HOUSE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488

H.R. 2385 and H.R.
2488
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
July 26, 2001
Serial No. 107-54
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

74-154 PS WASHINGTON : 2002
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 74154.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. Billy Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Joel Hefley, Colorado Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California Adam Smith, Washington
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina Jay Inslee, Washington
Mac Thornberry, Texas Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Jim Gibbons, Nevada James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. Butch Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
George Radanovich, California Tom Udall, New Mexico
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
(II)
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held on July 26, 2001 ............................................................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the U.S.
Virgin Islands ............................................................................................... 5
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah ........................................................................................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 2385 ........................................................... 4
Oral statement on H.R. 2488 ................................................................... 21
Resolution 01-12 submitted for the record .............................................. 26
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488 ................................. 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Fulton, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ............ 5
Oral statement on H.R. 2488 ................................................................... 27
Harja, John A., Manager of Legal Analysis, Governors Office of Planing
and Budget, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah ...................................... 36
Johnson, Dr. Sheldon B., St. George, Utah .................................................... 12
Larkin, Colonel Thomas, Director, Utah Test and Training Range, U.S.
Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, Utah ........................................................... 29
McArthur, Hon. Daniel D., Mayor, City of St. George, Utah ........................ 9
Young, Larry, Executive Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
Salt Lake City, Utah .................................................................................... 40
(III)
HEARING ON H.R. 2385, TO CONVEY CERTAIN
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF ST. GEORGE,
UTAH, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE
PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF CER-
TAIN RARE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ON THAT PROPERTY, AND FOR OTHER PUR-
POSES; AND H.R. 2488, TO DESIGNATE CER-
TAIN LANDS IN THE PILOT RANGE IN THE
STATE OF UTAH AS WILDERNESS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
Thursday, July 26, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m., in Room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley [Chair-
man of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee will come to order.
Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. This after-
noon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands will hear testimony on two bills, H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488.
H.R. 2385, introduced by Chairman Hansen, would convey certain
property to the City of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the
protection and preservation of certain rare paleontological re-
sources and for other purposes. The other bill, H.R. 2385, also in-
troduced by Chairman Hansen, would designate certain lands with-
in the Pilot Mountain Range in the West Desert Region of the
State of Utah as wilderness.
Mr. HEFLEY. Based on the submitted testimony, I suspect we
have quite a discussion on this bill. I want to thank Chairman
Hansen for introducing these bills, which are obviously very impor-
tant not only to the people of the State of Utah but also to many
throughout the United States. I would also like to thank the Chair-
(1)
2
man for being here today as well as for all of our witnesses, and
I look forward to todays testimony.
We do not have a ranking member present yet, but do you have
a statement that you would like to make, or we will just save the
statement until the ranking member arrives.
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488
Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. This afternoon, the Sub-
committee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on
two billsH.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488.
H.R. 2385, introduced by Chairman Hansen, would convey certain property to the
city of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the protection and preservation of
certain rare paleontological resources, and for other purposes.
The other bill, H.R. 2385, also introduced by Chairman Hansen, would designate
certain lands within the Pilot Mountain Range in the west desert region of the State
of Utah as wilderness. Based on the submitted testimony, I suspect we will have
quite a discussion on this bill.
I want to thank Chairman Hansen for introducing these two bills, which are obvi-
ously very important not only to the people of the State of Utah, but also to many
throughout the United States. I would also like to thank the Chairman for being
here today as well as all of our witnesses. I look forward to todays testimony.
I now yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen for an opening statement.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hansen, do you have an opening statement you

wanted to make?
Mr. HANSEN. Only if you would allow me to, Mr. Chairman. I
would really appreciate it.
Mr. HEFLEY. All right; now, we will go to the witnesses.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HEFLEY. I have dreamed of doing that, Mr. Hansen.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. I can hardly wait until we are in full Committee.
Mr. HEFLEY. That takes care of any of my legislation, does it not?
[Laughter.]
Mr. HEFLEY. Chairman Hansen, would you proceed?
Oh, wait a minute. We now have our ranking member. Okay; she
deferred to the Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. Well, I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Is-
lands and the Chairman for allowing me to say a few words. We
have two pieces of legislation today. I would like to speak to the
first one, which is one of the most unique things that I think I have
seen for an awfully long time. Dr. Johnson and his wife are with
us; Mayor McArthur is with us from St. George. The Doctor is a
retired optometrist and had some property out east of town and
was moving some property. He will tell you about it more than I
could, but it is a very fascinating story.
And I guess it was a front loader, and he turned something over,
and what you see in front of you are these tracks that were there.
Out of that, surprisingly enough, it has created a tremendous inter-
est. There have been people from a number of countries who have
come to see this. Paleontologists have come from all over the world,
and it is probably one of the most amazing dinosaur tracks we have
seen for an awfully long time.
3
We are trying to think of a way to do this, expedite it and with-

out having further deterioration come to it. What worries a lot of
us is the deterioration you can see which is kind of a problem, be-
cause you see it is raised, and wind and rain and other things cre-
ate problems for this. And so, we are trying to work out a deal with
the Doctor and his wife and the Mayor and the City of St. George
to come up with a way to have the Federal Government help out
on something that is very unique and probably much more unique
than many of the parks and monuments that we have, so much
more unique than the Grand Staircase-Escalante, it is unbeliev-
able, if I may put that in, which to me was kind of a problem that
they encountered.
The interesting thing about this is that we are preserving a re-
source for people from all over the world, basically, to see some-
thing that they could not see, and I think something is wrong with
America if we miss out on an opportunity such as this. I notice
some people are criticizing this. Of course, there is nothing around
here that is not criticized, but using legislation passed last Con-
gress as a model, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to purchase up to 20 acres of land where the footprints and tail
dragging were found and convey this property to the City of St.
George. The city will then work with the property owners, Wash-
ington County and a nonprofit entity to preserve the resources in
question and keep them open to the public.
