[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4558, ``GRAND STAIRCASE ESCALANTE ENHANCEMENT ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, December 14, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-856 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Stevan Pearce, NM Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Norma J. Torres, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Darin LaHood, IL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Vice Chairman Vacancy
Daniel Webster, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Greg Gianforte, MT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, December 14, 2017...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 11
Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Hand, Susan, General Manager and Outdoor Goods Buyer, Willow
Canyon Outdoor Co., Inc., Kanab, Utah...................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Leavitt, Hon. Mike, Former Governor, State of Utah........... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Pollock, Hon. Leland, Commission Chairperson, Board of
Commissioners, Garfield County, Utah....................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Stewart, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 6
Varela, Vicki, Managing Director, Utah Office of Tourism,
Film, and Global Branding, Salt Lake City, Utah............ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Questions submitted for the record....................... 38
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 58
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4558, TO PROVIDE GREATER CONSERVATION,
RECREATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS
IN GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH, ``GRAND STAIRCASE ESCALANTE
ENHANCEMENT ACT''
----------
Thursday, December 14, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:29 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Westerman,
Bergman, Bishop, Hanabusa, Lowenthal, Torres, Gallego,
McEachin, and Brown.
Also Present: Representative Stewart.
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come
to order.
I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah,
Mr. Stewart, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and
participate in the remainder of the hearing following his
testimony.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
and the Vice Chairman. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
Unfortunately, we are probably going to be interrupted by votes
around 10:30 a.m., so we will try to get through the testimony
and as many questions as possible before then.
With that, we will begin with opening statements.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands
meets to consider H.R. 4558, the Grand Staircase Escalante
Enhancement Act, by Congressman Chris Stewart, and co-sponsored
by the entire Utah congressional delegation.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President with the
authority to designate national monuments on Federal lands
containing ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, or other objects of historic or scientific
interest.'' The law also specified that national monuments ``be
confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.''
In the original congressional debate over this bill,
Congressman Stephens asked whether it could ever be used to
lock up large areas of land like the Forest Reserve bill. In
response, the bill's sponsor, Congressman Lacy, stated,
``Certainly not. The object is entirely different. It is to
preserve these old objects of special interests in the
Southwest, whilst the Forest Reserve bill reserves the forests
and the water courses.''
President Theodore Roosevelt first used this limited
authority to declare 1,200 acres around the Devils Tower in
Wyoming as a national moment. Since that time, presidents have
broadly interpreted the Antiquities Act to expand both the size
and justifications for national monument designations.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton, in a breathtaking abuse of
this law, unilaterally declared 1.7 million acres of Bureau of
Land Management lands in southern Utah as the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, without any consultation with
members of the Utah congressional delegation, including
Democratic Representative Bill Orton, in whose district these
lands were located, or with Governor Mike Leavitt, who is one
of our witnesses here today.
Indeed, just 1 week before the announcement, the
administration assured the state's senior Senator, Orrin Hatch,
that leaks of their intention to issue this declaration were
untrue and that no such action was contemplated.
President Clinton drafted his order in secret consultation
with leftist environmental groups. This Committee later learned
that their objective was to make grazing and future resource
development impossible. The action devastated the state of Utah
and the local communities affected. It cost the Utah public
school system hundreds of millions of dollars in future
revenues, deprived local families of high-paying local jobs,
and forced historic grazing permittees from these lands.
Let me put this in perspective. Hurricane Harvey inflicted
nearly $200 billion of damage when it slammed into Texas this
year. The low-end, conservative estimate of economic damage
from Clinton's Executive Order is $223 billion, just in lost
economic activity from mineral development alone. And in
Keystone Cops' fashion, the administration only discovered that
their designation included 176,000 acres of land set aside for
support of the public schools the day before they made the
announcement.
These abuses point to a simple truth: that no one person
should have the authority to lock up millions of acres of land
with the stroke of a pen. By giving Congress, and not the
President, authority over public lands, our Constitution
guarantees that all voices will be heard when a decision
affecting millions of acres of land is made. Under our
Constitution, the people expect their government to listen to
those people most affected by local land use decisions, and not
just out-of-state special interest groups. And they have every
right to demand that Congress reassert its roll over management
of the public lands on their behalf.
This bill seeks to right this wrong and to go about
monument designation the constitutional way: through open
hearings, debate, and congressional action. It would create
Utah's sixth national park, the Escalante Canyons National
Park, and transfer Hole-in-the-Rock Road, a historically
important Mormon pioneer trail, to the state of Utah.
Further, it creates three new separate and distinct
national monuments: the Grand Staircase National Monument, the
Escalante Canyons National Monument, and the Kaiparowits
National Monument.
Finally, the bill would create a management council
comprised of local officials to draft and oversee a management
plan for the new monuments and the national park.
We have a most distinguished panel of witnesses here today
to discuss this bill, and I am looking forward to their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Federal Lands
Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to consider H.R.
4558, the Grand Staircase Escalante Enhancement Act by Congressman
Chris Stewart and co-sponsored by the entire Utah congressional
delegation.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President with the
authority to designate national monuments on Federal lands containing
``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other
objects of historic or scientific interest.'' The law also specified
that National Monuments ``be confined to the smallest area compatible
with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.''
In the original congressional debate over this bill, Congressman
Stephens asked whether it could ever be used to lock up large areas of
land like the Forest Reserve bill. In response, its sponsor,
Congressman Lacey, stated: ``Certainly not. The object is entirely
different. It is to preserve these old objects of special interests in
the Southwest, whilst the (Forest Reserve bill) reserves the forests
and the water courses.''
President Theodore Roosevelt first used this limited authority to
declare 1,200 acres around the Devils Tower in Wyoming as a national
monument. Since that time, presidents broadly interpreted the
Antiquities Act to expand both the size and justifications for National
Monument designations.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton, in a breathtaking abuse of this
law, unilaterally declared 1.7 million acres of Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands in southern Utah as the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument without any consultation with members of
the Utah congressional delegation (including Democrat Representative
Bill Orton in whose district these lands were located), or with
Governor Mike Leavitt, who is one of our witnesses here today.
Indeed, just 1 week before the announcement, the administration
assured the state's senior Senator, Orrin Hatch, that leaks of their
intention to issue this declaration were untrue and that no such action
was contemplated.
President Clinton drafted his order in secret consultation with
leftist environmental groups. This Committee later learned that their
objective was to make grazing and future resource development
impossible. The action devastated the state of Utah and the local
communities affected. It cost the Utah public school system hundreds of
millions of dollars in future revenues, deprived local families of
high-paying local jobs, and forced historic grazing permittees from
these lands.
Let me put this in perspective. Hurricane Harvey inflicted nearly
$200 billion of damage when it slammed into Texas this year. The low-
end, conservative estimate of economic damage from Clinton's Executive
Order is $223 billion--just in lost economic activity from mineral
development alone.
In Keystone Cops' fashion, the administration only discovered that
their designation included 176,000 acres of land set aside for support
of the public schools the day before the announcement.
These abuses point to a simple truth: that no one person should
have the authority to lock up millions of acres of land with the stroke
of a pen. By giving Congress--and not the President--authority over
public land, our Constitution guarantees that all voices will be heard
when a decision affecting millions of acres of land is made.
Under our Constitution, the people expect their government to
listen to those people most affected by local land use decisions, and
not just out-of-state special interest groups. And they have every
right to demand that Congress reassert its role over management of the
lands on their behalf.
This bill seeks to right this wrong and to go about monument
designation the constitutional way: through open hearings, debate and
congressional action. It would create Utah's sixth national park, the
Escalante Canyons National Park, and transfer ``Hole in the Rock
Road,'' a historically important Mormon pioneer trail, to the state of
Utah.
Further, it creates three new separate and distinct national
monuments: the Grand Staircase National Monument, the Escalante Canyons
National Monument, and Kaiparowits National Monument.
Finally, the bill would create a management council comprised of
local officials to draft and oversee a management plan for the new
monuments and the National Park.
We have a most distinguished panel of witnesses here today to
discuss this bill, and I am looking forward to their testimony. I will
now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening statement.
______
Mr. McClintock. I now recognize the Ranking Member for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Chairman McClintock.
Today, we will hear testimony on H.R. 4558, the Grand
Staircase Escalante Enhancement Act, a bill introduced by
Representative Stewart to ratify the boundaries of three new
national monuments recently designated by President Trump, and
create a new national park in southern Utah.
Under normal circumstances, legislation to establish a new
national park would have broad partisan support, but the
circumstances surrounding this bill and the proposed national
park are by no means normal.
In 1996, President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. For 20 years, communities around
the monuments have grown, diversified, and thrived. This is a
story we will hear from Susan Hand, the owner of Willow Canyon
Outdoor, a small business in Kanab, Utah. Ms. Hand will also
tell us how last week's announcements to repeal the Grand
Staircase-Escalante and replace it with three disjointed small
monuments threatens her business and the livelihood of many
others in her community.
President Trump based his action--something many people,
including myself, believe is without legal authority--on a
review conducted by Secretary Zinke, which my colleagues and I
have yet to see, despite numerous requests. During this review,
the Interior Department received 2.8 million public comments
overwhelmingly in favor of leaving all national monuments
intact. Secretary Zinke dismissed these comments and ultimately
advised the President to significantly alter a number of
existing national monuments. This recommendation was based on a
visit to eight national monuments and their surrounding
communities. But as we will hear from our witness today,
Secretary Zinke refused to meet with many of the small
businesses owners who live in the communities that depend on
national monuments and public lands.
It is unfortunate that taxpayer dollars were wasted on a
report meant to justify the action beyond the scope of the
President's authority under the Antiquities Act. Only Congress
has the authority to shrink or rescind national monuments,
which is why last week's proclamation is already being
challenged in court. Some also question the timing of this
bill, introduced without maps and is in incomplete format, just
2 days after the President made his proclamation. In fact, I
have maps and an exchange patent with the state of Utah that
confirmed there was an agreement and puts this whole effort in
question. I ask unanimous consent to put those in the record as
part of the hearing record.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Ms. Hanabusa. The reality is that Congress has acted on
numerous occasions to ratify the boundary of the Clinton
designation. In the 105th and 106th Congresses, legislation to
exchange lands with state and local governments advanced, and
$20 million was appropriated to purchase mining claims within
the monument.
Finally, I would like to point out that the panel does not
include a witness from either the Bureau of Land Management or
National Park Service. This is particularly troubling, given
the fact that this bill seeks to create a national park and it
will be managed by an unelected board primarily comprised of
representatives from state and local government.
Additionally, this new national park would have a purpose
that is contradictory to the 1916 National Park Service Organic
Act. Under these circumstances, a review by the relevant
Federal agency is appropriate, necessary, and consistent with
prior proceedings in the House.
Hundreds of letters from local businesses, community
organizations, and concerned local residents have poured in
over the last couple of days. And I also ask unanimous consent
to enter these letters into the hearing record, and hope that
we will consider these concerns as we examine this bill.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Ms. Hanabusa. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Thank you, Chairman McClintock.
Today, we will hear testimony on H.R. 4558, the Grand Staircase
Escalante Enhancement Act, a bill introduced by Representative Stewart
to ratify the boundaries of three new national monuments recently
designated by President Trump and create a new national park in
southern Utah.
Under normal circumstances, legislation to establish a new national
park would be applauded and showered with bipartisan accolades. But the
circumstances surrounding this bill and the proposed national park are
by no means normal.
In 1996, President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. For 20 years, communities around the monument have
grown, diversified, and thrived.
This is the story we will hear from Susan Hand, the owner of Willow
Canyon Outdoor, a small business in Kanab, Utah. Ms. Hand will also
tell us how her world was turned upside down by last week's
announcement to repeal the Grand Staircase-Escalante and replace it
with three disjointed new monuments.
President Trump based his action--something that many people,
including myself, believe to be illegal--on a sham review conducted by
Secretary Zinke. During this review, the Interior Department received
2.8 million public comments overwhelmingly in favor of leaving all
national monuments intact. Secretary Zinke dismissed these comments as
the product of an organized campaign and ultimately ended up advising
the President to abolish several existing national monuments.
This recommendation was based on a visit to eight national
monuments, but as we will hear from our witness today, he refused to
meet with many of the small business owners who live in the communities
that depend on national monuments and public lands. Leaving us to
wonder if the decision was already made and the review was nothing more
than window dressing.
It is unfortunate that so many taxpayer dollars had to be wasted on
a report meant to justify an action that is so clearly illegal. The
Antiquities Act does not give the President the authority to shrink or
rescind national monuments--only Congress has this authority, which is
why last week's proclamation is already being challenged in court.
It also makes me question the timing of this piece of legislation.
The Utah delegation had 20 years to file legislation to redo the
boundaries of this monument. Why introduce this bill without maps and
in an incomplete format just 2 days after the President makes a
proclamation?
The reality is that Congress has acted on numerous occasions to
ratify the boundary of the Clinton designation. Both the 105th and
106th Congresses advanced legislation to exchange land with state and
local governments and even appropriated $20 million to purchase mining
claims within the monument.
With the legal status of President Trump's designation in limbo, it
seems like any legislation that deals with Grand Staircase-Escalante
should wait for judicial review. In fact, I have maps and an exchange
patent with the state of Utah that confirm there was an agreement and
puts this whole effort into question. I ask unanimous consent that
these records are part of the hearing record.
While today's witness panel includes several people impacted by
this legislation, I would like to point out that the panel does not
include a witness from either the Bureau of Land Management or the
National Park Service. This is particularly troubling given the fact
that this bill purports to create a national park that will be managed
by an unelected board made primarily of representatives from state and
local government. It is also troubling given the fact that this new
national park would have a purpose that is diametrically opposed to the
1916 National Park Service organic act. This is without precedent and I
can't think of a reason why a proposal this dramatic should be
considered without review by the relevant Federal agency.
Hundreds of letters from local businesses, community organizations,
and concerned local residents have poured in over the last couple of
days. I ask unanimous consent to enter these letters into the hearing
record and hope that we consider these concerns as we examine this
bill.
With that I yield back.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, if it is OK with you, because we
do have votes coming up, I do have an opening statement, but
can we hear from Congressman Stewart first and then reserve the
right to give that opening statement afterwards?
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize Congressman Chris
Stewart of Utah.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS STEWART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
And to my colleagues, Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock,
and Ranking Member Hanabusa, thank you for letting me come and
speak to you about a bill that is extremely important to my
district, H.R. 4558, the Grand Staircase Escalante Enhancement
Act.
As has already been stated here, over 20 years ago,
President Clinton stood in the state of Arizona, he didn't come
to Utah, he stood in Arizona, and with the stroke of a pen,
using the Antiquities Act, he declared nearly 2 million acres
of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.
I am pleased that my friend and a man that I greatly
admire, Secretary Leavitt, who was a governor during this time,
will enlighten us on this episode and, I think, share some of
his insights into the deceit and the deception that we were
subject to.
The Federal Government promised that the monument would
take little away and, instead, create a boom of tourism in the
community surrounding the monument. Over two decades later, we
know that while there has been some increase in tourism, it has
not been enough to economically sustain these communities. And
let me illustrate that, because that is such an important
point.
In 2015, Garfield County was forced to declare a state of
emergency based on rapidly declining school enrollment. Simply
put, their schools were dying because families could not stay
in the county. They couldn't stay because there were so few
jobs left capable of sustaining a family.
Tourism alone is not able to sustain these communities. I
support tourism. I am proud of my state. I would love for
everyone in the country and around the world to come and enjoy
this beautiful state of Utah, but this is a matter of common
sense. Name me a job that you can sustain a family on working
in the tourism industry from May to October.
Now, some people have done really well, primarily business
owners. I would ask you to ask them, how much do you pay your
employees? How much do you pay your waitresses and those who
are making up beds in hotels? Because I promise you, it is not
enough to raise a family. And some say that this threatens
business, creating this national park. That is just silly. How
in the world does creating a national park in some way endanger
tourism? In fact, our intent here is to do exactly the
opposite, and that is to foster and to increase tourism.
The situation has largely been forced upon residents by a
misguided Federal policy, reminding us once again that
Washington has a bad habit of drafting policies without giving
local communities a seat at the table.
Just this morning, I was reminded of some comments by
elites in Hollywood and corporate CEOs who are being dishonest
with people about this. I think many of these couldn't find
this area on a map if they had to. They have never been to
Utah. Some of them haven't had a conversation with anyone that
is impacted by this in the local communities.
I spent nearly 5 years meeting with local elected officials
in an effort to strike a balance between conserving the beauty
in Garfield and Kane Counties, while also providing access and
economic growth for the local economy.
The key to success in this region is finding creative
solutions that benefit both tourism and natural resource
industries, while preserving our western culture. This act does
that. Specifically, it creates three new separate national
monuments, creates a management council, transfers a
historically significant trail to the state of Utah, and
creates a new national park.
Let me take just a moment to explain the significant
sections of this bill. First, it creates, as I said, three
national monuments, preserving over 1 million acres of Federal
land in Utah, while also allowing access for hunting, gazing,
fishing, and trapping.
Second, it creates a management council comprised of local
officials to draft and oversee a management plan for the new
monuments. This is an unprecedented move that will give local
leaders a powerful voice and a seat at the table. And by the
way, this is a county that 93 percent of it is controlled by
the Federal Government. Why in the world would anyone object to
giving the local community a voice in how it is managed?
