal
    laws, and in your statement you suggest that it doesn't put
    enough teeth really in saying whether or not these Federal laws
    can fully apply to the proposed bill.
        Am I wrong in----
        Mr. Shea. No, you are correct in that. I think, quite
    frankly, that's probably one of the most difficult problems
    Congress faces today is finding ways with new legislation, like
    Mr. Cannon's, as to how it relates to past legislation. And
    that's why I said I really felt my testimony was a fairly
    conservative statement, because it does seem to me a very
    important, conservative principle that you don't invent
    something entirely new. It has a relationship to what preceded
    it, and in this bill that's unclear.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, as I recall, three or four years ago
    I personally attended, along with my good friend from New York,
    with Chairman Hansen--we had a field hearing in Salt Lake City
    on the proposed rule in this bill that the chairman then
    introduced. And I was under the clear impression that the
    Bureau of Land Management is supposedly working very closely
    with the various factions in Utah, politically, socially,
    economically.
        And where are we? I mean, why the continuation of the
    problems that we are faced with? This is about the fifth bill
    that is being introduced now in trying to resolve this impasse.
    In your honest opinion, is the Bureau of Land Management, with
    all its resources, sincerely trying to resolve this with the
    leaders of Utah?
        Mr. Shea. I believe it is. I think one of the frank
    problems we have in Utah is that when people indicate that
    everybody has been invited to the table, that may be an
    accurate statement as to a portion of the meal, but they're
    certainly not there for the preparation of the meal.
        And I think it's important to recognize, from the BLM's
    perspective, that if you are going to have a guest, they have a
    right, I believe, under the Federal Constitution, to
    participate not only in the dessert or the main course, but
    also in the preparation. And I think it's in the preparation
    where there has been an absence of representation.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I also noticed that you commented about
    the two management plans in place by the Bureau of Land
    Management with its current efforts to deal or address these
    two basic areas, the San Rafael Swell. May I ask you: Was there
    an Indian name in place before the Spaniards came into this
    place?
        Mr. Shea. Undoubtedly there was. Unfortunately, at least
    the pre-European entry into North America name was never
    captured, so undoubtedly the natives at the time had a term for
    it, but I don't know that we in the modern era know what that
    term was.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, do you think there will be
    a problem that we can introduce a bill to change the name San
    Rafael Swell to the real true Native American name that it
    should have designated? I am just curious about that.
        Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, and I'll wait for
    another round. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Gentlemen, thank you.
        The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, I can't help looking at this group and being
    struck by a fact. On the wall in my office somebody has posted
    a joke that appeared in one of the offbeat Utah papers that had
    a sign saying, ``Entering Utah. Next Democrat 436 miles.'' And
    yet, three-fifths of this panel is Democrats, and maybe the
    most remarkable thing is I think we can both characterize
    everyone on this panel as our friends. It's an interesting
    fact.
        I have to apologize, Randy, about infecting people with San
    Rafael because that's my problem, and it's not that I don't
    know that you say ``San Rafael,'' but having spoken Spanish for
    some period of my life, I just fall into that pattern. It
    reminds of where my daughter is going to school in southern
    Virginia, at a town where most westerners would pronounce it
    ``Buena Vista'' but, you know, when two vowels go walking, the
    first one does the talking. In Virginia, at least, they call it
    ``Buna Vista'' down there. The town is famous because that's
    where statewide apparently campaigns in Virginia begin with
    regularity.
        Let me begin by commending the panel. I appreciate the
    efforts that have gone in. I would like to point out that ice
    cream is not yogurt. They are two different things, and you can
    enjoy them both, if you like yogurt.
        [Laughter.]
        Let me begin by asking some questions, and there's one
    other thing I wanted to say just as a matter of preparatory
    comment. I believe it was the Deseret News recently, Pat, you
    talked about dominion and stewardship; and frankly, that is
    what I would--you also referred to yourself as a
    conservationist, which is something I--I view myself as that--
    and frankly, I believe that if we can move forward in the
    context of weighing the concepts inherent in those three words:
    this is, dominion, stewardship and conservationist; I think we
    can make some progress.
        And frankly, I appreciate the clarity of your response to
    the bill and hope that we can have a continuing dialogue. You
    know, one of the things that just concerns me is the continued
    reference to the fact that not everyone was invited to
    participate in this process. I am not sure that if we asked the
    county commissioners who were reaching out to people or you,
    Mr. Chairman--I am inclined to ask you why you think people
    weren't involved, because I know of many, many outreach
    attempts to everyone that has an interest down there.
        I am not sure that all of them decided they wanted to come
    to the full dinner or even the preparation, but why is it you
    think that people were not involved in this discussion or
    involved in only a limited way?
        Mr. Shea. Certainly, on my time in Utah, most recently when
    we were in Carbon and Emery County, I had discussions with
    people, particularly from the conservation community who were
    not part of the preparation, didn't know about the preparation.
    At a point at which it had been formulated, they were then
    invited to make comment and, quite frankly, didn't feel they
    were welcome at the table, but were going through somewhat of a
    formalistic ``now is your 5 minutes to make a statement on
    it,'' and then, ``thank you very much.''
        Now I want to quickly add, and I specifically want to
    address the three county commissioners, I think there's a real
    potential for a continued reaching-out process. And I think
    Governor Leavitt and the Utah delegation have made an effort in
    that direction, and I don't think we're back in 1992 and 1994
    or 1996. I think we are making some progress, but there needs
    to be a chance for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, for
    the Sierra Club, for other folks who, quite frankly, a few
    years ago were not entirely welcome in the area, to be engaged
    in a discussion on this.
        Mr. Cannon. Are you familiar with the attempts by the
    Commission and by me to involve those two particular groups
    that you've referenced?
        Mr. Hansen. Could I ask the gentleman to suspend? Could I
    ask unanimous consent that the Governor of the State of Utah be
    allowed to sit on the dais? Is there objection? Hearing none,
    so ordered.
        Back to the gentleman.
        Mr. Cannon. I think I missed my time again, but are you
    referring particularly to the SUWA and Sierra Clubs, and are
    you familiar with our attempts--my attempts and the county
    commissioners' attempts--to draw them into the discussion?
        Mr. Shea. Congressman, as we were bouncing along the road
    to go out to the Swell, you described for me the details that
    you had had as an outreach, and I certainly then and now
    commend you for that effort. All I am saying is that as the
    process was initially being formulated, there needed to have
    been more participation than there was.
        Mr. Cannon. Let me, at the end of my time, just ask--read a
    quote and ask--it may not be our fault that they were not at
    the table. SUWA ran an article in the May 30, 1994 issue of
    High Country News which stated that, ``SUWA is unwilling to
    negotiate the issues, and the SUWA steers clear of consensus.''
    Moreover, the ad encourages the use of lawsuits over consensus-
    building or 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.
        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.
        It does not resolve all of the wilderness areas on BLM. It
    doesn't even come close, but it starts the process moving in a
    very creative way, by the people of Emery County and the good
    work of Senator Mike Dmitrich in the Senate and the House. So I
    really think we are on the right track at this particular
    point.
        Of course, here we are to work out the details and see if
    we can come up with something that would be constructive. We'll
    have another round because I understand Congressman Cannon
    wants another round, and we'll now turn to our friend from New
    York, Mr. Hinchey, for any questions he may have for the
    Governor or the panel.
        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
    like to join you in welcoming Governor Leavitt. It's such a
    pleasure to see you once again, sir. It's always a pleasure to
    have you here with us.
        I have no particular questions to pose to the Governor at
    this time, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening statement that I
    would like to make at whatever time you deem that to be
    appropriate.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman is recognized for his opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
    begin by saying that this bill demonstrates that there are some
    things I think on which we can all agree. We can agree that the
    lands covered by this bill are worthy of protection for their
    natural characteristics, not for their exploitive value.
        We can agree that their economic future lies with the
    uniqueness of the land and its importance to the Nation, and we
    can agree that they are not ordinary places, not simply
    leftover lands deserving of obscurity.
        Perhaps most importantly the very basis of this hearing is
    the recognition that these are Federal lands and therefore
    owned by all the American people and lands that all the
    American people have a legal and financial interest in and that
    they should have----
        Mr. Hansen. Could I ask the gentleman to briefly suspend? I
    think we have a group of students who are interested in
    watching this. Why don't you youngsters come up and just use
    this bottom tier here, if you would, and we'd be just pleased
    that you could join us for a few moments.
        I appreciate the gentleman from New York's courtesy in
    suspending his statement at this time.
        Mr. Hinchey. Certainly.
        Mr. Hansen. Just walk all the way around and we'll probably
    get most of you on here. If you would like to sit down in those
    chairs, we'll take as many as we can. Now you'll all be graded
    on this, so take good notes, will you?
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you, gentleman from New York, for suspending. We'll
    turn the time back to you, sir.
        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was
    saying that these are lands in which all the people of our
    country have a deep legal and financial interest, and they are
    lands in which, as they come to know about them, I believe
    we'll have an even deeper interest in as well.
        The premise of the bill that we have before us, which I
    think is a very creative piece of legislation, is that these
    lands are deserving of a special status and distinction in the
    national arena, worthy of the attention of all Americans, and I
    certainly very strongly agree with that idea.
        However, that brings me to my first concern about the bill.
    We've been hearing quite a bit in the Committee in the past two
    years about the importance of consultation on public land
    issues. Yet the bill was apparently put together very quietly
    and developed as if the lands were only of local interest in
    Emery County.
        The owners of the lands were not consulted. The bill was
    introduced just as the House was going into recess three weeks
    ago. Yet markup has already been scheduled. It would be hard
    for me to think of a bill as complex as this that was rushed
    through the Subcommittee process as quickly as this one has.
        Nevertheless, I am glad that various people will be here
    today to comment on the broader national interest in these
    lands. I will keep my own comments on that subject.
        First, Mr. Chairman, you know of my strong interest in
    Heritage Areas, and I am pleased to see the idea being applied
    in the West as it was with Cache La Podre. It is a further
    demonstration that the interests of the East and the West in
    such programs are not as different as some would say they are.
        Throughout our long discussions of Heritage Areas, both
    before you began chairing the Subcommittee and since, Mr.
    Chairman, you have rightly emphasized that Heritage Area
    proposals must fit certain criteria, such as prior study by the
    National Park Service, and that a Heritage Area designation
    must serve a national interest and not simply the local,
    economic interest. I hope consideration will be given to how
    those standards apply in this particular case.
        Secondly, I am concerned about some of the terms of the
    special management areas proposed under the bill. I know, for
    example, that very little is said about how the ``National
    Conservation Area''--that phrase I put in quotes--will be
    managed, only that it will be managed by an advisory committee
    whose membership will be almost exclusively composed of Utah
    residents.
        Fond as I am of the many friends that I have made in Utah
    over the last several years, I must say again that these are
    lands owned by all the people and that all the people will be
    footing the bills, but they will have little representation on
    this committee under the provisions of this legislation.
        I am concerned about the Bighorn Sheep Management Area. I
    wonder whether it makes sense to manage an area for the
    protection of a single species. My broader concerns about these
    areas concern their purposes.
        The first purpose stated for the conservation area is to
    concern the resources for future generations, and again, of
    course, we can agree on that; but it's a broad statement. What
    are the resources involved? Is there a conservation for the
    future compatible with the other stated purposes, such as ORV
    use for example?
        As you would probably expect, I am leading up to my
    concerns about how the bill treats wilderness. It states
    several purposes that seem to be the same purposes as
    wilderness designation, but it severely restricts such
    designation. By my calculations, it would designate even less
    area as wilderness than the bill you withdrew from
    consideration over two years ago, Mr. Chairman.
        It would end protection for 140,000 acres that are
    currently Wilderness Study Areas, and I think that is a very
    important consideration indeed. Its provisions on road claims
    would effectively foreclose wilderness designations on much of
    the area in question which in my judgment would defeat the
    goals of conservation.
        In the past two years I have heard you and others praise
    wilderness, and I have heard Governor Leavitt praise
    wilderness, but it still seems that the goal is to reduce the
    supply of this precious commodity to the smallest number
    possible. As you know, I believe we have too small a supply of
    wilderness lands in their natural state as it is, and I believe
    we should make the strongest effort possible to preserve the
    wilderness we have.
        I have spent 18 years working to protect the remaining
    wilderness in my home State, and I am committed to protecting
    the wilderness that we all share ownership of, wherever it may
    exist across the country. I believe a large percentage of the
    lands covered by this bill are eligible for wilderness
    designation and should be protected as wilderness, instead of
    trying to develop various new kinds of land management
    categories that fall short of wilderness designation. I realize
    full well that many people fear the word ``wilderness'' and
    resist designation because of those fears.
        The same was true when we were designating wilderness in
    New York a century ago, but you might take the opportunity to
    put those fears to rest by sharing all the eloquent comments
    that you have made about the value of wilderness during our
    discussions of your eastern wilderness with the people of Emery
    County. That might help to bring us closer to a resolution on
    the future of these lands and help to educate the whole country
    on why these lands truly are worthy of national interest.
        And although I think the bill is an interesting and
    creative exercise, particularly in the way that it seeks to
    employ the designation of national Heritage Areas; I think that
    unfortunately it falls far short of what we ought to be doing
    as a Committee and as a Congress with regard to exercising and
    expressing our deep respect and appreciation of the uniqueness
    of this particular part of our country.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me that
    opportunity.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, is
    recognized for questions for the panel, opening statement and
    questions to the Governor.
        Mr. Vento. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I was
    not here earlier to begin the hearing, but I had other
    commitments. I appreciate and acknowledge the presence of the
    Governor and the work that has been done on this proposal. I am
    not very familiar with it, but I understand that the management
    entity that's included in the bill in terms of management of
    the national lands is such that it does not have significant
    representation or at least majority representation by the
    Department of Interior at the BLM. Director Shea is here. I
    acknowledge his presence, and that's a concern. Is it not,
    Director Shea?
        Mr. Shea. You are correct.
        Mr. Vento. I think the--you know, the idea of--in terms of
    dealing with wilderness measures in the past, we have in fact
    tried to have special I guess for the Forest Service to have
    some national recreation areas and deal with these in a
    different way in terms of trying to provide or accord some
    protection in addition to the wilderness protection; and I
    think that his bill tries to mix that with the BLM in this BLM
    area and doesn't embrace the entire State.
        This only addresses what portion of the State and Utah,
    Governor, is this about--this I know is three counties--is this
    about a quarter of the issue at hand in terms of the 20 million
    acres of wilderness the BLM that lands that are present?
        Governor Leavitt. I can't give you an exact percentage. It
    may be even be a smaller percentage than that.
        Mr. Vento. I am just trying to get an idea----
        Governor Leavitt. The important thing is it's progress.
        Mr. Vento. Director Shea, has the BLM done some studies
    with regards to the National Conservation Area or with regards
    to a Heritage Area in this, which of course is an entirely
    different entity than wilderness? I know there have been some
    wilderness studies, but has there been any analysis or any type
    of formal study of this process?
        Mr. Shea. We have two plans in place, as I mentioned
    earlier: the San Rafael Plan and the Price Plan, but we were
    not involved in the formulation of this legislation, and one of
    the things I suggested, particularly on the heritage side, is I
    do think that there is a great deal of administrative
    flexibility to do a survey between BLM and the people of Emery
    County and Carbon County to look at the heritage side.
        On the conservation side, I think you're absolutely correct
    that we have a problem with trying to say this is wilderness
    but it's not quite wilderness under the 1964 definition, and my
    earlier statement was that I think Congress has the power to
    legislate whatever way they want, but for purposes of clarity
    if it in fact is wilderness area; they ought to comply with the
    1964 law or amend it specifically.
        Mr. Vento. The issue here of course is that there has
    been--do we have any ACECs? Is there any other land
    designations in these areas that are already present or not?
        Mr. Shea. There is one in the near area. We are proposing
    than an NCA is part of this bill. The original proposal was for
    890,000, and this covers 630,000.
        Mr. Vento. Well, I think that, Mr. Chairman, most of the
    time we would try to get some analysis I know on the formal
    bill that we had with Heritage Areas we actually had had some
    provision that provided for some money to try and get some
    parameters around the type of Heritage Areas that we are
    talking about.
        Of course, that addresses, as the Director has pointed out,
    areas that are largely private land. How much private land is
    involved in this entire complex that we are talking about, this
    million acres?
        Mr. Shea. There is none in this--well, it's 630,000 acres.
        Mr. Vento. There is no private land at all?
        Mr. Shea. There are school trust lands and State trust
    lands, but there are no private lands.
        Mr. Vento. Currently, the management entity that--the idea
    of putting that in place was because there was substantial
    cross ownership of land. Is there a significant amount of State
    land in here?
        Mr. Shea. Not a significant amount, but there is some. I
    did point out in my testimony that the conservation areas were
    traditionally where the predominant nature of the land was
    private and that this was unusual here.
        Mr. Vento. Now I noticed that, but I was just wondering
    what the amounts were that we're trying to address. So I mean,
    the issue, Mr. Chairman, is, you know, not only that, but I
    understand that this anticipates a trade out of the school
    sections, this legislation does, so then it would be
    practically exclusively national land. Is that correct?
        Mr. Shea. Yes. If you could direct your attention to the
    map over there, the white portions of the wilderness areas,
    both the dark green and the light blue, as I understand it, are
    either State trust lands or school trust lands, but in the
    exchange process, which in my reading of the bill is not clear
    as to what process we would use for that exchange, then it
    would become solely Federal.
        Mr. Vento. Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman,
    that I'll study the bill more carefully, but I think that if is
    a start of a negotiating position I guess it's fine. In terms
    of how we are going to deal with--in other words, segmenting
    and trying to deal with issues that we can deal with and agree
    upon, but obviously there are a lot of changes from what is a
    Heritage Area and what are National Conservation Areas.
        I understand that the conservation area is all Federal
    except for the State trust lands, and the Heritage Area
    encompasses all Emery and Carbon Counties and includes private
    lands as well. So, I don't know how we can sort through it, but
    if the Heritage or Conservation Areas can help in terms of--
    obviously, your bottom line is hard relief.
        Mr. Hansen. I think it's a little sad that the two
    gentlemen from Minnesota and New York--I know you are very
    busy, as we all are, but you've missed some great testimony
    explaining many of the questions that you've brought up from
    this panel and also from Senator Bennett and Senator Dmitrich.
        Let me point out, this is a very unique approach. This is
    one that will take you to an historic area, a legendary area,
    and turn it in to a way to handle this for its best protection.
        Questions come up by many of you as to how many acres we
    are putting in this. Let me point out, if you take wilderness,
    semi-primitive, bighorn sheep, ACEC, and other areas under
    protection, this H.R. 3625 comes to a total of 987,651 acres.
    Compare that to BLM's WSA, some 497,940, or what BLM
    recommended. What they recommended at one time that we do was
    473,000. Now take H.R. 1500, that our former friend from Utah
    will be talking about, of 1,173,494. So they're very
    comparable, and the issue would be something they call Sid's
    Mountain--Sid's Mountain in this area where wisely I think
    these folks are trying to determine a way to propagate the
    bighorn sheep.
        So I can't imagine anyone saying, because no one really
    here can give us a good definition of wilderness anyway, why
    wilderness is more important when you are taking an area,
    making it kind of a quasi-wilderness and turning it into
    something where there would be areas for bighorn sheep which
    would require sometimes an entrance or helicopters and what
    these folks call ``guzzlers,'' which is kind of an evaporation
    process, so they can have some water.
        Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn't even mention the
    size of the wilderness. I was just talking about the management
    structure----
        Mr. Hansen. Surely. I understand.
        Mr. Vento. [continuing] proposed and how much land there
    was. Obviously, we can disagree about how much ought to be
    declared wilderness or the definition of the wilderness, but
    the issue is whether or not--you know, how it was going to
    managed is obviously important.
        The point is we are taking a million acres and taking the
    Federal Government completely out of the management of it, and
    the guidance is going to be completely the legislation. It
    becomes very important. In fact, you have hard release. You
    have other factors involved. I guess I did mention them, that
    tangentially are referred to it as wilderness, but six out of
    the eight wilderness areas designated by the bill have less
    acreage than was included in your initial bill, as an example.
        So there are some changes, and obviously, I understand that
    this mix--I am willing to look at mix in terms of conservation
    areas. It's a way to an end, but the question is, where do we--
    you know, I think in terms of how it's going to be managed and
    whether or not there will be future opportunities to readdress
    the question. I understand you want some certainty.
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comment. I'll
    recognize myself for 5 minutes now.
        Mr. Vento. Well, that's all I have----
        Mr. Hansen. Let me, if you'll give me 5 minutes, let me
    point out that I think the gentleman from Minnesota said it
    correctly. It is a mix. What we are talking about here is a
    very creative, innovative mix. That's what we are looking at
    and how we can come up with these things.
        I think all of the issues that were raised by Director Shea
    and others are pretty legitimate issues. I would like to
    respond some of them, if I may.
        Director Shea pointed out the idea that this doesn't really
    follow the wilderness criteria for the 1964 Act. With my friend
    from Minnesota, we've labored through many wilderness Acts, and
    I don't mean to put the Director on the spot, but I really
    don't think you can name a single wilderness area that we've
    worked on that doesn't deviate from the 1964 Act. As you aptly
    pointed out, Congress has the prerogative to make those
    changes.
        Go to the California Desert Protection Act, which is
    probably the single biggest wilderness in the Lower 48 since
    the Utah 1984 Act, both of those deviated. The one we did on
    the Arizona strip deviated. The one we did in Wyoming that Dick
    Cheney carried, that deviated. They all deviate because I don't
    how we can practically make it that we don't see a deviation.
        Director Shea pointed out that the boards were not
    represented. I would like to point out that we've done that all
    over America. Every Park Service I've worked with, and as you
    know I work with all 374 units of the Park Service; every one
    of them deviates somewhere, and every one of them has an
    advisory council.
        So, my friend from Minnesota pointed out that this one
    would be handled entirely by the local folks. It doesn't have
    to be that way. That's not set in stone. I think, and I agree
    with you, we could change that around. We could put SUWA, the
    Sierra Club, and the Cattlemen's Association on them, for all I
    care. We would come up with an advisory council that could
    work. I don't see where we'd have any problems with that.
        The other issue that Director Shea brought up, if I may
    look to an answer we've come up to, is the concern about
    applying a Heritage Area concept to public lands. I don't know
    if that's accurate. First, there is currently operating a
    Heritage Area in the Four Corners area. Although not federally
    recognized, it does cover almost exclusively public lands and
    the local governments from four states that help manage the
    Heritage Area, and they do a great job.
        Moreover, we currently have 13 federally recognized
    Heritage Areas in this country, and all of them involved the
    participation of the Department of Interior and are structured
    almost identically to what these men right here came up with--
    almost identically. So I thought, when I first looked at this,
    that these county commissioners, Senator Dmitrich, and the
    people that worked on this had followed that as their skeleton.
    Maybe they fleshed it out a little differently, but it looked
    to me like they followed it identically.
        So I have a hard time buying that idea--the local and State
    government could do a great job on their own. Now they're kind
    of just reaching to BLM for a viewpoint.
        To say that there wasn't participation in this thing, I
    mean quite a few months ago these men asked me to sit down
    there in Ruby's Inn and look at this. I understand they gave
    the same thing to some of our environmental groups.
        As my friend from the third district points out, a lot of
    these groups have elected not to participate. Over my 18 years
    in Congress, most of them would. In 1984 they did, but since
    that time, and Mr. Cannon has pointed out, some have agreed
    they don't want to participate. In fact, here, as it says right
    here in one of these groups, ``while one advocacy group steers
    clear of consensus efforts.''
        I would ask that this be included in the record. Any
    objections? So ordered. Thank you.
        [The information referred to may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. And this is a plan of how to get people out of
    the area and direct them.
        Also, on the order of 2477 roads, I don't see where this
    circumvents this at all. These are called minor roads for a
    reason, and they purposefully avoid RS 2477 fights. The
    assertion that was in the testimony, I can't go along with
    that.
        If the administration will not support any wilderness
    designation that includes roads and wilderness areas--well, I
    won't go into that because I see my time is going to end in a
    hurry, and I know you folks have some other questions.
        But I would like to, with your permission, Director Shea, I
    would like to give you some questions to followup on this, if I
    could, and I would appreciate a response as rapidly as we
    could, because my friend from New York is right, we would like
    to move this legislation.
        [The information referred to may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. It's not as if we did this in the dead of the
    night, I mean this is kind of a repeat of what we've done for
    years and years around here. You can pick up on the 1984
    wilderness bill, the 1.4 that the legislature of the State of
    Utah came up with, the 2.1 that Enid Green Waldhotz, or Green
    now, came up with the other pieces of legislation.
        This is a kind of a repeat of those, but an extremely
    creative idea that is brought about by the people from the area
    of Carbon and Emery, and I have looked at a lot of pieces of
    legislation in my years here. I have rarely seen one as
    creative or as interesting as taking this compilation of a lot
    of ideas, putting it together to protect the land and this
    truly does and is extremely close to the wildest, most extreme
    position in protection. This one comes as close as any that I
    have seen.
        We have asked for another round, and the gentleman from
    American Samoa is recognized.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, I would like to offer my personal welcome to
    Governor Leavitt for his presence and certainly for his insight
    and some of the helpful suggestions that he has offered,
    hopefully, to find some solutions to some of the difficulties
    that we have with the proposed bill.
        Since we've been talking about lunches and dinners and
    yogurts and ice cream, I like both yogurt and ice cream, except
    when you eat too much, you get sick. I think I was struck by
    Governor Leavitt's earlier suggestion that we find the concept;
    and I think, Mr. Shea, you've indicated that you support the
    concept of an incremental approach to this problem that has
    been there for years and years and years.
        And I wanted to ask Mr. Shea: What would be the
    administration's position if you were to go through--and,
    again, I noticed in your statement, you support the concept
    that the proposed bill has given--what would be some of the
    areas--perhaps incrementally--and maybe we don't find a whole
    loaf or a half a loaf or a third of a loaf--but get something
    moving so that we could all agree upon and get it passed?
    Rather than trying to ask for the whole loaf, can we work
    something that is digestible or feasible for both, especially
    for these members on this side of the aisle and certainly for
    the administration?
        And I wonder if we are working on some kind of a deadline,
    that we really, truly make a sincere effort to go though some
    of these areas, that perhaps our friends from the
    administration could give some constructive suggestions on how
    we can move this legislation forward, and certainly with the
    consensual approval or support from this side of the aisle.
        Mr. Shea. No, I certainly think, and the chairman and I
    have had a number of conversations where the incremental
    approach has been a focus of those conversations. I think
    Congressman Vento's question, however, about the level of
    analysis that we've been able to do is a very valid one.
        And just to go back to Congressman Cannon's point that he
    likes ice cream but doesn't like yogurt, I, like you, like
    both, but I think we need to have enough analysis to really be
    able to say, ``Is this ice cream or is this yogurt or it some
    new blend?,'' and not to say that a new blend wouldn't work.
        I mean the chairman was very correct, that every time this
    Committee has gone through a wilderness proposal there has been
    a specific recognition of how it was going to be at variance
    with past legislation on the wilderness question. I am simply
    suggesting in its present form there is not the clear-cut
    recognition of how this is varying from those other wilderness
    proposals.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And I want to thank the chairman
    certainly for his initiative in inviting our appropriate
    leaders from the local areas, not only the residents and
    constituencies who are directly affected by the proposed bill,
    but we certainly appreciate their testimonies this morning.
        And now after hearing from you, Mr. Shea, I sincerely hope
    that we do make a mix on this and that we do seriously apply
    Governor Leavitt's offered suggestion that perhaps by
    incremental approach that maybe we can resolve some of these
    problems.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Utah,
    Mr. Cannon.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want also to thank the Governor for being here. And, in
    fact, if I could just take a moment to sort of indicate some of
    the origins for some of the ideas here--I mentioned earlier the
    county commissioner has done a great deal of work on this, but
    the Governor, of course, came up with the idea of an
    incremental approach, an approach to see if we could find areas
    where we agree, and that was the father in many ways of this
    idea.
        In addition, Mr. Hinchey, I want to thank you for your work
    on the National Heritage Areas because I think that's an
    important element that we're trying to build into this process
    as well.
        And I think I would be remiss if I didn't point out that my
    predecessor, Bill Horton, was a large--a big proponent, a very
    articulate proponent of National Conservation Areas. Take all
    of those ideas together and we've sort of built to get to the
    point where we are right now.
        Going back to the questions, we were talking about the
    outreach that we've done. I'd like to point out that I spent
    time speaking with Ted Wilson about this project. Ted is a
    member of the board of directors of the Southern Utah
    Wilderness Alliance. I have spoken with people from the Sierra
    Club and a large group of people from the Sun-Utah Coalition,
    who visited me in my office, about how important this process
    was and how they should get involved. So I know that we've had
    other conversations; those are just some that come to mind.
    We've done some serious outreach.
        Perhaps the county commissioners would be so kind as to
    discuss how they have reached out to draw in members of various
    groups into this discussion.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Congressman, one of the, shall I say,
    scariest aspects of getting this bill into this process has
    been that we in Emery County felt that we needed to introduce
    the concept and then build it from the ground up, and what that
    means is that we've taken a considerable amount of criticism
    because when we start talking with people about it, they say,
    ``Well, you haven't mentioned this, and you haven't recognized
    that, and you haven't done this,'' but the point is we didn't
    want to do that all by ourselves in some little room.
        We wanted to come up with the concept and put it out and
    draw groups into the process and build as we go, and that's
    exactly what we are still doing. We started by introducing this
    concept to the Governor and to our delegation members, and then
    branched out to the managing agencies of the area. We have gone
    around to cities and communities and water companies, and we
    have had an open and active invitation to all the environmental
    groups to join us at the table and help us literally construct
    this bill as we went along from the ground up.
        And we are still in the process. I am a little
    uncomfortable with what has been said here about the management
    of it. I think it's clear that we want the Federal agencies to
    continue to manage these lands as they do now, but under the
    umbrella of this bill, and our boards that we are suggesting
    would be advisory boards in which the locals simply have a
    voice in defining the management, not in controlling the
    management of those areas.
        So the point is that we have invited and been open to
    having every conceivable stakeholder take a part in putting
    this puzzle together, and we still remain that way.
        Mr. Cannon. Have you reached out particularly to the
    Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and other
    groups like that?
        Mr. Johnson. We have, sir.
        Mr. Cannon. Can you give us just a little discussion of how
    you have done that?
        Mr. Johnson. We made specific invitations to the Southern
    Utah Wilderness Association, which, you know, basically at the
    time encompassed most of the groups that dealt in southern Utah
    lands. We have had conversations since then with specifically
    Sierra Club, as well as the Grand Canyon Trust and other
    agencies that we felt would have an interest in those lands,
    and have made specific invitations to join us in the process.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Pat, you want to say something?
        Mr. Shea. Yes, I think there's a great solution here that
    Senator Dmitrich could support--is have Ted Wilson, who is
    running for the State Senate, get elected and then we can have
    another known Democrat help the Emery County people come up
    with a proposal that will work.
        Mr. Cannon. Who is Ted running against? I am debating here
    whether we could pitch in support if you'll make him the
    spokesman for the environmental consortia that----
        Mr. Shea. Well, he certainly has one of the best records
    and I think would bring a lot, and frankly, that's one of the
    things we are talking about, is getting people like Ted
    involved in this process in a more direct way.
        Mr. Johnson. We specifically asked Mr. Wilson on many
    occasions to join us, and he has expressed a considerable
    amount of interest in this process.
        Mr. Cannon. Just two quick things: You mentioned a news
    article with some constitutional questions. Could you have
    someone put together that in a memo, so that we can integrate
    that, those concerns into the bill?
        Mr. Shea. Certainly.
        Mr. Cannon. And second, one of the things that I'd
    appreciate is, if you would take a look at the map or have your
    people do that and identify those minor roads which you don't
    feel arrive at even that level, we'd appreciate being able to
    look at those in particular as well.
        Mr. Shea. We certainly will do that, and I would like, and
    have been asking the staff to get prepared, to have some
    Memorandum of Understanding with Emery and Carbon County to do
    a more systematic survey of the Heritage Areas because I think
    many of these would qualify, and there may be some additional
    ones.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman's time is up. We've got two other
    panels to go, so I am going to hold my two colleagues to 5
    minutes, if you would, please, and then we'll move to the next
    panel. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey.
        Mr. Hinchey. I'll be very, very brief. I just want to say
    again that I very much appreciate the constructive atmosphere
    in which this legislation is being proposed. I think it offers
    an opportunity for us to look at this area again very, very
    carefully and closely.
        My basic opposition, my basic concern about this particular
    issue is simply this: Beyond its creativity, beyond the use of
    Heritage Areas and beyond the constructive spirit in which I
    think it is offered, my concern is simply this: that if this
    bill were enacted, there would be 140,000 acres which are now
    in Wilderness Study Areas which would no longer be afforded
    that kind of protection.
        I think that the area covered by this legislation contains
    within it large sections which ought to be designated as
    wilderness, and in that sense I think the legislation falls far
    short.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Vento. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        It's fine to--and in looking at this, obviously, in the
    wilderness areas that are designated not to--obviously,
    recognizing there's a different mixture of wilderness and
    national conservation and the Heritage Area designation, one of
    the things that obviously is a little confusing is that you've
    got stacked on top of one another, on top of national land, I
    might say, different designations, and I deal with that all the
    time.
        That obviously means that we're talking about in each case
    different pancakes in this stack in terms of how it affects
    what happens with the management of the land in this instance.
    And I haven't looked at this as thoroughly, obviously, and
    studied it as carefully as I should, I admit, but in terms of
    the wilderness, you've carried over all of the many limitations
    which are unusual.
        And I mean, I grant you that in each wilderness action that
    we've done, a statewide wilderness plan for Wyoming or for the
    Forest Service in Utah, for that matter, we've had differences,
    but you have a long list of changes here that engender
    problems, including the county land de-classification to RS
    2477-like protection. Anyway, it engenders that whole issue.
        And I would just suggest that if you want to solve a
    problem, the best way is to try to not solve all of them. You
    want to deal with the issue. Don't try and solve all of these
    problems in wilderness in this particular issue--besides the
    hard and soft language or whatever unique language you have
    here.
        As I look down the list, there are quite a few in terms
    of--some are less controversial than others to be sure--but,
    you know, just like the mandated Federal purchase of land, I am
    not objecting to that so much. I think I could, but, I mean,
    some of the others in terms of including language on grazing
    when it isn't really necessary, I don't that there's any risk
    to this.
        You know, are you concerned about communication towers in
    wilderness? I mean, I think you go through all of this list
    because I think that complicates the matters. Now, on the
    various--you know, you referred to this as advisory in terms of
    the Heritage Area group, and it is up to the Secretary to put
    them in. This management entity is given a lot of
    responsibility, and in fact, of course, they have to come up
    with some of their own local money.
        And, you know, I think looking at what the makeup of that
    is in terms of the plan, there should be a greater
    representation, because this is national land, of the public
    land managers on it. Whether we could come up with a model here
    for looking at something in the West for a Heritage Area--I
    mean, we didn't have to do it in Cache La Podre, as was pointed
    out here.
        That Heritage Area went--because it was a lot of private
    land and public or State land involved in it, so it's a
    different type of entity, but we might want to be looking at
    the makeup of that and whatever other special areas in terms
    of, you know, it's fine to have the bighorn sheep area, but I
    don't know what the effect of the bighorn sheep in terms of
    trying to propagate that many in that area would be. But I
    think we certainly would be willing to--I would be willing to
    look at it, work on it, and try to come to some conclusion that
    would accomplish your goal.
        But, in any case, with that said, I just want to point out
    the reason that you were talking about wilderness and talking
    about the other issues is because this bill touches on and
    engenders a lot of new proposals in terms of Conservation Area,
    Heritage Area, wilderness, and other requirements. And I think
    if you want to make--I think we've got to make the bill a
    little less controversial and follow more broadly the
    Wilderness Act with regards to wilderness areas.
        So, that being said, Mr. Chairman, I understand that you
    want to move along, and so I would yield back the time or yield
    my time, if you want the time.
        Mr. Hansen. Well, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
        Just let me say this on conclusion: I would hope that the
    folks, especially members of the Committee, would take it upon
    yourself to travel to this area. I think you will find this is
    probably one of the most unique areas I've ever encountered, as
    I have gone around the United States looking at these areas.
        The gentleman from New York brings up a very interesting
    concept. Does it really fit? We're taking away some Wilderness
    Study Areas. Basically, we are really not. If you look at it, I
    think if you'd go out on the ground, you'd see that some of
    these would be semi-primitive areas. Some of these would be
    used for areas where they would probably have as much
    protection as a National Park has, which I think would be quite
    a unique thing.
        Also, this is an area of history that's unbelievable. I
    mean, there's old mines on there. There's--well, Butch Cassidy
    probably shot it out with a few U.S. Marshals in that area.
    It's hard when you're talking Heritage Areas to say they all
    fit. That's why a Heritage Area is a Heritage Area.
        One of them was so unique that something happened on the
    East Coast during the West--so I think before we freeze
    ourselves into cement on this by any means, it would be well
    for this Committee to take a weekend and come out and look at
    it, spend some time on it, see why we want to make Sid's
    Mountain an area for sheep. Let's keep an open mind on this. I
    think if we'd go, we'd do very well.
        I appreciate so much the commissioners, Senator Dmitrich,
    Director Shea coming here. It's been very interesting and
    provocative testimony. I appreciate your being here. We'll
    excuse you at this time. We welcome you to stay and listen to
    the rest of the testimony that will be brought up in this
    hearing. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, may I just say one comment here?
    Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Hansen. Excuse me. Commissioner Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. I would at this time just like to extend an
    invitation to you and your Committee members to come to Emery
    County. We would be very happy to host you on a tour of the San
    Rafael Swell and any areas, heritage sites, and so on, that you
    might find of interest. We would love to have you come.
        Mr. Hansen. We'll probably take you up on that invitation
    and appreciate your kindness and generosity. Thank you so much.
        Our next panel would be Wilson Martin, program manager,
    Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, and
    Donald Keith Peay, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North
    American Wild Sheep.
        I want to tell you that Mr. Peay is truly an expert on wild
    sheep, and this will give you some good insight on what we are
    talking about.
        Mr. Peay, we'll turn to you and this man has put in
    literally hundreds of hours in propagation of wild sheep and
    other wildlife. So we'll turn the time to you, sir.