The Secretary of the Interior would be a participant in a coopera-
tive agreement with the city and provide assistance to help further
the protection of the resource. I have noticed some people who have
said, well, we do not buy parks and give them to cities. I think we
are hardly doing that, but in response to that statement, I chal-
lenge anyone to identify another property of equal scientific value
within the city limits of any community anywhere in this country.
Just show me a piece of property that has 150,000 visitors from 54
countries in 18 months charging no admission. I would dare say
that they have probably had more participation on this particular
thing than the whole Grand Staircase-Escalante of 1.7 million
acres that has been there since September 1996. Of course, it is
only sagebrush, so I guess that is understandable.
If profit were a motive, I think the Johnson family could have
bailed out of this a long time ago. But they are good Americans
who want the public to enjoy it. So that, with the Mayor and oth-
ers, having the financial little bit of help we can do them, I think
we can have a very good thing that would come about for all of the
people in Utah, America, and around the world who have come to
this.
I do not know, Mayor, how you are going to do this with all the
kind of visitation I think you are going to have over this thing, but
I hope it works out, because I think all of a sudden that the inter-
est, as I have seen itI was there right after the Doctor had the
first oneand from that point to this point, you have got a traffic
jam in there just of yellow school buses with people there bringing
kids to see it.
So it is quite a find, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to have a word with you regarding this first piece of legislation.
Would you like the second piece now, or would you like to wait?
4
Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I would prefer waiting on this, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
Resources, on H.R. 2385
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome the witnesses from Utah this afternoon.
I want to thank Mayor Dan MacArthur and Dr. Sheldon Johnson for coming to
Washington to testify on this amazing scientific discovery in the community of St.
George, Utah.
As we will hear today, Dr. Sheldon Johnson made an amazing discovery in Feb-
ruary of last year while conducting site work on a piece of property he owned in
St. George city. When the Navajo sandstone blocks were overturned, there in the
stone were dinosaur tracksnot imprints, but bumps and taildraggings of unprece-
dented quality. These paleontological discoveries have been touted by scientists as
some of the most amazing ever discovered. The clarity and completeness of the im-
prints are unparalleled as is the access to the prints by the public.
Since that time more than 150,000 people from all 50 states and at least 54 for-
eign countries have visited the site. This attention was welcomed and overwhelming
at the same time. There are no visitor facilities nor means to protect the imprints
that are exposed to the elements and traffic and congestion is becoming a serious
problem for the owners and the city of St. George, Utah.
In addition to the logistical problems caused by this discovery, the preservation
of these valuable resources is now in jeopardy. The fragile sandstone prints are
highly susceptible to the heat and wind of the southern Utah climate. Some of the
discoveries have already been lost to erosion and exposure. Fortunately, the decision
was made not to turn over any more blocks until a way to protect the resource has
been established. That is when I was made aware of the needs to provide some type
of protection to the resource.
To their credit, the community in St. George has stepped up to do what they can
to help. A makeshift shelter was constructed over many of the exposed imprints to
provide some type of temporary protection. Volunteers were recruited, but even
then, the community is still in need of assistance.
These resources are of great value to the entire world and I believe there is a le-
gitimate role for Congress and the Administration in protecting this resource.
Early on, we discussed the possibility that this site might be worthy of National
Monument designation. When I mentioned that we should introduce legislation to
at least get the ball rolling, there was tremendous response from both the local com-
munity, the State of Utah and the scientific community about this bill.
Using legislation passed last Congress as a model, this bill authorizes the Sec-
retary of the Interior to purchase up to 20 acres of land where the footprints and
taildraggings are found, and convey the property to the city of St. George, where
the City will then work with the property owners, Washington County and the non-
profit entity preserve the resources in question and keep them open to the public.
The Secretary of the Interior would be a participant in a cooperative agreement
with the city and provide assistance to help further the protection of the resources.
I know that the Administration has some concerns with the language and I look
forward to working with them to resolve any remaining concerns.
I was disappointed to read where one critic of the bill, insinuated that this is
some type of government giveaway. This person stated: We dont buy parks and
give them to cities.
In response, I challenge that person to identify another property of equal scientific
value laying within the city limits of any community anywhere in the country. Show
me another piece of private property that has had 150,000 visitors from 54 countries
in 18 months, charging no admission fee. If profit was really a motive, the Johnson
family could have sold the prints and tracks to private collectors and made millions
in the process. Instead, they are looking to give back to their community, but lack
the financial resources to do so. To the city leaders credit, they also recognize the
value of the resource to the community and the nation. They have come to the table
as a partner and are willing to commit their resources to protect these amazing
tracts. This is a partnership that will ultimately benefit all of us.
However, we must act quickly if these national treasures are to be saved. The
American people deserve the chance to see them and the scientific community de-
serves to be able to study and learn from them as well. That will only occur if we
move now to protect the resources. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and
I look forward to the witnesses testimonies today.
5
Dr. Christensen?
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late. I had to come back over from Dirksen.
Today, the Subcommittee is going to receive testimony on two
unrelated bills which deal with resources found within the State of
Utah. Our first bill, as you heard from, I am sure, the chair but
also chair of the entire Committee, H.R. 2385, requires the Sec-
retary of the Interior to buy up to 20 acres and give this property
to the City of St. George, Utah. The private property in question
contains dinosaur tracks that were discovered last year. The re-
quirement to buy the site and give the land to the city is highly
unusual.
This legislation constitutes an appropriation requiring the Sec-
retary to take funds appropriated for other purposes and spend
them on this land acquisition.
While our second bill, H.R. 2488, deals with a specific wilderness
in Utah, this is not a new issue for our Subcommittee. The Pilot
Range Wilderness and the management language of H.R. 2488
were part of H.R. 3035, a bill considered by the Subcommittee last
Congress. That legislation, especially its management language,
was controversial, and the Subcommittee eventually failed to act on
that bill.
Mr. Chairman, the bills before us today raise a number of issues
that we would want to carefully consider. We appreciate the pres-
ence of our witnesses and our Chairman and look forward to their
insights on the legislation before us. Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Let us go with our first panel: Mr. Tom
Fulton, deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals manage-
ment for the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Fulton?