Third, the bill transfers Hole-in-the-Rock to the state of
Utah to be preserved. This road is very historical and
significant to Mormon pioneers, and it is only fitting that
Utah own and preserve and manage this historically significant
area.
And last, the legislation creates Utah's sixth national
park, the Escalante Canyons National Park. This new park will
be a win for conservation and a win for access and it will be a
win for the local communities. It will increase tourism, giving
a much needed boost to the local economy, while giving locals a
voice in their own backyard.
In addition, the national park provides for infrastructure
spending, enhancing visitors' experience by making resources
available for things such as trails, restrooms, and roads.
There is a reason I live in Utah. I love Utah. I could live
anywhere in the world, just like any one of us could. I chose
to live in Utah because I love to hike, rock climb, ski, and
all the things that we enjoy there. I want to preserve that.
This bill gives us an opportunity to do that. It truly is a
win-win situation. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support it.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions for Congressman Stewart?
Seeing none, we thank you for your testimony. Oh, all
right, then we will do a round of questions, and I will begin.
Congressman Stewart, did you just say that 93 percent of
the land in this county is held by the Federal Government?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir, that is true. Ninety-three percent
of Garfield County is federally owned.
Mr. McClintock. So, that is 93 percent that is off the tax
rolls.
Mr. Stewart. That's exactly right.
Mr. McClintock. And what impact did this designation have
on the 93 percent of the land in the county that the Federal
Government holds?
Mr. Stewart. Well, can you imagine being a locally elected
official who is responsible for roads, schools, and all the
services that a community needs in order just to survive, and
having 93 percent of your tax base taken out from underneath
you? It is incredibly difficult for them. You will hear from
some of our locally elected officials, and what it does is it
leaves them coming to Washington, DC, and constantly begging
for help, because they don't have the authority or the ability
themselves to manage their own affairs. It is all at the whim
of the Federal Government.
Mr. McClintock. So, because this Federal land was off the
tax rolls, obviously, local governments are getting no tax
revenues from it. Was there any kind of productive activity on
these lands prior to the designation?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, there was.
Mr. McClintock. What kind of commercial activities was the
Federal land supporting?
Mr. Stewart. Well, for example, in Utah, we used to have a
thriving timber industry. It has been decimated because of some
of these policies. We had the prospect of mineral development.
That has been completely taken off the table because of some of
these policies.
Mr. McClintock. So, even though those lands were held by
the Federal Government and off the local tax rolls, they were
still able to be put to productive use for the surrounding and
for the remaining community in this region, correct?
Mr. Stewart. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. And what did the designation do to that?
Mr. Stewart. As I said, it made it impossible. And by the
way, if I can make an important point, even though they had
this multiple use before that, the local community still
managed it in such a way that it was pristine enough to still
be designated as a monument. It is not like the people in
Washington, DC, looked out there in Utah and said, ``Oh, what a
mess they have made, we need to go save them.'' They had
managed this land very well, as I said, to the point it was
still pristine enough to be a national monument. And the
presumption is many times, well, those fools out there in Utah,
they are not smart enough to do this, we need someone in
Washington, DC, to do it for them.
Mr. McClintock. I wish my colleagues from other states
where the Federal Government holds maybe 1 percent of the land
area would consider what would happen to their communities if
the Federal Government suddenly took over 93 percent of the
land area, took all of that off the tax rolls, and then imposed
draconian restrictions that prevented these lands from being
put to any kind of productive activity.
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, you make a point that I
emphasize all the time. I feel like I am standing up for the
little guy. I am standing up for families out in the rural
communities who just want to keep their families together.
Instead, their kids have to say, ``Dad, I would love to ranch
with you, but we can't because our permits have been taken from
us, and I am going to move to a city instead,'' when they would
rather be where they are and stay with their own communities.
Mr. McClintock. In this process of taking that 93 percent
of the land and, essentially, forbidding productive use of it,
I assume at least those local communities were fully consulted
by the Federal Government. There were hearings held that there
was maximum input from the local community?
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate your sarcasm, but, of course,
that was not the case, which is one of the primary objections
we have to this. If people felt like they had a voice, if they
felt like they had an opportunity to make their input and
actually be heard, and if the decision went the other way, I
think most people would be willing to accept that. They
understand they are not the king. They don't get to decide
everything on their own. All they are asking for is, give us a
chance to tell you what this has done to our community. Give us
a chance to tell you what this has done to our families.
Mr. McClintock. Perhaps that is why our Constitution gives
to Congress, and not to the President, authority over the
public lands, so that decisions like this that affect the
livelihoods of families across the West would be done in the
open, with full hearings, full consultation with the local
communities affected, and ultimately, voted upon by all of the
representatives of the people after open deliberations--not by
a single individual with a stroke of a pen acting in secrecy,
and worse than secrecy, actually misleading the local
representatives of the community of his ultimate intent.
Mr. Stewart. Chairman, I won't repeat what you said, I will
just say thank you for saying it, and I agree with you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
I recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, in light of the fact that we are going to be
called for votes, and we have a panel who have traveled a
distance to be here, I am going to yield my time to
Representative Lowenthal.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member. And thank you,
Congressman Stewart, for your service and your representation
of your community and their needs.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal. I want to make sure I understand the bill as
you are presenting it to us, so I am asking you, can you
confirm that the bill does not repeal any of the approximately
900,000 acres of wilderness study areas under BLM, within the
original Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Will they
be maintained as wilderness study areas, those 900,000 acres?
Mr. Stewart. This bill codifies the President's action of
last week. Some of those study areas reside within the national
park, and they will be managed as a national park at that
point.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, I am not talking about just the
national park, we are talking about the monuments and the
original land.
Mr. Stewart. Right. No, it does not repeal any wilderness
study areas.
Mr. Lowenthal. Section 13 is quite ambiguous about that, so
I appreciate that answer.
Mr. Stewart. We would be happy to work with you on language
that would clarify that.
Mr. Lowenthal. So, you are saying those 900,000 acres,
which are now wilderness study acres, will remain wilderness
study acres?
Mr. Stewart. That is one of the misunderstandings. I don't
mean to say you misunderstand; I am talking more generally.
Some of the misunderstandings that people have regarding this
is that the assumption is it repeals any protections, and that
is just not true. These are still federally owned lands. They
are still federally managed, exactly like they were before.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I appreciate it.
So, your answer is those 900,000 acres, if they are
wilderness study acres now, will remain as wilderness study
acres?
Mr. Stewart. That is true.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Also, there are going to be approximately 677,000 acres of
Federal public lands, and your bill would potentially open up
those 677,000 acres of Federal public lands that are no longer
within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. You are
going to open those up to, for example, potentially, oil, gas,
tar sands, coal leasing, as well as hard rock mining. So, you
are understanding that now we are going to open these up to
those development activities?
Mr. Stewart. The intention would be for these to be managed
like any other Federal lands. And if they are available and if
there are no coal or gas resources there at this point--and I
don't think there is anyone who speculates that there are--they
would be subject to all of the same protections that any other
Federal land----
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I am just making clear, really,
and you have just--we are now, potentially, opening up all what
was protected.
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate you bringing up that point,
because that is actually one of the things we want to do. I am
not hiding from that. I am embracing that. Of course, we are
trying to do that. That is one of the things we are trying to
do for the local community, is to make these resources
available to them so that, as I said, they can have
opportunities that have been taken from them.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Do any other Members wish to avail
themselves for 5 minutes of questions for Mr. Stewart?
Seeing none, we thank Congressman Stewart for bringing the
bill to us, and we would welcome him to remain and participate
in the Subcommittee from the dais.
Mr. McClintock. We will now ask our second panel of
witnesses to come forward. While they are doing that, the Chair
recognizes the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr.
Bishop, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I would like to do my opening
statement now as the new panel is getting situated, so we can
speed up the time.
As a history teacher, I just want to go through the history
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. An Interior
Department Solicitor's memo told the President that monuments
proposed by the President do not require NEPA because NEPA
compliance does not cover presidential action. So, in August of
1995, that was a year before the Clinton re-elect, there was a
series of memos that went through asking President Clinton to
do something for his re-election campaign to, and I quote, ``To
help overcome the negative views toward Clinton, a designation
of a new monument would create a compelling reason to
enthusiastically support the administration.''
The idea of it taking place in Utah was, once again I quote
from internal memos, ``Opposition would come from those who, in
candor, are unlikely to support the administration under any
circumstance.''
In 1992, Mr. Clinton had finished third in Utah behind both
Bush and Ross Perot, so it was obviously easy pickings.
On March 19, 1996, that was the election year, once again,
memos went through there, and there was a letter coming from
CEQ to the White House that needed to be signed because it had
to look as if the President initiated this, not CEQ, not the
Interior Department, so you could avoid NEPA compliance. If,
and I am quoting again, ``If the alleged letter only asked for
information about Utah, it looked biased, but ask for a broader
review and it would have been clear that there are more
compelling areas for designation than Utah parks.''
In fact, a week later, in another memo, they said these
lands are not really endangered, which is one of the criterias
for using the Antiquities Act.
Then they also had, another week later, coming from OMB as
well as CEQ, another report saying that Grand Canyon National
recreation area, because McGinty and others may want to rope in
Kaiparowits and Escalante Canyons, these regions, if the
package ultimately doesn't seem adequate. I would mention that
what they are talking about adding later on to the package that
they initially require is what this bill would be designating
as a national park.
As late as July 29, 1996, the CEQ and OMB were worried
because a letter had not been signed. They once again sent
another memo to the White House saying a letter does not have
to be sent, but must be proposed and signed ASAP.
In August of that same year, another memo went to the White
House, resigned to having to wait because the Chief of Staff at
that time, Leon Panetta, wanted time to talk to western
Democrats before they actually signed and introduced anything.
On September 9, news reports came leaking out in The
Washington Post and other areas that the monument was going to
be designated. On September 9, the CEQ then told the Utah
delegation that no decision had been made. Secretary Babbitt
told Senators Hatch and Bennet and Congressman Hansen that no
decision had been made.
On September 14, they once again said, I can tell you
categorically no decision has been made with respect to this.
Three days later, in a phone call to Senator Bennet, the White
House said, oh, no, we deny these news reports. Anybody who
says that this is going to happen, does not know what he is
talking about. No decision has been made.
On September 9, that story is why Governor Leavitt finally
called the White House to try to find out the truth behind that
story.
That is the situation of how Grand Staircase-Escalante was
originally established as a politically motivated area that was
not necessarily in need of protection. In fact, other areas
were in greater need, and it was added simply to try to get
enthusiasm to election in a state that was not going to vote
for Clinton regardless.
I yield back my time, and I welcome the guests who are
here. I appreciate listening to your testimony.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
If there are no other questions, the Chair now recognizes
the former governor of the state of Utah, the Honorable Mike
Leavitt, who has come to us today from Salt Lake City, Utah.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE LEAVITT, FORMER GOVERNOR, STATE
OF UTAH
Mr. Leavitt. Chairman Bishop, Subcommittee Chairman
McClintock, and Ranking Member Hanabusa, I want to thank you
for the invitation to appear. I have been asked to recount the
history of the way in which the Grand Staircase came forward,
at least from my perspective as governor at the time.
Grand Staircase, as has been spoken of already, was done in
stealth. It happened under wraps. It was done on the fly. There
was no consultation done with any state, county, or local
leaders of Utah, our Federal office holders, or our people.
None. Worse, there was a deliberate effort made to conceal and
to keep the monument planning process out of view. Secrecy was
so vital a concern to this endeavor that the administration was
denying the decision had been made, even as bleachers were
being assembled on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon for an
event.
The obsessive secrecy was documented multiple times. Once
in a letter from the Interior Department. Solicitor John Leshy
wrote, and I am quoting: ``I can't emphasize confidentiality
too much. If word leaks out, it probably won't happen, so take
care.''
The need for secrecy was reinforced in a memo from the
Council on Environmental Quality director, Kathleen McGinty.
She said to another White House colleague, and I am quoting,
``Any public release of information will probably foreclose the
President's option to proceed.''
President Clinton announced the creation of the monument on
September 18, 1996. The first reports came out 11 days earlier,
not from a public announcement, not from an entry in the
Federal Register, but a news leak that has been referenced in
The Washington Post.
I recounted in my written testimony of days of calls and
inquiries by me, by members of the Federal delegation, and many
others, to every level of the executive branch. I was told by
the Secretary of the Interior directly that his department was
not involved, and suggested I call the White House, which I
did. I was told at the White House that they were not certain
where that report in The Washington Post came from.
I asked for a meeting with the President or the Chief of
Staff. I was finally granted one on September 17, the day
before the announcement. At the same time as I suggested the
Government of the United States was denying the plan, they had
White House events people on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon
preparing for the event.
At 1:58 a.m. in the morning on the day it was announced, I
finally received a call from the President. The President was
gracious, but he said to me, I am just now beginning to review
this matter. I was back in Salt Lake City by that time, by the
time the announcement was actually made on the North Rim of the
Grand Canyon in Arizona, not in Utah.
This was a piece of land equal in size to the state of
Rhode Island, the state of Delaware, and the District of
Columbia combined. This is not the way public lands decisions
should or were ever intended to be made.
In 1976, the Nation made an important public policy
decision we all know as FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. It requires great deliberation and careful
process in determining how public lands should be used. Our
system of government was constructed to prevent one person from
having that much power.
I would like to assert three foundational issues. One,
there was land within the boundaries of the Grand Staircase
that needed protection, but the President's order went way
beyond that which was necessary or prudent.
Second, the secrecy and the circumstances surrounding the
monument's creation amounted to abuse of power, process, and
protocol so egregious that it is offensive to the concept of
democracy itself.
And finally, while this hearing does not consider the
ongoing nature of the Antiquities Act, Congress needs to refine
it to prevent ongoing misuse. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael O. Leavitt, Governor of Utah 1993-2003,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 2003-2005,
Secretary of Health and Human Services 2005-2009
Chairman Bishop, Subcommittee Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and Committee members, thank you for the invitation to speak
with you, as we again find monuments and public land protections in my
home state of Utah in the national spotlight under debate. This is
where we should have been all along.
There are lands in our state that require protection, and the
record will show me to be consistently supportive of responsible
efforts to do so. My statement today is aimed at establishing two
foundational points. First, both the Grand Staircase-Escalante and
Bears Ears National Monuments were abuses of the 1906 Antiquities Act,
setting aside far more land than was necessary to meet the law's
purpose. Second, the way Grand Staircase came forward was an abuse of
power, process, and protocol so egregious that it is offensive to the
concept of democracy itself.
Debate is a wonderful thing. Good-faith collaborations yield
extraordinary results. An open give-and-take involving governments and
citizens at all levels makes democracies work. Trust is essential. Had
any of these been applied to the original process of designating Grand
Staircase in 1996, I doubt we would be here.
The Grand Staircase monument is 21 years old. Bill Clinton was the
president who created it. I was governor of Utah at the time. The
monument was done in stealth, under wraps and on the fly. There was no
consultation with any state, county, or local leaders in Utah, our
Federal office-holders or our people. There was a deliberate effort to
conceal and keep monument planning out of public view. Secrecy was so
vital a concern to the endeavor that the administration was denying a
decision had been made, even as bleachers were going up for the
presidential announcement at the Grand Canyon.
There were calls made by administration figures to Democratic
politicians and allies in surrounding states. Activist groups had input
and major newspapers received advance word. Aides to Mr. Clinton
fretted over whether to give a heads up to Democratic candidates for
office in other states. Utah didn't rate. We couldn't even get a map.
The partisanship and unilateral power play were unprecedented and
stunning to behold.
Confronted with those circumstances, the move was contentious from
Day One. With the stroke of a pen, local communities had their
interests upended. Mining leases were impacted, as was statewide
funding of public education. Commercial development was precluded, a 7-
year environmental impact study on the coal fields of the Kaiparowits
Plateau jettisoned overnight.
Then came the repercussions. Congressional hearings were held,
lawsuits filed, the Antiquities Act challenged, and the smoking embers
of national vs. western land-use antagonisms once again flamed.
The law was followed, a court ruled 8 years later. But the breach
of trust, Federal over-reach and disregard for the basic foundations of
democratic government lingered in Utah much longer. The monument born
of political expedience never had the buy-in and the constructive voice
of surrounding communities those lands warranted and deserved.
Twenty-one years later, a new president and a different Congress
are taking another look. Grand Staircase faces a down-sizing and
reconfiguration, along with Bears Ears. It did not have to be this way.
There are parallels in the two cases. They rely on an expansive
reading of the Antiquities Act in the creation of massive landscape
monuments rather than the smallest-area-compatible standard required by
the law. Where Grand Staircase was enshrined to curry favor and
galvanize preservationist voters, Bears Ears came at the behest of
environmental groups, backed by foundation money and fronted by
representatives of Indian tribes.
Both monument designations were a race against the clock to do
something before time ran out, either to win votes or secure a
historical footnote. And both had the effect, whether calculated or
not, of forestalling other more time-consuming but comprehensive and
workable initiatives to protect the same lands--more assiduously in
some cases--while balancing conservation with the economic stability of
local communities. One of those initiatives was a Canyons of the
Escalante National Eco-region my administration proposed 3 years before
Grand Staircase, the other was the Utah Public Lands Act Initiative
launched and led here by Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz.