    STATEMENT OF DONALD KEITH PEAY, UTAH CHAPTER OF THE FOUNDATION
                     FOR NORTH AMERICAN WILD SHEEP

        Mr. Peay. I appreciate the chance to speak before this
    Committee. I am not a biologist. I am an engineer by training
    and degree, but I have spent the last 10 years of my life
    involved in wildlife preservation. I would also say, just as
    Congressman Vento knows, that money from wild sheep advocates
    in Minnesota and the East Coast and New York have also
    contributed to our efforts in the San Rafael.
        I have a written testimony which has been submitted. I am
    going to deviate from that because a lot of the issues have
    been covered. I specifically want to talk a little bit about
    bighorn sheep, since that seems to be a focus, and some of the
    technical details about management and propagation of those
    species.
        I may just add that it seems like the 1964 Wilderness Act
    concept predates ecosystem management, and we found in the West
    with wildlife populations that you may set wilderness in one
    area where the animals live in the summer, but if you didn't
    protect where they go in the winter, it didn't do any good.
    Yellowstone and the bison issue is a classic example of some of
    the shortcomings of the 1964 Wilderness Act or National Park
    Act or any other Act.
        And that's why we as wildlife advocates are so enthused
    about this concept which we think is ecosystem management for
    bighorn sheep in the San Rafael. It encompasses the winter
    range, the summer range, and all the management attributes
    required.
        Just briefly, our organization has spent over 300,000
    private dollars and restrained bighorn to this area. There were
    conflicts with ranching interests. We worked those out in a
    win-win fashion. And I want to just state that the use of
    helicopters, water development, and other management tools is
    the reason why these species exist.
        They were extirpated by 1950. Their first reintroduction
    took place in 1979. By 1991, the herds have done so well with
    the current management and process that the San Rafael is now a
    court area where they can use bighorn to reintroduce into other
    indigenous parts of the State of Utah.
        I would also like to point out--I was reading an article in
    the San Diego Tribune recently where in California they'd taken
    a completely no hands-on management by man, and because of that
    approach, they are going to have to list bighorn as threatened
    and endangered species in California.
        Having said that, I think that's why this area, this
    concept, this proposal of the National Heritage Area is so
    important, is because it allows for management tools to
    preserve what most people consider the indicator species for
    wilderness: bighorn sheep.
        I would also just like to touch briefly that on our local
    TV station there is a report just on April the 14th that the
    Washington, DC-based conservation groups were saying that,
    ``wildlife populations were being devastated by congressional
    cutbacks.''
        I'd prepared in the record two maps, prepared by
    professional wildlife biologists in Utah, that show sheep
    populations in Utah 1972 versus 1997. They're infinitely more
    abundant, more dispersed in different areas. So I would suggest
    that some people out in DC come out West and find out the true
    facts, not only on Bighorns, but elk, antelope, bear, cougar,
    hawks, eagles, mountain goats, and many other species.
        Let me just emphasize to the Committee: Having personally
    been involved in the restoration of bighorn along the
    Desolation Canyon Area in 1994 and 1995, we used helicopters.
    We touched down on the ground for a matter of 5 minutes to
    release the Rocky Mountain bighorns into this area. Had we not
    been able to use helicopters, it would have been a 2-day horse
    ride, and how do you transport bighorn sheep for two days on
    horseback?
        So, once again, the use of helicopters is critical. There
    are water developments in this Elliott Mountain Bighorn Area
    that the BLM has already been involved with us in installing,
    and we need to continue to have these if, in fact, the American
    people want to have bighorn sheep as part of the San Rafael
    National Heritage Area.
        In summary, I would just like to say, to the American
    people, that we out West are committed to preserving wild
    places and wild things, and we think this is a great way to do
    it, through this Act. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peay may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Peay.
        Mr. Martin, we will recognize you for 5 minutes, sir.