STATEMENT OF TOM FULTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. FULTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs.
Christensen, Chairman Hansen, other members of the Committee.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today in support
of H.R. 2385, the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve Act.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to purchase and then
convey to the City of St. George, Utah, certain property on which
dinosaur tracks have recently been discovered.
The site involved is located on private property within the St.
George city limits. Discovery of these tracks within the city is cer-
tainly locally unique, and they represent a potential focus for local
interpretive efforts. The State of Utah has some of the most con-
centrated and significant paleontological resources of any region of
the country. The administration supports H.R. 2385 with amend-
ments to address, among other things, the following concerns.
The first is deadlines. We understand that if these tracks are to
be protected, there is a degree of urgency. The bill includes sched-
ules that reflect this urgency but do not allow enough time, in our
6
view, to accomplish the purchase and transfer of the property. We

would like to work with members of the Committee to establish a
schedule that allows sufficient time to address valuation and fund-
ing issues.
Second: valuation and methods of acquisition: the bill stipulates
that the land is to be acquired through purchase, even though an
exchange might be a viable option. No mention is made of a fair
market appraisal as the basis for the purchase price for this land,
although such an appraisal is required of any purchase by the
United States.
Third: the bill calls for the conveyance of the land designated as
the proposed Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve to the City
of St. George with the requirement that the preserve is used in the
manner described in the bill. With regard to funding for the city
to protect this site, the Department would like to suggest the estab-
lishment of a nonprofit foundation, perhaps involving the State of
Utah, Washington County and the City of St. George.
This administration stands ready to work with the Subcommittee
on language to address these concerns. We recognize the signifi-
cance and importance of these dinosaur tracks to the City of St.
George and the residents of Washington County and the people of
the State of Utah. We applaud their efforts to secure these tracks
and protect them from further disturbance and deterioration so
that they might be shared with the public. We also applaud Dr.
and Mrs. Johnsons efforts to also assist in that regard.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions members of the Committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulton follows:]
Statement of Tom Fulton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2385
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to testify in support of H.R. 2385, the Virgin River Dino-
saur Footprint Preserve Act. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to pur-
chase and then convey to the city of St. George, Utah, certain property on which
dinosaur tracks have recently been discovered.
The site involved is located on private property which is adjacent to a turf farm,
a small dump, and a high school, within the St. George city limits. The discovery
of these tracks within the city of St. George is certainly locally unique and they rep-
resent a potential focus for local interpretive efforts. The State of Utah has some
of the most concentrated and significant paleontological resources of any region of
the country.
The Administration supports H.R. 2385 with amendments to address, among oth-
ers, the following concerns:
1) Deadlines: We understand that, if these tracks are to be protected, there is a
degree of urgency. Sections 2(a) and (b) of the bill include schedules that reflect this
urgency but do not allow enough time to accomplish the purchase and transfer of
this property. We would like to work with the Committee to establish a schedule
that allows sufficient time to address valuation and funding issues.
2) Valuation and Methods for Acquisition: The bill stipulates that this land be ac-
quired through purchase even though an exchange might be a viable option. No
mention is made of a fair market appraisal as the basis for the purchase price for
this land, although such an appraisal is a required for any purchase by the United
States.
3) PostAcquisition Management and Funding: Section 2(b) calls for the convey-
ance of the land designated as the Proposed Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Pre-
serve to the City with the requirement that the Preserve is used in the manner de-
scribed in the bill. The bill stipulates that the City must preserve, protect, and
make the paleontological resources available for educational activities. With regard
to funding for the City to protect this site, the Department would like to suggest
7
the establishment of a non-profit foundation, perhaps involving the State of Utah,
Washington County, and the City of St. George. This foundation would provide for
the long term operations, maintenance, and educational interpretation of the site.
The Department of the Interior would provide long term technical assistance.
The Administration stands ready to work with the Subcommittee on language to
address these concerns. We recognize the significance and importance of these dino-
saur tracks to the city of St. George and the residents of Washington County. We
applaud their efforts to secure these tracks and protect them from further disturb-
ance and deterioration so that they might be shared with the public.
This concludes my testimony. I am pleased to answer any questions the Com-
mittee may have.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Fulton.

I forgot to tell the witnesses, and you did a very excellent job of
it, but there is a little machine in front of you there, and we would
like for you to keep your testimony to 5 minutes if possible, and
your entire statement will be put into the record. Then, we would
have an opportunity to ask you some questions. So there will come
on a little caution light and then a red light, and that is when you
are supposed to be through. And Tom, you are obviously a veteran.
You did a great job with that.
Let me ask you: in your testimony, you mentioned a concern over
the time line that is outlined here in the legislation. Do you have
a suggestion about what would be a more realistic time line?
Mr. FULTON. Not a specific time line, Mr. Chairman. I think
what the Department needs is adequate time to look at the various
aspects of the issue and work with the Committee, with the spon-
sor of the bill in a way that we make sure that all of the Ts are
crossed and the Is are dotted so that we can do this in the right
way.
Mr. HEFLEY. You also mentioned that there is no reference here
to fair market value. Do you think the bill should be amended to
include something of that nature in there?
Mr. FULTON. Yes, I do. I think that our requirements would point
in that direction, and a fair market valuation would be an item in
the bill that we would be pleased to work with the Committee in
getting placed in the bill.
Mr. HEFLEY. Do you think thatyou know, this is wonderful; no
question about that. Do we have a responsibility as the Federal
Government to help protect these kinds of wonderful things, or is
this a local deal that if they want to protect it, let the city protect
it? So, we are not in the business of economic development or any-
thing like that. Does this have a national interest or, as Mr. Han-
sen said, an international interest, that there is value for the
United States Government to get involved in it?
Mr. FULTON. Well, I think both, that it is significant in the na-
tional scope in that this is one of the best examples that we have
of these tracks anywhere in the world; this probably or may well
be the best example in the world of the Jurassic period tracks and
particularly the tail dragging. But also, it is a local matter. This
is important to the City of St. George, Washington County, and the
Department of the Interior, which manages nearly one-fourth of
the land estate of the United States is local in nature.