There is a reason that Washington declarations like Grand Staircase
and Bears Ears are described in Utah as ``midnight monuments.'' They
are sprung on the state by a Federal Government removed from the
aftermath and disinterested in its socio-economic realities. This time,
we can do better. We can work it out for the American people and for
Utah, in open discussion with honest brokers, congressional authority
and the state of Utah's imprimatur.
That starts with some undeniable truths and a look back on the
Grand Staircase process with the perspective of two decades. First,
Utah is a state where 65 percent of the lands are federally owned and
administered. San Juan County alone, where Bears Ears is located, is
home to a National Park, a National Forest, a National Recreation Area,
three National Monuments and the highest poverty rate in Utah.
In Kane and Garfield counties, which share the Grand Staircase
footprint, it is a Godzilla-sized imprint. Half of Kane County is taken
up by the monument. In Garfield, 98 percent of the land is federally
owned.
The preservation of public lands in Utah is always a familiar
issue. I grew up in southern Utah, where all of our national parks and
both of these monuments are located. No one in this country can love
those lands more than those of us who live there. These places are vast
and beautiful. They symbolize America and define Utah. They are home.
But we also have to honor the processes and laws that guarantee
ultimate stewardship and effective management.
In Utah, we seek out new and better ways to work with the Federal
Government in the planning and administration of these lands. Governors
and local officials build relationships, forge partnerships and lay the
groundwork for interagency cooperation. This is one reason the Grand
Staircase designation caused shock and outrage. It was inconceivable
that someone entrusted to the highest office of the United States would
be willing to undertake a process that was purely partisan on a matter
of such importance.
I'll remind you of how it transpired. President Clinton announced
creation of the monument on September 18, 1996. The first reports of it
that I or any other elected official in the state received came just 11
days earlier from a story in The Washington Post.
This kicked off days of phone calls, conversations, delays, and
denials by the White House and Interior Department. Secretary Bruce
Babbitt said his department was not involved. The White House's
director of intergovernmental affairs told me they weren't certain
where the report came from. I asked for a meeting with President
Clinton or Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and was given one a week later
on September 17, one day before the still undisclosed monument
announcement.
Media reports, meanwhile were indicating that an important
environmental announcement was planned at the Grand Canyon the
following week. When we inquired directly of the administration about
the time, place, and subject, they would not even confirm an event
would occur. Local governments in Utah were becoming more and more
concerned. On two other occasions that week I had conversations with
Mr. Babbitt or his office. They continued to indicate that they had no
information, insisting that the matter was being handled by the White
House. When we called the White House, we were referred to Interior.
Phone calls and meetings with local officials continued through the
weekend, and we were still being told that ``no decision had been
made.'' On Monday September 16, 1996, the Governor's office could still
not get confirmation of where or what the official announcement would
be, despite the fact that buses were being organized to take Utahns to
Arizona. I traveled to Washington for the Panetta meeting. That meeting
lasted just under an hour. Mr. Panetta was attentive and gracious. He
told me that was the first time he had been able to focus on the issue
and that he had set aside the afternoon to prepare a recommendation to
the President.
I reviewed for him the Canyons of the Escalante Eco-region
proposal, a new model of land designation that incorporated the
requirements of all the others and tailored the correct land use to
specific land parcels. It matched up with the contours of the new Grand
Staircase and had been previewed at least a year earlier to Secretary
Babbitt. Ironically, the most pristine areas would have been afforded
much more aggressive protection in that proposal than what was
ultimately proposed.
The bulk of the meeting, however, centered on the presence of
school trust lands within the monument. These are lands scattered
across Utah that derive revenues from energy, mineral resource
development, grazing and timber production. The monies flow to a
permanent endowment created at statehood to support public education.
Prior to that discussion--and this is the day before the announcement--
Mr. Panetta had been unaware of those lands' existence and the
importance they held for the school children of our state.
At the end of the presentation, Mr. Panetta told me I had made a
compelling case. To which I replied, ``If this is compelling to you,
then before the President sets aside a piece of land equal to Rhode
Island, Delaware, and Washington, DC, combined, he needs to hear the
same information directly from the governor of the state.'' I was told
Mr. Clinton was campaigning in Illinois and Michigan, but he would call
me later in the evening.
At 1:58 a.m. on September 18, I got the call, and we talked for 30
minutes. The President said he was just then beginning to review the
matter. I restated the points raised with Mr. Panetta and offered to
put them into a memo the President could read in the morning. This was
before laptops and smart phones, so I sat at the hotel desk and wrote
three pages by hand, then faxed it to the President at his hotel at
4:30 a.m.
The memo said that if a monument was going to be created, the
President should create a commission that included state and local
government officials to recommend boundaries and solve a number of
management questions. It stated that it should work toward a policy
that protects the land, preserves the assets and maintains the
integrity of the public process.
Several hours later, I spoke again with Mr. Panetta, who said my
ideas had merit and that he would be reviewing this again with the
President. Later in the morning, he informed me that the monument would
be announced and said some of my suggestions on water, wildlife access,
and a planning process with local and state participation were being
incorporated.
I was back in Salt Lake City at the Capitol when the announcement
was made at the north rim of the Grand Canyon--in Arizona. As governor,
I had never seen a map, read the proclamation or been invited. Simple
courtesies were never the issue. The issue was process and public
trust. It's hard to believe this was how such a decision could be made
by the executive branch of the U.S. Government.
Grand Staircase was a major land decision, still one of the biggest
in the United States. It was not made the way public lands decisions
should or were ever intended to be made. In 1976, the Nation made an
important public policy decision when Congress passed the landmark
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). It required great
deliberation and careful process in determining how public lands would
be used. That Act and other related legislation contains protections
for state and local communities. It was the policy of my administration
then to assure that our state was not denied those protections, to
defend Utah's interest against abuses of power, and to seek additional
protections when existing measures proved inadequate.
Use of the Antiquities Act to create Grand Staircase was a clear
example of inadequate protection. Our system of government was
constructed to prevent one person from having that much power without
checks or balances from another source.
The Antiquities Act was originally intended to provide emergency
power to protect Indian artifacts and objects of historic and
scientific importance, not to create sweeping monuments of a million-
plus acres, with minimal regard for the relationship between the land
and the local economy. In southern Utah, both Grand Staircase and Bears
Ears individually are larger in size than our five national parks
combined.
Using the Antiquities Act also has another downside. What one
president can do with a pen, a phone, and a podium at the north rim,
another can undo or unravel. Congressional action, had it not been pre-
empted by executive over-reach, would have required more time and
debate. It also would have provided a solid, enduring foundation.
In the ensuing months, we pressed forward with the administration
on our objectives for the monument. We reached agreement on the
management plan, and it was better because of the state's involvement.
Two years later, we signed an agreement for a historic land swap:
the state exchanged 370,000 acres of trust lands within Federal
holdings for 140,000 acres of Federal land and leases for coal and
natural gas and $50 million in cash.
In future years, I served in the Cabinet of the George W. Bush
administration, first as EPA Administrator and then Health and Human
Services Secretary. For nearly 6 years there, I saw how important
decisions should be made in the White House. Nothing ever rivaled the
abuse of power and questionable ethics of the Grand Staircase episode.
More was uncovered in time, sometimes under subpoena, about the
undemocratic process that occurred--and also about monument impacts and
competing values.
The obsessive secrecy was documented multiple times: once in a
letter from Interior Department Solicitor John Leshy to the Colorado
professor who drafted the proclamation. Leshy stated, ``I can't
emphasize confidentiality too much. If word leaks out, it probably
won't happen, so take care.'' Another time it was reinforced in a memo
from the Council on Environmental Quality Director, Kathleen McGinty,
to another official at the White House. That one stated warned that
``any public release of the information will probably foreclose the
President's option to proceed.''
Mr. Panetta and President Clinton both indicated at the time that
they did not like how it all unfolded, but felt that the momentum of
the event had swept things irrevocably forward.
I believe with considerable certainty that the monument originated
at the Department of the Interior, working closely with national
environmental groups. The proposal was given to CEQ to manage. I'm
confident that Mr. Panetta and the President liked the idea of creating
a national monument, but I suspect the presidential campaign and
environmental organizations clearly took over the process.
Somebody got worried that the White House might start asking
questions and delay the event, so they leaked the monument proposal to
The Washington Post, making it impossible for them to back out. The
fact that it was sprung as a surprise, even after being denied all week
was morally wrong. The fact that the White House discussed it with the
governors of other states, but not Utah was a clear indication of the
political nature.
Some additional mindsets and methodologies were revealed in more
recent recollections of staff members who gave oral histories for
college libraries. Those included statements that locking up coal
reserves in the monument was the primary motivation, and that the
administration could have used litigation to squeeze out lease-holding
coal companies without paying them, but made deals out of fairness.
There was speculation about the future of coal. Solicitor Leshy
stated in 2014 that half the coal-fired plants in the country were
shutting down, and ``coal is on its way out.'' He described southern
Utah's interest in coal development as shortsighted, and surmised that
the monument payout gave Andalex--the company with the EIS proceeding
for its lease on the Kaiparowits--an excuse to ``basically beat a
retreat.''
With a straight face I imagine, he also lamented that the
atmosphere in Congress surrounding the Antiquities Act had become so
partisan and assessed that Grand Staircase was the formal end to the
region's ``dream'' of a heavy industry economy and the turning point to
a future based on recreation and tourism. Good to know.
There was a revelation that in drawing up the monument boundaries,
a drafter called a friend who had worked at the Grand Canyon Trust to
help set the southern border. And in a candid reflection, U.S.
Geological Survey biologist Jayne Belnap, who helped craft the
monument, suggested that most people likely believe it is God's will
that land be taken care of, but then dialogue falls apart when it comes
to defining what caring for the land truly means.
The Sand Flats Recreation Area near Moab, she said, was ``killed
off'' by mountain bikers, not ranching and grazing, and there was no
prevailing on bicyclists to acknowledge otherwise. As she put it, ``I
watched it several times, people riding everywhere making a mess. I
tried to talk to some of them about it and they were the most arrogant
. . . `I am a well-educated environmentalist who sends my money to
Sierra Club. You have nothing to tell me.' I would way rather deal with
a rancher, frankly.'' It's all about the construct and point of view.
One other e-mail that surfaced a year after the monument
designation was starkly prescient. Written by an associate director of
the CEQ, it noted that presidents before Mr. Clinton ``have not used
their monument designation authority in this way in the past--only for
large dramatic parcels that are threatened. The bad guys--her words--
will have the chance to suggest that this administration could use this
authority all the time all over the country and start to argue that the
discretion is too broad.''
Twenty years later, by the end of 8 years in office, President
Obama had used the Antiquities Act 34 times to lock up more than 553
million acres of land and water as national monuments--66 percent of
the total ever designated as a national monument under the Act. It was
more than any other administration in history.
To my knowledge, neither president has ever set foot in Grand
Staircase or Bears Ears. Yet the proponents of their unilateral actions
always maintain that the people who live in these areas will come
around and learn to love the monuments. What they never seem to
comprehend is that we always did.
The opportunity now lies with Congress to protect and set apart the
places in Utah that deserve it, to consider what the lands mean to
those who live on them as well as those who visit, to apply the law as
designed and assert its proper authority in establishing the best fit
for Utah and all of America.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize the Honorable Leland
Pollock, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners from Garfield
County, Utah. He comes to us today from Panguitch, Utah.
Welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LELAND POLLOCK, COMMISSION
CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH
Mr. Pollock. Good morning. My name is Leland Pollock. I am
a Garfield County Commissioner. I am also a lifetime resident
of Garfield County.
One of the best places on this planet is Garfield County.
And very frankly, I am tired of all of the propaganda, 21 years
of stories about the Grand Staircase that are not true, so I am
glad that you all are giving me an opportunity to come back
here to tell the truth. And anybody today that doesn't believe
what I have to say, come on out, I will take you around. It
will take us, I mean, they have said 1.7 million acres, it is
about 2 million acres, after all the state trust lands and
everything were consumed by this process within the boundaries
of the Grand Staircase, you are talking 2 million acres of
land.
To put this into perspective, Garfield County is the size
of Connecticut. Ninety-three percent of my county is Federal
lands, 3\1/2\ percent state, 3\1/2\ percent private. So, from a
county perspective, and if you have ever tried to do taxes and
tried to collect revenue, just put that into perspective how
hard it would be to manage a county. But that is not the point.
The point of the matter is there have been negative impacts.
Number one, school enrollment in the little town of
Escalante, prior to the Grand Staircase, was 150 children, 7th
through 12th grade. That was the school enrollment, 150.
Congressman Stewart brought up the state of emergency. We
didn't make that up. The County commissioners didn't do that.
We did that at the request of the school district, because the
school enrollment numbers had dropped to 51 children, 7th
through 12th grade. Everybody here that is listening knows how
hard that would be to educate 51 children, 7th through 12th
grade.
So, if all of this economic benefit that has been talked
about is true, why did the school enrollment drop? Well, Number
one, it is pretty obvious, all the traditional uses of all that
land were taken away from us.
Now, I would like to make another point. Probably 20
percent of that monument is visited. I don't doubt that. I
applaud the fact you are trying to do something with that, say,
20 percent. But 80 percent of the land mass--if you don't
believe me come on out, we will go out--a lot of it, the roads
have been closed, but it is just BLM rangeland like you will
find anywhere in the western United States. And I am sorry,
people are not going to travel from all over the world to look
at sagebrush and regular BLM rangeland. There is no tourism
value.
Why is that the case? Because it was tied up for political
reasons. It was tied up to stop coal mining. It was tied up to
limit and prohibit the traditional grazing practices. As far as
grazing goes, there has been a story that no AUMs have been
cut, animal unit months. Animals on the ground, basically, is
what it is. That is not true. Those AUMs have been suspended.
That means you cannot run them on the land. Why have they been
suspended? Because we have not been able to do actual range
recovery projects. We have not been able to maintain the land.
On western land in 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act--that is
what created the BLM, the way I understand it--was created to
do recovery projects. Now, on all this BLM land that is still
BLM monument, there have been no recovery projects. Water
sources have dried up. That does not just hurt cattle, that
hurts mule deer, big horn sheep. It hurts the land, soil
erosion problems, all kinds of evasive/invasive weed problems,
pinyon and juniper encroachment.
Western land has to be maintained. I am sorry. I know there
are radical environmentalists, so-called environmentalists that
say, oh, no, just leave it alone. You cannot do that with BLM
land. That is why the BLM was created.
In closing, I applaud this effort, and I just ask you,
please look at all the facts. Don't get wound up about
political agendas, just look at the facts.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pollock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leland F. Pollock, Commissioner, Garfield County,
Utah
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, my name is Leland Pollock, and I am the chairman of the
Garfield County, Utah Commission. I also serve as chairman of the
National Association of Counties Public Lands Committee and have
formerly served as the Chairman of the Utah Association of Counties
Public Land Steering Committee. I am also the son of a Park Service
employee and literally grew up within the boundaries of Bryce Canyon
National Park. I have lived on and around public lands my entire life,
and understand their importance to the local communities and the Nation
as a whole. Based on a lifetime of experience with public lands and
National Parks, I believe I am informed and can accurately testify
before you today.
Garfield County is a scenic rural area roughly the size of
Connecticut. Ninety-three percent of the land base is under Federal
ownership, and I believe we are the only U.S. county that contains
portions of three National Parks (Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, and
Canyonlands). We are also home to significant portions of the Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area, the Dixie National Forest, the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM or Monument), two BLM
field offices, and a small segment of the Fish Lake National Forest.
Private ownership is extremely limited, and is only 3 percent to 5
percent of the total land base. On that limited tax base Garfield
County is responsible for schools, road maintenance, garbage
collection, emergency medical services, law enforcement, search and
rescue, and a host of other public services. Garfield County, like Kane
County, is responsible for the liabilities on millions of acres of
Federal land within their boundaries, without a voice in how those
lands are managed.
I am here today to testify on local needs of Garfield County for
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the Escalante
Canyons National Park proposed by Representative Chris Stewart. Public
lands, monuments, and parks are a wonderful thing. The basic premise of
preserving outstanding resources for the enjoyment of current and
future generations is honorable. The BLM and Park Service have
developed wonderful skills at managing people while preserving
resources.
Unfortunately, over the past few decades, enjoyment of public land
and park resources by current generations has suffered at the hands of
those who believe Federal lands should be managed to lock people out
and prohibit reasonable visitation and access. It has suffered by a
misguided notion that the best management comes from agency heads that
are significantly influenced by special interests and political
lobbying. For the past 21 years Garfield County has been forgotten by
Federal managers thousands of miles away who do not understand the
impact the Monument has had on the lives of real people in southern
Utah. As a County Commissioner I must speak up for those forgotten
families, forgotten stewards of the land, forgotten hunters, ranchers,
and tourists, those who are clinging to a life they once knew and that
could be restored if those people had a voice that was heard in
Washington, DC.
The proposed Escalante Canyons National Park and the various units
of the GSENM, to be of any significant benefit to anyone, must be
managed (a) largely under the direction and guidance of local elected
officials who best know and understand the resources, and (b) to
accommodate a variety of the American public by becoming ``people
places.'' They must be places that allow the current generation to
enjoy and appreciate the great wonders of the area, while preserving
the resources for future generations.