    STATEMENT OF WILSON MARTIN, PROGRAM MANAGER, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
                   COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Martin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be here. I
    wanted to present to you a poster. We in Utah, of course, value
    our history and heritage, and History and Heritage Week is
    coming up May 2 through May 9. And we have a poster for you and
    other members of the Committee, and we are really proud of our
    history and heritage. We have a poster competition among school
    kids and also professionals every year that demonstrate our
    interests.
        Mr. Chairman, I also serve as a founding member of the Four
    Corners Heritage Council and also deputy State historic
    preservation officer for the State of Utah. Some two years ago,
    I met with this Committee regarding some changes in the
    National Historic Preservation Act regarding the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation.
        We had some discussion similar to this, and I have
    submitted my testimony. I am going to deviate a little bit from
    it. We had some discussion much like this about compromises and
    finding new ground. And Mr. Chairman, this Committee led, I
    think, a very good discussion in finding new ground and
    compromising, using new tools, and we found some streamlining
    in the new Advisory Council regulations which are about to be
    enacted.
        In that testimony two years ago I talked about the need in
    Utah to develop Heritage Areas, and in that discussion I talked
    about the Four Corners Heritage Council and also the Sanpete
    Regional Heritage Tourism Council, both State initiatives that
    partner with Federal agencies.
        Now I am here to talk about the San Rafael Western Heritage
    Area. This area has some of the most important historic and
    archeological resources in the Nation. There are hundreds of
    sites that are either listed as eligible for the National
    Register that have already been identified. In a town of Helper
    alone 50 national register sites are already on the National
    Register. Those sites are part of the history of that railroad
    industry and also the mining history of that community.
        We also have the Hiawatha and Kenilworth and Scofield and
    Sunnyside. All have historic sites listed on the National
    Register as historic places. Price has numerous historic
    buildings listed on the National Register.
        So it also includes private land and public land in a
    National Heritage Area designation. There is Nine Mile Canyon
    which has pioneer homesteads, rock art sites, an old town site
    of Harper, Flying Diamond Ranch in the area. We have Buckhorn
    Wash Rock Art site listed on the National Register of Historic
    Places--Temple Mountain Wash, Black Dragon Canyon pictographs,
    all listed.
        The National Register also includes sites further out in
    the community, both on the National Register in Federal lands
    and also on private lands. There is not only historic and
    archeological sites, but there are organizational structures
    that are in the area already to help support this National
    Heritage designation. Three certified local governments,
    certified under the National Park Service Preservation Act, are
    currently in place. One Main Street town is also in place in
    the town of Helper.
        The Castle Country Travel Council has also been a long-term
    supporter of the heritage of this region. The College of
    Eastern Utah has supported the Heritage Region concept through
    the expansion of their museum. The San Rafael Swell has the
    resources, the people, and the organizations for the
    development of a heritage area management plan which could
    assist in conserving this important Heritage Area establish and
    maintain interpretive exhibits, develop recreational
    opportunities and increased public awareness and appreciation
    of the natural, historic, and cultural resources of this
    region.
        Not only that, but the economic development, the key
    outcome can be realized. This Heritage Area, developed in
    partnership with business, local, State and Federal partners,
    has an excellent opportunity for success; most importantly, as
    a partnership for economic development which has at its core
    the sustaining of the heritage that will feed it.
        We in Utah call this the development of a heritage
    industry, a partnership between private and public sector to
    achieve the economic success through the preservation of our
    heritage. We strongly support the proposed legislation to
    create the San Rafael Western Heritage Area. Heritage Areas
    protect the resources as well as enhance those resources for
    the visitor.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the excellent testimony
    from both of you.
        Before we proceed, the gentleman from New York has
    mentioned that our former colleague, Wayne Owens, has a plane
    to catch. Wayne, why don't you come up and we'll take your
    testimony now so we don't hold you up.

      STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE OWENS, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR MIDDLE
     EAST PEACE, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS
                                ALLIANCE

        Mr. Owens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's even
    less important than an airplane, it is a meeting with members
    of the other body which presses me. Not that significant when
    you are sitting over here, of course.
        I appreciate this opportunity. I want to clarify for the
    record that Director Shea and I had lunch together two weeks
    ago in a favorite French restaurant and resolved to go on diets
    and, hence, his preoccupation this morning with the difference
    between yogurt and ice cream, just for the Committee's
    information.
        It's a pleasure to join you this morning. My interest in
    wilderness goes back many years to the time when I used to run
    cows down the Escalante. I grew up in that wild country around
    Panguitch and fell in love with those Red Mountains. And even
    when I was chasing wild cows in the summer, and you couldn't
    find any water to drink except putrid water, and in the winter
    when you had to melt it down, and it was freezing, I could
    never lose the love that I had acquired for those beautiful red
    rocks. And though I cursed the cows periodically, I never
    cursed the mountains.
        I was not like Ebenezer Bryce, the old Utah cattleman who
    ran sheep and cows in that country which now bears his name as
    a National Park. When he was told by visitors who praised the
    beautiful place in which he had to run his cows, he often
    replied that he was not so impressed by the beauty as he was by
    the fact that it was ``one hell of a place to lose a cow.'' But
    I think it's the mountains that are important and the red
    rocks.
        This is a tough issue, as Director Shea has spoken of, in
    the temperament in southern Utah, this place from which I come.
    I have found over the years that it's very difficult to talk
    about the issues of wilderness in peace and with
    straightforward discussion about these issues. Support for
    wilderness in that area is not only very sparse but supporters
    are often accused of having improper family backgrounds,
    illegitimacy in your family background. This is a very, very
    tough issue in this special place.
        When I sat on the other side of this dais with you, 9 years
    ago, Mr. Chairman, I introduced H.R. 1500 for the first time,
    because of this great love that I have for these red rocks and
    for my belief that their highest and greatest value in most
    instances is to preserve them for future generations. I wanted
    to protect them when I came into the opportunity of service on
    behalf of the State, and hence, it became a major
    preoccupation. And I want to say how much I appreciate the
    gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, for carrying on by
    introducing that legislation and forcing a discussion of those
    important issues on a periodic basis.
        And so I am here today to respectfully speak against H.R.
    3625, and I do so for the same reasons that I spoke against and
    worked against the Utah delegation's wilderness bill in the
    last Congress. Like that bill, H.R. 3625 is not a wilderness
    preservation bill; it is a wilderness development bill.
        From the point of view of one of those who believe that
    most of this land's highest value, most of this wilderness'
    value--highest and best use--in every sense of that term,
    including economic--is its preservation in wilderness, this is
    simply a bad bill. It eliminates from protection over 140,000
    acres of Wilderness Study Area in Emery and Carbon County,
    areas that have been protected for two decades against man's
    exploitation, and it eliminates from consideration over 650,000
    acres of wilderness which H.R. 1500 seeks to preserve.
        It dignifies with legal protection RS 2477 rights-of-way,
    calling them roads, and thereby permitting local development in
    some of the most pristine areas. So I can say that, yes, it
    designates some wilderness, but at the same time it creates
    serious management problems. I submit for the record, if I
    might, Mr. Chairman, a detailed explanation of how I think, in
    specificity, that the bill is very detrimental to the national
    and the State interests.
        Other than that, I don't have any strong feelings, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        I would be happy to try to respond to questions.
        May I also say for the record that I represent also the
    Sierra Club or, as some folks down in our country say, Mr.
    Chairman, ``the Sahara Club,'' today in my testimony, as well
    as the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, on whose board I
    serve.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Owens may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from American Samoa, questions for this
    panel?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions.
    I wanted to thank the members of the panel and certainly offer
    my personal welcome to our former colleague, Congressman Wayne
    Owens, for his appearance and providing us with his testimony
    on this legislation. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Utah.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just begin by thanking the members of the panel for
    your great testimony, and you, Don, for your incredible work in
    preserving bighorn sheep in Utah and elsewhere.
        Mr. Owens, I think you were here when I read a quote to
    Director Shea about an ad that SUWA ran on May 30, 1994 in the
    High Country News talking about SUWA's unwillingness to
    negotiate. SUWA steers clear of consensus. The ad encourages
    the use of the lawsuits over consensus-building with the
    advisory committees; yet, even states that, ``if this allows
    our critics to label us as extremists, then we are
    extremists.''
        Is it still the position of SUWA to not enter into
    deliberations that might lead to consensus or agreements?
        Mr. Owens. I think, Mr. Cannon, you and I had a
    conversation yesterday and agreed to have lunch--for the
    benefit of the chairman of the Ethics Committee, each paying
    his own way--to discuss these issues, and I am delighted to
    visit with you about them.
        I think there are several reasons that it is very difficult
    for an advocacy organization like the Southern Utah Wilderness
    Alliance to enter into these kinds of negotiations. To begin
    with, the decisionmakers are all basically of one view, and
    it's about as adverse from that of the goals of the Southern
    Utah Wilderness as it can be.
        Secondly, Mr. Scott Groene, our issues director, did, I
    think, make some genuine efforts to discuss these issues. He
    used to be my administrative assistant, and is very familiar
    with the legislative process here, and found that the concepts
    simply were very different than any that we could in any sense
    feel conscientious about or considered appropriate, and he
    simply found no willingness to talk about true preservation of
    wilderness.
        The third point is that, when you look at your map and as
    you read your bill you see how much real wilderness is released
    for development and how even the small areas which are
    preserved under the title ``wilderness,'' as the gentleman from
    Minnesota spelled out so well, are not preserved as wilderness
    in fact. Many are crossed with so many RS 2477 ``ways'', which
    the bill calls ``roads,'' that even the small areas of
    designated wilderness are not preserved as such. Turning over
    control of much of the management of those areas to local
    consumptive users--that doesn't give us a lot of confidence
    that you really want to preserve any as wilderness, to be
    honest with you.
        But I am happy--though I don't do it officially, I am only
    a member of the board--I welcome the opportunity which you
    offered me yesterday to visit about it.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I should point out, though, we have
    some sharp disagreements here. I would hope you would consider
    our relationship one of friendship. You educated me in the
    process that we are now involved in here, frankly, back in law
    school.
        So I appreciate that and the history of that, but the
    distinction is sharp, and I guess what I have heard you just
    say is that basically there is no interest on the part of SUWA
    of coming off the clear, clean concept of a large amount of the
    wilderness, even though I think there's some compelling reasons
    to do that--for instance, either the RS 2477 rights-of-way
    exist or they don't, and in this plan it seems to me that we're
    dealing with those with some clarity and some openness rather
    than the very difficult, complicated, legalistic way that we've
    been treating them in the past, and we do it in a way that
    allows people access to some of the areas that I think are
    beautiful, wonderful, breath-taking.
        It's interesting that we can come from the same experience,
    although I did not run cattle in that area. We did sort of grow
    up in the same general area to some degree and did not, again,
    suffer those hardships. We come to a very different conclusion
    about how that area should be used.
        Is it not a matter of concern to the Southern Utah
    Wilderness Alliance that those RS 2477 right-of-ways may
    ultimately be proved to be real right-of-ways, giving the
    counties what I think are terrific defenses against the
    relatively extreme position of purely wilderness at 5.7 or more
    million acres?
        Mr. Owens. We are fighting those issues, dealing with RS
    2477 rights-of-ways and roads, and are very much concerned
    about the implications of that fight. We just don't think you
    deal with them very well in this legislation, with, of course,
    all respect.
        Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for
    just another couple of minutes, and I think I can finish up?
        Mr. Hansen. It is recognized. Is there an objection?
    Hearing none, two more minutes.
        Mr. Cannon. I thank you. I will only have two more
    questions.
        Let me just ask one about the Wilderness Study Areas first
    and get your view on that and then come back to roads. When
    this debate was going on, and we established Wilderness Study
    Areas, it was sort of a covenant between the government and the
    people that this was only a study. Granted, that gave dramatic
    control or limited access to those areas pretty much. Do you
    feel like people in areas where there are Wilderness Study
    Areas need to be thinking that these things as absolutely
    permanent until you get your way or is there some way that they
    have a right maybe in future legislation to sunset the study
    areas?
        Mr. Owens. First, an indirect answer to your question and
    then a more direct: I am finding that more and more people who
    live in many of those areas are understanding or coming to
    believe that the highest and best use of that land is in its
    preservation. As so much of these beautiful red rocks, wild
    countries disappear to development, more and more of the people
    who live in that area are more and more anxious, I think, that
    more be protected.
        In direct response to your question, at some point I expect
    the Congress will deal with these issues. I don't believe they
    should be dealt with piecemeal, as your legislation proposes to
    do. I honestly think that the congressional process is such
    that we'll probably only have one real good shot at a
    wilderness bill, and it should be statewide, where you can give
    and take.
        And I do propose to support, Congressman Cannon, and you
    know I do, and Mr. Hansen knows I will support the give-and-
    take in the legislative process. But it ought not to be picked
    off one piece at a time, one area at a time, where in fact
    there is very little give and almost all take.
        Mr. Hansen. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cannon. Yes.
        Mr. Hansen. Let me ask you, Mr. Owens, would you commit a
    member of SUWA's staff to work with our staff and others in
    working on this bill?
        Mr. Owens. Yes, we'll help you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. We can count on----
        Mr. Owens. I am no longer Chair, as you know. I stepped
    down a couple of months ago, but I would advocate strongly that
    we do have more staff contact. I, as a board member, and Ted
    Wilson, whose name was brought up earlier, a former
    administrative assistant of mine and a former mayor of Salt
    Lake City and now vice chairman of the board, will cooperate. I
    know he feels the same way.
        Mr. Hansen. I would appreciate if you would give us a name
    of someone we can work with; we would really appreciate that.
        Mr. Owens. Owens and Wilson to begin with, but I'll also
    get a staff member to help.
        Mr. Hansen. I thank you so very much.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Let me just close by saying that I
    appreciate your being here and the clarity of your position.
    It's easier to work with positions that are clear, frankly.
        We differ. I think that the incremental approach is the way
    to solve our problems and to do it in a way that truly meets, I
    think, the larger objectives that you personally have and that
    other members of the organizations you represent have.
        And so with the commitment to the chairman, I am not going
    to go any further and just say thank you at this point, and I
    appreciate your being here.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
    to thank the members of the panel. To former member Wayne
    Owens, I want to personally express my appreciation to him for
    his introduction of H.R. 1500, for if that had not happened, it
    would not have given me the opportunity to have introduced the
    bill during my tenure here. And I very much appreciate the
    leadership you've shown and the courage that you have shown on
    this and other issues of national importance.
        And it's a pleasure to see you and to welcome you here to
    this hearing.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you.
        Mr. Hinchey. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I must say
    that, reflecting on this process this morning, I think that the
    hearing itself has been very helpful because it has given us an
    opportunity to reflect more deeply and to look more deeply into
    this issue and to learn more about this land from the panel
    members that we have here before us at this moment, as well as
    those who were here just a few moments ago.
        So I think that this hearing is a very good thing, and it
    broadens and deepens our knowledge, and I think for some of us
    it broadens and deepens our commitment to the land. I would
    just observe that as former Representative Owens has said,
    that, among other things, this bill releases 140,000 acres
    which are now in the study area. I think that's correct.
        And, Wayne, I think also, if I remember correctly, that
    this legislation would result in wilderness designation for
    this particular area of more than 660,000 acres less than would
    be designated under H.R. 1500.
        Mr. Owens. That's correct. I think it's 560,000 acres.
    They're areas in addition that you and I proposed for
    wilderness in H.R. 1500, and also, it releases I think 180,000
    currently being protected as wilderness study areas.
        Mr. Hansen. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
        Mr. Owens. One-hundred-and-eighty I think is the figure;
    180,000 plus 550,000. Yes, sir. One hundred and forty thousand;
    I apologize.
        Mr. Hinchey. One hundred and forty. Yes, that's what I
    thought.
        Mr. Hansen. Excuse me.
        Mr. Hinchey. One hundred and forty, nevertheless----
        Mr. Hansen. Will the gentleman from New York yield on that
    point?
        Mr. Hinchey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hansen. Excuse me. I apologize for asking you to yield,
    but on areas that are protected, H.R. 3625 has 987,651 acres.
    WSA's has 497,940 acres. So, I don't know where you come up
    with 140,000. If you go strictly by the definition of
    wilderness, which is extremely nebulous, I agree with your
    premise of 140,000. If you go to protected areas--ACEC, bighorn
    mountain sheep--those under NCA protection, you are actually
    doubling the protection here.
        Excuse me. I just wanted to give you my interpretation.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Hinchey. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and that's an
    important distinction, but what I am saying is that, of those
    lands now in the wilderness study category, the enactment of
    this proposal would result in 143,000 acres being released from
    wilderness study; and that would mean that 143,000 acres less--
    143,000 acres of land would no longer have the protection that
    is afforded to them currently in the study mode which they are
    currently in.
        And in addition to that, if I may, and Mr. Owens has just
    clarified that for me, that H.R. 1500 in the context of the
    area under discussion at the moment, H.R. 1500 would result in
    more than 660,000 acres of land being designated as wilderness,
    more than would be designated under this particular proposal.
        So I understand what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and I
    think that that's an important point, but I think it's
    important for us to look at it from both perspectives.
        Mr. Hansen. If the gentleman will yield for just one
    moment--it's not a major difference, but our calculations only
    have it at about 90,000, not 140,000 acres difference, but your
    point is well taken about the----
        Mr. Hinchey. OK. Well, that's something that can be
    settled. We estimate it to be 143,000 precisely, and I stick
    with that number until I am corrected.
        The other area that interests me--Mr. Peay, is it?
        Mr. Peay. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hinchey. Yes, sir. Thank you. One of the things about
    the bill that I find discomforting is that, while it talks
    about the protection of ecological areas, its designations are
    cut more along political lines than along ecological lines. In
    some instances, for example, it cuts canyons in half and
    provides one form of protection on one side and not on the
    other, and it follows political boundaries to a great extent.
    And so, therefore, I have trouble with the legislation from a
    point of view of ecological protection in that it divides
    ecological areas.
        There is also an aspect of your testimony that troubles me
    in that regard also, and that is that you're talking about an
    area that would be set aside for the protection of the bighorn
    sheep, which I think is an admirable objective. I find no
    quarrel with that whatsoever, but I find it difficult in my own
    mind to rationalize how you can have ecological concerns about
    a particular area in the context of one species.
        How do you manage an area for the protection of one species
    and one species alone, or are you offering something else?
        Mr. Peay. It isn't just for one species. There's many other
    species, but the bighorn is kind of a flagship, because I've
    been in this wilderness debate for 20 years. Bighorn sheep is
    the indicator species, and I think it's remarkable, phenomenal,
    that a rural county commission in Utah is not trying to step up
    to the plate and say, ``These are pretty neat critters. Let's
    make them the predominant specie that we'll protect.''
        These animals could be endangered at some point in time, in
    the very short future. So now we're trying to protect them, and
    then on the other hand, we are hearing a comment we shouldn't
    do that. So I can't understand why anyone would not like this
    concept.
        Mr. Hinchey. So when you're--if I may, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Hansen. Go ahead.
        Mr. Hinchey. So when you are offering the idea of
    protection of the bighorn sheep in a particular area, you are
    suggesting by that, that protection for the bighorn sheep would
    also be done in a way which would afford protection for all
    other species in that area as well?
        Mr. Peay. Bighorn won't be the only animal in that area.
    This whole concept, in my opinion, looks out for all the
    species that inhabit the San Rafael but good emphasis for
    bighorn.
        Mr. Hinchey. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Let me say that from the bills, BLM
    has in WSAs in that area 497,940 acres. That's a fact. H.R.
    3625 has 407,471 acres. The difference is 90,469. Lay that
    aside, and count what is protected.
        There seems to be some of a religious Utopia here that if
    you say, ``wilderness,'' it has a certain protection, but
    nobody finds that. Wilderness is a protected area. So is
    primitive. So is ACEC. So is NCA protection. They are all
    protected areas, as are National Parks. Add all those up and
    H.R. 3625 protects more areas than WSAs by twice; of 987,651
    acres versus 497,940 or a difference of 489,711 acres or
    additional protection under this bill.
        But, I concur, it doesn't have the term ``wilderness.''
    Primitive and wilderness--you may recall that primitive areas,
    that's what the old view in the mountains used to be. We called
    that primitive.
        Now take the definition of primitive, take the definition
    of wilderness. They're almost twins. So, I hope we don't get
    hung up on the idea of this difference. We're actually
    protecting more ground, and that's what I think we are all
    trying to do, isn't it? That's kind of the impression that I
    got.
        Now I would like to----
        Mr. Owens. Could I respond to that briefly, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Hansen. Surely. Excuse me.
        Mr. Owens. Nobody disputes that there are several layers of
    protection included in this bill, and much land is protected,
    but much is opened up for development, and the ultimate
    protection of wilderness is not afforded even to the 400,000
    acres that you call wilderness in this bill because it is laced
    with roads that you recognize under RS 2477 and the management
    techniques do not permit it to rise to the level of protection
    which wilderness is.
        Wilderness is a specific level of protection, undergirded
    by law and by regulation, and it says basically you are not
    going to change the nature of this land, to the extent that man
    can protect it unless Congress itself gives permission. That's
    what we are trying to do, with wilderness designation, and
    that's the status that I would like to see in a big portion of
    this. Then the rest of it, Mr. Chairman, should be preserved
    and protected, better said in the forms and natures which you
    discussed and which do permit certain degrees of development
    and use, all of which I will support where appropriate.
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate your comments that you brought it,
    and I don't want to get into a kicking match on what wilderness
    is, except that we all know that wilderness does allow some
    motorized areas, if existing cattlemen wanted to go in. You
    know, we get into that fight all the time around here. There is
    reason to take in wilderness. This 193,723 acres of this is
    primitive, non-motorized, giving more protection than
    wilderness does.
        Other areas you really, if you want down to be cutting and
    splitting hairs, you can say the term ``wilderness'' all you
    want, but you've actually got more protection in this bill for
    ground than the wilderness bill had in WSAs. And that is an
    argument people should look at.
        Mr. Peay, who I consider the resident expert on bighorn
    sheep--and I've known Mr. Peay for a long time--the thing that
    bothers me most on this area, how much attention with motorized
    vehicles of any type would the bighorn sheep need on Sid's
    Mountain?
        Mr. Peay. In talking with the professional wildlife
    biologists who have been deeply involved in the development of
    this plan, they are very comfortable with this whole proposal.
        And I am not sure of what you are saying, but I was just in
    a board meeting with the National Wild Sheep Foundation and one
    premiere biologist said, ``We seem to have invented this
    concept of Bighorns and people can't coexist,'' and as you've
    driven to Mojave and right there by Arches there's a resident
    population of sheep that take occupancy right by the highway,
    and so the bottom line: The plan is good for bighorns, but it
    does provide a lot more protection than just H.R. 1500, in my
    opinion, for bighorn sheep management.
        Mr. Hansen. What is a guzzler that you would need to put on
    that mountain? What does that mean?
        Mr. Peay. A guzzler, there's one there toward the
    Desolation Canyon that we actually landed a helicopter as we
    transplanted the bighorn. What it is, it's a piece of naturally
    colored tin that would be as big as this area inside of the
    desk here. It's an apron that catches the rainfall, and there's
    about a 2,000-gallon storage tank beneath the ground that's not
    visible, and then there's a little metered tube that comes out
    to a little drinker that works on a float valve like your
    toilet. So as the animals come in and drink, water is released,
    and then they go back. Without guzzlers in some of these arid
    areas, wildlife cannot live or survive or propagate.
        Mr. Hansen. I have noticed all around Utah that we have
    guzzlers on the west desert, up in the area of Yost Mountains
    and the Raft River Mountains, and we have them other places.
    I'd have a hard time believing that people don't want wildlife
    to drink. This isn't only bighorn sheep that drink out of this.
    This is everything that drinks in this particular area.
        As I see it, the basic difference between what some folks
    are arguing and this is we're talking: Do we want to have
    bighorn sheep in that area? Other than that, they're almost
    treated exactly alike.
        You've said earlier that a helicopter would touch down for
    a few minutes, 5 minutes or so, on occasion. I personally
    cannot understand why people would be against wildlife. That
    kind of concerns me just a little bit. We'll have to work that
    out in any case.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the chairman yield?
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one quick question to Mr. Peay: You
    are the expert on bighorn sheep, and I wanted to ask: How much
    acreage will it take to provide for one bighorn sheep? I am not
    too familiar with your--I mean they live in the mountains I
    assume, but what does it take to, you know, just to let it
    grow?
        Mr. Peay. Well, the----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You have about 6,000. Are they an
    indigent species now? Are they an endangered species now?
        Mr. Peay. Not classified as such, but in Utah in 1972 there
    were only 500 of those animals. Through management techniques
    that are provided for in this bill, there's now about 4,000 of
    these animals.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So I know Utah is famous for a hunting
    season, but do you allow hunting of this sheep at a certain
    time or a certain number that can be hunted, like you would a
    deer?
        Mr. Peay. Very carefully regulated hunting, and just a
    quick example--a lady wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune, ``Why
    would they allow anyone to hunt bighorn in the San Rafael?''
    and the fact of the matter is that hunting has generated about
    $500,000 to reintroduce the bighorn. Without hunters, we would
    not have bighorn sheep in Utah.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. If I were a hunter, how much would I pay
    to shoot one bighorn?
        Mr. Peay. In the San Rafael area there are 13 permits
    available to the citizens of America through a lottery draw at
    a cost of $500. However, the State does sell one to the highest
    bidder, and in Reno this year it sold for $52,000.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Are you aware of any other form of
    animals that are considered endangered in these wilderness
    areas that you care about just as much as you are with bighorn
    sheep?
        Mr. Peay. As we say, there are plenty of animals and plenty
    of causes. We've focused $1.6 million on bighorn sheep in Utah.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa should
    realize, let this become an endangered species and everything
    that SUWA, this Committee, and everybody else is doing is moot.
    Immediately the whole area becomes an HCP and the whole ball
    game is over anyway. So don't let it become an endangered
    species.
        Mr. Martin, let me quickly ask you something. How do you
    envision the heritage concept working, and do you agree with
    what the administration has said? You have sat here and heard
    the----
        Mr. Martin. Yes, I heard your testimony. Yes, Mr. Chairman,
    I think that the confusion of the administration is that
    Heritage Areas generally have a mix of high propensity of
    private sector, but in the West of course that's impossible.
        Our Four Corners Heritage Council is mostly Federal land,
    and we have sitting at the table the Federal partners that sit
    at the table with appointees by the Governor and the local
    appointees; and that arrangement works very well because
    there's no power taken away from the Federal agencies under
    this concept. It's really an advisory process, and that
    advisory process I think works very well.
        So I think the structure of a Heritage Area can work very
    well, even though there's a high propensity of Federal lands.
    There is a lot of private land in this Heritage Area, and that
    consultation process I think strengthens from both sides.
        A Heritage Area doesn't take away, and I think it's an
    important point, it doesn't take away the authority of the
    Federal Government, but it provides a consultation process
    which I think strengthens the management and the protection of
    the resources both on private land and on the Federal lands
    associated with the idea.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you for that answer.
        We'll take one more question from Congressman Cannon, and
    we'll excuse this panel and get to our last panel.
        Mr. Cannon. Mr. Owens, you mentioned this area as laced
    with roads, but you are aware, of course, that there are many
    other RS 2477s rights-of-ways or claims of rights-of-ways in
    the area in which are extinguished by this process. So, there
    is some tradeoff here. Is that something that is of concern to
    you and to SUWA?
        Mr. Owens. Well, it's a great concern as near as I can tell
    from the red lines, although my reds and greens may be a little
    confused at this distance, but it appears laced with roads even
    in the areas that you call proposed wilderness, the 400,000
    acres that you call wilderness.
        And of course it's of concern that there are a lot of RS
    2477 ways which threaten the wilderness status, and I am
    willing to look at and talk with you and staff about whether
    there is a decent tradeoff here. It doesn't appear at first
    glance, Mr. Congressman, that it is a fair tradeoff. That's
    what I am commenting on.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from New York has one final
    question.
        Mr. Hinchey. Well, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think that
    it's quite clear that the bill does afford various levels of
    protection, but I think that protection of course is a relative
    word. And there can be higher levels of protection and lower
    levels of protection, and one of the things that I am concerned
    about is the issue of roads which has just come up.
        We heard earlier testimony today which indicated that some
    roads are designated that may not be roads even. The bottom of
    stream beds are considered as roads. So protection is a
    relative thing, and I think that the introduction of roads,
    particularly where they may not even be, just opens this up for
    a lot of criticism that otherwise might not be there.
        The one thing that mystifies me about the sheep question is
    this: We are reintroducing sheep into this area, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Peay. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hinchey. And that, of course, assumes that the sheep
    were able to live there before, and I wonder why we need these
    guzzlers now to provide water in an area where the sheep were
    able to survive before on assumably the water that was there.
        Mr. Peay. It's for distribution purposes. It's very clear
    in Nevada and other States, where they have put in guzzlers,
    wildlife populations have been able to expand to a greater
    extent than they were, say, 100 years ago.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to followup with a question
    to Mr. Owens again. I guess I would call you ``Mr.
    Wilderness,'' since your introduction of H.R. 1500 has caused a
    lot of discussion about this.
        Mr. Owens. Please be aware that's not a good name in parts
    of Utah.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I say it in----
        Mr. Owens. I wear it proudly.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I say it with the most respectful
    consideration in what you honestly believed, what you
    considered to be in the best interest of your State and your
    constituents. And I wanted to ask, in retrospect, in terms of
    the several versions that have been proposed for the past
    several years since your introduction of H.R. 1500, do you
    honestly believe that we can work something out with the
    current proposal now before the Subcommittee?
        Mr. Owens. No.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. In areas that we can identify----
        Mr. Owens. I fear that resolution of the wilderness issue
    is many, many years away, simply because of the polarity of the
    issue and the lack of support for it in any of the political
    structure of Utah, or almost any of it, for any substantive
    preservation of wilderness.
        So the answer is, I am willing to talk, anxious to work,
    but I am very dubious, must be pessimistic with you about it.
    Wilderness, as the gentleman knows, is the highest degree of
    protection because only Congress can invade a wilderness. Not
    primitive areas, not any other areas, have that degree and that
    body of law supporting the method in which it is in fact
    protected. Therefore, wilderness is a final status or at least
    semi-final status, and that's really what makes it such a
    difficult issue for the people of Utah. They are ambivalent at
    best about how much of it should be preserved in wilderness
    status, but polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of
    Utahns want a very substantial portion of Utah preserved in
    wilderness. So the great polarity between political structure
    office holders and the people is such that I think it's a long
    distance away, the resolution of this issue.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I thank the
    gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Hansen. I would respectfully disagree with my friend on
    the idea of what the highest degree of protection is. You don't
    run cattle in parks. You can't hunt in parks. Some primitive
    areas are probably more protected than others. That's where we
    get a little nit-picky there but----
        Mr. Owens. It makes me very nervous to be in disagreement
    with the chairman, of course. We very seldom have been, but on
    that one I would respectfully disagree.
        Mr. Hansen. I thought we both had agreed that we both voted
    for a gold medal for Queen Beatrix.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Owens. Boy, I had forgotten that vote, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. I am sure you had forgotten about that one vote
    we agreed on. I have great respect for my former colleague.
    He's a very intelligent man and a very good leader. With that,
    we'll dismiss, and, Wayne, hope you make your plane.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. We'll now turn to our last panel: Bill Meadows,
    president of the Wilderness Society, and it's always nice to
    have Mr. Meadows with us. He always gives us very thoughtful,
    well-reasoned testimony. And Mr. Wesley R. Curtis, director of
    the Governor's Rural Partnership Office.
        Good to see both of you gentlemen.
        Mr. Meadows, it's always nice to have you in front of us.
    We'll start with you, sir, and give you 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF BILL MEADOWS, PRESIDENT, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

         Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bill Meadows,
    president of the Wilderness Society, and it's a pleasure to be
    here with you today to discuss protection of our Nation's
    wilderness.
        I am also pleased to be here with former Representative
    Wayne Owens, a Utah native who loves the State, its public
    land, resources and wild lands. I enjoyed hearing his testimony
    and hope that mine will complement his.
        I would like to focus my remarks on H.R. 3625's national
    implications and highlight key comparisons between this bill
    and Representative Cannon's earlier bill, H.R. 1952. I believe
    that such comparisons will best explain the concerns of the
    Wilderness Society.
        In my written testimony I describe many ways in which H.R.
    3625 is an improvement over H.R. 1952, but, first, I would like
    to acknowledge the work of many in Emery, Carbon, and Sanpete
    Counties, especially the county commissioners of Emery County
    who have sought to address the important issues before us, as
    well as the efforts of Representative Cannon and Governor
    Leavitt.
        I was particularly pleased that Governor Leavitt was able
    to join the Wilderness Society at its governing council meeting
    in Springdale, Utah, this past fall, as was Representative
    Morris Hinchey. We had a good discussion on Utah wilderness in
    that context.
        I also want to express the willingness of the Wilderness
    Society to sit down and work with anyone committed to a sound
    solution of wilderness issues in Utah.
        Our concerns with the scope of H.R. 3625 are threefold:
    First, it does not address the full range of wilderness quality
    lands in Utah, as it makes wilderness designations in only two
    counties.
        Second, even those counties in which wilderness
    designations are made, H.R. 3625 actually reduces the
    protection that wilderness resources currently receive, by
    eliminating Wilderness Study Areas' protection for over 140,000
    acres. These former WSAs will no longer be managed to protect
    their wilderness values. As a result, these lands may be lost
    to development activities, including road construction and ORV
    use.
        Third, H.R. 3625 only protects some 40 percent of the
    wilderness designations contained in H.R. 1500.
        The Wilderness Society is very concerned by the wilderness
    management provisions of both these bills, Representative
    Cannon's earlier bills, H.R. 1952 and H.R. 3625. Both those
    contained non-standard and damaging wilderness management
    language affecting a variety of management issues. Such
    exceptions to standard wilderness management set a dangerous
    precedent for future wilderness legislation nationally.
        These damaging wilderness exceptions include provisions
    related to reserved wilderness water rights and water
    development. In the arid West, wilderness areas must be
    protected by the provision of water for their streams and other
    water resource lifelines. Yet the water rights provisions of
    both, H.R. 3625 and H.R. 1952, expressly deny Congressional
    reservation of the water rights sufficient to sustain these
    magnificent desert lands.
        In recent years Congress has enacted wilderness legislation
    for Arizona and California. In each of these bills, Congress
    reserved a quantity of water sufficient to maintain the
    integrity of the wilderness ecosystem. These statutes balance
    the need of water right holders with that of wilderness users
    and wildlife. H.R. 3625 does not.
        Additionally, H.R. 3625 appears to allow almost unlimited
    expansion of existing water developments, without any regard
    for the impact of such expanded developments on wilderness
    resources.
        A second concern, other road and motorized use issues. Road
    development and vehicular use constitutes one of the largest
    threats to wilderness resources in the West; yet H.R. 3625
    appears to threaten serious road and vehicular damage to
    wilderness lands through provisions related to ``fish and
    wildlife management.'' Native American cultural, grazing and
    valid existing rights are all problems. Each of these sections
    breaks with existing precedence for protection of Federal
    wilderness areas.
        Finally, with respect to wilderness management, we must
    note ways in which H.R. 3625 is worse than H.R. 1952; for
    example, in its treatment of the so-called valid existing
    rights and RS 2477 road claims. One of the most distressing
    aspects of H.R. 3625 is the control it gives to local interest
    over Federal land management.
        We are concerned that H.R. 3625 extends a new cooperation
    requirement to manage wilderness resources, to manage bighorn
    sheep management areas within the conservation area, and to
    manage semi-primitive non-motorized areas within the core
    conservation areas. Local governments and interests have a
    legitimate stake in Federal land management. It is not
    appropriate to cede management authority of Federal lands to
    local interests in the manner proposed by H.R. 3625.
        To summarize, Mr. Chairman, we must oppose H.R. 3625
    because we believe that it provides wilderness designation for
    inadequate acreage, threatens wilderness resources in Utah and
    on other BLM lands, and it releases lands currently protected
    as Wilderness Study Areas to management practices that may in
    fact degrade the wilderness values, makes non-wilderness
    Federal land designations that do not adequately protect these
    special areas and their wilderness resources, and it threatens
    to cede an inappropriate level of control over Federal,
    national lands, and wilderness management to local governments
    and interests.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Meadows may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
        Mr. Curtis, we'll recognize you, sir, for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF WES CURTIS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S RURAL PARTNERSHIP
                         OFFICE, STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I point out that I
    will be speaking primarily today as a member of the Emery
    County Public Lands Council. I am a lifelong resident of Emery
    County and member of that council. It's been pointed out today,
    and we appreciate this fact, that this is a very creative,
    innovative proposal we have before you.
        I think there's another remarkable thing about this
    proposal that needs to be mentioned. It was created without the
    help of a single attorney. We may have overlooked a few little
    wrinkles because we don't have that legal expertise, but I
    hope, as Congressman Cannon suggested in the beginning, that
    this testimony serves as a dialogue to work out some of these
    things because I think if we really look at what's being said
    here and what the motivations supposedly are for both sides, we
    are much closer than perhaps we realize.
        Let me just hit a couple of points, deviating from the
    written testimony which I have submitted. First of all,
    regarding the involvement and the inclusion of others, I don't
    want to belabor this but the involvement of many stakeholders
    and environmental groups and others is well documented in this
    article in the packet submitted by Commissioner Petersen. I
    also point out the Bureau of Lands Management has been
    participating with Emery County though a Memorandum of
    Understanding for the past two years and has worked hand in
    hand with the development of this proposal.
        I also would like to make a brief comment regarding water.
    For those who are concerned about a Federal water right on the
    San Rafael River, even if such a water right were granted and
    preempted State law in doing so, all it would likely be is a
    junior right on an over-appropriated river. We are proud to
    tell everybody here that the San Rafael River is one of only
    two rivers in the State of Utah that already a designated in-
    stream flow in place. We are concerned about the water needs of
    these wilderness areas.
        And let me just say then that this bill is indeed
    environmentally sound. It's been carefully crafted to provide
    every needful protection to these lands because we knew it
    would have to withstand intense scrutiny. We've heard it said
    that this is an anti--it's not a wilderness bill; it's a
    wilderness development bill.
        We take that really as an affront because we are sensitive
    to these lands. We have a connection to these lands that goes
    beyond those who don't live there. There's been a lot said
    about that these lands reduce protection when we withdraw
    Wilderness Study Areas. I would suggest that we're not reducing
    protection; we're expanding protection on these lands.
        Wilderness proposals to this point, regardless of their
    acreages, I believe have an inherent weakness. They are one-
    dimensional in their focus. They offer slice-and-dice
    protections for isolated tracts of lands, but they don't
    preserve the integrity of the whole. They focus on lands and
    acres, not on ecosystems. This bill that we have before you is
    a wilderness bill and a whole lot more. It goes beyond
    wilderness.
        This is the only proposal from any quarter that protects
    the entire San Rafael Swell. It protects the environment and
    the integrity of an entire ecosystem. This is the only proposal
    ever made that withdraws threats of oil drilling, mining and
    timbering from the entire San Rafael Swell, which I might add
    is a remarkable concession for a rural county with an economy
    based on mineral extraction.
        We've already talked about special protections and the
    needs for those regarding desert bighorn sheep. This bill is a
    protection measure in every sense of the word, and I think it's
    important, above all, that we point out that those who have
    spoken for and against this proposal really share much common
    ground and a common interest.
        We desire indeed to protect these lands and feel that we
    can do so. If there are some things we need to tweak or adjust
    with this, we're more than willing--we have always extended an
    open invitation for anyone to participate.
        In closing, let me just make one more comment that has been
    about something that has been accomplished through this process
    that no bill has been able to accomplish to this point, and
    it's an important lesson that we have learned. As we have
    proceeded through this process, which has been locally driven
    and locally initiated, we have learned a lot in engaging with
    other interests and stakeholders in the San Rafael Swell; but
    because it's been a locally initiated process there's a side
    benefit attached to this: It has led to local buy-in, local
    ownership and local pride in this proposal.
        The local residents now are part of the solution, not part
    of the problem. They are now becoming the public eyes and ears,
    watching out for abuses on these lands. This is a remarkable
    and positive shift in attitude from what we have seen in the
    past. When we began our processes of talking with other groups,
    we entered those processes with a great deal of suspicion and
    feelings of mistrust regarding other parties.
        We have learned that there is a lot of common ground. We
    invite the wilderness advocates and groups, if they feel these
    feelings of mistrust as we have, let's sit down and work these
    out. I think this is very possible and very doable, and in the
    process we can come up with something that's better than
    anything that's been on the table to this point.
        What we have here is a chance to tailor something that can
    be a perfect fit for these lands. This proposal is not
    something that was done from afar. It fits the realities of the
    land. It was done by people who understand the lands; who are
    close to them; who see its nuances, its intricacies. We invite
    others to help us improve this process if needful, but, Mr.
    Chairman, I think you have before you here is a remarkable
    proposal, and I certainly urge you to move it through the
    process and create the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and
    Conservation Areas.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
        The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think from what Mr. Curtis has just stated to the members
    of the Subcommittee, I think while there are disagreements, but
    at least it is a starting point, and I, for one, also don't
    necessarily look at the polls as a means of saying where the
    will of the people of Utah stand on issues, depending on who is
    writing the polls and what questions are raised and how you
    take the poll.
        But I wanted to ask Mr. Curtis what his thinking is on the
    opinion expressed earlier by Mr. Owens, as he had expressed an
    earlier opinion that he thinks that the people of Utah may not
    accept the current proposal.
        Mr. Curtis. I sincerely believe, and I don't say this just
    to support our own case, I think the people of Utah want to see
    these issues resolved, and they see this as a very prudent and
    wise proposal. And in fact just this past Saturday the Salt
    Lake Tribune, which tends to be the liberal-leaning paper in
    the State of Utah, came out with an editorial that is very much
    in support of what we are doing with this proposal.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I assume, Mr. Meadows, you have been
    working closely with Congressman Cannon's office in trying to
    have some input on behalf of the Wilderness Society and some of
    the provisions that have been proposed?
        Mr. Meadows. Well, actually, Mr. Congressman, we were not
    aware of the legislation in any detail until it was--we
    received a draft of it several weeks ago. Now we've not been
    involved in the discussions at all.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You indicated earlier some of the similar
    expressions of concern that Mr. Shea of the Bureau of Land
    Management had expressed earlier. What do you consider to be
    the biggest priority of the problem or concern that the
    Wilderness Society has with this legislation?
        Mr. Meadows. Well, I think the main thing is the
    distinction we have on this question of protection, and we
    believe we are losing protection by looking at this in this
    various level of management prescriptions; and we are going to
    lose wilderness protection in the course of adopting that.
        I was actually very concerned with Senator Bennett's
    testimony this morning when he talked about this particular
    legislation serving as a road map for future wilderness.
        Well, that's exactly what we are concerned about, is that
    this is in fact a road map, and if in fact we're going to have
    more roads, more off-road vehicles, in these places than we've
    had before, that gives us great pause.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The comparisons that were made in one of
    the fact sheets that was given to us--as you know, Mr. Owens'
    proposed bill requested 1.1 million acres for wilderness as
    opposed to the current bill's proposal for 407,471 acres.
        You are familiar with these counties where these two areas
    are situated?
        Mr. Meadows. I have not been to either of these counties.
    Our members are, and our board members have been there many,
    many times. We have literally thousands of members in Utah, and
    250,000 members, many of whom have spent considerable time in
    Utah. So I represent their interest as well.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I am not one for expertise in this area,
    but there's approximately a difference of about 600,000 acres
    from what the proposed bill provides, even less than what the
    BLM is recommending.
        You are probably familiar with the fact that the chairman
    did introduce the bill a couple of years ago, and we held
    hearings on this issue, and that the BLM has been prodded to
    get moving to do some form of agreement with the parties at
    hand, and it seems that we are right back to square one again.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, you know, one of the issues is that we
    don't have as much information as we need. One of the things
    that concerns me right now about this legislation is even those
    who are proposing it and who are endorsing it and speaking in
    favor of it, talk about it as a work in progress. It's
    something that we need to do more work with. We need to bring
    more people into the discussion. We need to do more research.
        Well, let's not advance this piece of legislation
    prematurely. Let the Bureau of Land Management complete their
    reinventory. Let us learn more about the places. Let those
    wilderness advocates that we're working with very closely, who
    are on the ground day-in and day-out, actually try to document
    whether we have roads or ways or to try to take pictures of
    these places in dispute under the RS 2477 controversies. Let us
    go through that process and understand what is wilderness and
    what is not.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. There are currently two management plans,
    and I think the Bureau of Land Management is currently making
    the study. If you are aware of this, do you know how many years
    they've been doing these management studies?
        Mr. Meadows. Well, they were suspended from doing the
    reinventory just recently, and so they've been on hold. There's
    opportunity I think to re-institute that. We have to wait to
    see how the court eventually finds what happens in the judicial
    process.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Our concern here, of course, is with the Federal lands, the
    publicly owned land, the lands that are held in trust
    essentially by the Congress and their agents for all the people
    of the country. And one of the provisions of the bill that
    concerns me, and I wonder what you would think about this, Mr.
    Meadows, is the seemingly inordinate control over Federal lands
    that is turned over to local decisionmakers. And so the Federal
    lands would no longer be controlled by Federal agencies, but
    they would be controlled to a large extent by local designees
    in some way. Could you comment on that?
        Mr. Meadows. Yes, I think the language here is instructive.
    We begin to talk in this bill about cooperation, that the BLM
    will cooperate with the local councils rather than consult,
    which is the standard. We are very concerned that the national
    interests, which I am trying to represent, that the members of
    the Wilderness Society or the Sierra Club or other
    organizations that actually have memberships from 50 States who
    are all interested in what happens on the national lands, as
    expressed here in Utah, are not going to be given adequate
    opportunity to comment.
        And the Federal agencies who have been charged with the
    good management of those lands are ceding that responsibility
    to local interests. Now we think there is a role and certainly
    we support the idea of regional--of local, regional advisory
    councils. We think those are appropriate so that local people
    who live near the land, including our members who live in Emery
    County and Carbon County, can have an opportunity to
    participate in that advisory process.
        Mr. Hinchey. Well, local advisory councils, I agree with
    you, would be a good thing, but we don't want to put the
    Federal Government in the role of an advisory council, advising
    local managers over Federal land.
        Mr. Meadows. They don't need to be in the back seat. They
    need to be in the front seat and driving the decisions with
    support from those who can offer advice from the back seat, we
    think.
        Mr. Hinchey. One of the aspects of the Federal land, one of
    the uses, legitimate uses, of these lands is grazing, and that
    grazing is, of course, overseen by the Bureau of the Land
    Management, and they do so in a way that is designed to ensure
    the integrity of the land. But if you take the BLM out of that
    process and turn over the grazing regulations to local
    authorities, then you are going to have a different criteria
    for management, it would seem to me.
        Mr. Meadows. I think that's true, although I have to, quite
    honestly, say we have conflict with the Bureau of Land
    Management over grazing issues as well. In fact, the first time
    I met with Director Shea, he asked me with whom do we have--the
    Wilderness Society--have the most conflict, and I said,
    ``Well''--I knew he was asking the grazing, ranching community,
    mining--I said ``Well, do you mean other than the Bureau of
    Land Management?''
        So we do have conflict over the way our Federal agencies
    manage the land, too, but we find that there is a standard that
    we can hold them to. We can at least go talk with the local
    manager and hold them to a standard, and we're concerned about
    having that kind of--it's not just the local control; it's that
    you'll get different standards in different places, and we'll
    have, I think, a fragmented management policy for Federal
    lands.
        Mr. Hinchey. What does the legislation do with regard to
    water management? There are some aspects here that seem
    troubling with regard to the possibility of expanded water
    development issues in this region, if the provisions of this
    bill in that regard were to go forward?
        Mr. Meadows. Well, you know, I think the bill is not
    written carefully enough. There may be some way for us to--I
    was interested in Mr. Curtis' comment about guarantee. Now
    that's a plus, and I'd be glad to talk more about that, but we
    are concerned that it is sort of unlimited. There is not a
    restriction here. We are concerned there is an open door for
    just an overdevelopment of water resources within the region.
        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
        Mr. Curtis, I listened to your testimony very carefully and
    I'd agree that in many ways this moves the debate forward. It
    keeps our attention focused on the issue, and it has some
    creative aspects to it, this particular legislation.
        One of the things that you talked about in your testimony
    was a need to protect ecological systems and ecological
    regions, but I find in this bill that we would do something
    quite different than that in that areas are divided along
    political lines rather than in the context of ecological
    systems. And, indeed, I even see the canyons are cut in half
    and natural areas are divided in unnatural ways.
        How do we reconcile the fact of the bill and the Acts that
    it would perpetrate with the idea of protecting the ecological
    systems?
        Mr. Curtis. I appreciate the chance to respond to that. The
    only place in question where we are dividing, as you suggest,
    on political boundaries, is in what we call the Book Cliffs
    Desolation Canyon area, which is in the top righthand corner of
    the map there.
        The reason we have done that in this particular case is
    because Carbon and Emery Counties really can't dictate what's
    going to happen in the neighboring county, which is Grand
    County. However, in our minds, we feel that this is a very good
    step toward pressuring them to join with us in the process.
        We more than welcome the addition of the rest of the lands
    designated in that WSA as being included with that package, and
    whether it be done in this bill or in a separate bill, it
    doesn't matter to us, but we feel those lands are certainly
    worthy of wilderness designation and would encourage the whole
    package to be brought into it. We have no problem with that.
        Mr. Hinchey. Well, I thank you very much for that, and that
    clarifies something in my mind, but it also raises other
    questions, and they are that this again points out a weakness
    of the particular legislation, in that it seeks to deal with an
    ecological problem from the point of view of political
    boundaries, and the limitation at the end of a county line, you
    know, just isn't going to work, unfortunately.
        And when you try to have legislation that is designed to
    work within the confines of political boundaries, you obstruct
    your objective; and it may be that in the future if this
    legislation were to pass, it may be in the future that we might
    be able to interest an adjacent county into joining in or into
    participating in a meaningful way, but I don't know that that's
    true, and I wonder about the need or the efficacy, the value,
    of proceeding in this way that limits our ability to deal with
    ecological systems based upon arbitrary political boundaries.
        Mr. Curtis. What we are really focusing on, and the heart
    of the issue here is, the San Rafael Swell itself, which is
    indeed almost a self-contained ecosystem. Because of the
    geology, it is surrounded by ledges and cliffs that make it
    stand out unique and on its own, and that is really what we are
    referring to when we talk about an entire ecosystem.
        And this is the only proposal that does that. It not only
    protects the lands but also protects the wildlife. It protects
    the habitat, and I guess the question I would really like to
    pose, actually a couple of questions, with regard to this
    entire proposal: In what way does this proposal fail to protect
    the resources of the San Rafael Swell, and what specific
    threats to these lands have we failed to address? And if we can
    get clear, specific to those questions, we'd first to deal with
    those, but we think we've covered those bases.
        Mr. Hinchey. Well, I appreciate the openness with which you
    approach that, and I think that there are some clear examples
    of failures to protect important resources in the legislation;
    and I think that we would all welcome to point those out to you
    as we move forward.
        Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. I thank
    the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Curtis, how do you respond to Mr. Owens' and Mr.
    Meadows' assertions regarding water rights?
        Mr. Curtis. Well, as I indicated earlier, I think there's
    an implication here that there ought to be some type of Federal
    legislation that preempts State water law, and I don't think
    that's a battle you want to get into, but with regards to water
    rights themselves, we have long said that even with the Federal
    water right there, all it would be is a paper water right. It
    wouldn't necessarily have water attached to it because the
    stream is over-appropriated.
        We have an agreement on the San Rafael in place right now
    that was worked out though Utah Power and Light with actually a
    designation established by the Division of Wildlife Resources
    that guarantees an in-stream flow on the San Rafael River. And
    these are the types of approaches that we think are much more
    meaningful, to actually provide water, not rights.
        Mr. Hansen. How do you respond to the idea regarding
    increase or decrease of off-road vehicles? Mr. Meadows made a
    big point that it would increase off-road vehicles.
        Mr. Curtis. I can tell you, from our perspective and the
    way that we have conceived this and believe this in our minds,
    that we are very concerned about off-road vehicles. It's a
    concern our local public has, and in our minds what we have put
    together here addresses that issue. The wilderness areas and
    the semi-primitive, non-motorized areas you see up there do not
    allow vehicular access.
        And, in fact, the resource management plan that is in place
    right now on the San Rafael Swell does not allow vehicles to go
    off from designated roads and trails. We view the semi-
    primitive and the Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area as being
    essentially managed for their wild qualities and being very
    similar to wilderness designation, as you pointed out earlier.
        Mr. Hansen. For some reason, if people say it's wilderness,
    it's all right. What we should do is call all these things
    ``wilderness'' and do what you want on them anyway, because
    they get more protection. There's some mystique out there that
    the term ``wilderness'' gives great protection, you saw from
    our former colleague Congressman Owens. Actually, primitive
    areas, as they used to be designated in the 1930's, get more
    protection than wilderness.
        Mr. Curtis. And could I add to that, Mr. Chairman? We asked
    the regional manager, the district manager of the BLM there,
    what it would take to really enforce wilderness on the San
    Rafael Swell, and he said it would require the United States
    Army. There are too many points of entry and access.
        However, as I mentioned earlier, we're seeing something
    very significant happen here, and this is important to note.
    Our local people are buying into what we're doing here, and
    they're starting to change their attitudes dramatically. In
    fact, he indicated to us just last week, the director of the
    area there for the BLM, that abuse has declined quite a bit in
    the past year.
        And, in fact, the local off-road vehicle club has gone out
    and reclaimed some of these areas where vehicles should not
    have been. They have put up signs saying that people should not
    ride their vehicles there. They're reseeded and revegetated
    those areas. It's a whole different attitude, and that's what
    can come by working together on these types of processes.
        Mr. Hansen. It kind of goes to the area that you hear a lot
    of environmental groups say that, once this ground is gone, it
    is all that's lost. That's poppycock. I can show you areas all
    over America, and I would like to start with Promissary Ridge
    in Wyoming which was loaded with people and now has been
    reclaimed due to the efforts of Dick Cheney, and I supported--I
    carried the bill on the floor--totally reclaimed. I can show
    you areas around the Gunison in Colorado--totally reclaimed. I
    can show you areas in the California Desert Protection Act--
    totally reclaimed. And all of you who are rolling your eyes, I
    would be more than happy to take you and show you those areas
    because it just happens to be fact.
        I strongly disagree with Mr. Meadows on one thing, that
    only the Federal Government can manage the land. It's not true
    at all. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, Mr.
    Meadows. That's what I thought I heard you say. I used to be
    speaker of the Utah House, and we did exhaustive studies with
    what the State did compared to the Federal Government.
        Now you take our western States--there's an imaginary line
    nobody can see, and one side is Federal and one side is State.
    We did a study--the Utah State University did for us when I was
    Speaker of the House--saying who managed the land the best--for
    the best use, taking care of it, help, all that type of thing.
    By far, the State of Utah did a better job. The kicker was
    this: On State lands BLM cost us 75 cents an acre in those days
    and Utah cost us 23 cents an acre. So, I don't know where this
    idea comes from that all wealth, wisdom, knowledge emanates
    from here. It's not true.
        Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that we have
    conflicts with the Bureau of Land Management. We obviously have
    conflict with the Forest Service and other land management
    agencies at the Federal level frequently. I can take you to
    places where private lands are better managed than State lands,
    or State lands better managed than public--than Federal lands.
    But I can also do the reverse.
        I think there's a lot of inconsistency. We can talk about
    anecdotes, but the concern that we have, the base concern we
    have, is that these are Federal, national lands; and our
    Federal agencies need to take the responsibility for managing
    those appropriately. You and I together need to force them to
    do that well.
        Mr. Hansen. I don't disagree with that, Mr. Meadows. I'll
    agree with that statement, and I could show you in forests,
    because I used to chair the Committee on Forests and Forest
    Health, the majority of private ground, owned privately, is in
    better shape than the public ground. And the guy who would come
    in and testify is Dr. Patrick Moore, the president of
    Greenpeace, who will come in here and say, if you really want
    to see, it was managed there.
        Now if I have a bone to pick with you folks--I really
    don't--it would be this: You folks always come in, as my
    friend, Mr. Hinchey does, and say, ``It's public land. It's
    owned by all of us.'' I don't disagree with that. What I do
    disagree is this: Because it's public ground, we sit there--say
    Kane County, Emery County, Garfield County, specifically in the
    State of Utah. Now Garfield County is 90-something percent
    owned by the Federal Government. I imagine Emery County is
    pretty high--92 percent owned by the Federal Government. So,
    hey, we all own that ground. Well, then, why don't you pay your
    share? I would think that SUWA, the Wilderness Society, the
    Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the National Conservancy Area
    would be up here demanding that Congress pay their share.
        These guys are sitting there, and they have a fire caused
    by somebody in the East who carelessly does something; they got
    to go out and fight it. They have debris just strung all over
    the place; they've got to clean it up. They have some guy go up
    on a mountain and break his leg because he doesn't know better;
    they send an ambulance out to take care of them. So they are
    sitting there and their tax base is zero almost.
        I mean the tax base of Garfield County--two Congressmen's
    salaries is more than that--and they are sitting there trying
    to take care of all that area, and my good friend, Pat
    Williams, a good Democrat from Montana, and I raised the amount
    five times to what it was, payment in lieu of taxes, and
    Congress won't--and basically when it was controlled by the
    Democrats would never do it. We are getting a little more out
    of the Republicans as far as coming up with money to pay their
    share of the ground.
        And in any business deal, if I owned a share, I ended up
    paying my share. I would hope to see you people put your money
    where your mouth is, and I say that respectfully, Mr. Meadows,
    and come out and help us out on some of those areas, so we can
    take better care of the ground.
        Mr. Meadows. Absolutely. And let me just comment on that
    briefly. I just paid my taxes last week, just as you did. A
    portion of that I hope is going to protect our lands and manage
    those lands appropriately. The Wilderness Society is part of a
    public lands funding initiative, 140 organizations, pushing
    Congress and the administration to put more money into the
    budgets for Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
    Service, Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to
    manage the lands that we own more effectively.
        We have been niggardly in our approach to funding those
    agencies and that's why the local government are feeling
    pressed. We do have an obligation as the National government to
    fund those agencies appropriately to manage those lands.
        Mr. Hansen. I would agree with that, and I think that's
    laudatory, what you are doing, but we got one now that just
    doesn't urge it; it's on the books; it's authorized; it has
    been paid. I would hope that everyone of your groups would come
    on and say, ``Come on, you guys are always bellyaching about
    it. Put your money where your mouth is, and give some of that
    payment in lieu of taxes,'' and you'll get a lot better care of
    your land.
        These county commissioners have to sit there and say ``What
    are we going to get this time? These guys want us to do all
    this work. They want us to clean this up. They want us to take
    care of it. They want to do all these things. All these eastern
    and western guys come and play on it; yet, they won't pay their
    share.''
        And if you are a county commissioner like these poor guys
    have to be and sit here and take that crap all the time from
    this, you would see they get really uptight. Every time I go
    visit our 29 counties and say, ``Why don't they put their money
    where their mouth is?,'' they want to tell us how to run it and
    they say ``Oh, yeah, we've got payment in lieu of taxes.''
        ``However, you are supposed to get about a quarter an acre.
    We are going to give you 3 cents an acre this time. Yes, we are
    going to screw it up. We are going in there. We are going to
    cause fires. We are going to mess it up and all that type of
    thing,'' but they don't put their money in. I get a little
    exercised over that.
        Mr. Meadows. Well----
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Meadows, just respond and we'll go to the
    other gentleman here.
        Mr. Meadows. That's exactly the kind of place where the
    Wilderness Society and the county commissioners from Emery
    County and this Subcommittee and someone from the Budget
    Committee perhaps, subcommittee, or Interior, could sit and
    talk out a solution, and we are eager to talk about those
    issues because I think that's where we can make a difference.
        Mr. Hansen. I am looking forward to the resolution from the
    Wilderness Society, from SUWA, Sierra Club and others saying,
    ``Why doesn't the government pay their share?'' Now that would
    be a very worthwhile thing for you folks to get involved in.
        The gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I very
    much respect and agree with your advocacy on behalf of local
    people with regard to the responsibility of the Federal
    Government to pay its fair share on these Federal lands. And I
    just want to point out that you were absolutely correct in
    recognizing the leadership of Pat Williams on that and that I
    supported him and others supported him in that initiative.
        We very much agree that these are Federal lands, and the
    Federal Government has a responsibility, and we very much
    support increases in those budgets that were mentioned by Mr.
    Meadows just a few moments ago, and also the need to increase
    the payment in lieu of taxes for these lands. I very much
    support you on that.
        Mr. Hansen. Well, I am looking forward to all your support
    when that appropriation bill comes up and all the good things
    that Mr. Meadows' group is going to say about it.
        Thank you so much. We'll adjourn and this will end this
    hearing, and thanks to everyone for coming.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 a.m., the Committee adjourned subject
    to the call of the Chair.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
                        Statement of Hon. Mike Dmitrich,