Our requirements are that we work with local communities, and
we want to do that. It is important to the City of St. George, and
so, it is important to us.
8
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fulton, what are some of the other examples where the Sec-
retary has been required to buy private property and transfer the
land to a nonfederal entity?
Mr. FULTON. I cannotI am not familiar with any examples. It
is the desire of the Secretary to work with local communities in all
aspects of public land management. I am not familiar with or
aware of any specific examples, though.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Do you have an estimated cost for the land
that is proposed to be acquired?
Mr. FULTON. No; that would be the purpose of the fair market
valuation.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Okay; and any idea of where the money
would come from? Because I understand it is supposed to be taken
from other areas to purchase the land. Has any determination been
made as to where the funds would come from?
Mr. FULTON. No; we are proposing to work with the author of the
bill and to this Committee to determine where those funds might
come from.
Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. McGovern? Any other questions?
All right; thank you, Mr. Fulton. I am sorry.
Mr. HANSEN. I am only ex officio here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HEFLEY. I will pay the price for overlooking you, I am sure.
You will find a way.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fulton, thank you so very much for coming up and testifying
on this. We do appreciate it. I think the concerns that you have ex-
pressed are relatively minor and can be worked out between the
Department of the Interior and the city and the Johnsons and
other interested parties. I get a little worried about some of this,
because you put your finger on something that concerns me also,
and that is what do we do on the timeline here? And I think the
Chairman talked about that.
Now, you have got a find that is unbelievable to some people. I
do not know; Dr. Johnson could explain this, but we started out
with just a few, and now, there are literally dozens of tracks out
there now; maybe more than that; I do not know; it could be hun-
dreds. And I still do not think they have turned over half of the
area, so there could be all of these things. Would it not be a shame
to paleontologists around the world, and dont forget the college
student or the high school kid or the elementary school that comes
along? I think half of their problem therewhen I first went there,
there was just a pile of rocks. Now, Dr. Johnson has erected a
structure that keeps the wind and rain off it; the city or somebody
has put a fence around it. But someone has got to get a hold of this
thing, or I think we are going to lose a real treasure that has been
presented to the people in a very unique way.
So I would hope that the Department of the Interior, yourself
and others and this Committee could work this through expedi-
tiously and iron out these problems. I honestly feelthis is some-
9
thing that the Chairman alluded to, and I could not agree more is
this is something that has almost international scope. You know,
in the northern end of Utah, we have something called Jansen, and
we made that a national monument years ago. People are now ask-
ing to make it a park. I do not know if it qualifies. Maybe it does;
I do not want to get into that. I will get in trouble with the people
up in Vernal. But you get yourself in a situation where I really
think that you have got something comparable or better. And so,
it would be a shame to let this slip between our fingers because of
bureaucracy and crossing Ts and dotting Is, but I know that all
has to be done.
So I honestly would just urge you folks from the Department of
the Interior to help us out all you can. It is something that we do
not want to see deteriorate in front of our eyes. So I thank you so
much for being here and your excellent testimony, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FULTON. Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Any further questions, Committee?
If not, thank you very much, Tom. You will be around here for
the next bill, I assume.
Mr. FULTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HEFLEY. Panel number two will be made up of the Honorable
Dan McArthur, who is the Mayor of the City of St. George, Utah;
Dr. Sheldon Johnson, who is the discoverer of Johnson Farm Dino-
saur Site at St. George.
Mr. Mayor, why do we not start with you?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN McARTHUR, MAYOR,
ST. GEORGE, UTAH
Mr. MCARTHUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to pro-
vide testimony on this important project which will preserve a na-
tional treasure. My name is Daniel D. McArthur, and I am the
mayor of the City of St. George, Utah, and I am here on behalf of
the city today. This legislation is most important to the City of St.
George for several reasons which I will attempt to quantify in my
testimony today.
I would like to give you a brief history of the significant events
surrounding the incredible scientific and educational find of dino-
saur tracks. Dr. Sheldon Johnson was leveling a small, sandy hill
on his property adjacent to the Virgin River in the City of St.
George. He was turning over rocks when he uncovered what has
been classified as one of the best collections of dinosaur tracks ever
found anywhere in the world.
The footprints are actually a cast of the foot where, 200 million
years ago, dinosaurs walked and stepped in 8 inches of clay. The
clay rested on a layer of rock that filled with sand. It was perfect
for making footprints. So far, at this site, two species of carnivores
or meat eaters have been identifies; also, tracks of herbivores or
plant eaters known as prosauropods have been found. These tracks
have not yet been definitely identified.
The largest of the carnivore tracks at this location are of a dino-
saur known as dilophosaurus. The word dinosaur means terrible
lizard in the ancient Greek language, and when you break down
10
the word dilophosaurus, di means two; and lopho means ridges;

and saurus means lizard; thus, two-ridged lizard.
It is believed that at the hips, he stood about as high as a small
to medium-sized horse and was approximately 20 feet long. He
would have weighed between 700 and 1,000 pounds. The
dilophosaurus was the dominant predator of its time.
Dilophosaurus did not overpower its prey; it slashed and tore the
flesh of its victim until it fell. It was fast and agile. Three of the
four fingers on the hands had claws that gripped and tore at the
prey when it was feeding. As you are probably aware, there are
several sites in Utah where dinosaur tracks have been found, but
this is the only one providing a unique look at what is basically a
cast of a dinosaurs foot.
St. George is located in the middle of several national parks and
other natural wonders of the world. The discovery of these magnifi-
cent tracks provide the United States, the State of Utah and the
City of St. George with a great opportunity as well as a sacred obli-
gation to preserve the past. This dinosaur track find provides a
unique opportunity for the aforementioned governmental entities to
come together to preserve what could legitimately become a na-
tional and a world treasure, possibly the only one of its kind in the
world.