Garfield County has the skills, technical knowledge, and ability to
accomplish these two tasks simultaneously: (1) facilitate and allow the
enjoyment of Garfield County's outstanding resources by the current
generation; and (2) preserve our outstanding resources for future
generations. These are not mutually exclusive management goals. The
local people had accomplished those multiple use/sustained yield goals
for over 100 years prior to the designation in 1996. Unfortunately,
many individuals and groups create conflict and promote exclusive,
single-use designations for the purpose of restricting public access to
public lands.
monument effects
President Clinton's monument designation 21 years ago started a
suffocation of Garfield County. While no single industry felt an
instant fatal blow, the effect of the restrictions cumulatively was
death by a thousand cuts.
Socio-economic Deficiencies
Prior to 1996 Garfield County was a growing economy and population.
For approximately 120 years multiple-use land-based industries that
sustainably and reasonably used public lands surrounding Escalante
supported the families of that community. With severe monument
restrictions on that land, businesses started closing and young
families were forced to move to metropolitan areas to find employment.
That exodus caused a self-perpetuating effect in all industries that
now had a dwindling customer base. This economic shrinking has
continued for 21 years.
The tourism jobs that were promised were never realized, as the
monument has never been managed for tourism and access to visit the
incredible sights, but rather for limited recreation and more like a
conservation area. The few jobs that outfitting and recreation guiding
did bring are seasonal and low wage; more suited for college students
in the summer than for a living wage to support a family year-round.
Nationally, 10.5 percent of the economy is made up from service
industries. In Garfield County tourism and service industries (and it
is usually the low end jobs from those industries) comprise
approximately 44 percent of the local economy. Attached is a chart
showing the seasonality of Garfield County employment compared to two
nearby communities and the state of Utah. All other effects stem from a
struggling local economy hobbled by over-burdensome land restrictions.
Please also note, some will attempt to mislead you into believing
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has been a great
economic boon to Garfield County. They often cite an economic study
produced by Headwaters Economics. That study draws its data from
communities that are hundreds of times larger than Garfield County,
such as the Phoenix metropolitan area, and the area designated for
monuments is 5 percent to 10 percent of that designated for Garfield
County. The study also includes the largest community in southern Utah
in the analysis, even though it is two counties (over 100 miles) away
and on the other side of Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon National
Park.
Loss of School Kids and Families
Since creation of GSENM in 1996 enrollment in the 7th through 12th
grades of Escalante High School has dropped from over 150 students to
less than 50 today. That is a loss of more than 66 percent. We would
not permit the loss of two-thirds of the juveniles in any species on
this planet. But yet, we manage our public lands that completely
surround the communities in Garfield County in a manner that results in
that very same loss. Only in this instance, we're talking about people,
families, and human lives. Even when classes are available, the quality
of education with only a few students per class, without sufficient
student/social interaction, suffers compared to an energetic class of
15-20 students discussing and sharing diverse viewpoints. The situation
became so unbearable that in 2016 the County was forced to issue an
emergency declaration.
Increased Burdens on Local Governments
Garfield County has tremendous scenery. Creation of the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument brought attention to that scenery
and required increased local government services in the form of road
maintenance, law enforcement, search and rescue, and other services.
For example: The Hole in the Rock Road, a route originally traveled by
pioneers in 1879, has increased approximately 2,000 percent since 1996.
However, the Monument Management Plan, written and controlled by agency
heads without accepting local input, prohibits improvements to the
road. That means Garfield County cannot install culverts or drainage
improvements to accommodate floods which leads to poor road quality and
increased automobile incidents not equipped to handle the rough roads.
The BLM and Park Service then repeatedly call our road crews out in the
middle of the night--risking our lives--to rescue trapped and stranded
visitors. Here again, local elected officials have the information and
experience to correctly manage problems, and agency heads in
Washington, DC are unfamiliar with the territory.
Similarly, utility corridors, well established prior to the
Monument designation, have been severely restricted by poor management
without local input. Garfield and Kane Counties have been limited in
expanding fiber optic connectivity for internet and cell towers because
of management restrictions within already prescribed utility corridors.
Beside the economic potential that connectivity would provide, the lack
of adequate cell reception has created a safety issue that could often
be prevented by stranded visitors being able to call for help or use
mobile-based navigation.
That same utility corridor restriction caused an emergency in the
town of Henrieville which was not permitted to access its water lines
for repair in the Monument and suffered a catastrophic collapse of its
entire water system. Tens of thousands of gallons of water for drinking
only was hauled to the city at great expense over a week until the
right to access the lines was allowed by Monument management.
Lack of Adequate Signing
The same Monument Management Plan prohibits guidance signing in
approximately 94 percent of GSENM. People on even the most popular
hikes are frequently lost; and in July of this year we had another
death on the trail to the second most popular hike in the Monument
because the hiker could not find the trail back to his car. Most of the
consequences of poor management are preventable with proper simple
signage. However, the expense for poor management is passed on to
Garfield County when called for search and rescue, medical, and law
enforcement services.
Loss of Artifacts and Objects of Antiquity
One of the great ironies of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument is collection of artifacts and souvenirs. The Monument
Management Plan prohibits any rock or artifact removal, including for
the Monument itself for use in display purposes in the visitor center
because the visitor center is located in Canonville Town, outside
monument boundaries. However the Management Plan allows universities
and museums to come to Garfield County, extract and raid our world-
class archaeological and paleontological artifacts and take them out of
the County with no remuneration and without any local hope of their
return. If the landscapes are unique to the area, and worthy of
visitors coming to experience them here, the unique paleontological and
archeological resources are equally impressive and researchers should
come to Garfield County to experience them. Federal agencies have long
promised, in accordance with scientific protections of the Antiquities
Act, to make the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument a science
monument with a science research center and on-site university classes,
but for 21 years those promises have never been fulfilled.
Closing the Monument to Visitors
A 1.9 million acre Monument should be large enough to accommodate
many visitors. However, the Management Plan, written without genuine
local input, severely restricts visitation in almost all parts of
GSENM. In two-thirds of the Monument many small groups of friends or
family cannot legally visit together because they will be over the 12
person limit. In 94 percent of the monument family reunions or scout
camp-outs are illegal because of the 25 person limit. In the front
country designation it is a violation to collect dead and down
firewood, so families cannot roast marshmallows or hot dogs unless they
bring their own firewood. The monument management plan is written to
keep people out rather than accommodate reasonable visitation and allow
the public to enjoy the area in a reasonable manner. These explicit
rules also restrict historic religious and cultural heritage events,
which were supposed to be grandfathered into the Monument Plan, but the
Harvey rule precluded that use.
Much of that closing to visitation is implicit. A purposeful lack
of most infrastructure discourages the vast majority of Americans from
enjoyment of these public lands. The second most popular destination,
the Peekaboo and Spooky trails, lack any restroom facilities, and the
trailhead and parking area is covered in trash and human waste by more
than 20,000 annual visitors leaving a health hazard and stench. Another
popular religious and cultural attraction, Dance Hall Rock, finally
received a restroom, the only restroom in over 40 miles of popular
attractions, only after 19 years of persistent requests.
Wildlife Habitat Recovery and Livestock Grazing
The Monument has historically been a coveted hunting ground for
mule deer and other species. Wildlife benefited greatly from livestock
producers who maintained vegetative quality and water sources for
livestock and wildlife alike. While livestock grazing was guaranteed by
the 1996 designation, Monument management decisions to not allow
habitat recovery projects or for equipment use for water source
maintenance that naturally erode over time, has severely limited
livestock producers and their livelihood. Monument management
repeatedly cite that few livestock numbers have been permanently
reduced, but in reality over a third of the guaranteed AUMs have been
``permanently suspended'' due to dwindling grazing conditions on the
ground. Monument management does not need to cut AUMs from livestock
grazing, the ranchers will be forced to do it themselves because there
will not be anything on the ground for their livestock, or the
wildlife, to eat.
The effect of that restriction has also impacted wildlife,
including critical mule deer migratory corridors. This wildlife decline
has impacted the local population as well as sportsmen across the
intermountain region who have historically relied on southern Utah as a
premier hunting destination. Without the habitat recovery projects
carried out on public lands across the West, all animals suffer.
future solutions
These are just few of the real-life problems that have occurred
because local elected officials were not given any voice in managing
lands within their jurisdiction. Admittedly, Federal officials provided
lip-service, held open houses, and requested comments in the Federal
Register. However none of the local input was adopted into the plan.
While a historic view of the effect of poor management could continue,
I prefer to focus on solutions for the future to better accomplish the
dual goals of enjoying and using the land now, and preserving the
resources for future generations. Congressman Stewart's legislation for
Garfield County, Canyons of the Escalante National Park, and the units
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will provide a
balance between Federal management and local input and establishes a
platform to best accomplish those dual goals.
Primarily the proposed legislation will better place public lands
in public hands again. Critical to that aim is the distinction between
tourism and recreation. Tourism is conducted by larger groups of people
and is generally attraction based. Tourists come prepared for a
specific set of activities and are looking for a specific set of
outcomes, locations, schedules, or accommodations. Many details and
other aspects of their experience may be handled by others. The
presence of other individuals participating in the same activity is
accepted and sometimes welcomed. Frequently tour buses, shuttles, paved
roads and trails, trams, and other facilities for transporting people
to various places are used.
Quite differently, recreation is most generally self-directed and
involves much smaller numbers of people, possibly only one or two
individuals. The presence of others participating in the same activity,
at the same time in the same place is unwanted and unaccepted. Often,
facilities are not required or are even shunned. In parks and monuments
where tourism and recreation are both accommodated (e.g. Zion and Bryce
Canyon National Parks) recreation makes up a very small percentage of
the visitors, generally less than 5 percent to 10 percent.
The more heavily visited areas of Zion and Park Bryce Canyon
National Parks are examples of tourism and represent people parks/
monuments/public lands. The remote areas of Capitol Reef National Park
and the Maze District of Canyonlands National Park are example of land
base parks. It should be noted that even people parks like Bryce and
Zion use a relatively small percentage of their lands to accommodate
the vast majority of their visitors, and recreationists are able to
enjoy the majority of the land in solitude that most tourists will
never try to visit. A key distinction is also that people parks/
monuments accommodate both tourism and recreation. Land base parks/
monuments only accommodate recreation. Hence, land based parks have a
much smaller visitation and a much higher per visitor cost than people
parks.
In order for the Grand Staircase-Escalante area to fully benefit
the American public it needs to maximize the value to both tourists and
recreationists, while at the same time preserving the attractions,
heritage, scenery, activities, and resources that justified the
designation in the first place. Time and space are insufficient to
discuss all aspects of managing the public lands in the Grand
Staircase-Escalante area, but summarized below are some of the most
important aspects that need to become foundational management
principles.
Access
In order for the Grand Staircase-Escalante lands to be a benefit to
the American public, access needs to be provided for tourism and for
recreation. For the past 20 years access in the GSENM has been woefully
inadequate. It is the main source of conflict between the Federal
Government and the state of Utah and its counties. Even remote access
roads throughout the Monument have been repeatedly restricted and
closed throughout the 21-year history. On the current trajectory there
will not be any motorized access inside the monument in another 21
years. Generally, the Grand Staircase-Escalante area is bounded on the
south and west by U.S. 89 and on the north by State Highway 12; an All-
American highway. Other than those two state highways, paved roads in
the monument are limited to 14 miles of the Burr Trail Road, a short
section of Kodachrome Road from the town of Cannonville to Kodachrome
Basin State Park, and a few miles of Johnson Canyon Road through
private land in Kane County. Hole in the Rock road, the most heavily
used road in the interior of the monument, has management plan
prohibitions against reasonable improvements. In order to make the
entire area work for the public, access must be improved, roads must be
reliable, and infrastructure supporting recreation and tourism must be
developed. Many of the search and rescue efforts could be prevented
with better road access and signage on those roads so visitors know
what their vehicle is suited to and where they should avoid.
Associated with such improvements are adequate rights-of-way along
the existing roads and trails. The rights-of-way need to include
sufficient width to accommodate turnouts, overlooks, bus turnarounds,
rest stops, restrooms, bike lanes, interpretive areas, and other
features normally found in national parks and monuments. It is
estimated that a width of 330 feet on each side of state highways or
county road centerline would be sufficient for all major collectors and
arterials. For local roads and resource roads a width of 165 feet on
each side of centerline would be generally adequate with provisions in
specific instances to increase to the 330 foot width identified for
larger transportation facilities.
Attractions
There are numerous spectacular natural attractions along the
existing county roads and state highways. Many more attractions exist
within walking distance from major transportation facilities. However,
the current monument management plan prohibits the development of
pathways, trails, and facilities that will accommodate visitors and
especially Americans with disabilities.
Adequate flexibility needs to be provided, so as attractions are
identified, they can be accessed by those desiring to participate in
tourism-based activities. More remote attractions which require
knowledge of the backcountry, technical skills, or strenuous efforts
can be reserved for those individuals and groups that desire to
participate in less developed recreation oriented activities. The area
is more than large enough to easily accommodate both without
competition.
Community Development
It is recognized that development of tourism related facilities is
best located in communities adjacent to parks and monuments and not on
public lands. Tourism related facilities accommodating a large number
of people, large developed campgrounds, eating facilities, and other
convenience based infrastructure should be located on private lands
within towns and communities. Facility development within the parks and
monuments should be limited and relatively primitive. Campgrounds
should not compete with local businesses. Concessionaires and tours
should be housed primarily in nearby communities, parking areas should
be adjacent to county roads and trails, and local communities should be
sustained in every manner possible. Likewise, employee housing, as much
as possible, should be included in the communities so that park and
monument employees become integrated into the communities where they
live to develop relationships with the local residents and better
understand the relationship between Federal lands and local
populations.
Scenery
Visitor use surveys conducted by various Federal agencies indicate
motorized recreation for viewing of scenery and pleasure is the
dominant recreational activity on public lands in Garfield County. The
scenery is what draws people to the area. State highways and county
roads need to be augmented with adequate turnouts, viewpoints, and
parking areas. Rest stops need to be carefully placed, so viewing may
be maximized and safety ensured. Wherever possible, such parking
facilities should also be tied to attractions, interpretive sites, and
points of interest.
Traditional Uses
One of the major problems with the creation of the Monument in 1996
was subsequent management attempted to curtail or eliminate traditional
activities that have occurred in the area since settlement. Hunting,
fishing, hiking, camping, rock hounding, backpacking, canyoneering,
mountain bike riding, ATV use (limited to existing roads), and other
activities that have been going on for half a century need to be
authorized and continued. Significant work has been done by the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and others to restore various
wildlife habitats and populations. Wildlife management is a significant
aspect of UDWR's program and must continue to be managed by the state
of Utah. Proper wildlife management, hunting, and fishing within
Federal designations must continue to be under the jurisdiction of the
state of Utah and needs to be supportive of local values and interests.
The Monument must be able to work better with UDWR and other wildlife
organization to enhance and restore critical wildlife habitat and
ensure that hunting those areas, as well as other traditional uses,
will continue in perpetuity.
Domestic Livestock Grazing
Domestic livestock grazing is a critical part of the local heritage
and continues to be a significant economic driver. It is engrained and
entwined in our way of life and culture and is under constant threat
from outside special interests. As a County Commissioner, I seek a
voice for the quiet rancher working tirelessly to provide for his
family as many previous generations did before him. Currently that
rancher is not sure whether he will be able to continue ranching, what
future monument boundary changes will mean for his family and heritage,
or whether there will even be a resource to graze. Those families need
certainty in the future from Congress. Livestock grazing must be
continued and enhanced through reasonable and sustainable vegetative
and water projects in perpetuity to guarantee this part of our heritage
in the American West is not lost.
Hiking and Camping
Hiking and camping activities need to be supported through
development of appropriate facilities. As these activities get
increasingly remote, the facilities can be reduced accordingly. However
signing needs to be available at all popular hikes and should be
developed in a manner that is conducive to the activities. There must
always be adequate information available, so someone who is lost or
having trouble will have an opportunity to receive the support they
need.
Scientific Research and Museum
Garfield County views the loss of scientific resources
(archeological and paleontological) as an extraction industry that has
resulted in a loss to the local area. High on Garfield County's list of
needs is Scientific Research and a Museum. The science industry is a
clean technology that would provide valuable jobs, a critical element
to a diversified economy, and other benefits to areas that are losing
valuable archeological and paleontological artifacts. The state of
Utah, Garfield County, public entities, and private enterprise are
engaged in an effort to develop a human history museum in Escalante. It
is partially complete; and preliminary plans are designed to
accommodate Federal participation in the scientific research and the
curation of artifacts. Archeological and paleontological specimens
collected from Kane and Garfield Counties should remain here, and the
scientific research associated with them should also be conducted here.
Colleges in Utah have partnered with Bryce Canyon National Park to
provide joint educational opportunities connected with college degree
programs. Those efforts should be expanded to include the communities
and schools in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Canyons area. Kane and
Garfield Counties could become science hubs of unique resources and
bolster the scientific and educational opportunities not usually
provided rural counties. However, these endeavors are only guaranteed
through local input in the management of those resources as Federal
management has been ineffective thus far.
Consistency, Cooperation and Coordination
Garfield County recognizes great value in consistency, cooperation,
and coordination between the various levels of our Nation's
governments. Garfield County desires to be fully engaged in the
planning and development phase for the modified monument and adjacent
lands. Garfield County has gone to significant effort to educate itself
regarding Federal processes associated with CEQ regulations, NEPA,
FLPMA, and Park Service regulations and guidance. We believe the County
is in a position to be a cooperating agency and valuable resource on
every plan or project proposed by the Federal Government. Additionally,
we believe, in many instances, we are ideally suited to serve as a
joint lead agency, especially where the facilities either impact or are
maintained by Garfield County. This is certainly true for the
transportation network which is entirely maintained by Garfield County.