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
    Subcommittee, it is with great pleasure that I address you
    today, not simply because I do not get to address such an
    august body often, but because I am addressing you on an issue
    of great importance not only to my constituents but to all of
    the American people.
        In Emery County, a county bigger than some New England
    states, lies one of the last great undiscovered national
    treasures, the San Rafael Swell. The cliffs were the shores of
    long vanished oceans. at every turn there are the signs of the
    ancient Jurassic era, through the swell passes the old Spanish
    Trail and cowboys can still be seen working, it is an area rich
    in biodiversity both plant and animal, however, like many areas
    in the west, it is rich not only in beauty, but mineral wealth,
    grazing potential, and other uses which make human life
    possible.
        For decades, the various user groups have been, almost
    literally, at war. Many groups, on all sides, have staked out
    extreme positions over which they have declared ``No
    compromise, no surrender,'' ``No quarter asked, none given.''
    The result has been an area in managerial confusion, such a
    situation is extremely difficult for local elected officials
    and local area resource managers from the state and Federal
    agencies.
        However, not all voices have been strident and unyielding.
    Environmentalists, resource people and recreation groups, from
    both in and out of the area, have spent literally thousands of
    hours forging a plan to manage the San Rafael resource area in
    a sensible and thoughtful way. You have before you H.R. 3625,
    which is the legislative embodiment of that effort and an
    emblem of their dedication to reason and compromise. It is a
    commitment from both the citizens of Carbon and Emery counties,
    and those who don't live there but who love these lands, to
    care for them and to use them responsibly now and forever.
        There are those who can, and will, cite the specifics
    better than I, however, let me state that H.R. 3625 will create
    a 630,000 acre national conservation area from which industrial
    development will be banned but in which conventional tourism
    and livestock will be allowed. In addition, over 300,000 acres
    will be placed in wilderness or primitive designations.
        Again, I will leave the real details to others, but what I
    want to do is give you some reasons to vote for this proposal
    and not a blanket wilderness designation. For those whose
    constituencies lie east of the 100th meridian, voting for
    wilderness always seems a safe and popular vote. However, as
    all of us who answer to the voters know, what appears popular
    today can turn to voter resentment and anger tomorrow. If you
    enact, as some would have you do, a simple blanket wilderness
    designation for the San Rafael, the law of unintended
    consequences may begin to work with a vengeance.
        First of all, since wilderness precludes most kinds of game
    management techniques, such as providing salt or water
    bubblers, you may be causing grave harm the just reemerging big
    horn sheep herd. You still hear testimony on that later. It
    goes against our intuition, but some of these species cannot
    any longer survive without man's intervention. the game
    managers support this proposal.
        Often, wilderness precludes most kinds of archeological
    work which would be criminal in this area so rich in Native
    American history. It may also mandate the destruction of some
    historical sites because they are the works of ``the hand of
    man.''
        Furthermore, since the only allowed means of travel in
    wilderness areas are foot and horseback, many of the wonders of
    this area will be denied to your constituents who are elderly
    or handicapped. Those people deserve access to the lands as
    well.
        What might appear to be an easy vote has many land mines in
    it. In the end your constituents will be grateful that you took
    the thoughtful approach and did what is right for people and
    animals, for history and culture, and for their opportunities
    to enjoy the land when they hopefully journey to my state
    senate district.
        That said, let me state that I am not an opponent of
    wilderness designation. Some of the earlier proposals did have
    too little wilderness. there must be pristine and quite places
    in this ever more hectic world where a person can enjoy nature
    as God created it. Please note that an area larger than Rhode
    Island has been excluded from mineral development. I am happy
    to say that there are several wilderness designations as part
    of this overall plan, but these are designations thoughtfully
    done rather than done as a part of a cynical numbers game.
    These areas contain the type of scenic wonders the original
    sponsors of the 1964 Wilderness Act had in mind.
        Besides, I have great sympathies with endangered species. I
    am a rural Utah Democrat. Nonetheless, I have survived to
    become the senior person in the Utah legislature. I can tell
    you, this battle has been going on during the greater part of
    my 30 years of service. It is time for this battle to end. It
    is time to finally say no to the narrow interests and say yes
    to the vast majority of Americans who know in their hearts that
    there is room for us all. It is time to do the right thing--
    instead of the easy thing--for the wildlife, for the people of
    Emery County, Utah and all of America. Thank you for this
    opportunity and thank you, Chairman Hansen for holding this
    hearing.
                                    ------