Because of St. Georges location in the middle of so many na-
tional parks and along the I-15 corridor, establishment of this na-
tional preserve would make the tracks available to millions of po-
tential visitors from every state and foreign country. Establishment
and protection of this resource would provide economic, educational
and cultural benefits to a wide cross-section of the public. Scientific
research would also be provided if this site is preserved, because
most of the site has yet to be excavated. The State of Utah is inter-
ested in digging the rest of the site and has earmarked funds to
pursue this additional excavation if the site can be secured.
This scientific and educational opportunity is incredible and does
not come around very often. The City of St. George supports ap-
proval of H.R. 2385 for the following reasons: (a) this bill provides
for a partnership of Federal, state and local resources to preserve
a national treasure; (b) this bill provides an opportunity for sci-
entific and educational research through on-site excavations; (c)
this bill provides an asset that over 150,000 people have visited
during the first year without promotion or adequate facilities; (d)
this bill provides economic development opportunities for increased
tourist traffic to southwestern Utah; (e) this bill provides potential
new visitors to the national parks and monuments in southern
Utah and northern Arizona.
Approval of this bill would begin the process which would occur
if we are going to preserve the historic find for future generations
to enjoy. Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
members of this Committee for the opportunity you have given me
to present this testimony. I would strongly urge you to approve
H.R. 2385 so this mutually beneficial project to preserve these his-
toric dinosaur tracks can go forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McArthur follows:]
11
Statement of Daniel D. McArthur, Mayor, City of St. George, Utah, on
H.R. 2385
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this impor-
tant project which will preserve a national treasure. My name is Daniel D.
McArthur, and I am Mayor of the City of St. George, Utah, and I am here on behalf
of the City today. This legislation is most important to the City of St. George for
several reasons which I will attempt to quantify in my testimony today.
I would like to give you a brief history of the significant events surrounding this
incredible scientific and education find of dinosaur tracks:
Dr. Sheldon Johnson was leveling a small sandy hill on his property adjacent to
the Virgin River in the City of St. George. He was turning over rocks when he un-
covered what has been classified as one of the best collections of dinosaur tracks
ever found anywhere in the world. The footprints are actually a cast of the foot,
where two hundred million years ago dinosaurs walked and stepped in eight inches
of clay. The clay rested on a later of rock that filled with sand. It was perfect for
making footprints.
So far, at this site two species of carnivores, or meat eaters, have been identified.
Also, tracks of herbivores, or plant eaters, known as prosauopods have been found.
These tracks have not yet been definitely identified.
The largest of the carnivore tracks at this location are of a dinosaur known as
Dilophosaurus. The word dinosaur means terrible lizard in the ancient Greek lan-
guage. When you break down the word Dilophosaurus, di means two, and lopho
means ridges, and saurus means lizard, thus two ridged lizard. It is believed
that at the hips he stood about as high as a small to medium sized horse, and was
approximately 20 feet long. He would have weighed between 700 and 1000 pounds.
The Dilophosaurus was the dominant predator of its time. Dilophosaurus did not
overpower its prey; it slashed and tore the flesh of its victim until it fell. It was
fast and agile. Three of the four fingers on the hands had claws that gripped and
tore at the prey when it was feeding.
As you are probably aware, there are several sites in Utah where dinosaur tracks
have been found, but this is the only one providing a unique look at what is basi-
cally a cast of a dinosaurs foot.
St. George is located in the middle of several national parks and other natural
wonders of the world. The discovery of these magnificent tracks provide the United
States, the State of Utah, and the City of St. George with a great opportunity, as
well as a sacred obligation to preserve the past. This dinosaur track find provides
a unique opportunity for the aforementioned governmental entities to come together
to preserve what could legitimately become a national and world treasure, possibly
the only one of its kind on earth.
Because of St. Georges location in the middle of so many national parks and
along the I15 freeway corridor, establishment of this national preserve would make
the tracks available to millions of potential visitors from every state and foreign
country. Establishment and protection of this resource would provide economic, edu-
cational and cultural benefits to a wide cross-section of the public. Scientific re-
search would also be provided if this site is preserved because most of the site has
yet to be excavated. The State of Utah is interested in digging the rest of the site
and has earmarked funds to pursue this additional excavation if the site can be se-
cured. This scientific and educational opportunity is incredible and does not come
around very often.
The City of St. George supports approval of H.R. 2385 for the following reasons:
A. This bill provides for a partnership of federal, state, and local resources to pre-
serve a national treasure.
B. This bill provides an opportunity for scientific and educational research
through on-site excavations.
C. This bill preserves an asset that over 150,000 people have visited during its
first year without promotion or adequate facilities.
D. This bill provides economic development opportunities for increased tourist
traffic to Southwestern Utah.
E. This bill provides potential new visitors to the national parks and monuments
in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona.
Approval of this bill would begin the process which must occur if we are going
to preserve the historic find for future generations to enjoy.
Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee,
for the opportunity you have given me to present this testimony. I would strongly
urge you to approve H.R. 2385 so this mutually beneficial project to preserve these
historic dinosaur tracks can go forward. Thank you.
12
STATEMENT OF SHELDON JOHNSON, DISCOVERER OF
JOHNSON FARM DINOSAUR SITE, ST. GEORGE, UTAH
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to
speak on behalf of the dinosaur discovery that holds so much value
to so many people in our nation and around the world. I especially
want to thank Representative Hansen for drawing all responsible
parties together in an effort to save these unique scientific artifacts
for future generations.
My name is Sheldon Johnson. I am a retired optometrist who de-
veloped a small farm some 30 years ago to teach five sons how to
work. Years ago, I donated some of my farm ground to the City of
St. George for a road, and about a year and a half ago, the city
began improving that dirt road, and they cut through a small hill.
I felt that I should bring this hill down to the level of the road. I
took about 20 feet of the hill off and hauled the dirt away, and I
came upon a large layer of rock that was very peculiar. It came out
in chunks, three foot wide, two foot thick and 20-foot long with per-
fectly straight edges and sides.