It is also true for those activities that involve search and rescue,
law enforcement, emergency medical services, solid waste collection and
disposal, water quality governed by the Clean Water Act, and air-
quality governed under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Management
plans for monuments and parks are best developed in cooperation and
coordination with local elected officials, and FLPMA mandates that
Federal plans be consistent with state and local plans to the maximum
extent allowed by law. That has not happened in the last 20 years and
nothing but conflict is the obvious result. Local elected officials
must have a meaningful seat at the table throughout the planning and
development process and must be full partners with local agency
executives in the development and implementation of resource management
plans.
conclusion
H.R. 4558 best provides for the best management of the incredible
beauty and resources located in Garfield and Kane Counties. Through
local input working in cooperation with Federal land managers, we can
achieve the goals of enjoyment and use of the land now and preservation
of these lands for future generations of all Americans, not just a
select few. Only the principles in this legislation allow us to return
these public lands back to public hands.
There will be some who criticize this testimony and attempt to pick
it apart word by word. Admittedly, I am not the most eloquent of
individuals in verbal or written presentations. However, I can assure
you, my sincerity cannot be questioned.
Local elected officials know the land best, know what their
constituents need, and know how to best serve the visiting public while
preserving the resources that brought them to our area in the first
place. And we have skin in the game. We will be here long after Federal
officials are transferred and the visitors return home. We will live--
and die--with the management decisions that are made. We should have
representation in those decisions.
There is adequate room in the concepts I have presented for
improvement. Things may need to be altered, changed, and modified. But
there is no fault in local elected officials having a say in what
happens within their jurisdiction; and there is no deficiency in our
ability to solve differences if we want to. There is adequate acreage
for a variety of experiences; there are adequate resources; there are
technical skills that can be employed; there are a host of management
structures that can be used; and importantly, Mother Nature has the
ability to assist us and correct our minor flaws. But even she cannot
help us if groups or individuals focus on exclusion and conflict rather
than solutions. And she smiles on those industrious local officials
that do their best to cooperate with her and preserve her resources for
current and future generations.
We are hopeful that, after careful consideration, Congress will
take appropriate steps to make Garfield County's lands more available
to the public, better managed by including local management and more
supportive of local and national socio-economic needs, by quickly
passing this bill with bi-partisan support, showing Garfield County
that Congress has no longer forgotten them. Thank you for the
opportunity of speaking today.
Exhibit 1: A chart of Garfield County school enrollment depicting the
period of time the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has been
in existence. Please note, it has not broken out the Escalante High
School enrollment. Had that specific school been shown separately, you
would notice more pronounced impacts that are shown on Exhibit 1. We
can provide that data as needed.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit 2: A graph depicting unemployment figures from Garfield
County with those from Cedar City, Utah and St. George, Utah.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Among the permanent workforce, about one person in six will be
unemployed in January every year.
While Garfield County unemployment dropped below the regional and
state averages in the summer months during the early years of the Great
Recession, it exceeds those areas in recent years.
*****
ATTACHMENT 1
The following information is provided to augment testimony provided
at the hearing of December 14, 2017 for the Grand Staircase-Escalante
Enhancement Act
1. Visitation statistics for areas near Willow Canyon Outdoor
Company, Kanab Utah
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. Testimony was provided indicating GSENM visitation at the
visitor's centers was approximately 1 million visitors per year. The
visitor's centers for the GSENM are located primarily in established
communities outside the monument boundaries and are located along US-89
or State Highway 12. Visitation at these established facilities within
municipal limits is not reflective of visitation within the Monument
boundaries. The visitation figures at the visitor's centers more
accurately reflect motorists on US-89 and SR-12 that need to use the
public restroom or want to take a short break from driving.
Although Monument visitation figures are not highly reliable, GSENM
staff indicate Lower Calf Creek Falls is the highest used area in the
entire Monument and receives somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000
visitors per year. The second highest use area is Dry Fork with the
Peekaboo and Spooky slot canyons. Visitation approximations indicate a
combined total of only 22,000 visitors per year at the two sites. In
other words, the total visitation at the two most popular sites in the
GSENM is less than 60,000 per year. Discounting drive through traffic
on US-89, SR-12 and county maintained routes, it is unlikely total
visitation in the GSENM exceeds 180,000 per year or 1/10th person per
acre per year. Comparatively, visitation at Bryce Canyon National Park
(which abuts the GSENM and is located in Garfield and Kane Counties) is
more than 68 persons per acre per year--approximately 700 times more
than the GSENM.
3. A witness (Susan Hand) at the December 4, 2017 hearing indicated
they did not desire to take their children hiking in an area where
hunting was allowed. She then indicated they had gone hiking in Lower
Calf Creek Falls in GSENM. It should be noted hunting is allowed in
Lower Calf Creek Falls (except in the established campground) and has
been an ongoing authorized use during the 20 years since the Clinton
Proclamation in September 1996. It is authorized today under the
President Trump modification; and it will not change with designation
of a National Park proposed by the Stewart legislation.
4. Ms. Hand also testified over 120 outfitters and guides hold
permits on GSENM. She also testified, ``Utah's outdoor recreation
provides 110 jobs that depend on protected public lands. It should be
noted the witness did not testify that Kane and Garfield Counties had
the 110 jobs. Those jobs were identified with the statewide economy and
do not necessarily benefit the local economies of Kane and Garfield
Counties. Also notable, Kane and Garfield Counties already house
protected lands that make up approximately 90 percent of their land
base. Nothing in the Stewart legislation prohibits continuation or
expansion of the outfitter and guide business; and nothing prevents
continued use of the lands by the 110 jobs. In fact, the Stewart
legislation enhances such opportunities.
5. Although visitation numbers are significantly less than several
protected areas in and near Garfield County, Utah, road use and road
maintenance needs have increased. For instance, Garfield County has
been required to grade Hole in the Rock Road approximately 20 times per
year in order to provide a suitable surface for passenger vehicles. The
County has also been called out by BLM to rescue motorists stranded by
floods. Yet, at the same time as road maintenance needs are increasing,
the current Monument Management Plan prohibits any surface improvements
to the county's roads in the Monument. The Plan prohibits making access
safer and more reliable--hardly management that protects the public
interest.
6. Representative Stewart's proposed legislation recognizes
Garfield and Kane Counties' responsibility regarding Hole in the Rock
Road. BLM's Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) recognized a similar
responsibility in 1988. Exhibit 1 is a document in which IBLA
recognizes the Hole in the Rock Road to be an RS 2477 right-of-way. The
recognition of Hole in the Rock Road as a County managed transportation
facility is codification of previous BLM decisions.
*****
The following document was submitted with this supplement to Mr.
Pollock's testimony. This document is part of the hearing record and is
being retained in the Committee's official files:
--Exhibit 1. August 17, 1988 IBLA Ruling
ATTACHMENT 2
1. Mapping indicates Washington County Utah was included in the
Headwaters study. Washington County, Utah is the only County in the
study that does not contain a monument. The table below lists pertinent
facts about the Headwaters counties.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. Mapping indicates Washington County is included in the
Economic region impacted by the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument. Washington County has a population approximately 12 times
that of Kane and Garfield Counties combined. So it is the dominant
economic driver.
3. Headwaters says. ``Services industries that employ a wide range
of people--from doctors and engineers to teachers and accountants--have
driven economic growth and now make up the large majority of jobs, even
in rural areas.'' Service industries also employ motel maids, bus boys
and dishwashers. In 1996 there were three engineers in Garfield County.
Now there is one.
4. Income per capita has risen because the loss of children.
Husband & wife at $48K each with 1 child was $32K per capita. 51
employees at $48K with 4 total kids is $44K per capita.
5. From https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/
Escalante.pdf.
``Services jobs--such as doctors, engineers, and teachers--
account for the majority of employment growth in the Grand
Staircase-Escalante Region in recent decades. These jobs are
increasingly mobile, and many entrepreneurs locate their
businesses in areas with a high quality of life.
From 1996 to 2008, in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Region:
Services grew from 3,627 to 5,749 jobs, a 59 percent
increase
Non-Services shrank from 1,294 to 1,148 jobs, an 11
percent decrease''
The summary indicates service jobs grew by 2,122 jobs. If doctors,
engineers and teachers make up a majority that would mean at least
1,062 new doctors, engineers and teachers in Kane and Garfield
Counties. Clearly the report is about Washington County.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Susan Hand, General Manager
and Outdoor Goods Buyer for Willow Canyon Outdoor, from Kanab,
Utah.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN HAND, GENERAL MANAGER AND OUTDOOR GOODS
BUYER, WILLOW CANYON OUTDOOR
Ms. Hand. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity
to testify.
I am co-owner and manager of Willow Canyon Outdoor Company
in Kanab, Utah. I am wildly passionate about the magnificent
landscapes that comprise my homeland. But I came to talk to you
about our local economy and how the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument has supported it over the last 21 years.
I will start with an excerpt of an Op-Ed piece I wrote as
the review of our national monument began.
With my husband and two small children, I settled in Kanab
in 1994. We purchased a dilapidated commercial property three
blocks from a humble downtown. On one side, a shuttered garage
cradled decades of junk. On the other was an abandoned bakery.
Old signs from long defunct enterprises stood like ghosts on
either side of our dream. A herd of rusting cars grazed the lot
behind ours.
We stripped our small building to its bones, opening just
in time for Christmas. We underestimated the challenge of
business in this diminutive rural town. A long winter stretched
into a long hard year. While our business slowly grew, our
savings quickly shrank.
The following year, 1996, President Clinton invoked the
Antiquities Act to proclaim the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. It was controversial at the time and,
clearly, remains so.
Still, in the couple decades since, I have witnessed
positive outcomes for our business, our community, and the
myriad visitors from around the world that gather here in awe.
Now, you can have your car serviced in the garage next door,
you can stay in the three-story hotel that replaced the old
bakery. Two additional four-story hotels have opened down the
street, and another is under construction. You can breakfast at
our delightful new bakery. In fact, several new restaurants are
thriving, but you will need a reservation--inconceivable 20
years ago. Come morning, a host of outfitters will offer to
show you the Grand Staircase.
Over 120 guides hold permits on the Grand Staircase-
Escalante. Utah's outdoor recreation provides 110 jobs that
depend on protected public lands. Jobs tied to the monument
can't be outsourced.
Our monument created a diverse spectrum of revenue flows,
extending well beyond travel and tourism. It provided an
extraordinary quality of life. People choose to retire in the
area or keep a second home. Some are entrepreneurs or work
remotely. This activity increased property values as well as
incomes.
Visitation is exploding. A million people stopped in the
visitors centers last year, while countless others visited the
monument independently. In the town of Escalante, transient
room taxes increased by 24 percent year to date.
The chamber of commerce representing Boulder and Escalante
have been vocal advocates of monument. In Kanab, a town of
4,000, businesses organized a rally that drew 400 citizens.
The destruction of our monument threatens our economic
future. The stroke of a pen reduced our monument by half,
severed it into fragments, and diluted protections. The Utah
delegation is bent on prioritizing grazing and mineral
extraction. We are offered a national park and preserve. It is
like no other national park we know. It doesn't respect the
Organic Act of 1916. It enshrines grazing and mandates hunting,
an awkward mix with hikers and children. Four county
commissioners and a state representative would dominate the
management. This is unprecedented.
Those who would manage the public lands want a coal mine.
The one proposed prior to the monument designation promised 360
double-trailer trucks through Kanab every day. That would
damage the tourism economy and quality of life. Meanwhile, jobs
in the solar industry far outnumber those in coal. Nor will
grazing save us. Cattle ranching has great cultural
significance in our communities, but it is a marginal
enterprise in the high desert, which is why it is subsidized.
Agriculture represents only a tiny portion of our region's
economy.
America's national monuments are wildly popular, as the
review comment period plainly shows. Most Utah citizens favor
protection of their monuments. On the local level, Boulder,
Escalante, and Kanab businesses submitted 80 letters to
Secretary Zinke advocating for our monument. Kanab and Kane
County public hearings drew crowds where the vast majority
voice support. To attack national monuments batters our local
economies and communities. It ignores the will of the American
people, and this land belongs to all Americans.
To codify the unraveling of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument is to disrespect that. To throw in a national
park is to apply lipstick. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hand follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan K. Hand, General Manager, Willow Canyon
Outdoor Co, Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Susan Hand, co-owner
and manager of Willow Canyon Outdoor Company in Kanab, Utah. Our shop
sells books, espresso, and outdoor gear.
I am wildly passionate about the magnificent landscapes that
comprise my homeland in southern Utah. But that is not what I came to
talk about. I'm here to talk about money, about resources and profit.
I'm here to share with you what I've witnessed over the last 23 years,
as a member of Kanab's business community.
To that end, I offer this excerpt from an Op-Ed piece I wrote as
Secretary Zinke's review of our national monuments was just beginning:
I dwell on the flanks of the Grand Staircase. I was drawn here
like a bee to a blooming flower--attracted to the stunning
landscape and the opportunity to make a living. With my husband
and two small children, I settled in Kanab in 1994.
We purchased a dilapidated commercial property three blocks
from a humble downtown. On one side, a shuttered garage cradled
decades of junk. On the other was an abandoned bakery. Old
signs from long-defunct enterprises stood like ghosts on either
side of our dream. A herd of rusting cars grazed the lot behind
ours.
We stripped our small building to its bones and created a shop
to sell books, coffee, and outdoor gear, opening just in time
for Christmas. We underestimated the challenge of business in
this diminutive, rural town. A long winter stretched into a
long, hard year. While our business slowly grew, our savings
quickly shrank.
The following year, 1996, President Clinton evoked the
Antiquities Act to proclaim the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. It was controversial at the time--and
remains so. Still, in the couple decades since, I've witnessed
positive outcomes for our business, our community, and the
myriad visitors from around the world that gather here in awe.
Now you can have your car serviced in the garage next door. You
can stay in the three-story hotel that replaced the old bakery.
Two additional, four-story hotels have opened down the street,
and another is under construction. You can breakfast at our
delightful new bakery. In fact several new restaurants are
thriving, but you'll need a reservation--inconceivable 20 years
ago! Come morning, a host of outfitters will offer to show you
the Grand Staircase.
Meanwhile, the town ushered in a new hospital, school, library,
and swimming pool. The Bureau of Land Management, which
oversees the Monument, opened a visitor center and a comely
administrative center.
We can't know that my little town's economic success is a direct
result of the Monument. But common sense, as well as research conducted
by Headwaters Economics and the University of Utah, confirms that the
Monument has not had an adverse effect.
On the contrary, economic studies reveal that such protected public
lands are economic engines for nearby communities. The 1996 Monument
designation brought a ``diverse spectrum of revenue flows.'' Kanab's
economic expansion extends well beyond travel and tourism. People
choose to live near the Monument because of the extraordinary quality
of life. Some have retired there, some keep a second home, some are
entrepreneurs, and some are able to work there remotely. This activity
has increased property values as well as incomes.
But if we want to talk about travel and tourism, Kanab has a long,
rich tradition. Dave Rust, born in 1874, grew up in Utah to marry the
daughter of Kanab's mayor, Dee Woolley. He embarked on a 33-year career
as a guide and outfitter based in Kanab. Since then, travel and tourism
have become the backbone of our economy.
Ranching is a charming bit of southern Utah culture, but grazing
cattle on the high desert has always been a marginal enterprise,
dependent on Federal subsidies. The allotments were scarcely changed by
the Monument. To enshrine cattle grazing will not develop a strong
economy.
How about the coal beds of the Kaiparowitz Plateau? The coal mine
proposed prior to 1996 promised 360 double-trailer trucks through Kanab
every 24 hours. Who wants that in their town? In the meanwhile, the
market for coal has gone bust.
Now, our economic future is at risk. In fact the damage may already
be underway. Whereas Willow's sales grew steadily over the last couple
of decades, peaking in 2016, this year looks different. In the first 5
months of 2017, we had 6 percent growth year-to-date; but since then
our sales dropped by 4 percent as compared to the same period last
year.
The downturn coincides with negative press generated by the
monument review and Zinke's visit to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-
Escalante. Social media reveals that a boycott against Utah is
underway. The public perception is that the Utah delegation and the
current Administration have assumed a hostile attitude toward our
state's national monuments--which were wildly popular.
Frustrated with the Utah delegation, the international Outdoor
Retailer trade show, which branded our state as an outdoor mecca for
the last two decades, has left Salt Lake City. We're worried about
long-term repercussions.
Last year, we invested in a new front on our commercial building.
We planned to remodel our espresso bar kitchen over the coming winter,
but with the downturn in sales we've deferred that. We've also
suspended plans to hire a new, full-time position--Community Liaison.
We don't feel that the excised monuments and proposed ``national
park'' will ever replace the loss of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Our final witness is Ms. Vicki Varela. She is the Managing
Director of Utah's Office of Tourism, Film, and Global Branding
from Salt Lake City, Utah. Welcome to the Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF VICKI VARELA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTAH OFFICE OF
TOURISM, FILM, AND GLOBAL BRANDING
Ms. Varela. Good morning, Chairman McClintock, Ranking
Member Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee. I am here to
testify in support of H.R. 4558, establishing Escalante Canyons
National Park and Preserve in south central Utah.