                  Statement of Randy G. Johnson, Commissioner

    Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee,
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    on this important bill. I have spent a great deal of time
    trying to think of what I might say to you that has not been
    said before, and which might in some small way portray how
    important I believe this new approach to public lands
    management really is.
        I believe that I should first let you know of my
    involvement in public lands matters so that you will understand
    my perspective on these issues.
        I am Chairman of the Emery County Board of Commissioners.
    Emery County is a county about the size of Connecticut which is
    92 percent state or federally owned.
        I am also Chairman of the Utah Association of Counties
    Public Lands Oversight Committee, a member of the National
    Association of Counties Public Lands Steering Committee, and
    Chairman of the Rural Public Lands County Council.
        Lastly, I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Utah
    Lands Foundation, the only resolution-oriented environmental
    organization in Utah.
        Consequently, public lands issues consume a great amount of
    my time. I want you to understand that I am excited to testify
    today, because I believe that what is before you is truly a
    landmark bill. H.R. 3625 has the potential to change the entire
    field of discussion, and could lead us into an era of public
    lands problem-solving if we are willing to let it.
        The challenge will be in prying ourselves loose of the
    stalemate we have created. As stated in an April 14, 1998
    Deseret News editorial: ``Perhaps a miracle--a big one at
    that--would move key players off dead center, or, more
    accurately, from the outer extremes. Beyond that, there doesn't
    appear to be much hope of exorcising the intransigence of
    wilderness advocates who are perfectly satisfied with the
    status quo. Defacto wilderness is as sacrosanct as officially
    designated wilderness. There is no incentive for wilds
    advocates at loggerheads with others to budge, which is the
    root of the stalemate.''
        I am here today to ask you for that ``big miracle.''
        I must also ask the question, if there is a general refusal
    to come to the table and look for solutions, then what kind of
    future have we defined for ourselves? Isn't it time to re-
    evaluate our public lands management philosophy? I believe that
    we must ask ourselves: What kind of a war have we created--and
    who benefits?
        I assert to you that the Emery County Plan solves problems.
    It addresses the needs of all stakeholders. It works for the
    best good of the land itself. And, most importantly, it is a
    manageable plan. Surely this is a wonderful opportunity to move
    away from the stalemate described so well by the Deseret News.
        I think it is important for you to know that I consider
    myself an environmentalist. But, I am not allowed to be one
    because I do not believe that we should make wilderness of
    every possible piece of land that we can force into some
    semblance of qualification, ignoring man's impacts while making
    a crime of historic uses.
        Wilderness was meant to apply only to those exemplary lands
    which truly qualify. It was never intended as a management tool
    for all public lands. Nor should it be. Some environmentalists,
    in their eagerness to lock up the land, have made villains of
    those who mined uranium and other resources when our nation had
    a great need for those products, and have portrayed local
    elected officials as thugs and land barons. This is truly
    unfortunate, because the sustainability of those lands has been
    critical to our use of the land since the 1800's. This is
    evidenced by the fact that the beauty and wonder of this area
    has been so well preserved over the years that the entire
    nation is focused on it today.
        This is at the heart of the Emery County bill. It is our
    firm belief that natural history and human heritage are just as
    important and deserving of protection and recognition as are
    slick rocks. We also believe that the current status of
    polarization and acreage quotas is harmful--harmful to the
    land, harmful to the people who use and enjoy the land, and
    harmful to the nation. Surely our beautiful lands deserve more
    than junk science and exaggerated and manipulated statistics.
    Surely they deserve our best efforts. Certainly we are capable
    of prescribing a management philosophy that meets the needs of
    the land while assuring that we can also carefully manage the
    resources which come from the lands.
        We believe that Emery County has done just that. H.R. 3625
    is the only proposal that protects the entire San Rafael Swell.
    It is the only proposal that provides 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 those values.
        The Emery County proposal is based on two principles:

              (1) Man is not an intruder in his own world; and (2) Man is
            capable of protecting and preserving all the values of the
            land, while carefully utilizing the basic and essential
            resources the land provides.
        The National Heritage Area part of the plan addresses the wonderful
    blend of man and nature which is unique to the San Rafael. Here, the
    footprints of history trace themselves across the rugged beauty of the
    Swell. Dinosaur remains scatter the area, focusing at the Cleveland-
    Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, one of the largest sources of fossil remains in
    the world. There is also ample evidence of early Native American
    cultures throughout the Heritage Area, with many examples of their
    wonderful history preserved in rock art. Further, the heritage of the
    early settlers of this harsh and unforgiving land is woven into the
    area, and is every much as deserving of protection and recognition as
    the rocks surrounding them. Such treasures as Sid's Leap, Swasey's
    Cabin, and Temple Mountain are as much a part of the San Rafael Swell
    as sand and wind and deep canyon draws.
        The Heritage Area works to identify and protect these and other
    wonderful sites for the enjoyment of all who come to the San Rafael.
    Few other places in the world can provide such an ample supply of
    heritage sites. Places such as Swasey's Leap Historical site, Outlaw
    Joe Walker Trail Corridor, Hidden Splendor Historical Site, the Spanish
    Trail Corridor, Copper Globe Historical Area, Rock Art Historic
    Corridor, and many, many others. Access to these destinations will be
    accomplished by means of existing and long-used roads and trails. Most
    importantly, the ever-increasing flow of tourists will find a greatly
    enhanced visit to the San Rafael Swell, while we are able to better
    manage that flow of people and better protect the more pristine of the
    San Rafael lands.
        This wonderful blend of man and his world is the very heart and
    soul of this plan. Tracking the various footprints of natural history
    and human heritage through the San Rafael Swell gives the breath of
    life to these lands, and causes all who become hooked by the excitement
    and mystery of the area to take some share of ownership in the process
    of preservation and protection. It is a user-friendly plan, and
    everyone benefits from its manageable approach.
        The National Conservation Area works to preserve the more pristine
    areas of the San Rafael in various levels of protection as dictated by
    the land. In more than 600,000 acres, the NCA not only includes huge
    tracts of wilderness designation, but it goes well beyond wilderness in
    its protective layers. It recognizes the largest Desert Bighorn Sheep
    herd in Utah and makes provisions to manage and protect that wonderful
    resource. It also withdraws the entire San Rafael Swell from oil
    drilling, timbering, and mining.
        With our National Heritage/Conservation Area proposal, Emery County
    has created a protective blanket which actually fits the land, and
    works to recognize and preserve all the wonderful qualities of that
    land.
        Some environmentalists will say we have withdrawn protection from
    many acres. What they really mean is that we are protecting those lands
    in ways other than wilderness--ways that are just as permanent, just as
    effective, and in many cases, much more protective than wilderness.
        Another criticism of optional forms of protection is that
    wilderness is permanent, others are not. But, Mr. Chairman, we are here
    before you to seek congressional designation which would make this
    hybrid ecosystem management concept permanent, providing protection for
    the San Rafael Swell for many generations to come.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee----

              if you say that the lands of the San Rafael need protecting,
            we say, ``We agree!''
              If you say that there needs to be a ``wilderness experience''
            available to anyone who seeks it, we say, ``We agree!'
              if you say we should preserve some of our precious lands for
            future generations, we say, ``We agree!''
              if you say there are some areas where no new roads should be
            built, and no new mining should occur, we say, ``We agree!''
              But----
              if you say that wilderness is the only way to achieve these
            things, then we say, ``We do not agree.''
        We believe that we must reevaluate our public lands management
    philosophy. We must look at the conflict we have created, and ask
    ourselves where we are going and who benefits from the continual
    contention.
        I close my testimony with the words of Thomas Jefferson, from the
    walls of the Jefferson Memorial:

              ``I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and
            constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand
            with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more
            developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new
            truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the
            change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep
            pace with the times. . . .''
        We ask you, once again, for that ``Big miracle.'' Let us move to a
    new, hybrid form of manageable protection. Let us accomplish the
    purposes of the San Rafael Swell National Heritage/Conservation Area.
        I thank you.
                                     ______

             Statement of Kent Petersen, Emery County Commissioner

        Chairman Hansen and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
    Kent Petersen. I am a member of the Emery County Commission. I
    am pleased to be able to talk to you about H.R. 3625, The San
    Rafael Swell National Heritage Area, National Conservation
    Area.
        Most of the people in Emery County live along the western
    side of the county between the mountains of the Wasatch Plateau
    on our west and the San Rafael Swell to our east. Our homes and
    our farms are in the valleys, fed by the streams which
    originate in the mountains. Our cattle spend their summers and
    get fat in these mountains. The coal for the power plants which
    provide jobs for our people are in these mountains. Even though
    much of our wealth comes from the mountains Our Hearts are in
    the San Rafael Swell. It is where we go when we want to be
    alone, and it is where we take our visitors when we want to
    show them something special. When our people come home after
    they have been away for a while, the Swell is always one of the
    first places they want to visit.
        The San Rafael Swell is a land of scenic beauty, but it is
    much more than this. It has a unique history and heritage. Many
    of the dinosaur skeletons on display throughout the world come
    from the Cleveland Lloyd Quarry operated by the BLM on the
    northern edge of the Swell. Rock art, and other remnants of the
    early Native Americans, abounds throughout the Swell. Butch
    Cassidy and the Robbers Roost gang frequented the Swell and
    used it as a getaway route after more than one robbery. Cowboys
    have managed their livestock on the swell from the early 1870's
    until today. They also named most of the landmarks and places
    of interest. These are only a part of the history and heritage
    we will be protecting and promoting with the San Rafael Swell
    National Heritage Area.
        We know these are public lands belonging to the people of
    the United States. We support the right of the people all
    around this country to be able to visit these lands, and to
    have a say in the management of them. We feel very strongly,
    however, that those of us who live next to these lands, and who
    have spent our lifetimes on or near them, must have a large say
    in how these lands are managed.
        Decisions and solutions dropped down from on high, without
    input from local citizens are very disruptive. They require a
    strong police presence to force people to follow new rules
    which often make no sense. Solutions that are sensible, and
    have a strong local support, police themselves.
        This is a plan developed at the local level with strong
    consideration of national interests. It will protect some very
    important lands. It will protect and manage the wildlife who
    live on these lands. It will manage the people who visit and
    use these lands. And it will protect the heritage and the
    history of those who have called these lands home.
        The citizens of Emery County have a long history of caring
    for the land. In the late 1890's and early 1900's a person
    could tell the location, from the valley floor, of the sheep
    and cattle herds on the mountains by the clouds of dust they
    kicked up from the severely over grazed land. Large herds of
    cattle from the area, and from outside the area, even from
    outside of the state, were grazing uncontrolledly on the public
    lands. Local citizens petitioned the government for the
    establishment of the Manti National Forest. Through cooperative
    efforts of the local ranchers and the Forest Service the lands
    have recovered and are once again very productive.
        In 1992 Project 2000, A Coalition for Utah's Future, a
    broad based public interest organization, decided to try to
    resolve the Utah Wilderness issue. Emery County volunteered to
    be the pilot county for this effort. We met with a widely
    diverse group of stakeholders to see if we could come to a
    consensus resolution.
        The stakeholders included members of state and national
    environmental groups, oil, gas, mining and utility interests,
    OHV users, ranchers, local government, state and Federal land
    management agencies, and local citizens. We met for about two
    years. We did not reach a consensus resolution because in 1995
    the debate changed to focus on H.R. 1745, the Utah wilderness
    bill. The two sides became polarized and it was impossible to
    work for consensus.
        These discussions, however, provided the impetus for the
    development of H.R. 3625, The San Rafael Swell National
    Heritage and Conservation Act. They also led to the formation
    of the Emery County Public Lands Council. It is a broad-based
    group of local citizens who meet on a regular basis to discuss,
    and resolve, public land issues. We have signed Memoranda of
    Understanding (MOU's) with the BLM, Forest Service, and State
    Agencies. We decided if we were going to have a say in our
    destiny we would have to become proactive and seek workable
    solutions.
        While meeting with Project 2000, The Coalition for Utah's
    Future we found that our goals for the land were not all that
    different from most members of the environmental community. We
    all wanted the San Rafael to remain forever as it is today. The
    differences were in how we were to accomplish this goal.
        At a public meeting in Castle Dale, Montell Seely, a local
    sheep rancher and historian, and George Nickas, a member of the
    Utah Wilderness Association, described very similar visions for
    Sid's Mountain, a key portion of the Desert Bighorn Sheep
    Management Area in H.R. 3625. They differed only in the methods
    for accomplishing their vision. George, the environmentalist
    thought it should be made a part of a large wilderness area.
    Montell said that it should always remain wild and that its
    location would ensure that it would. H.R. 3625 will satisfy
    both their visions.
        We determined that we all wanted the land protected. We
    also found that wilderness was only one method of land
    protection and is often not the best method. It is, in fact, a
    non management tool. We studied various protection methods and
    determined that a National Conservation Area (NCA) with various
    protection schemes inside the boundary would be the most
    effective method for managing the San Rafael Swell. The
    addition of the National Heritage Area will protect and manage
    various heritage and historical sites within the NCA and
    throughout Carbon and Emery Counties.
        The National Conservation Area provides protection for
    630,000 acres. Inside of this area are wilderness areas, semi-
    primitive nonmotorized areas, an area of critical environmental
    concern (ACEC) to protect the view from the Interstate 70, and
    the Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area. There are also
    wilderness areas and semi-primitive nonmotorized areas outside
    of the NCA in Carbon and Emery Counties.
        The Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Area provides
    protection for the sheep while allowing the Utah Division of
    Wildlife Resources to use all the tools it needs to keep the
    herd viable. The Desert Bighorn Sheep is very susceptible to
    disease, and over population is the greatest threat to a herd.
    Careful management is necessary to keep the herd healthy. The
    management area will also provide for watchable wildlife areas,
    scientific study of the sheep, and educational opportunities
    for the public.
        The semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas provide the ideal
    management conditions for several areas in the San Rafael
    Swell. They provide for wilderness recreation and isolation
    away from the usual human activities while recognizing the
    existence of man made features such as existing roads.
        Most of the areas on the San Rafael Swell listed in H.R.
    1500 are protected within the NCA either as wilderness, or
    semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas. Additional areas are
    protected within the NCA and as semi-primitive nonmotorized
    areas outside of the NCA boundaries. These designations protect
    the land while recognizing valid existing rights.
        The visual ACEC provides protection for the unique visual
    corridor along I-70, a major transcontinental highway.
    Thousands of travelers drive across the San Rafael Swell daily.
    Their view will be protected and we will develop methods for
    informing them about what they are seeing.
        I am sure that after careful study you will agree that H.R.
    3625 is the ideal management tool for the San Rafael Swell and
    for all of Emery and Carbon Counties in Utah. Maybe it will be
    the model for a new way to resolve public land disputes in the
    west.
        Thanks to you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and
    thanks to Chairman Hansen for holding this hearing.
                                    ------

            Statement of Bevan K. Wilson, Emery County Commissioner

        Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member, and members of the
    Subcommittee: I come before you today as an Emery County
    Commissioner and as a native son of Emery County. I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify on a matter that is of vital
    importance to all of us.
        During the debate on the 1996 Utah Wilderness Bill, Senator
    Bill Bradley raised a question that is central to my discussion
    today. Senator Bradley asked ``How do we achieve a balanced,
    reasonable plan for conserving America's natural heritage while
    providing opportunities for economic growth and development
    across our public lands?'' That is a question that we in Emery
    County have been pondering for over a decade.
        The ten thousand citizens of Emery County live on tiny
    islands of private land surrounded by a sea of public land.
    Nine of every ten acres are owned and controlled by government,
    either Federal or state. These lands not only surround us; they
    sustain us. Water is our most limited and precious natural
    resource. Every drop of water we use comes from public land.
    Ranching is our dominant agricultural enterprise. Much of the
    forage for our livestock comes from BLM or Forest Service land.
    Emery County is the number-one coal producing county in Utah.
    Most of our coal comes from Federal coal leases. Public land
    has always provided most of our recreational opportunities, and
    our growing tourism industry is inseparably tied to those
    lands. Huntington native Edward Geary has written that these
    lands ``. . . form the proper edge of the sky.'' In a very real
    sense these lands define our cultural and economic horizons as
    well.
        Public land issues have always been important to us, but
    they assumed a new importance during the BLM wilderness
    inventory process. Hundreds of local citizens attended public
    hearings and offered comments on the wilderness EIS. At about
    that time Emery County developed an Economic Development
    Council and hired Scott Truman as its first director. Much of
    Scott's time was occupied with public land issues. In the mid-
    eighties Scott and others proposed the creation of a National
    Park on the San Rafael Swell. That concept was abandoned
    because of local opposition. Some viewed a National Park as a
    single-use designation that would not address other national
    and local needs. Others simply did not want to see that level
    of tourism development on the Swell.
        Since that time public land issues have occupied most of
    the County Commission's time. Others will detail the process
    that led to the introduction of H.R. 3625. Suffice it to say,
    the Commissioners and Public Lands Council met with numerous
    stakeholder groups, listened to hours of testimony, held dozens
    of meetings, and considered every conceivable land protection
    strategy before developing our proposal. I wish to make it
    clear that H.R. 3625 is our proposal. We are deeply indebted to
    the Utah Congressional Delegation for helping us express our
    wishes in legislative language.
        What does H.R. 3625 do? First, it protects public land. It
    bans mining, logging, tar sands development and oil and gas
    exploration on approximately one million acres. Some would have
    you believe that this bill somehow lessens existing
    protections. It does not. It protects lands now identified by
    the BLM as wilderness study areas. It protects lands in the
    center of the San Rafael Swell that are not identified as
    wilderness study areas. It provides specific protection to the
    Sids Mountain area, which is home to one of Utah's largest
    Bighorn Sheep herds.
        Second, H.R. 3625 sets the stage for a tourist industry
    that respects the environment and local culture. It does this
    by blending a National Heritage Area with a carefully selected
    mix of protective measures, including wilderness. Some paint
    tourism as the answer to all of Southern Utah's environmental
    and economic problems, and wilderness as the ultimate tourist
    attraction. I know something of tourism. For ten years I
    operated a trading post on Route 66 in Flagstaff, Arizona. My
    customers included native Hopis and Navajos, as well as
    tourists on route to the Grand Canyon, Sunset Crater, and the
    Petrified Forest. During those ten years I learned about
    tourism's seasonal booms and busts. The year was divided into
    ``the season'' and the ``off season.'' If you didn't do well
    during ``the season,'' the ``off-season'' got mighty long. I
    learned that the whole family had to work to make a living on
    tourism wages. We all worked long hours to make ends meet. I
    learned about the need to diversify. I was involved in the
    operation of a wholesale oil and gas distributorship, a truck-
    stop and trading post. I bought and sold livestock.
    Additionally, I operated a wholesale ice company, steak house
    and other businesses.
        I have no doubt that tourism will assume a growing
    importance in Emery County's economy. Emery County is
    relatively close to Utah's population centers. A visitor from
    Salt Lake City can spend his entire vacation in Emery County
    without even having to purchase fuel locally. If we base our
    tourism industry on traditional ``windshield'' tourism, we will
    have to attract a huge number of visitors, because per capita
    spending will be so low. We don't want to do that. That type of
    tourism would severely impact our public lands and compromise
    our cherished rural lifestyle. We hope to develop ``value-
    added'' tourism which will provide an enhanced experience to a
    smaller number of visitors. A National Heritage Area is a
    natural fit for that type of tourism. Protective designations
    such as the Bighorn Sheep Management Area also provide
    opportunities for sustainable tourism.
        The Bighorn Sheep Management Area was developed in
    cooperation with wildlife managers and land managers primarily
    to protect the sheep and their habitat. The Area also provides
    unique opportunities for visitors to view Bighorn Sheep.
    Wildlife watching is a growing industry. In 1991, out-of-state
    visitors spent $983,000 on wildlife-watching trips in Utah. By
    1996, that figure had grown to $1.4 million. Recently, two
    Public Lands Council members were explaining this concept to a
    National Public Radio reporter, while traveling through the
    Buckhorn Draw. As if on cue, a herd of thirteen bighorns moved
    out of a gully, up a cliff face, and paused on top of a large
    boulder. The reporter was thrilled by his first encounter with
    bighorns in the wild. Guides and outfitters will be able to
    provide that experience to others in perpetuity, if we adopt a
    plan that manages both lands and people. The Bighorn Sheep Area
    is only one example of the sustainable, value-added tourism
    opportunities created by H.R. 3625.
        I repeat Senator Bradley's question: ``How do we achieve a
    balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America's natural
    heritage while providing opportunities for economic growth and
    development across our public lands?'' I believe that H.R. 3625
    comes closer to answering that question than any proposal yet
    offered.
        Emery County's public lands and its culture are inseparably
    linked. Our lands and culture have survived the rise and demise
    of free-range grazing. They have survived the uranium boom and
    bust. They have survived the roller coaster trend of the coal
    economy. The question yet to be answered is, can they survive
    tourism and the service-based economy of the New West? Our
    challenges are great. We believe that H.R. 3625 will help us
    meet those challenges now and in the future.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before
    you.
                                    ------