Kelly Bringhurst, a geology professor at Dixie State College in
Utah said that is Jurassic mudstone from the age of the first dino-
saurs. I then looked for dinosaur impressions on the top of those
rocks but saw none. Then, hauling away rock one day, I acciden-
tally turned a large stone over and found on the bottom of these
huge stones perfect casts of dinosaur feet. They were so startling
to me that I could hardly believe what I was seeing. As I turned
over the rocks I had lifted up, I found that I had casts or native
tracks of over 300 dinosaur feet.
Only half of the stones on the sites have even been revealed yet.
There is much more to discover. These trace fossils, preserved un-
derground for 200 million years, are now exposed to the high desert
temperatures, the wind and rain and cold. They will deteriorate
and have deteriorated and suffer adverse effects until we are able
to place them in a more protective environment.
This discovery site inside the City of St. George is about one mile
off Interstate 15 and is bordered to the south by the Virgin River,
which is the drainage source of Zion National Park. Those beautiful
salmon and white cliffs are clearly seen from this 2,000-foot ele-
vation, but from this point, the earth rises to 10,500 feet and thus
provides a breathtaking panorama to visually teach the geology of
our earth.
Utah State Paleontologist Dr. James Kirklandhe is the consult-
ant to Discovery Channel on Walking with Dinosaursenthusiasti-
cally verifies our discovery and has been a great help, as has Dr.
Wade Miller of BYU. Renowned scientist and author Dr. Martin
Laughley, world-recognized authority on dinosaur tracks and a
most avid supporter of ours would like to bring a third scientific
team to continue exploration as the protective housing is under-
way.
These and other scientists tell us these tracks are the very best
yet discovered; that they show two distinct species of dinosaurs and
significant signs of others. These artifacts show details of dinosaur
anatomy never before seen. Paleontologists and geologists from
around the world who visit this site agree with us that sharing this
discovery with the scientific community means we will continue
13
this excavation in a very organized way to find the most complete,

detailed information about what was once the world of dinosaurs.
As many as five buses at the site a day bring students to witness
the wonders and feel the excitement. I was there one day when two
buses from Princeton Universitys Department of Geology came
with graduate geology students. As we share these artifacts, people
plead that a museum be built to preserve and make available the
thrill of discovery to children and adults from all walks of life.
We have counted as many as 3,000 people in one day. A sample
count of a typical day from our register showed that 900 people
came from 29 different states and five different countries that day.
Without maps or brochures or marketing, we have had well over
150,000 from every state of our nation and from at least 55 dif-
ferent nations in this 1 year and 4 months that we have been since
our discovery. They still come. They have heard about this amazing
site from word of mouth; from television broadcasts that have gone
the world around; from magazines, newspaper articles and hand-
carried to us from around the world.
We thank 42 volunteers who have given hundreds of hours each
to protect the prints; to study, research and guide visitors through
the rewarding experience they will always remember. We have
never charged money or tried to commercialize this, but visitors
donations have helped some of our expenses. St. George City has
made it possible to come this far. We will give some property. A
prominent architects firm has voluntarily volunteered talent, and
a local bank has donated money for a sign. My wife, LaVerna, and
I feel that we must all share in this dream. We have set up a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization to help funds for the educational
project, but first, we need a climate-controlled storage and work
and display area for these great artifacts and for the volunteers
and international visitors when the temperatures reach as high as
110 in St. George.
Other museums desire these artifacts, but we have enough to
share. But first, we must take care of what is on our site. Then,
we can share. We feel that these dinosaur trace fossils were given
to us personally so that people all over the world can enjoy and feel
the thrill of their existence. Visitors always say this site must be
saved. A doctor from Paris, France told us one day: this treasure
does not belong to your country. This belongs to the world. Who
will get to help you?
With your help, we will build an exciting place of preservation,
discovery, imagination, miracle, inspire, inquire and education. We
are asking you to help us make a united dream of sharing come
true.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Dr. Sheldon B. Johnson, Discoverer of Johnson Farm
Dinosaur Site, St. George, Utah, on H.R. 2385
Thank you so much for the invitation to speak in behalf of this scientific discovery
of exceptional dinosaur tracks that hold so much value for so many people in our
nation and around the world. I especially want to thank Representative Hansen for
drawing all responsible parties together in an effort to save these unique artifacts
for future generations.
I am Sheldon Johnson, from St. George, Utaha small community located on I-
15 between Las Vegas, Nevada and Salt Lake City, Utah. I am a retired optometrist
14
who developed a small farm some thirty years ago to teach our five sons a good
work ethic. They helped clear the land, level it, plant it, and harvest crops as they
earned money for college the hard way, and grew in strength and character.
They are now productive tax-paying family men and engineers. One of these tax-
paying sons who worked on the family farm has Down syndrome. He has worked
for J.C. Penneys for 35 years, lives independently with his wife, and is a licensed
driver who drives his wage-earned car well.
I believe that joy in hard work pays many unseen dividends, and I believe that
sharing the results of that hard work also brings joy.
This past year and a half of our great effort and expense trying to share our dino-
saur discovery and to preserve this historic scientific treasure has been both hard
work and rewarding as we have met good people from all over the world.
I guess this started many years ago when I donated some of my farm land to the
city of St. George for a road they wanted to put through. About a year and a half
ago the city began improvement on this dirt road, and they cut through a small hill
on the farm. I talked my sons and partner into buying a track hoe and allowing
me to dig down this hill which was thirty or forty feet high to bring the property
more to the level of the road.
After I took about twenty feet of the hill off and hauled the dirt away, I came
upon a layer of rock that was very peculiar. It came out in chunks three feet wide,
two feet thick and ten to twenty feet long, with perfectly straight edges and sides.
I asked Kelly Bringhurst, my stepson who is a Geology professor at Dixie State Col-
lege of Utah what this stone was and he said it was Jurassic mudstone from the
age of the first dinosaurs 204 Million years ago. I looked for dinosaur impressions
on the top of the rocks but didnt see any.
Then one day I accidentally turned a large stone over and on the bottom of these
very large blocks of stone were perfect casts of dinosaur feet. They were so startling
to me I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Each rock I turned over had several
really fantastic casts of large and small dinosaur feet. (I later would learn terms
like Grallator and Eubrontes.