If you have been to Utah, you know that Mother Nature
played favorites, providing us the greatest snow on Earth and
spectacular red rock landscapes. This proposed national park
features winding slot canyons, other worldly sandstone domes
and plateaus, and pinyon-juniper woodland against shimmering
palettes of red.
H.R. 4558 gives this area national park recognition that is
long overdue. The bill protects these beautiful places in
perpetuity for some of the best exploration and recreation on
Earth.
The amenities offered in national parks, including trails,
signage, transportation access, parking, and staff, will enable
us to properly welcome visitors from Utah and all over the
world. The designation will generate prosperity in an
economically distressed region of our state.
Tourism is big business in Utah, generating $8.4 billion in
spending last year, and creating more than 144,000 jobs. This
created household relief of $1,226. The Mighty 5 promotion of
our five national parks and the campaigns that followed are the
most successful tourism marketing campaigns in Utah history,
generating $6.72 billion of economic benefits. We want to
provide Garfield County and the surrounding region a larger
share of this tourism prosperity, and also provide a welcome
mat for other economic development.
An attractive place to visit is also a more attractive
place to work or relocate a business. National park designation
is the way to accomplish these community goals.
Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve would be
located at the midpoint of one of the most glorious roads on
Earth, the All American Road: Scenic Byway 12. Two of Utah's
five national parks bookend this scenic byway: Bryce Canyon to
the southwest and Capitol Reef to the northeast. This 122-mile
ribbon of road with a new national park in the middle will be
an unparalleled triangle of adventure and discovery in the
heart of south central Utah.
Utah's economy ranks among the best in the Nation, but we
have a silent recession in many rural communities. Young people
are fleeing the towns where they grew up. They can't find work
or community to sustain them. Governor Gary Herbert has called
on Utahns to work together to create 25,000 jobs in rural Utah
by 2020. Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve is a
missing puzzle piece to create many jobs.
You may wonder why we aren't already promoting this area.
Well, we do feature a limited set of destinations and
recommendations on our website. The lack of funding for BLM
staff, signage, and visitor amenities as simple as restrooms
have made it impractical to promote. To put it simply, it is
not safe for many visitors.
National park status and all the amenities that come with
it is an important tool for making the landscape more
accessible. Establishing this new national park will also
distribute demand from national parks that experience seasonal
constraints and overcrowding. It will spread out the love.
It is important to note that our national parks are
severely underfunded. Utah's Zion National Park had a 60
percent increase in visitation since 2010, paired with a 3.7
percent funding cut. That is not tenable. While national park
status will dramatically improve investment in the area, it is
essential that national park funding also be restored. I know
this is important to Congressman Stewart and others. I look
forward to seeing long-term investment restored to protect
national parks for generations to come.
In summary, investing in our landscapes for visitation is a
path to jobs and vibrant communities. These communities deserve
to have their children stay in the community where they were
raised. The Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve is the
breakthrough to make this happen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Varela follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vicki Varela, Director of Utah Office of Tourism
Good morning, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Vicki Varela. I am the director
of tourism, film and global branding for the state of Utah. I am here
to testify in support of H.R. 4558, establishing Escalante Canyons
National Park and Preserve in south central Utah.
If you have been to Utah, you know that Mother Nature played
favorites, providing us with The Greatest Snow on Earth' and
extraordinary red rock landscapes. This proposed national park features
winding slot canyons, other-worldly sandstone domes and plateaus, and
pinyon-juniper woodland against shimmering palettes of red. H.R. 4558
gives this area National Park recognition that is long overdue. The
bill protects these beautiful places in perpetuity for some of the best
exploration and recreation on earth. The amenities offered in national
parks--trails, signage, transportation access, parking and staff--will
enable us to properly welcome visitors from all over the world. This
designation will generate prosperity in an economically distressed
region of our state.
Tourism is big business in Utah, generating $8.4 billion in
spending last year, creating more than 144,000 jobs and $1,226 of tax
relief per Utah household. The Mighty 5' promotion of our
five national parks and the campaigns that followed are the most
successful tourism marketing campaigns in Utah history, generating
$6.72 billion of economic benefits. We want to provide Garfield County
and the surrounding region a larger share of this tourism prosperity,
and also provide a welcome mat to other economic development. An
attractive place to visit is also a more attractive place to work or
relocate a business. National park designation is the way to accomplish
these community goals.
Escalante Canyons National Park and Preserve would be located at
the midpoint of one of the most glorious roads on earth--the All-
American Road: Scenic Byway 12. Two of Utah's five national parks
bookend this scenic byway--Bryce Canyon to the southwest and Capitol
Reef to the northeast. This 122 mile ribbon of road--with a new
national park in the middle--will be an unparalleled triangle of
adventure and discovery in the heart of south central Utah.
Utah's economy ranks among the best in the Nation, but we have a
silent recession in many rural communities. Young people are fleeing
the towns where they grew up. They can't find work or community to
sustain them. Governor Gary Herbert has called on Utahns to work
together to create 25,000 jobs in rural Utah by 2020. Escalante Canyons
National Park and Preserve is a missing puzzle piece to create many
jobs.
You may wonder why we aren't already promoting this area. While we
do feature a limited set of destinations and recommendations on our
website, the lack of funding for BLM staff, signage and visitor
amenities as simple as restrooms have made it impractical to promote.
To put it simply, it is not safe for many visitors. National park
status and all the amenities that come with it is an important tool for
making this landscape more accessible. Establishing this new national
park will also distribute demand from national parks that experience
seasonal constraints and overcrowding. It will spread out the love.
It is important to note that our national parks are severely
underfunded. Utah's Zion National Park had a 60 percent increase in
visitation since 2010 paired with a 3.7 percent funding cut. While
national park status will dramatically improve investment in the area,
it is essential that national park funding also be restored. I know
this is important to Congressman Stewart and the rest of you. I look
forward to seeing long-term investment restored to protect national
parks for generations to come.
In summary, investing in our landscapes for visitation is a path to
jobs and vibrant communities. Tropic, Cannonville, Henrieville,
Escalante, Boulder, Grover and Torrey all deserve a bigger share of
Utah's economic prosperity. They deserve to have their children stay in
the community where they were raised. The Escalante Canyons National
Park and Preserve is the breakthrough to make this happen.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer input, and I'm happy
to answer any questions.
*****
ATTACHMENT
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Hanabusa to Vicki Varela,
Director, Utah Office of Tourism
Question 1. Does the Utah Office of Tourism work directly with
tourism boards and chambers of commerce that represent the region
affected by this legislation?
1a. If so, please describe the nature of your relationship with
these organizations?
Answer. The Utah Office of Tourism collaborates and welcomes input
from regional tourism partners and chambers of commerce. There is no
formal reporting system or methodology for collecting feedback.
1b. Do the local tourism boards in the area impacted by H.R. 4558
support this bill and the effort to dissolve Grand Staircase-Escalanate
National Monument into three separate and smaller national monuments?
Answer. There is not a consensus. There is some enthusiasm among
tourism organization in the area, while other entities would prefer to
retain the original monument boundaries.
Question 2. In the testimony provided to the Committee, you support
the establishment of a new national park unit because it would bring
infrastructure, signs and other improvements that BLM has not provided.
Your testimony also points out that there has been a 3.7 percent budget
cut to Utah's National Parks, while visitation has risen. President
Trump's FY 2018 budget proposed cutting all Department of the Interior
agencies by 10-13 percent, with the National Park Service facing a cut
that would eliminate over 1,000 staff positions. Do you support
President Trump's proposed 10 percent cut to the National Park Service?
Answer. I oppose cutting the national parks budget. The Utah Office
of Tourism is actively engaged in trying to increase funding for
national parks. Zion National park has experienced a 60 percent
increase in visitation over the last 5 years, concurrent to a 3.7
percent budget cut. Protecting the quality and safety of the national
park experience requires increased investment in operations and
infrastructure.
Question 3. Do you support cutting funds from other national park
units in Utah to support the new park established by H.R. 4558?
Answer. No.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony.
Normally, we go in seniority order here on the Subcommittee,
but those lists are modified by the Majority and the Minority,
depending upon the circumstances, and we will do that in this
case. I will begin by recognizing Mr. Stewart for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very gracious
in allowing me to do this. And to the Members, thank you for
giving me some time.
I would like to hit a couple of things just very quickly. I
am aware that votes are coming and we do need to go quickly.
Ms. Hand, I would to address a couple of questions to you,
if I could. Are you aware that there are national parks that
allow for grazing at this time?
Ms. Hand. Yes, I am.
Mr. Stewart. Do you know how many?
Ms. Hand. I don't know how many. I know there are some.
Mr. Stewart. It is about 20.
Ms. Hand. OK, thank you.
Mr. Stewart. And are you aware that there are some that
also support hunting?
Ms. Hand. I am aware of preserves, park preserves that do
that, yes.
Mr. Stewart. Would you suggest that we would repeal those
hunting and grazing rights in those parks that now allow for
that?
Ms. Hand. I would not necessarily, but I think it is a bold
move to----
Mr. Stewart. Why is this any different?
Ms. Hand. May I finish, please?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Ms. Hand. I think it is a bold move to suggest this park
and preserve without the attending maps. It is difficult to
comment, to tell you the truth, on the specifics, but I do know
the area of Calf Creek, I have hiked there, my son broke his
foot at the waterfalls. I remember it very well. The landscape
there is a very broken one, a very challenging terrain. So, to
imagine how you put hikers, hunters, and trapping all in the
same area is a bit of a challenge. I think the management will
be difficult.
Mr. Stewart. I think it is possible. I agree with you, some
of this area is challenging, but we have done it in other
parks. I think we can certainly do it in this. I am glad that
you would not suggest repealing it where this access granted in
these other parks.
Your primary interest is in tourism. Is that true? Your own
personal financial interest?
Ms. Hand. My personal financial interest is in tourism,
although we also sell books and espresso at our store.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Do you have any employees?
Ms. Hand. I do. We employ seven people.
Mr. Stewart. And would you mind telling us how much you pay
your employees?
Ms. Hand. Our pay scale ranges from $10 to just over $20 an
hour.
Mr. Stewart. OK.
Ms. Hand. We do have benefits, health benefits for full-
time employees. We also have a simple IRA retirement plan for
them, and they all earn sick and vacation leave.
Mr. Stewart. And are any of them seasonal employees?
Ms. Hand. No. They are all permanent employees.
Mr. Stewart. So, at $10 an hour, that is roughly $20,000 a
year. Can you raise a family on $20,000 a year?
Ms. Hand. I would turn that question back to you and ask
you to reflect on the minimum wage, I think. We are trying to
stay ahead of that.
Mr. Stewart. OK. My point is that the claim is often made,
and again, I want to emphasize, I support tourism. That is why
we have Vicki here. We are proud of tourism. We want you to do
well.
Ms. Hand. Uh-huh.
Mr. Stewart. We want you to have 100 employees, but the
reality is, as I stated in my opening statement, it is very
difficult to raise a family in a tourism industry. There are a
few people who do really well. The owners, primarily. Many of
them are seasonal. The vast majority of them are seasonal. And
the point is, the perception is often made, well, if we just
offer tourism and everything is great down there and these
families do well. They don't, because the vast majority of them
can't make a living in a tourism industry.
Ms. Hand. One of the----
Mr. Stewart. So, I would ask you, I will get to my question
now, why would you object to fostering tourism through the
creation of a national park?
Ms. Hand. I want to say that the outdoor industry is much
bigger than retail shops like mine. In Utah, we have companies
like Black Diamond, Petzl, Klymit, Chums, EK, Imlay Canyon
Gear, Kuhl, Dowson, and many others that I don't have time to
name. These are not retail jobs, these are manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Stewart. But they are not located in this area.
Ms. Hand. They are not located in this area, but these
public lands do support those jobs, 110,000 jobs in Utah.
Mr. Stewart. But we are talking about the local community.
And I am asking----
Ms. Hand. And if we talk about the local community, what I
would say is one of the biggest problems our local community
faces is that the drive to sustain tourism has led many people
in our community to transfer their properties from rental
properties into vacation rental properties, short-term rentals,
so there is a housing shortage in our area, and our
construction business is being driven by that, but it is not
keeping up with the demand.
That is one of the problems that those wages do create a
problem for.
Mr. Stewart. OK. I appreciate that. My time is almost up. I
would like to just be clear. You support the tourism industry,
you are asking us to encourage that, and yet you are opposing
the creation of a national park. Is that true?
Ms. Hand. I oppose the creation of a national park as
described through this bill, undoubtedly. I will be very solid
on that.
Mr. Stewart. And the reason is?
Ms. Hand. The reason is I feel that this codifies an
inappropriate decision and one that puts at risk an economy
that has come to rely over more than two decades on the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Again, we are trying to help you, we are
trying to create more tourism, not less.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding. I appreciate it.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Next on the Minority's list is Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And to begin, Representative Stewart, I will gladly have
you jump on my minimum wage increase bill if you are interested
in minimum wage for our workers.
To begin with, I have a question for Mr. Pollock. Mr.
Pollock, you are the Chairman of the Garfield County
Commission. Is that correct?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallego. In your testimony, you state that local
management is better than national management because you can
protect the resources better. Can you share with us what
qualifications you believe or your management team believe has
to manage a national park?
Mr. Pollock. I will give you one example--and by the way,
Bryce Canyon National Park, when you talk about tourism, that
is 35,000 acres. You still have a national monument, basically,
that you control that is over 1 million acres. And I want to
make that point.
To get back to your question, yes, I will give you one good
example. A lot of this land needs to be recovered. Sage grass,
that has been a threatened species. Everybody knows about sage
grass. Did you know we cannot do projects to recover the
habitat for that species within the old boundaries of the
monument? We cannot do recovery projects. That is a classic
example.
About 100 yards across the street, basically, we are doing
recovery projects on BLM rangeland. These projects that are
happening on BLM rangeland are happening in the same building
that the monument is managed in. They are the same people. And
as far as anything changing, you are just changing the
management from BLM monument staff to BLM Kanab field office
staff. So, for us to work with those folks, absolutely. I work
with Harry Barber all the time on a local basis to do good
recovery projects.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. Since you are familiar with the
National Park Service, I am sure you agree with the NPS under
the Organic Act that does not manage for multiple uses. In
fact, this is the very thing you are railing against in your
testimony, or have railed against, I should say. The NPS
mission is to protect wildlife and the resources, exactly these
protections that H.R. 4588 takes away.
To move on to another question, you told us that your
county does not have the money to manage the lands within the
1996 monument boundary. Is that correct?
Mr. Pollock. Those are Federal lands. We cannot manage
them. They are managed by the monument staff.
Mr. Gallego. But you will somehow have the money to manage
them once they are outside that boundary.
Mr. Pollock. We are not going to manage them, we are going
to have input on the management. We work with the people that
manage them.
Mr. Gallego. Maybe I misunderstood what you had said
earlier about the responsibility.
Mr. Pollock. Yes, you did, because I will tell you, we work
with the people that work for the BLM on a local level. That's
government-to-government cooperation.
Mr. Gallego. If this bill moves forward, the management
will be turned over to whom? The counties and under a
management council system. Is that correct?
Mr. Pollock. Well, you can interrogate me all day long, but
I will tell you just like this, flat out, we can manage those
lands a lot better than they have been managed.
Mr. Gallego. Well, this is actually not an interrogation.
If this bill moves forward, management will be turned over to
the counties under a management council system. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely.
Mr. Gallego. OK. How much money does your county have in
the budget to manage three monuments and a national park unit?
Mr. Pollock. We would not be managing those lands. Your
BLM, the government's BLM and the Park Service would be
managing them. The county would not be managing the lands. That
is like saying, do you want to transfer me that land? Do it
right now, transfer me that land and I will manage it, I will
tax it.
Mr. Gallego. The management shall develop and implement the
comprehensive----
Mr. Pollock. Well, let's get back to that question for a
minute. If you are talking about management----
Mr. Gallego. I am reclaiming my time, sir. The management
council shall develop and implement the comprehensive
management plans for the Escalante Canyons National Park and
Preserve. What does that mean when the management council shall
develop and implement the comprehensive management plans? That
sounds like the local management organization.
Mr. Pollock. OK. But who owns the land? You do, the BLM
does. If you want me to manage them and bear the burden of the
cost, transfer them to Garfield County, we will take them. I
will tax those lands.
Mr. Gallego. But, sir, we are talking about the actual text
of the amendment, and the text of the amendment says----
Mr. Pollock. Well, we are talking about reality here. The
reality is the Bureau of Land Management is the one that is
going to bear the burden of the cost.
Mr. Gallego. We are moving on here.
Sir, does Garfield County receive PILT payments to carry
out vital services such as research, rescue, road maintenance,
and other kind of services?
Mr. Pollock. Pennies in lieu of taxes?
Mr. Gallego. Yes.
Mr. Pollock. Are you kidding me? On that land, it is
actually pennies.
Mr. Gallego. How much do you receive?
Mr. Pollock. It is not a payment.
Mr. Gallego. Answer the question, how much do you receive?
Mr. Pollock. About $830,000 a year.
Mr. Gallego. $893,189.
Mr. Pollock. Roughly, give or take, so what is your point?