           Statement of Pat Shea, Director, Bureau of Land Management

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell
    National Heritage and Conservation Act. Though Representative
    Cannon's bill is predicated upon the local community's genuine
    concern for the preservation, conservation and interpretation
    of very significant heritage resources present in the San
    Rafael Swell and its surrounding region, there are numerous
    problems with the bill's approach to these issues which require
    us to oppose it today. And although the bill seeks a goal we
    support--to encourage and facilitate a collaborative approach
    among Federal land managers, local governments, agencies, and
    other concerned organizations to protect certain heritage and
    natural resource values within the area--we have some
    alternative suggestions on how to accomplish that goal. The San
    Rafael Swell region is being ``discovered'' and all of us must
    acknowledge and deal with the impacts, both positive and
    negative, of that fact. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
    the largest land holding in the area and has two land use
    management plans in place to provide management direction to
    these lands--the San Rafael Race Management Plan. and the Price
    Resource Area Management Framework Plan. The Utah Resource
    Advisory Council (RAC), established by Secretary Babbitt,
    offers an existing mechanism to begin looking at the impacts
    and solutions to the region's growing tourism economy. The RAC
    process is based on a recognition that there should be local
    solutions to issues of public land management, but not local
    dictates. Unfortunately, H.R. 3625 employs the National
    Heritage Area model for addressing some of these issues, a
    model which has been used primarily in the eastern United
    States in areas of predominantly privately-owned lands. It is
    not a model that is well-suited to the public land management
    issues of the San Rafael Swell region.
        Finally, though the recognition of the need to protect some
    areas in wilderness status is gratifying, unfortunately the
    proposal was not developed with involvement by all major
    interests. The wilderness areas proposed for the region
    encompassed by the proposal fall far short of previous
    wilderness bills considered in this Subcommittee, and indude
    management prescriptions which are incompatible with wilderness
    as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Given these
    deficiencies, if passed in its present form, the Secretary
    would recommend that the President veto H.R. 3625.
        Although we oppose this bill, we support the concept of a
    collaborative approach to recognizing the values of and
    developing means to protect cultural sites of national and
    local significance within the San Rafael Swell region. I will
    outline some proposed alternatives to accomplishing this goal
    later in my testimony. Before doing so, however, I will discuss
    in detail five major problem areas in the bill.

    San Rafael Regional Heritage Council and the San Rafael Swell
    National Conservation Area Advisory Council

        First, the two councils proposed in H.R. 3625 do not
    include representation by a broad enough spectrum of public
    land constituencies who have legitimate concerns about the
    management of the resources on the public lands encompassed by
    the proposal. These public lands belong to all Americans, and
    all Utahns, and Americans who live elsewhere in Utah and
    elsewhere in the United States have a legitimate stake in the
    management of these resources. This really should come as no
    surprise to anyone on this Subcommittee who has sat through the
    years of debate over these issues. Successful resolution of
    management issues in the region will require a more inclusive
    approach.
        Transplanting the national heritage area designation
    concept, which has been used predominantly in the eastern
    United States where mostly non-Federal lands are involved, to
    the San Rafael Swell region where there are large holdings of
    federally administered lands, does not work well. H.R. 3625
    only vaguely identifies what entities will comprise the
    Heritage Council and how they will operate. The participation
    of local government entities, such as county governments, is
    essential if the Council is to succeed, but the procedure
    identified in the legislation leaves doubt as to which entities
    will actually participate. It is also not clear how entities
    will be represented on the Council. The use of the term
    ``council'' implies that entities would appoint
    representatives, but it is not clear if this is intended or
    whether these entities form some sort of a coalition of
    interested organizations. The NCA Advisory Council has more
    detailed requirements for representation than the Heritage
    Council, but is also vague as to the spectrum of interests that
    would be represented.
        Provisions for the Heritage Council also conflict with, or
    at least lead to confusion about, who is responsible for
    planning and management responsibilities which FLPMA requires
    BLM to administer. H.R. 3625 fails to clearly articulate what
    the relationship will be between Federal land managers in
    Carbon, Emery and Sanpete counties and the proposed San Rafael
    National Heritage Council. The legislation charges the Council
    with completing and implementing a management plan for the
    lands and resources within the national heritage area, yet
    there is no provision for how this plan interfaces with BLM's
    San Rafael Resource Management Plan or the land use plans of
    the Forest Service which also manage lands in the area. Section
    105(b)(4) requires the plan to ``detail appropriate land and
    water management techniques,'' but is unclear as to whether, or
    how, such decisions by the Heritage Council would amend BLM's
    San Rafael Resource Management Plan.
        The title of Section 108 implies that the San Rafael
    National Heritage Council has the status of a Federal agency.
    If so, the Council must operate under the laws and regulations
    which govern Federal agencies, such as the Archeological
    Resources Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered
    Species Act, etc. Yet Section 107(b) limits the Secretary from
    requiring ``land use restrictions'' when providing the
    technical and financial assistance required by the legislation.
    This may, in effect, limit the Secretary from complying with
    the requirements of these laws when assisting the Council in
    implementing its management plan.
        The application of the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) and the FLPMA to the preparation of a management plan by
    the Heritage Council is unclear. It is not clear whether this
    bill envisions NEPA compliance. Secretarial approval or
    disapproval of the plan, however, would require such
    compliance. Further, BLM's role in the management plan is
    uncertain. The plan would constitute a major Federal action for
    the Federal lands, yet it is not clear whether BLM would be the
    ``lead agency,'' for purposes of compliance with the Council on
    Environmental Quality regulations. Who would pay for the
    preparation of an EIS, BLM or the Heritage Council, is not
    stated.
        Given these problems, I suggest that the BLM, the State of
    Utah, the county governments, ana other interested parties
    cooperate in doing an in-depth survey of the unique heritage
    resources, recreation resources, and tourism infrastructure of
    the San Rafael Swell region. After the information is available
    the various participants should make recommendations regarding
    implementation of the heritage area concept or other approaches
    for developing gateway communities which could be applied in
    the San Rafael Swell area. By fully involving all parties in a
    such a survey, buy-in to the management plan would be more
    likely.
    RS 2477 Right-of-Way Assertions

        RS 2477 was adopted by Congress in 1866 and granted a
    right-of-way for the construction of highways across public
    land not reserved for public uses. When FLPMA was passed in
    1976, Congress repealed RS 2477, but did not terminate valid
    rights-of-way existing on the date of FLPMA's enactment.
        Rights-of-way validly acquired pursuant to RS 2477 provide
    access to and across Federal lands for States and local
    governments, and the general public. Historically, these
    rights-of-way have not presented many problems for Federal land
    managers, because in general their existence is obvious and
    unquestioned.
        In recent years, however, there has been controversy over
    whether certain claimed access routes are ``highways'' that
    were ``constructed'' pursuant to RS 2477. This controversy
    causes uncertainty for Federal land managers charged with
    managing and protecting Federal lands according to current
    environmental, land use, and national security laws.
        The matrix identified as roads on the map referenced in the
    legislation indudes many routes which are wash bottoms,
    abandoned and unmaintained mining exploration routes, and
    trails impassable to vehicular traffic. We are concerned that
    labeling these areas as minor roads on the map could, if it
    became law, establish these routes as RS 2477 rights-of-way.
        These so-called minor roads appear to be within many of the
    areas proposed as wilderness or for semi-primitive nonmotorized
    designation, and legislatively establishing them as rights-of
    way, is confusing, unmanageable, and incompatible with the
    purposes of these areas. According to this legislation, such
    roads would have a setback of 100 feet on either side, creating
    swaths 200 feet wide through areas ostensibly managed as
    wilderness. All of the minor roads should be removed from this
    map, and no roads should extend into, or run through areas
    proposed for wilderness. This bill is not the appropriate
    vehicle to resolve contentious RS 2477 claims.

    National Conservation Area

        The San Rafael Swell region of Utah has long been
    recognized as having high-quality geological, archeological,
    historical, paleontological, wildlife, and scenic resources of
    national significance. The natural and cultural values of these
    lands have caused much of it to be included in BLM's wilderness
    study areas and in wilderness legislative proposals dating back
    more than a decade. Furthermore, in 1989, BLM proposed an
    876,000 acre National Conservation Area for the area in its San
    Rafael Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact
    Statement.
        Although H.R. 3625 would designate an NCA boundary (except
    for a mineral withdrawal) it does not provide substantive
    protections for the important heritage and natural resources of
    the San Rafael Swell area. Moreover, it creates an unnecessary
    Advisory Council which would represent a narrow segment of the
    population interested in the management of the NCA. The bill's
    Section 203 unwisely reinvents FLPMA's well-understood and
    tested multiple-use and sustained yield definitions. As a
    general matter, BLM does not support any bill whose effect
    would be to reinvent FLPMA. FLPMA evolved in 1976 from the
    decade-long investigation by the Public Land Law Review
    Commission, led by prominent western Congressmen and Senators.
    The final product is a statute which has given BLM numerous
    flexible tools to accomplish a variety of land management goals
    with input from people across the spectrum of interests.
        Finally, the NCA proposed in H.R. 3625 would dedicate an
    area proposed by many including the BLM, for wilderness to the
    intensive management of bighorn sheep, in part for export to
    other regions. The ecological cost of ``ranching'' bighorn
    sheep is not known and needs to be examined closely for
    resource trade-offs, including loss of wilderness values.

    School and institutional trust lands exchange process

        Sections 204, 222, and 406 of H.R. 3625 all deal with
    acquiring non-Federal lands inside various designations and
    exchanging them for Federal lands outside those areas. These
    sections do not provide a uniform approach to accomplish such
    land exchanges, creating confusion. Combining the provisions of
    Section 204(a)(1), 204(b), and Section 222(b) to replace
    Section 406 would provide a consistent and reasonable approach
    to these land exchanges. Section 406's requirement of
    acquisition of all lands within two years, without any sharing
    of the associated costs, is unreasonable. The land exchange
    process should allow the Secretary to work with the State of
    Utah to complete mutually acceptable exchanges.

    Wilderness

        I commend the proponents of this bill for recognizing areas
    that should be designated wilderness. Nevertheless, the
    proposed wilderness is 80,000 acres smaller than the BLM
    proposed in the previous Administration. Moreover, it allows
    excessive access by vehicles on virtually any historically used
    route in a wilderness which is drastically out of step with the
    Wilderness Act of 1964. The wilderness proposal outlined in
    H.R. 3625 is not the product of an inclusive process. Until we
    have such a process, we will not have a workable resolution of
    the wilderness issue.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify regarding this
    legislation before your Subcommittee. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
                                    ------

            Statement of Governor Michael O. Leavitt, State of Utah

        Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you
    today about the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and
    Conservation Act.
        The protection of public lands in the State of Utah is an
    issue of national significance. The Federal Government
    administers more than 65 percent of the land in the State.
    These lands include some of the most spectacular scenery to be
    found anywhere in the world. The public lands in Utah are also
    host to a variety of activities and uses, and in many cases,
    the center of a good deal of controversy.
        For decades now Utahns, along with many concerned people
    living outside the state, have waged contentious battles over
    how these lands should be managed and protected.
        In my State of the State address in January 1997, I
    recounted a marvelous event I was privileged to experience here
    in the nation's capitol. In September of 1993, I was among
    those gathered on the White House lawn to witness a handshake
    that would change the course of history as Yasser Arafat and
    Yitzhak Rabin clasped hands in a gesture that bridged decades
    of bitterness and strife between Israelis and Palestinians with
    the signing of the Oslo peace accords. Across the street in
    Lafayette Park, protesters from both sides loudly chanted their
    objections.
        As I told the citizens of my state, ``We're not talking
    about world peace, but our state, for decades has been divided
    on the wilderness issue. It is time, now, to say enough
    fighting, to begin building on what unites us. Each of us
    shares a love for the land, and each of us shares a common
    desire to preserve sensitive lands. Let us begin with those
    lands on which there is substantial agreement. I'd like to say
    to the extremes on both sides of this debate, let's quit
    protesting in Lafayette Park, come to the table, and after 20
    years let's stop fighting and start protecting land.''
        At that time I proposed a different approach to addressing
    these issues. I suggested that rather than deal with a
    statewide proposal that included enormous acreages and even
    larger political and emotional stakes, we needed to take a
    different road. I suggested that we deal with these public
    lands issues by means of an incremental approach, in which we
    would deal with areas or regions one at a time, piece by piece,
    as we worked our way a step at a time toward a total solution.
        I have been convinced for a quite some time that if we are
    going to break the impasse over wilderness and the protection
    of public lands, we must begin by designating some wilderness
    somewhere in order to begin the process. This initial step,
    this first success, would be a critical catalyst for setting in
    motion the string of events that could ultimately break the
    gridlock and move toward resolution.
        In presenting this incremental approach, I emphatically
    stated that it could not be successful unless it were
    accomplished through valid pubic processes and active
    involvement on the part of the numerous stakeholders associated
    with the issues.
        The San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act
    is a remarkable example of the innovation and quality that can
    occur when public processes are allowed to take root and
    develop in a natural and healthy way. This proposal is the
    fruit of years of discussion and soul-searching within Emery
    County, and in collaboration with an array of stakeholders.
        The product of this effort is a proposal that addresses the
    protection requirements of the lands in a manner that is both
    far-reaching and environmentally sound. It considers the
    protection and management needs of an entire ecosystem. It is a
    unique proposal that could only be designed by those who are
    closest to the lands and who understand its intricacies and
    nuances.
        This is an excellent example of the virtue of an open
    incremental approach. It clearly demonstrates the fact that
    there is indeed much common ground upon which to work.
        This proposal is truly a local initiative. It was not
    developed by outsiders nor by state or Federal Government
    agencies. But at the same time, Emery County officials did not
    do their work behind closed doors. This bill is the result of
    interaction and input from numerous sources from across the
    political spectrum.
        Its conception occurred as the result of a significant
    planning process known as the Emery County Wild Lands Futures
    Project. This process, which was sponsored by the Coalition for
    Utah's Future--a private non-profit organization working to
    build consensus on major Utah issues--received strong support
    and involvement from my administration. Emery County
    reluctantly but courageously volunteered to be the pilot county
    in testing the potential for building consensus in these thorny
    matters.
        The Midlands Futures Project brought an array of
    stakeholders to the table to participate in facilitated
    discussions aimed at identifying common interests and shared
    values with regards to the BLM lands of the San Rafael Swell.
    Participants included representatives from local, state, and
    Federal agencies, as well as user groups representing
    recreation, hunting, water development and industrial
    interests. There were also many significant environmental
    organizations seated at the table, including the Utah
    Wilderness Association, the Sierra Club, the Nature
    Conservancy, and the Audubon Society.
        It was through these meetings that the walls of mistrust
    began to crumble, and people in the room discovered that their
    individual agendas were all driven by the same underlying
    motivation--a deep and sincere love for the lands and a desire
    to do right by them for current and future generations.
        Though the process was never completed because of
    intensified battles from both sides of the issues, important
    seeds had been planted in Emery County--seeds Emery County
    continued to cultivate and nourish, and which today have
    blossomed into a proposal that is without precedent in the Utah
    public lands debate.
        Consider what Emery County has proposed: Protection of
    240,000 acres of wilderness. Areas we would all agree should be
    wilderness. Beyond wilderness the bill also proposes a National
    Conservation Area that gives statutory protection to the San
    Rafael Swell. In a bold step for which they have been widely
    criticized by many of their sister counties, they have removed
    the threat of commercial extractive development by proposing to
    exclude oil drilling, mining, and timbering activities from the
    Swell.
        For many other acres of critical lands that don't quite fit
    the requirements of wilderness designation, they have
    innovatively applied an additional layer of protection in the
    form of semi-primitive non-motorized designation.
        To their credit, Emery County officials have looked toward
    the future, and are proposing to further enhance the value of
    this public lands resources by creating something very new to
    Utah--a National Heritage Area. In doing so, they will be
    preserving and sharing with the nation an intriguing piece of
    western American history and culture.
        They have also recognized the importance of another
    significant asset that is part of the San Rafael Swell--the
    Desert Bighorn Sheep. Their concept of creating a Desert
    Bighorn Sheep management area to provide opportunities for
    public education and observation of these magnificent animals
    in their natural settings adds an important new dimension of
    conservation to the National Conservation Area.
        All in all, this is a proposal that is environmentally
    sound and secure. It protects and preserves the lands, the
    habitat, the wildlife, and the spirit of a spectacularly scenic
    and varied landscape. It is a proposal that has my full support
    and encouragement.
        It is difficult to overemphasize how important this
    proposal is toward setting in motion the processes and
    discussions that can ultimately resolve critical public land
    concerns within the State of Utah. All eyes are focused upon
    this bill. If it is successful, it is natural to assume that
    other successes will follow, and that these successes will
    follow a similar process of public involvement and
    environmental sensitivity that will serve both state and
    national interests.
        Indeed, if there can be hope for peace in the Middle East,
    then surely there can also be hope for meaningful progress in
    preserving and protecting the national and local interests
    associated with Utah's spectacular public lands treasure. The
    San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is
    certainly a worthy representative to lead the way toward
    reaching this essential objective. It is my hope that in the
    very near future we can all clasp hands in another handshake of
    success that will change the course of the future, and that
    will leave a lasting legacy for generations to come.
                                    ------

       Statement of William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am William
    H. Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society, and I am
    pleased to come before you today to discuss a matter of great
    significance for our nation's public lands: the protection of
    the magnificent red rock canyons and other public lands in
    Utah. We have met together to discuss these important lands
    before, most recently when I testified last June regarding H.R.
    1952, the ``Utah Wilderness and School Trust Lands Protection
    Act of 1997,'' introduced by Representative Chris Cannon last
    year.
        I am also pleased to be sharing the panel with
    Representative Wayne Owens today, a Utah native who loves the
    state, its public lands resources, and wild lands. I understand
    that Rep. Owens will focus much of his testimony on the
    specific areas affected by H.R. 3625. With that in mind and in
    light of Representative Cannon's ongoing efforts with respect
    to the management of public lands in Utah, I will focus my
    remarks on the national implications of this legislation by
    highlighting key comparisons between H.R. 3625 and
    Representative Cannon's earlier bill. I believe that such
    comparisons will best explain the position of The Wilderness
    Society on ``The San Rafael Swell National Heritage and
    Conservation Act.''
        Before I begin, however, I would like to acknowledge the
    work of many in Emery, Carbon, and Sanpete Counties who have
    sought to address the important issues before us, as well as
    the efforts of Representative Cannon and Governor Leavitt. I
    would also like to express the willingness of The Wilderness
    Society to sit down with any parties committed to the sound
    resolution of wilderness issues in Utah, to work cooperatively
    to find a lasting approach to the sound management and
    protection of public lands and wilderness resources in that
    great state.

    1. Scope of Legislation:

        Introduced in 1997, H.R. 1952 addressed the designation of
    some 1.8 million acres of BLM wilderness in a ``statewide''
    fashion, while H.R. 3625 addresses wilderness designation for
    public lands in two Utah counties: Emery and Carbon. [H.R. 3625
    also makes additional non-wilderness designations for Sanpete
    County.] H.R. 3625 creates a total of 407,468 acres of
    wilderness designations in these two counties, a designation
    that is roughly 143,000 acres smaller than the Wilderness Study
    Area acreage in these counties, and roughly 666,000 acres
    smaller than the wilderness designations that would be made by
    H.R. 1500, ``America's Redrock Wilderness Act,'' which The
    Wilderness Society supports.
        On a positive note, the wilderness designations of H.R.
    3625 seem intended to take effect immediately upon enactment,
    while the wilderness designations contained in H.R. 1952 were
    entirely contingent on the completion of the state/Federal land
    exchange outlined by this earlier bill. In addition, we are
    pleased that H.R. 3625 does not contain H.R. 1952-like language
    allowing the State to pick which Federal lands it would acquire
    in exchange for state trust lands within designated wilderness
    areas. H.R. 1952 contained this potential ``sweetheart'' land
    exchange deal for state, at Federal taxpayers' risk and
    expense.
        Our concerns with the scope of H.R. 3625, however, are
    three-fold: First, it does not address the full range of
    wilderness quality lands in Utah. Second, even in those
    counties in which it does make wilderness designations, it
    actually reduces the level of protection that wilderness
    resources currently receive, by eliminating WSA protection for
    over 140,000 acres. These ``former'' WSAs (which are currently
    receiving interim protection as wilderness) will no longer be
    managed to protect their wilderness values. Without wilderness
    quality protection, these lands may be lost to development
    activities including road construction and ORV use. Third, H.R.
    3625 only protects some 40 percent of the wilderness
    designations contained in H.R. 1500.