Life took a big change as my wife and I unexpectedly found ourselves with a new
job of greeting visitorswhich for the first three months usually went from 8 oclock
in the morning until about 9:30, or until it was too dark to see at night, seven days
a week. Finally a gentleman stepped in and said, You have got to have some volun-
teers here or you are going to kill yourselves. This is never going to end!
We are so grateful to the good people who have stepped up to volunteer at their
site!
When I finished turning over all the rocks I had lifted up, I found that I had casts
of over three hundred dinosaur feet. There is at least again as much area of Juras-
sic mudstone that remains to be lifted up and needs to be scientifically investigated.
Dr. Wade Miller of Brigham Young University was the first scientist to visit and
verify this Jurassic discovery. Soon after, many scientists came.
Utahs State Paleontologist Dr. James Kirkland (consultant to Discovery Chan-
nels Walking With Dinosaurs, and world renowned author and dinosaur track ex-
pert Dr. Martin Lockley tell us that our tracks show two distinct species of dino-
saur, and possibly more. They show details of dinosaur anatomy never before seen.
Fortunately, Dr. Lockley completed measuring, tracing, and photographing a four-
step tail drag on a surface layer of the site before it became weather worn.
I have built a shade cover for the overturned prints, but during this past year
and a half these trace fossils (that have been preserved underground for over two
hundred million years in more ideal conditions) have been exposed to the high
desert temperatures, wind, rain, and cold. These marvelous artifacts will continue
to suffer adverse effects until we are able to protect them in a more managed envi-
ronment.
As geologists and paleontologists have come from around the world to our site to
see the foot casts, and trace fossils, they all agree with our decision not to turn over
more stones until we have a way to preserve and protect this world class scientific
discovery.
We also agree that sharing this discovery with the scientific community means
we will continue this excavation in a very organized way that will benefit not only
the inquiring or curious mind, tourists and students alike, but in a way that will
produce the most complete, detailed information about our worldevidence of plant
and animal life of the world of dinosaurs 204 million years ago.
As we have shared these artifacts with people from all over the world they have
all agreed that a permanent museum needs to be built to protect and preserve and
make available the thrill of discovery to children and adults from all walks of life.
Enclosed is a sample of our guest register taken from a part of an hour in May
2000. It indicates the feelings people get in sharing this discovery.
15
A sample count of a typical day from our register shows us 900 people from twen-
ty-nine states and five different nations visited our site that day.
The site is easily accessible inside the city of St. George on what is now a major
road about one mile from the freeway. The property is bordered to the south by the
Virgin River which is the drainage source of Zion National Park. The beautiful
white and salmon colored cliffs of the park can be seen from the discovery site. The
elevation of our site is about 2000 feet, but from this place the vista of earth layers
rise to 10,500 feet! Thus, an unusually varied view greets the visitor, providing a
favorite place to visually teach the geology of our earth.
Busses of students come to the site daily from Utah and surrounding states to
witness the wonders and feel the excitement. One day I was there when two busses
from Princeton Universitys Dept. of Geology came with graduate Geology students
to share the discovery. We have had as many as five school busses on site at one
time. Students continue to arrive from near and far.
A great number of Paleontologists have come to the site and helped us in this dis-
covery. Dr. Martin Lockley, the worlds recognized authority on dinosaur foot prints
is our most avid supporter. Dr. Lockley would like to organize a scientific discovery
team to continue the find as soon as we have a place to put the artifacts. Dr. James
Kirkland, Utahs state Paleontologist, has been a great help in giving authenticity
to what we have found and in guiding the state to do what they can do.
My wife, LaVerna Johnson, a retired educator, is working very hard to create a
greatly needed place of learning and discovery here. We have set up
DinosaurAH!torium, a 501(c)3 not for profit corporation to search for grants and aid
from philanthropic organizations to help fund future educational projects related to
this site.
But first we need to build a safe storage facility with a climate controlled storage
area, a scientific work area, and display area for these great artifacts where our vol-
unteers and international visitors can enjoy this scientific discovery when the tem-
perature is as high as 110 in the summer.
We feel that all must share in this dream. We will give some property, Naylor/
Wentworth, a prominent architectural firm, has volunteered talent and service and
has done a plot and elevation study of the site. Washington Mutual Savings, a local
bank, has donated a DinosaurAH!torium sign at the site so people searching can
find us. Mayor Dan McArthur and St. George City has made it possible to come this
far on the project with the help of its Parks and Recreation Department. The Wash-
ington County Volunteer Center has helped staff with wonderful daily volunteers.
This discovery site can be reached by turning off Interstate 15 at the Washington
Exit, the first St. George area exit as you enter from the north. Go south, pass
CostCo and travel about one mile until you see a DinosaurAH!torium sign on the
left side of the road. Visitors are welcome.
However, there are no freeway signs to tell people to stop. There is no advertising,
no brochure, no publicity campaign, but we have recorded as many as three thou-
sand people in a day, over five thousand on a holiday weekend, and now have had
well over 150,000 people come to see these prints in the past year and four months.
Record books kept since March 2000 tell us that people have come from every state
of our nation, and from at least fifty five different countries! And they still come.
They have heard about this amazing sight by word of mouth, by magazine and
newspaper articles they often hand carry to us from around the world, and from see-
ing several television broadcasts that have gone world wide. An interactive video
program broadcast to South America via Voice of America featured this unique dis-
covery.
Scientific journals and publications geared to the public continue to tell of our dis-
covery and its significance, the most recent article being in SCIENCE NEWS. Yes-
terdays interview from VIA Magazine, with a readership of 2.5 million people, a
new dinosaur book coming out this fall called Dinosaurs of Utah, and several other
magazine articles coming out within the next two months tell us that visitor num-
bers will only increase.
My wife LaVerna and I have traveled to many museums since that day of dis-
covery, and we find that these dinosaur foot casts are unique. She has since become
a member of the board of the Utah Museums Association (of which
DinosaurAH!torium is a member), and we work for the benefit of all the public as
we strive to save and preserve this valuable site. Utahs Office of Museum Services
is awarding a $9,000.00 grant to assist us in preserving this national treasure.