Mr. Gallego. Mr. Pollock, you claim that there is no local
voice when it comes to management of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. But isn't it true that there is
extensive local planning that went into the 1999 management
plan that did include or did not disinclude a creation of the
monument advisory committee, a committee that you have served
on since?
Mr. Pollock. I am glad you brought that up. There was
input, but since then, OK, where did the 12 heartbeat rule come
from? Do you understand that rule? Let me tell you what that
rule is.
On 64 percent of the Grand Staircase, the old Grand
Staircase National Monument, you can only have 12 horse--well,
6 horse heartbeats and 6 cowboys, 64 percent at one time. That
was never in the original plan. That was made up by the
monument staff. OK, 12 heartbeat rule.
Mr. McClintock. I am loathed to interrupt this, but
unfortunately, the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The Chair recognizes Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. This is frustrating. Let me try to get some
clarity to what you are talking about because you are using the
same word but you are using it with different definitions.
Mr. Pollock, if there is a management team, you will come
up with a management plan, that is how it will develop,
correct?
Mr. Pollock. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. Will you actually, as a county, then run that
plan, or will the BLM run the plan?
Mr. Pollock. The BLM will bear the burden.
Mr. Bishop. The BLM will also fund the plan?
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. So, when you are talking about management plan,
you are talking about coming up with the rules of engagement of
how the monument will be run. You will not actually be running
it. The Federal Government will still be running it. And the
Federal Government will still be paying for it.
Governor Leavitt, when this was originally established,
there were 377,000 acres of SITLA lands within the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Were they actually
covered in the proclamation that President Clinton did?
Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Chairman, on the day before I pointed this
out to the President's chief of staff, who made it clear that
that had not been contemplated, they were not aware of that.
Mr. Bishop. How long did it take you to work out a deal
with the administration to try to manage or try to account for
those acres that were put in there by a proclamation?
Mr. Leavitt. It was a matter of years.
Mr. Bishop. At least 2 years, over 2 years. If this had
been done by congressional action or if this had been done by
the administration working with the state of Utah, would you
have solved these problems ahead of time?
Mr. Leavitt. They certainly would have been solved in
principle, and it would have happened much more quickly and
much more efficiently.
Mr. Bishop. If this new monument is created, Commissioner
Pollock, it will be right outside the town of Escalante. Is
Escalante the town that has the greatest financial problems
going forward within your county?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Is Kanab farther away from this new monument
area than like Panguitch or Escalante in your county?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, Kanab is down on the southern end of it.
Mr. Bishop. So, Vicki, let me ask you. When people do
tourism down in Kanab, because I go through there a lot and I
spend money, but I am always going to Lake Powell. Kanab is
also the closest drop-off point to the North Rim of the Grand
Canyon. So, in your estimation, if there is economic
development taking place in Kanab, can it all be related to the
Grand Staircase or is some of it going to Lake Powell, or is
some of it going to the Grand Canyon?
Ms. Varela. A big part of Kanab's tourism economy is also
driven by Zion National Park. Certainly, there would be some
that would be related to this region, but most of it would be
the areas that you have highlighted, as well as Zion National
Park.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. And, Ms. Hand, to be honest, you can pay
your employees what you want to, regardless of what the minimum
wage is. Pay them more money. Governor Leavitt, let me come
back to you. Is this designation of the national monument done
in Grand Staircase, is this a one and done, or has this
happened since that time as well?
Mr. Leavitt. It has been used repeatedly over the course of
time in many instances.
Mr. Bishop. This Committee has passed out a CAP Act, which
tries to put an established process that would guarantee,
depending on the size, there would be public involvement before
the designation, and conversely, if you are going to rescind or
downsize, there would be public involvement in that as well. Do
you think that is a wise use of our time and energies?
Mr. Leavitt. I know of no other circumstance where public
acts are created, other than The Antiquities Act, where it is
not required, and where it is not carried out. The Antiquities
Act is unique, it is wrong, it is not democratic, and it needs
to change.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I would do one other thing for the
panel here. Oftentimes, as we had this miscommunication of what
the term management actually meant, there is also a
miscommunication of the difference between a national park and
a national monument. They are different entities. There are
special interest groups out there that are trying to confuse
that, as if one is synonymous to the other; they are not.
As we continue talking about what a park system can do,
what the BLM to a monument system can do, they are totally
separate entities and should be recognized as solely separate
entities. And because I respect this Subcommittee so much,
because I used to chair it, I have 30 seconds left and I am
going to yield it back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Lowenthal. The reason why we are going out of order, by the
way, is in large part because of flight schedules and other
concerns today. So, Mr. Lowenthal, 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is
for Governor Leavitt. And, first, I want to thank the panelists
for coming and traveling all the way from Utah to Washington. I
hope that is not calling us to vote.
I want to understand, there have been a lot of issues that
have been raised about the initial legality and the process
under which President Clinton had done this, and there were
questions that had been raised in this hearing. I want to make
clear that right after he issued the proclamation Executive
Order, we are aware that in the 105th and 106th Congress, that
Congress ratified these new boundaries. It talked about buying
out and provided resources to buy out the mineral interests.
And, Governor, that you signed the land exchanges between the
state and the Federal Government, pursuant to the Federal law
that was passed, and that the Federal courts have dismissed all
claims about the legality, especially in 2004 the Federal
District Court in Salt Lake City upheld the legality of this
and dismissed all claims challenging the legality of the
courts, and that has been upheld in the appeal courts also.
So, my question to you is, if there were all these
questions about legality, what did President Bush do about
this? He followed. Why are we waiting all these years later?
Mr. Leavitt. Congressman, I don't think for a minute that
you would defend the level of secrecy that was used in enacting
public policy in the context of the Grand Staircase.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I realize you raise issues about
that, but I am just talking about the overall legality of this
and the challenges in the courts you are aware of, and the
signing, that we must assume for all the courts, that there may
have been problems in the process that you have raised, but
this was legally done under The Antiquities Act. And the
Congress has done it by ratifying those boundaries, and the
courts have upheld it. Is that not so? That is all I am saying.
Mr. Leavitt. I acknowledge that some 8 years later and some
8 years of litigation, the court did conclude that the
President was within his rights as the Chief Executive to use
the Antiquities Act.
Mr. Lowenthal. That is right.
Mr. Leavitt. Thus, I have argued that The Antiquities Act
ought to be changed.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, that may be true, and I respect that
opinion. But there have been lots of issues thrown out here
that this was done for political reasons, it was not legal, it
overextended his boundaries and the courts have decided, and
the Congress right after that, have already said that is not
true.
Mr. Leavitt. It is hard to argue that this was not done for
political purposes, that has become evident.
Mr. Lowenthal. We are politicians. Everything is done for
political purposes. We appreciate that question, and I grant
you your right.
Mr. Leavitt. You asked, Congressman, about the Bush
administration?
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes.
Mr. Leavitt. The Antiquities Act was used in the Bush
administration. However, there was substantial public input in
the process. I recognize today is not the day to talk about The
Antiquities Act, but I am here because this is unfinished
business for me. I am no longer a public servant, but this
needs to change.
Mr. Lowenthal. But those questions were raised in the
Federal court and the Federal courts did not say they were
violated.
Mr. Leavitt. Well, no, but the Federal courts act as a
matter of interpreting existing law, and I am here arguing that
bad outcomes come when things misuse appropriate language. This
was bad policy, and I think what the President recently did was
enacting a separate policy. And this Committee, by this
hearing, will have exceeded in proportion any public process
that went into the Grand Staircase.
Mr. Lowenthal. I think the courts will have to deal with
that issue. You are right. Whether in fact the President, or a
subsequent President, has the right to change previous actions
in terms of massive change of land for both monuments and other
Federal lands, and I think that will be a question that the
courts----
Mr. Leavitt. I am sure it will. And my point, and I think
we would agree, that in the halls of Congress we ought not to
be arguing so much about process and we ought to be arguing
more about policy. And the President of the United States, in
this case, changed a policy.
Mr. Lowenthal. And the Congress agreed with the President,
and the courts agreed with the President.
Mr. Leavitt. But this Committee is now considering, in a
very public and organized, thoughtful way, whether or not lands
ought to be used in a particular way.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. We have been called for votes.
There are 10 minutes remaining on that clock. That will give us
time for one more round of questioning, and that will be done
by Mr. Tipton.
Then we will recess.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for
taking the time to be able to be here today. I do have to take
one issue with Ms. Varela's comment on Utah having the best
snow on Earth, I think that is in Colorado. But I appreciate
you being here and your passion on tourism, it is important for
the state of Colorado as well.
I have admired Utah's program of what you labeled as the
Mighty 5. Was there a marketing advantage for you being able to
say, we have this great portfolio of parks for you to be able
to visit? Would it enhance, as I read Congressman Stewart's
bill, to be able to create three more monuments, another
national park. You would be the Mighty 6, and be adding
monuments. Would you see that as a plus-up in terms of being
able to create economic development for the communities that
probably need, from what it sounds like down in the areas
around Kanab, over in Escalante, to be able to help those
communities?
Ms. Varela. First of all, thank you for the question. I
will continue the discussion with you afterward about the
greatest snow on Earth. But to your question, yes. The Mighty 5
campaign has been nationally recognized as a break-through
campaign that differentiated Utah in a profound way. That has
lead to the most successful years of marketing and economic
benefits that the state has ever experienced from tourism.
And, yes, having another national park, particularly in
this remarkable area, would be a huge boon to our economic
development strategy. The elegance of this is that it is a
combination of this remarkable asset that has not really been
accessible for many years, and a remarkable need in these local
communities that we have talked about that have so much
economic distress.
This ribbon of road, 122 miles of the most beautiful road
on Earth, that the brilliance of proposing this national park
right in the heart of that road gets me really energized about
the marketing potential for the next wave of Mighty 5, whether
it is Mighty 6, and we have a lot of other ideas that I will
not belabor right now.
Mr. Tipton. For the clarity of the benefit, perhaps, of
approaching it as Congressman Stewart's bill would, each of
these areas does have unique and distinct characteristics that
you would be able to individually market, but then collectively
package in terms of promoting tourism and creating jobs?
Ms. Varela. Yes, that is right. And Susan has made some
very good points, and I would like to respond to one of them,
which is that you want every national park to have a unique
offering, to reflect the local community, its heritage, its
history, and the unique things that are available in that area.
Some examples of what we would highlight around this
national park would certainly be our dark skies. Utah has some
of the best dark skies on Earth, and we are now being
recognized for that.
Dinosaur bones. Paleontology. There is history of 90
million years of dinosaur bones, some of the best findings on
Earth. Native American artifacts. Great Mormon heritage. The
Hole-in-the-Rock Road that goes through the proposed national
park, is a road that Mormon pioneers travel as they established
themselves in the area.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Varela. I just want to make one more point to Susan's
question, there would be a front country that might be very
accessible, and perhaps a back country, where it would still be
accessible to backpackers and other uses. But that is the
beauty of it, being able to design exactly what this should be
for this region.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Pollock, we have
heard many of the same comments that you have made,
particularly with regards to sage grass management in the state
of Colorado as well. I think you provided clarity, as did the
Chairman as well, in terms of the actual role that the
commissioners would be able to play. Can you maybe describe a
little bit of the distinct benefit that you would bring in
terms of developing that plan?
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. Actually, this is going to have to be a yes
or no answer, and the rest will have to be in written response.
Mr. Tipton. If you can do that for the record, we would
certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you all for taking your time.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I want to apologize to our
witnesses, we have been called to votes. There are 5 minutes
remaining on the first vote. I think there are four in this
series. We would expect to have those votes concluded by about
11:25. It is an occupation hazard around here, it happens, so
we will have to recess the hearing until votes have concluded
at about 11:25. I thank you for your indulgence and patience.
[Recess.]
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee will reconvene. I, again,
want to apologize to our witnesses for taking up almost an hour
of your time on votes, but as I said, it is what we do around
here.
The Chair will now continue questions of the panel, and
resume with the Ranking Member, Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I join in the Chair's
comments to you, we apologize for the delay. My questions that
I would like to begin with are, of course, with Ms. Hand.
Ms. Hand, you said you moved your family to Kanab--is it
Kanab or Kanab?
Ms. Hand. Kanab.
Ms. Hanabusa. Kanab. Two years before President Clinton's
proclamation. You gave us a description by reading your Op-Ed
about what it was like when you moved there, and, of course,
how it is today.
I was just curious, what was the economic base before you
moved there that resulted with no service repair shops and
everything closed down? What was the economic engine for Kanab
before that?
Ms. Hand. One unfortunate thing that occurred just about
the time that we moved to Kanab is that there was a lumber mill
that was cutting trees on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon
area, the Kaibab Plateau, not within the park, but with the
forest there, and that closed. They had used up the old growth
forest that they were allotted and never retrofitted to cut
smaller trees, and therefore, closed down. That displaced about
200 families.
When we moved to Kanab, the largest employer in the county
was the public sector, basically government work. The largest
private employer now in Kanab is the Best Friends Animal
Sanctuary. When I moved to Kanab, they had 43 employees, but
they now have over 500. So, they have experienced a tremendous
growth, and have become a really important part of our economy
as well.
I think their choice of--they live in upper Kanab, not
live, but their sanctuary is placed in upper Kanab Canyon, and
it is, again, a quality of life and placement for them, a
delicious place to be for their operation.
Ms. Hanabusa. Would it be a correct statement that the
economic base now is tourism related to the Grand Staircase?
Ms. Hand. Tourism related to the Grand Staircase and to the
other protected public lands in the area. And I would emphasize
that, actually, travel and tourism have a long rich history in
Kanab. There is a biography written by Frederick Swanson about
a man named Dave Rust, who was born in the 1800s, the father of
his wife was the mayor of Kanab, and D. Woolley was his name,
and the two of them set about developing eco-tourism in the
early part of the last century before there were roads or
anything really to support that. They went out on horseback or
with pack mules and explored the area. Dave Rust did that for
33 years, so he began a long-standing tradition of eco-tourism
and travel in the area.
Ms. Hanabusa. Let me ask you. Did you have a chance to
participate in the initial management planning?
Ms. Hand. I did, yes, because there were numerous meetings
held in the different communities that were open to the public,
and I was actually very impressed with that process. I felt
like it was a very safe environment for communication that was
established by the BLM operating these meetings, and that they
heard diverse voices, and they recorded what they heard in a
public format.
And I felt like if you participated in those meetings or
you wrote in your concerns by letter, that they were
incorporating that. A really good example is that the
monument--the public meetings that I attended, many of the
people asked not to have this monument, which was the first
managed by the BLM to be managed in a way similar to the Park
Service where there are exclusive concessions and development
within the boundaries, and instead, to allow the outside
communities to develop their businesses to support that.
That is what we have done. That is how the BLM set it up,
and I think it has worked very well for those communities.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Ms. Varela, I just have a quick
question for you. Your testimony focused on the three parks
that are being proposed with, I think you said your scenic
Route 12 going through it. You did not take a position on the
``reduction'' in the Grand Staircase. Do you have a position on
that?
Ms. Varela. I am not the right person to speak on that
issue. I have been on the periphery of land use issues my
entire career. I would defer to people on both sides of that
issue who have spent their entire working lives trying to solve
that problem.
My experience, my expertise, is around tourism. As a result
of that expertise, I have developed a really good working
knowledge of our national parks. But I don't pretend to have
expertise on solving the larger, complex, land use issues that
come when 65 percent of your land is owned by the Federal
Government.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of you on the panel who took the time to testify here today.
I would like, for the record, to get into the best snow on
Earth contest, because living in the middle of the million acre
Ottawa National Forest in the upper peninsula of Michigan and
right next door to the Sylvania Wilderness area, I have
snowmobiles, and I have them for two reasons: (1) primarily, in
a worst case emergency situation, given the timing, that is our
only way out; and (2) I like to ride on a beautiful sunny day,
even though it is 40 degrees below zero--so just know that I am
in on the snow contest.
As a kid growing up, I spent all of my time outside. I
could still live outside. I am married to a lady who prefers to
live inside, and I understand that, so we have indoor quarters
here in Washington, DC. But as a boy scout, I had the chance to
learn, live, and understand by traveling to some of the most
beautiful parts of the country as a boy scout troop. My
grandsons, who live in Northern California, are boy scouts, and
they travel as well.
Mr. Pollock, could you expand on the restrictions that
exist that prevent groups of 25 or more from recreating in the
monument areas?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir. I will give you a good example. It
doesn't matter what religion that you hold to, we are
predominately LDS. We have similar programs to visit these
areas. And down in the Hole-in-the-Rock area, a couple of years
ago, we had an LDS youth activity where they were trying to
take 30 or 40 individuals down into that area on the same type
of trip, and they were forbidden from doing that. They were
stopped from doing that, and all of that was canceled because
of the 12 heartbeat issue. You cannot have more than 12
heartbeats in certain areas of the monument.
I will give you another example. When I was a kid, my dad
worked for the Park Service, but I grew in Tropic, that is in
the monument. Back then, we used to go down on horseback into
what is in the monument now, down into a remote area, and that
was traditionally like your boy scouts. That is where they kind
of made sure that we were on the right track in life. That has
been prohibited as well.
And that was not only a function of the local churches, but
it was also a function that our good old local role models
carried on for years. That was stopped. So, traditional uses,
like what you are talking about, have been stopped.
