[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 132 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1026-E1027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE EMERY COUNTY PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT INCLUDED IN S. 47, THE JOHN 
      D. DINGELL, JR. CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT, AND RECREATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN R. CURTIS

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 2, 2019

  Mr. CURTIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding the Emery County 
Public Land Management Act, that was included in S. 47, the John D. 
Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. This became 
Public Law 116-9 on March 12th, 2019.
  Throughout 2018 and early 2019, Senator Hatch, Senator Romney, and 
myself heavily engaged with the Emery County Commissioners and Emery 
County Public Lands Council to draft this important piece of 
legislation. After Senator Hatch's retirement, Senator Romney helped to 
carry the ball across the finish line.
  This law is the result of countless hours of deliberation, and thus I 
find it important to highlight some areas of congressional intent of 
particular interest. While these should generally be clear in the text 
and corresponding map, the historical context of how we arrived at some 
of these decisions may be of benefit to the Department of the Interior, 
future members of the Utah delegation, or those in Utah. The Utah 
delegation, and particularly myself, look forward to the implementation 
of this new law.
  Of note, Jake Bornstein (my Legislative Director), Romel Nicholas 
(Senator Hatch's public lands staffer), and Kelsey Berg (Senator 
Romney's Deputy Chief of Staff) were the main staff points of contact 
in our respective offices for the bill. Jake and Romel have extensive 
correspondence with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that further 
demonstrates the accurate characterization of the congressional intent 
I outline here.
  Most important to this process, our founding principle was to never 
take any action that would end a current ongoing use. For example, we 
were immensely careful to not close a road, trail, air strip, or other 
existing use in the legislative text or corresponding map with a 
wilderness designation. Further, we worked extensively to avoid more 
restrictive designations, such as wilderness, to areas it would limit 
ongoing activity. We worked to draw designation boundaries along 
geographic and physical features, or just outside a cherry stem, to 
ensure management made sense for the area.
  Any designation boundary that does not follow these trends, 
particularly any designation that puts at risk an existing use due to a 
poorly drawn boundary, was a clerical error and should be resolved 
under the authority clearly provided in Sec. 1221. Given the pure scale 
of this bill and legislative map, we realized this authority would be a 
vital tool to resolve these errors.
  I'd also like to point out the clear intent within Sec. 1232. Section 
(e), which clearly states that non-wilderness activities or uses that 
can be seen or heard from areas within wilderness are to be left 
uninterrupted by this legislation.
  On the topic of roads, we worked closely with BLM to ensure all roads 
in the 2008 RMP were not put into a wilderness designation, often 
referred to as ``cherry stemmed''. Our intent was to preserve these 
roads and for them to stay open. These cherry stems are of various 
sizes and were intended to ensure an adequate corridor is there to 
facilitate necessary maintenance. In the Recreation Area, we included 
language in Sec. 1222 to ensure the necessary maintenance to existing 
routes may continue and allow rerouting of roads or trails to protect 
the resources of the Recreation Area.
  Finally, I would like to explain that the driving force for this 
compromise bill was certainty, and thus preventing the designation of a 
national monument using the authority granted to the President under 
the Antiquities Act. As so many know, national monument designations in 
my home state of Utah have been the source of extensive controversy. In 
my view, land management is most effective when it is driven by local 
voices, compromise, and well-reasoned planning. Sweeping designations 
via national monument are often politically-inspired and they erode the 
quality of management for the areas they intend to protect. With the 
passage of the Emery County legislation, the need for a national 
monument is forfeited because a clear plan has been laid out for the 
long-term management of the San Rafael Swell. To be clear, this is a 
view that was shared by the many parties, including locally elected 
officials, conservationists, and recreationists, that were intimately 
involved in the forging of this compromise legislation. Any

[[Page E1027]]

future national monument designation under the Antiquities Act in Emery 
County would be a violation of the good faith agreement that was shared 
among those that negotiated as part of this bill's process.
  I believe this bill is a big win for all stakeholders, and I look 
forward to watching what was a 20-year journey for Emery County come to 
fruition.

                          ____________________