    2. Wilderness Release:

        H.R. 1952 contained ``hard'' release language that would
    have expressly prohibited the BLM from protecting the
    wilderness values of lands not designated as wilderness under
    that legislation. Furthermore, under H.R. 1952, public lands in
    Utah could never again be considered for wilderness protection.
    H.R. 3625, on the other hand, contains non-standard, but
    apparently ``soft'' wilderness release language, improved
    language that--as we currently interpret it--would allow for
    the future wilderness consideration of all remaining BLM lands
    in the state. In addition, H.R. 3625 does not appear to
    undercut the BLM's authority to chose to protect wilderness
    values as part of a multiple-use management approach to
    ``released'' lands. [H.R.3625 releases 143,000 acres of WSAs to
    multiple-use management, lands that are currently protected as
    if they were wilderness. (Sect. 304)]

    3. Wilderness Protection and Management:

        One of The Wilderness Society's chief concerns with the
    wilderness area boundaries of both H.R. 1952 and H.R. 3625 is
    that these boundaries appear too-often to be drawn according to
    political lines or other non-ecological factors (e.g., both
    bills ``cut'' canyons in half and often follow county rather
    than natural boundaries). Of equal importance, however, is the
    matter of how both bills govern management of those lands which
    they do designate as wilderness. Unfortunately, both bills
    contain non-standard and damaging wilderness management
    language affecting a variety of management issues and
    resources. We believe that such exceptions to standard
    wilderness management are both inappropriate in Utah and set a
    dangerous precedent for future wilderness legislation,
    nationally. The damaging wilderness ``exceptions'' of H.R. 1952
    and H.R. 3625 include provisions related to:
              Reserved wilderness water rights and water
            developments: In Utah and elsewhere in the arid West,
            wilderness areas must be protected from the future drain-off of
            their streams and other water resource ``lifelines.'' Yet the
            water rights provisions of both H.R. 3625 (Section 407) and
            H.R. 1952 expressly deny Congressional reservation of a water
            right sufficient to sustain these magnificent desert lands.
            Furthermore, both bills contain provisions forcing the Federal
            Government to apply for a water right consistent with Utah
            state law. These provisions do not provide any real opportunity
            for water for wilderness resources, as Utah state water laws do
            not recognize wilderness resources as an appropriate recipient
            of water.
              In the two most recent BLM wilderness bills enacted for arid
            Arizona and California, Congress reserved a quantity of water
            sufficient to maintain the integrity of the wilderness
            ecosystem. Both bills balanced the needs of water rights
            holders with that of the wilderness users and wildlife--H.R.
            3625 does not.
              Additionally, Section 407 (d) of H.R. 3625 appears to be
            written to open the door for inappropriate water developments
            and dam construction in wilderness. As worded, this section
            seems to allow almost unlimited expansion of existing water
            developments (and the access thereto) without any regard for
            the impact of such expanded developments on wilderness
            resources.
              Grazing management: During passage of The Wilderness
            Act of 1964 and subsequent wilderness debates, Congress has
            attempted to balance the continuation of pre-existing grazing
            operations in areas designated as wilderness with the
            protection of Federal range resources and other legitimate
            planning and management concerns. TWS believes the language of
            both H.R.3625 and H.R. 1952 would alter the existing balance
            between grazing and the protection of resources within
            wilderness areas, and could be interpreted as providing the BLM
            with less ability to protect range resources within wilderness
            areas than on non-wilderness public lands.
              Section 303 of H.R. 3625 undermines existing Secretarial
            authority to enforce reasonable regulations and policies to
            manage grazing in wilderness areas to prevent undue resource
            degradation. Section 4(d)(4)(2) of The Wilderness Act states
            that pre-existing grazing of livestock in wilderness ``shall be
            permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as
            are deemed necessary by the Secretary.'' Language reflecting
            the Secretary's ability to provide such appropriate guidance
            for the management of pre-existing grazing in wilderness has
            been included in subsequent wilderness legislation (the
            California Desert Protection Act, for example).
              Furthermore, the grazing guidelines which Congress developed
            during passage of the Colorado Wilderness legislation during
            the 96th Congress--which have provided the standard for grazing
            management in wilderness--also emphasize that all reasonable
            measures must be taken to minimize the impact of grazing
            activities on wilderness character and to protect other
            resource values.
              Other road and motorized use issues, and Native
            American motorized access: Road development and vehicular/ORV
            use constitute one of the largest threats to wilderness
            resources in certain areas of Utah and elsewhere in the West.
            Unfortunately, several provisions of H.R. 3625 appear drafted
            so as to allow dangerous road/vehicular damage to wilderness
            and public lands, including the bills sections related to
            ``fish and wildlife management,'' ``Native American cultural,''
            grazing, ``valid existing rights,'' and other uses. Each of
            these sections breaks with existing legal and administrative
            precedents for the protection of the fundamental roadless and
            wild nature of Federal wilderness areas.
              State fish and wildlife agency authority in
            wilderness: The Wilderness Act specifically allows for the
            continued jurisdiction of state fish and wildlife agencies over
            matters related to the management of fish and wildlife
            populations. The language of H.R. 3625 (Section 408) broadens
            the existing situation under The Wilderness Act to the point
            that state fish and game agencies could apparently undertake
            almost any fish or wildlife related management activity,
            including water impoundments, dam or road construction,
            motorized use, and other significant development activities
            with no apparent restrictions. This language is unnecessarily
            and dangerously broad.
              Mandatory Federal acquisition of non-governmental
            lands: Both H.R. 1952 and H.R. 3625 force the Secretary to
            offer to acquire lands from non-governmental entities if such
            lands are located not only within, but also adjacent to lands
            designated as wilderness. Given the limited funding available
            to the Federal Government, the Department of Interior must be
            very selective in prioritizing lands to acquire. We see no
            reason to force the Secretary to offer to acquire lands that
            are not actually within wilderness designations.
        Finally, with respect to wilderness protection and management, we
    must note that the ways in which H.R. 3625 is worse than H.R. 1952.
    Specifically, H.R. 3625 contains language (which H.R. 1952 does not)
    that would harm wilderness values by adversely affecting management of:

              ``Valid existing rights:'' Section 222(a) of H.R.
            3625 dangerously expands existing precedents concerning so-
            called valid existing rights (VERs) to include protection of
            ``full exercise of those rights.'' As drafted, this section
            would severely undercut the Secretary's current authority to
            exercise some control over access to and exercise of VERs.
            (Sect. 222 & 302) Under such sections, development interests
            could argue that the ``full exercise'' of their rights would
            require the construction of roads, full motorized vehicular
            access, and/or the installation of facilities that are
            incompatible with wilderness designations. Could open the door
            for increased ``blackmail'' development proposals in wilderness
            (i.e., aggressively proposed ``development'' plans that are
            made by private interests in the sole hope that the Federal
            Government will pay to stop them.)
              Cultural/paleo resources: H.R. 3625 threatens both
            wilderness and cultural/paleo resources by allowing ``means of
            discovery conventional to the science of archeology, including
            customary means of ingress and egress.'' Management of
            wilderness lands is appropriately geared to a higher protection
            standard than that of other public lands. ``Customary''
            archeological practices that might be appropriate on non-
            wilderness Federal lands may well be completely inappropriate
            in wilderness areas. For example, the language of H.R. 3562
            could well be interpreted to include road construction and
            motorized access including large earth-moving equipment. (Sect.
            402) Such uses/activities would seriously degrade wilderness
            values.
              Communication towers: Section 207 states nothing in
            Act shall be construed as prohibiting Secretary from
            authorizing installation of communications equipment in
            conservation area for public safety purposes. Communications
            towers are most frequently located on ridgetops that are
            visible for many miles, such development would seriously impair
            the ``untrammeled'' character of wild lands and should be
            subject to the strictest of appropriate regulations. We are
            concerned that this Section could be interpreted so as to
            actually facilitate the installation of inappropriate
            communications towers in wilderness, by allowing an abuse of
            the ``public safety'' test.
              2477 road claims: The set-back provisions regarding
            ``roads and rights-of-way as boundaries'' (Section 408(c))
            expressly recognize so-called ``County Class D'' roads, which
            are closely associated with R.S. 2477 road claims. In recent
            years, we have seen an explosion of such road claims in Utah,
            many of which prove bogus on closer examination. We are
            concerned that H.R. 3625 appears to give validation to such
            controversial road claims. In addition, non-wilderness set-back
            strips along such ``roads'' minimize wilderness protection and
            maximize inappropriate road and vehicular access into these
            wild and magnificent lands. If H.R. 3625 is to include
            provisions against ``buffer zones'' (Section 408(b)) because
            they extend wilderness-like protection outside of wilderness
            areas, it should not include ``anti-wilderness buffers'' that
            extend development and mechanized travel into the heart of wild
            areas.

    4. Non-Wilderness Issues:

        Because it contains designations other than wilderness, certain of
    H.R. 3625's troubling provisions also affect management of non-
    wilderness Federal lands--National Conservation Area, Semi-primitive
    Areas, etc.
        One of the most distressing aspects of H.R. 3625 is its language
    that threatens to give inordinate local control over management of
    these Federal lands. In the management of National Heritage Area(s)
    (NHA) for example, the Secretary (Sect. 104) could make a local
    government/group the NHA ``management entity.'' A local governmental or
    private interest that assumed management entity status would have a
    great deal of discretion in decisions affecting both planning and
    management of these Federal lands. If such a local entity took on this
    management status, then the Department's role in managing these Federal
    lands is largely relegated to one of providing technical support
    (Section 107). In addition, Sect. 106's vague wording also appears to
    give local government/interests an inappropriate role in implementing
    NHA plan. While it is clear that local governments and interests have a
    strong and legitimate interest in the management of these Federal
    lands, we do not feel it is appropriate to turn over management
    authority for Federal lands to local control in the manner proposed by
    H.R. 3625.
        With respect to management of the National Conservation Area,
    Section 222 of H.R. 3625 requires that the BLM ``cooperate'' with the
    NCA Advisory Council created in Section 205. This ``cooperation''
    requirement appears to greatly exceed current BLM requirement under
    FLPMA to ``consult'' with all interests during management/planning for
    Federal wilderness.
        In addition, H.R. 3625 restricts the Secretary's ability (Section
    401) to manage grazing and protect Federal resources (NCA, Semi-
    primitive Areas) in non-wilderness areas. H.R. 3625's language
    governing management of pre-existing grazing within areas of the NCA
    and in the Semi-Primitive Areas outside of the NCA appears to thwart
    agency protection of these lands. We assume that the intent of this
    Section is to establish that the designation--in and of itself--of the
    NCA or the semi-primitive areas conveys no additional requirements on
    the management of grazing. However, the actual wording of Section 401
    appears to eliminate almost all BLM authority to assure that grazing on
    these lands is managed so as to protect Federal resources.
        Section 407 expressly prohibits reserved Federal water rights for
    the National Conservation Area and Semi-Primitive Areas established by
    H.R. 3625 and allows for the nearly unconstrained expansion of existing
    water developments in these areas. Such provisions undercut the
    protections that this bill claims to provide these Federal lands.

    Conclusion

        The mission of The Wilderness Society (TWS) directs us to ensure
    that the integrity and beauty of America's wild lands are protected
    unimpaired for future generations. We have established two goals: to
    build and sustain a nationwide network of wild lands; and, to ensure
    that customs and practices affecting wild lands embody the land ethic.
    As described by Aldo Leopold and Robert Marshall who were instrumental
    in the founding of The Wilderness Society in 1935, the land ethic,
    ``changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land community
    to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-
    members and also respect for the community as such.''
        Our vision for the future has at its core the commitment to secure
    and maintain the essential benefits and values of wilderness: habitat
    for the diversity of plant and animal species, pure air and water,
    natural beauty, physical recreation, spiritual renewal, scientific
    research and the opportunity to educate ourselves and our children
    about the proper place of humanity in the great tapestry of the natural
    world. We see Congressionally designated wilderness areas as the core
    of the national network of wild lands which we seek: a network also
    comprised of protected and well managed forest, park, refuge, and
    public lands.
        To summarize, Mr. Chairman: We must oppose H.R. 3625 because we
    believe that it: (1) provides wilderness designation for an inadequate
    acreage of wilderness quality lands in the state and in the San Rafael
    area; (2) threatens wilderness resources in Utah and on other BLM lands
    nationally by failing to provide true wilderness protection for the
    public lands which it designates as wilderness; (3) releases lands
    currently protected as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) to management
    practices that may degrade their wilderness values; (4) makes non
    wilderness Federal land designations that do not adequately protect
    these special areas and their wilderness resources; and (5) threatens
    to cede an inappropriate level of control over Federal land and
    wilderness management to local governments and interests.
        We thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
                                     ______

    Statement of Wes Curtis, Director, Governor's Rural Partnership Office,
          State of Utah, and Member, Emery County Public Lands Council
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, I
    appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about a remarkable proposal
    for protecting one of the nation's unique public lands and heritage
    treasures--the San Rafael Swell.
        This bill is the product of years of work and a long process of
    public involvement. It is a marvelous manifestation of local initiative
    acting in the national interest. It is also a manifestation of a
    significant change in attitude and perspective on the part of the
    residents of Utah's Carbon and Emery Counties.
        As recently as a few years ago, Emery County was one of the leaders
    in opposing wilderness designation and other environmental protection
    schemes. They strongly resisted what was viewed as imposed solutions
    from Washington that threatened, rather than enhanced, local culture
    and lifestyles. Fortunately this attitude began to change once county
    leaders set aside the emotions of the moment and took a close look at
    what they truly valued. In doing so it became clear that protecting
    this public lands treasure was vitally important to the people of Emery
    County.
        To understand our interest in the future of the San Rafael Swell,
    one must understand our love for this land and our strong connection to
    it. Like everyone else, we marvel at its scenic beauty. But to us this
    land is more than beautiful scenery. This land has shaped our culture,
    our communities, our thinking, and our hearts. It is part of our lives.
        We have a love not only for the land, but for the heritage and
    legacy it has given us. This land tells the stories of our past--the
    tales of who we are and how we came to be.
        It is important to note that the bill you have before you is
    environmentally sound. It has been carefully crafted to ensure that
    every needful protection is in place, because we knew this proposal
    would have to stand up to intense scrutiny. This bill reflects the keen
    sense of responsibility we feel to protect this public lands treasure
    and to pass it on as a legacy to future generations.
        We are puzzled when we hear certain factions, who seem to have
    little interest in finding workable solutions, denounce this bill as
    inadequate and then sum up their opposition by parroting the tired and
    worn phrase they have applied to every lands proposal of this decade by
    saying this is an ``anti-wilderness bill.'' They then imply that this
    bill leaves thousands of acres unprotected because it releases them
    from Wilderness Study status. They imply that wilderness designation is
    the only means for protecting these lands, and that anything else is
    ``anti-protection.'' In making these statements they are not telling
    the whole story.
        The truth is this: H.R. 3625 is a wilderness bill--and a whole lot
    more!
        A weakness inherent in all the past and current wilderness
    proposals, regardless of their total acreages, is that they are one-
    dimensional in their focus. They offer ``slice and dice'' protections
    but don't preserve the integrity of the whole. They focus on lands and
    acres, not on eco-systems.
        H.R. 3625 is the only proposal from any quarter that offers
    protection for the entire San Rafael Swell. It not only designates
    407,000 acres of wilderness, it goes beyond this to protect the
    environment and integrity of an entire eco-system. It not only
    addresses the needs of the lands, it addresses other needs as well--
    such as habitat and wildlife management and cultural and historic
    preservation.
        This is the only proposal that withdraws the threats of oil
    drilling, mining, and timbering from the entire San Rafael Swell--a
    remarkable concession for a rural county with an economy based on
    mineral extraction.
        This is the only proposal that provides special protection and
    management for the desert bighorn sheep, as well as opportunities for
    watchable wildlife and public education at the same time.
        One of the great success stories of the San Rafael Swell is that of
    the desert bighorn sheep. The Sid's Mountain herd began with the
    transplanting of a small herd of sheep in the late 1970s. Now the Swell
    is home to one of the largest herds in the state, and it has been used
    as transplanting stock for many other herds, both inside and outside
    the state of Utah.
        We take great pride in this locally. In fact, we have selected the
    desert bighorn sheep as the symbol of our National Conservation Area.
        This is the only proposal that preserves another critical component
    of the San Rafael Swell--a component every bit as priceless and
    threatened as the lands--that of the history and heritage of the San
    Rafael Swell region.
        This bill is a protection measure in every sense of the word. The
    purpose of a National Conservation Area is to protect resources. The
    purpose of a National Heritage Area is to protect and perpetuate
    cultural and historic resources.
        The questions we pose to any and all, are these: In what way does
    this proposal fail to protect the resources of the San Rafael Swell?
    What specific threats to these lands have we failed to address? If
    there are any, we want to be the first to know--and we will be the
    first to address them.
        We have learned an important lesson through the course of
    developing this proposal that we wish to share. We have learned that a
    locally initiated, locally driven approach such as this one has an
    important side-benefit attached to it. We have found that it leads to
    local buy-in, local ownership, and local pride in the proposal. As a
    result the local residents become part of the solution instead of part
    of the problem. With this buy-in and community pride the local public
    becomes the eyes and ears to help monitor and protect against abuse.
    This represents an important and positive shift in attitude from days
    past.
        It would be a sad day for the future of the public lands debate, a
    sad day for local initiative, a sad day for the national environmental
    interest, and a sad day for the lands themselves if this proposal were
    rejected simply because it doesn't carry the popular label of the day.
        On the other hand, passage of this bill would be a triumph for
    compromise and common sense; a triumph for hope--for hope of resolving
    difficult public lands issues in a sound and sane manner. It would be a
    triumph for the lands, for the habitat, for the wildlife, for the
    environment, for the history and heritage of the American West, and for
    the nation as a whole.
        This is truly an extraordinary proposal--or maybe we should just
    call it a ``Swell'' proposal. Instead of being satisfied with standard
    issue, one-size-fits-all khakis, the people of Emery County elected to
    begin with a new piece of cloth. By taking this cloth to the designer
    and the tailor, they have come up with something quite different from
    the designs and fashions of the past. They have come up with something
    better, for in this case, the cloth has been tailored to be a perfect
    fit--a perfect fit for the needs of the lands, a perfect fit for the
    eco-system, and a perfect fit for the American people.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman for providing the opportunity to address
    this Committee.
                                     ______

             Statement of Richard M. Warnick, Salt Lake City, Utah
        Mr. Chairman:
        My name is Rich Warnick. As a member of the Utah Wilderness
    Association, I was one of the authors of our original Utah Bureau of
    Land Management wilderness proposals in 1985, which first advocated a
    series of regional wilderness bills. I later served as the BLM ranger
    at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry from 1987 to 1989, and also
    monitored wilderness study areas on the San Rafael Swell and Desolation
    Canyon.
        It is with a feeling of cautious optimism that I offer my comments
    on H.R. 3625, the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation
    Act. I ask that this statement be included in the hearing record.
        Local support is the key to wilderness designation in Utah. In the
    Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, our last successful wilderness bill, the
    areas that received designation were the ones with the strongest local
    constituencies. It is indeed encouraging that Carbon and Emery Counties
    have put together this proposal. I believe it can become the catalyst
    for a long-delayed compromise on this issue.
        As you know, the Utah Wilderness Association worked hard to achieve
    consensus on a San Rafael wilderness package. In a four-year process
    facilitated by the Coalition for Utah's Future, UWA put into practice
    the principle that more progress can be made when parties focus on
    solving problems instead of trying to win battles. This process aided
    the formation of the Emery County public lands council. The ``handshake
    agreement'' reached between UWA and Emery County in March, 1995
    represented a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, the present bill does not
    reflect that agreement. If it did, I would have no doubt that Congress
    would approve it.
        The amount of wilderness designation in the bill is inadequate.
    Leaving aside Sids Mountain, only approximately half of the area that
    deserves wilderness protection on the San Rafael Swell is included. The
    bill's proposal for Desolation Canyon is about 100,000 acres short of
    an adequate designation--it also uses county lines as wilderness
    boundaries.
        I believe the wilderness areas in this bill fall short simply
    because some elected officials have an unjustified fear of the National
    Wilderness reservation System and its relationship to economies.
    National conservation areas can augment wilderness designation, but
    they should not substitute for it. New negotiations will be needed to
    achieve a genuine compromise.
        H.R. 3625 also contains unprecedented management language. Title
    IV, sections 402, 403, 404, 405, 407 and 408 should be changed.
    Wilderness area management is adequately addressed in the Wilderness
    Act and relevant agency management policies.
        Everyone who hailed the proclamation of the Grand Staircase-
    Escalante National Monument ought to support the San Rafael Swell
    National Heritage Area. The Bureau of Land Management has not been able
    to take care of and interpret the abundant paleontological,
    archaeological and historic sites on the San Rafael Swell as well as it
    should. I fully support the proposal for a national heritage area.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8613.045