Mr. Bergman. Not that I am putting words in anybody's
mouth, but when you have the opportunity to experience a
national monument, that is more of a didactic learning
experience as opposed to when you can utilize a national park
or even a wilderness area, that is an experiential learning for
people of all ages, but especially the young boys and girls of
our country, who in many cases did not have a chance to grow up
in a small town or in rural America. That sense of actually not
only seeing nature, but being involved with it and feeling it.
As part of that developmental portion of those very, very
important years of, let's say, those early teens, with what we
are proposing here, we are going to have more experiential
learning, am I right, in going forward with what we are talking
about here?
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely, sir. And not only that, a lot of
that area, you have to realize, it is not like Bryce Canyon,
back to what I said, 35,000 acres. That land mass was 2 million
acres. A lot of that land is just regular rangeland that these
young youthful folks you are talking about should be able to go
out and experience nature, and go under the BLM rule of
multiple use.
But the problem is, when you take that land and you create
a single use type monument, and that is what it was in a lot of
areas, no matter what you might hear, that is restricted. And
that is nonsense to do that on this type of land.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Pollock,
Devils Tower was 1,200 acres. That was the first national
monument of a natural phenomenon that was used under the
Antiquity Act. This was 1.7 million acres. You testified that
the vast bulk of this is simply open rangeland, is that
correct?
Mr. Pollock. That is absolutely correct, sir.
Mr. McClintock. And how many tourists come each year to
visit this 1.7 million acres of open rangeland?
Mr. Pollock. Well, most of it they can't. They will come in
a 2-wheel drive vehicle, a lot of folks rent a vehicle back
east or from wherever, and that is inaccessible.
Mr. McClintock. But my point is, I would assume that the
major tourist destinations within the monuments are much more
limited in their scope to essentially the territory identified
in the Stewart bill, is that correct?
Mr. Pollock. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. So, we are setting aside the tourist
destinations within a permanent designation, but freeing up
rangeland which really does not attract a lot of tourists. Is
that essentially what we are doing?
Mr. Pollock. You are absolutely doing that and that is why
I support this. You are doing the right thing.
Mr. McClintock. So, we are not harming tourism. In fact, we
are protecting tourism. But, at the same time, we are opening
up the rest of this acreage to actual productive use.
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely. Not only that, tourism was
restricted in a lot of that monument. I was told when I was
voted in as a commissioner, by an assistant monument manager by
the name of Sarah Slinger--I was trying to promote tourism at
the time, by the way--and she looked at me, and said, ``the
monument was not created for tourism.'' If you go back and
look, it was created for the check science study or something
like that. Their plan was not to promote tourism. We are going
to make tourism better. We are not against tourism.
Mr. McClintock. What is the 12 heartbeat rule you have
referenced several times?
Mr. Pollock. That is the remote areas. They have come up
with that, it is not one part of the management plan that we
can find, but these agencies that basically have their own
agendas.
Mr. McClintock. What is the 12 heartbeat rule?
Mr. Pollock. That means that if it is a dog, it has a
heartbeat, you can only take that one dog.
Mr. McClintock. This is what, per acre?
Mr. Pollock. No, on 64 percent of that monument, I believe
the 12 heartbeat rule applies, without some sort of a special
usage permit that you cannot get.
Mr. McClintock. Well, General Bergman's point, if you had a
scout troop of 13 people, that would not be allowed?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, and if you had a scout troop of 12 and
they brought their dogs, that would not be allowed either. If
they rode horses, then that would not be allowed. You cannot
even take 12 of the scouts down if they are riding a horse. A
horse is a heartbeat, according to this ridiculous rule that
they made up.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Varela, are the tourist areas that are
currently designated within the monument boundaries preserved
under the boundaries of this new act?
Ms. Varela. The monument is currently more of a drive-thru
experience than a place that tourists can stop and visit and
extend their stay. This legislation would create, of course,
the national park that would guide the tourism experience. That
would create signage.
Mr. McClintock. In your view, would that enhance tourism?
Ms. Varela. Yes. It would definitely enhance tourism.
Mr. McClintock. Once again, we are not harming tourism with
that bill, in fact, we are enhancing tourism. But we are also
opening up vast acreage that has been set off limits for the
enjoyment of the American people, and for the prosperity of the
regional economy. Is that correct?
Ms. Varela. Absolutely. That is a dramatic enhancement of
tourism and a safer, more defined experience for visitors.
Mr. McClintock. Commissioner Pollock, you termed PILT
funding, pennies for dollars. Could you explain that?
Mr. Pollock. I think we just did the math, actually, after
the question was posed to me. It is like 26 cents an acre,
which is what PILT comes out to. I think Garfield County is 3.3
million acres of Federal land. It is like 26 cents an acre.
Mr. McClintock. So, you would gladly trade the PILT pennies
for the many dollars that these lands could generate for the
economy, for the county, if you were treated the same way as
most of the counties east of the Mississippi?
Mr. Pollock. It would make my trip worth it if I come back
with that news, Congressman.
Mr. McClintock. My time has expired. Do any Members want to
do a second round of questioning? Great.
We have concluded with our questions. There may be
additional questions that will be submitted to you, we ask that
you respond in writing. We will keep the hearing record open
for 10 days in order to receive them.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Governor Leavitt, let me ask one more, just as
we leave here. As you look back on the history of how you were
involved in this, is there, in your mind, a clearer way which
this could have been done better to establish greater input and
solve some of the problems before the declaration than after
the declaration?
Mr. Leavitt. Ironically, the first time I ever heard the
word monument used, occurred probably 2 years earlier when I
had a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior to lay out a
plan or an idea for what we called the Canyons of the Escalante
National Eco-Region. This was an original idea. The idea was to
break the land down into different uses and to manage the land
according to its best and most productive use.
It would have applied substantially more protection to the
most pristine of the lands, more than is now extended. Yet, it
would have kept lands that could have been used, as the
Chairman suggested, in more productive uses to be used as such.
That idea was rejected by him, but in the course of a
conversation, there was a side decision between he and a member
of his staff, and used the word monument. That did not dawn on
me at the time. I had no idea that that is what they were
discussing.
But to your point, if the state, local, and Federal
Government had worked together to care for the land in a way
that was focused on the land and its best use, it could have
been done collaboratively, it could have been productive, and
it could have been done successfully. As it is, we have had 8
years of litigation. We have now had 20 years of conversation,
and we are continuing to visit it in a divisive way.
Could it have been done better? Absolutely. But it needed
to be done in a way that did not involve secrecy, that involved
the kind of hearing you are having today for that purpose.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that comment, and
that is why I want to commend Mr. Stewart for the legislation
that you have here. That is exactly the process we are trying
to have, going ahead and doing it ahead of time so you solve
problems first.
Vicki, you were talking once again about how we do a good
marketing campaign in Utah on the Big 5, right?
Ms. Varela. The Mighty 5.
Mr. Bishop. OK, the Mighty 5--you don't do that well of a
campaign. We are now talking about having maybe six that can be
part of that campaign.
Those five come up to about 830,000 acres combined for all
five of those. This would be coming down from 1.7 million acres
to something that could be more manageable and could be part of
that campaign.
I also want you to know, there is another potential we have
up in the northern part of the state, so you can make this from
six to seven. But as part of that campaign, if you are going to
do anything in my area, one of the things to market has to be
the other kinds of activities that are in that area.
If someone wants to come up to like Golden Spike, as a
destination point, you also have to be able to say what other
things are available. We have never been able to do that with
Grand Staircase-Escalante.
I think what you were saying, if I have this right, is that
by going through this process and his bill, we can actually
come up with something that can be marketable, that can be
useful, and you keep emphasizing the word safer, which will
encourage people to actually see this and attend it. And let's
face it, if there is a reason for this land to exist to be
seen, it should be seen, and you should do things to incite
people to see that.
I think I am hearing that coming from you at all times,
that we can do better if we try to do it the right way. Bad
process brings bad results. I think that is what happened in
1996. But this is a good process that could bring a good
result. Am I mis-stating you at all?
Ms. Varela. No. That is actually a very good summary. I
will just add to that, that what you have just outlined is
consistent with a strategy that I have just rolled out in the
state for the vision for our next 10-20 years of Utah tourism.
It is around quality visitation.
Offering up something to our customers that is different
because it is in our beautiful landscapes, but also because we
have thought through the visitor experience to make sure that
it is safe, that it is unique, that it is designed consistent
with what the local communities want to accomplish.
So, everything that we are talking about with the canyons
of the Escalante National Park and Preserve is exactly aligned
with that strategy.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I would like to talk more to Mr.
Bergman about Mackinac Island, but I am out of time.
You should realize, the second national park created was
Mackinac Island, and we gave it back to the state of Michigan
because you did better stewardship than we were doing. And it
is still within the state of Michigan, isn't it?
Mr. Bergman. It is. And, the trivia question for
Michiganders and anybody else, is Mackinac Island part of the
upper peninsula or lower peninsula? And it is interesting, the
rationale. By the way, just to set the record straight, it is
part of the upper peninsula.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, but after you have been to Lake Tahoe,
you really don't care.
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Hand, in addition to ceding management control of the
three new national parks and a purported national park, one
that is being proposed, this bill continued a provision to
transfer the Hole-in-the-Rock Road to the state of Utah,
further advancing the deeply unpopular Federal lands transfer
movement. Proposals like this that recently led the Outdoor
Industry Association to move its annual trade show out of Utah.
Outdoor recreation is big business in Utah, but it seems like
Utah politicians are driving a wedge between the industry and
the state.
My question to you is, how did you feel when the Outdoor
Retailer Show pulled out of Utah because of what it perceived
as its politicians' lack of support for public lands?
Ms. Hand. Well, I think that it was a great loss for Utah
in a number of ways. The loss of the Outdoor Retailer Show was
probably a $50 million loss per year to the city of Salt Lake.
But the impact of Outdoor Retailer being in Utah for a couple
of decades is much larger than that because Outdoor Retailer
branded our state as an outdoor mecca. It has also given a very
public black eye to our state and the state's outdoor industry,
I think. There has been discussion of boycott on social media,
and just in general, a lot of negative press generated by that
withdrawal of Outdoor Retailer.
For me, personally, it is a loss because I have always
really enjoyed taking my staff to Outdoor Retailer, and it will
be much more expensive and less accessible to us now that it is
in Denver. It is more than twice the driving time. It is not
convenient or affordable to fly my staff, in all cases, from
St. George, which is our nearest airport. It is a couple hours
drive to get there, so I feel that they have lost an
opportunity for enrichment, and that the cost of doing business
for us has greatly increased.
Ms. Hanabusa. How do you feel that this bill further
threatens Utah's outdoor recreation economy?
Ms. Hand. My sense is that people, in many cases, will see
a new national park, and they think it is a great thing. But I
think when they visit it, it may not be what they expected.
And, this is not a national park similar to other national
parks, or most national parks, that they visited in the West,
so I think that it may prove a bit of a disappointment or
create unexpected circumstances for visitors.
I think also that the negative press that is generated
through the process of having the monuments torn asunder, while
knowing that they are incredibly popular with American
citizens, is damaging also. This is making a lot of headlines,
it is in the news and people are aware of this issue.
Ms. Hanabusa. I think you were sort of asked a question
similar to the one I am about to ask, and that is, do you think
tourists would feel the same way about Bryce Canyon and Zion
National Park if locals could hunt and graze their cattle in
the middle of those national park units with basically no input
from the National Park Service, because part of this would
transfer it to the state?
Ms. Hand. I think it would certainly change the experience,
and one of my concerns is that this could prove to be a
slippery slope. How would this impact our parks? As Ms. Varela
has brought up, the funding for our parks has been in steady
decline, even while attendance has been steadily increasing.
The attendance is very difficult to manage in some of our parks
now, particularly in Arches National Park and Zion National
Park.
Ms. Hanabusa. I think Ms. Varela's testimony was that it is
probably put on us, that we are not funding the National Park
Service sufficiently, so that is why there is a reduction in
the ``services that are being rendered.'' I assume that you
have dealt with the National Park Service yourself in Utah?
Ms. Varela. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Am I interpreting what you were saying in
your testimony correctly, Ms. Varela?
Ms. Varela. The parks have been severely impacted by the
lack of funding.
Ms. Hanabusa. And you are talking about the Federal
funding, right?
Ms. Varela. Correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. Do you agree that it is a loss to Utah that
this outdoors major convention that has left now with $50
million a year, is that a correct statement as to how much it
is worth to Salt Lake City?
Ms. Varela. The Outdoor Retailer Convention was a wonderful
part of the tourism economy for many years. We talk about
failures of policy being about failures to communicate, and I
think that was a classic example where everybody tried really
hard to communicate, but no one ever understood each other very
well.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. My time is up.
Ms. Varela. And the reason that I am optimistic about this
bill is that it is a step toward positive communication.
Mr. McClintock. We will go to Mr. Stewart and you can
continue that comment.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Did you have a chance to conclude
your thought?
Ms. Varela. I just wanted to say what a positive way I see
this bill as restarting a conversation around the things that
we agree on. There have been so many years and years of efforts
to communicate. And when we look at it in the millions of acres
category, everyone comes away fairly unsatisfied that their
point of view has been heard or understood.
I think that the brilliance of what Congressman Stewart is
advancing here is to say, let's take 100,000 precious acres
that we all agree should be preserved and should be visited,
and let's work together to figure out how we can make that a
part of our National Park System.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Then, Chairman, again, I will be
very brief. I know that we have been delayed here somewhat.
Two things I think we can hit very quickly, and I think,
Commissioner Pollock, a good friend of mine, and a man that I
greatly admire, you probably can best answer these questions.
It has been described that some people would come to this park
and feel disappointed. Do you agree with that expectation?
Mr. Pollock. Do you mean the proposed new national park?
Mr. Stewart. The proposed national park, yes. Do you think
that landscape out there would disappoint people?
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely not. I think you are doing the
right thing here. You are trying to give an area the
infrastructure so people can actually visit it, they can't
right now. I am sorry, the services are not there.
And it brings up a good point, as well. The emergency
services, the county does that. We do that, so we have to go
out and get these folks when there is no signage, back to the
Hole-in-the-Rock Road, you can hardly get down that road. We
are not allowed to maintain it. In a park setting, like Bryce
Canyon, for example, this is the perfect solution to this
problem. Yes.
Mr. Stewart. And having been to that area many times, I
have never been disappointed in a visit there. It is
spectacular scenery and it is something that is worthy of a
national park, no doubt. Very quickly, and again, Commissioner,
you are probably best to answer this. Does the monument at this
point allow for hunting? It does, doesn't it?
Mr. Pollock. It does, yes, sir.
Mr. Stewart. So, this does not change that status at all.
We would preserve those hunting rights within the park, and we
have been able to manage any conflicts, whether it is a
monument, we could certainly manage any conflicts between
tourists and those who are hiking and people who are hunting as
well, wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Pollock. I agree. That is correct.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Thank you. I will just conclude with this.
Again, to my friend, Mr. McClintock, and to Chairman Bishop.
Thank you for allowing us and considering this bill. We have
tried to do something where you didn't have a winner and you
didn't have a loser. We genuinely created a situation where
both sides had something that they wanted and could claim as a
victory, where we really did have a win-win and it protected
families and communities, it protected the western culture.
Thank you for your support of this bill. And, Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
General Bergman. Oh, OK.
Governor Leavitt, let me just close with one final question
on The Antiquities Act. You said we need to make changes in it,
but The Antiquities Act seems to me to be fairly clear. The
President has authority to designate national monuments on
Federal lands that contain ``historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or
scientific interest.'' And it goes on to limit that, saying
that it must be confined to the smallest area compatible with
proper care and management of the objects to be protected. The
seizure of 1.7 million acres hardly seems to fit that
definition in The Antiquities Act.
Obviously, we have presidents who have given a different
interpretation to it. And as Mr. Lowenthal pointed out, courts
have given a different interpretation to it, but I don't know
how much clearer we can make the language.
Mr. Leavitt. The language is clear, to my reading. However,
it seems insufficiently clear to the courts and to the
executive branch to constrain it to good judgment. And,
obviously, there would be need for more precision. I will leave
that to you as to how that should be done. But the language as
it stands is not producing a good policy outcome.
Mr. McClintock. I wonder when the Constitution grants to
Congress the sole prerogative over the management of the public
lands for the Congress then to cede such authority to the
executive, I think is questionable constitutionally. It is
certainly contrary to the architecture of the Constitution, and
invites the kind of abuse of power that brings us all here
today to try to correct.
Mr. Leavitt. Agreed.
Mr. McClintock. That now concludes all of our questions.
Again, I want to thank all of you for joining us and for
your time today.
If there is no further business to be brought before the
Committee, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
--Letter to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and Ranking
Members Grijalva and Hanabusa from Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, dated December 13, 2017.
--National Parks Conservation Association--Position for the
House Natural Resources Subcommittee Hearing on
December 14, 2017, dated December 13, 2017.
--Letter addressed to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and
Ranking Members Grijalva and Hanabusa from The
Trust for Public Land, dated December 13, 2017.
--Letter addressed to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and
Ranking Members Grijalva and Hanabusa from
community dated December 13, 2017.
Rep. Hanabusa Submissions
--State of Utah Exchange Patent No. 19232.
--H.R. 3910 Sec. 201 original map.
--Letters to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva
from more than 734 in opposition of the monument
designation.
[all]