Visitors unite in a chorus of: This site must be saved. As a doctor from France
told us one day, This site does not just belong to just your country, you know. This
treasure belongs to all the world! Who will help you do this?
We have never charged money or tried to commercialize this find, but we have
received donations from guests that have helped with some of our expense. The city
16
of St. George has given great support for site needs, and forty two different volun-
teers have given hundreds of hours to protecting the prints, to study, research, and
to guiding the visitors to a rewarding unique experience they will always remember.
Once our building begins we are sure that many people will step up to support,
but first we must begin. Without initial funding we are afraid pending property de-
velopment will necessitate loss of this significant discovery site.
All museums and schools indicate a desire to receive some of these Jurassic trace
fossils, and we have enough to share, but first we must take care of what is on the
sitethen we can share. We feel that these prints were given to us that people all
over the world can enjoy and feel the thrill of their existence.
With your help we will build an exciting place of preservation, discovery and
imagination for America that will inspire inquiry and education. We are asking you
to help us make a united dream of sharing come true.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, both of you.

Let me ask: clearly, this 20 acres is not the only place that dino-
saurs walked in that area. Is it anticipated that if we buy this 20
acres, and then, there will be another 20 and then 40 and then so
forth? Or is this the only place that you can actually
Mr. JOHNSON. This is a peculiar site, because the whole 20 acres
they want includes along the river, which would be a parkway
along the river that would supplementhelp visitors enjoy the site.
The site is an uprift, upthrust hill that only includes about 3 or 4
acres. It is a hill that has been upthrust some 20 to 40 million
years ago, and it is the only site where rocks will be found. So
there is not a possibility of others, because it is the only upthrust.
The rest of it is level ground.
Mr. MCARTHUR. The rest of it is developed, basically, around
this.
Mr. HEFLEY. And they have not found anything in the develop-
ment process?
Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, no, no. The geology of this is that this is level
farm ground except this one hill that was thrust up approximately
300 feet, geologists tell us, as it thrust up. I took the top 20 feet
off. So the rest of that layer of ground where dinosaurs walked is
300 feet below the ground all over. And so, there is a possibility
only in that hill to find that sort ofit is a very select site.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Fulton seemed to express the con-
cern of the Department that the site would be cared for properly
under your stewardship and under the plan in the bill. Would you
like to speak to that?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Yes; southwestern Utah would not even exist if
we were not able to cooperate with the surrounding agencies like
the county government, school district, the college and other things.
And in our discussions up to this point, we have seen that our re-
sources have been taxed very heavily. We are the first ones to come
forward and actually fence the site and actually put restrooms and
other things on the site. They were portable restrooms and help
working with the staffing of volunteers through the city staff.
And the goal has been from this point forward, of course, work-
ing with the State of Utah, with the educational system and other
things to make sure that this happens, and I have no doubt in my
mind that we can make it work working together. It is just the ac-
quisition of the site; and then go forward from there in making it
work.
Mr. HEFLEY. Ms. Christensen?
17
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I do not think I have any questions, Mr.

Chairman. I just find it fascinating that you could see dinosaur
footprints this well at this late date, and I am encouraged that the
Department is willing to work with both the city and the Members
of Congress in trying to find a way to preserve the area. Our con-
cern is just the direct purchase by the Department of the Interior,
which would be an unusual way to go about accomplishing this.
Mr. MCARTHUR. Could I say something? If you look in this par-
ticular spot, this is probably the only place that I know of that you
would find a site like this right square in the middle of town. All
the rest of the ground around here, it is all private land, whereas,
most of the area of our county is Federal and state land. And there-
fore, you know, acquiring that property right in the middle of town
is really critical to us, and we have already begun negotiations. In
fact, I think we have pretty well negotiated a settlement price with
the land owners that can work.
But I do not think that that is final, but I think that that is
going to happen. All the parties involved, whether it is the land
owners, whether it is the school system, whether it is the State of
Utah, everybody is on board and making and saying that we have
got to make this work: the BLM, the local BLM group is saying
yes, we have got to make this work; we can make it work. It has
just got to work within the confines of each one of our systems.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Can I ask a question?
Mr. HEFLEY. Sure.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Fulton said in his testimony; yes, this is
the right bill: an exchange might be a viable option. Is that some-
thing that has been looked at? Is there some other property that
could be
Mr. MCARTHUR. The difficulty of that, like I said, is most of the
property around there is already under governmental control. We
are already the largest landowner in the river system because of
endangered species and others that are found uniquely in our Vir-
gin River System. We are already under a plan that is called the
Virgin River Management Plan that we have all parties assigned
trying to recover the species and others, and we have been the
largesttrying to acquire land, either by donation or purchase or
swapping what land we have had. But we have no more land to
swap, and we own it from our southern border to the northern bor-
der, and Dr. Johnson owns some other property along this river
that he is working with and donating or through purchase that we
can do, and then, we will tie all that together with a trail system
and other things for the use of the public.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you; I am sure Chairman Hansen
does not agree that that is a viable option anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I think that is a good question: Dr. Johnson,
is there anyif most of it is government-owned land around there,
is there any government-owned land around there that you would
like that you would consider a trade?
Mr. JOHNSON. I am sure if that is the need, we would do that.
We are not trying to make a lot of money on this. Even the price,
we are giving lots of acreage, and it is costingI would have been
really well off if I had just turned that stone under to begin with,
18
because it has cost me a lot of money and a lot of time, and I am

not trying to do anything but get it before the public.
I am sure if you could designate some land around to trade for
it, government land, it would be possible. We would not stop it;
that is for sure. We want to make it work, whatever we have to
do.
Mr. HEFLEY. Okay; Committee, other questions?
All right; thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen?
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. I can hardly wait for full Committee.
Mr. HEFLEY. Have you noticed I lean over to my left over here?
Have you noticed that, Mr. Hansen?
Mr. HANSEN. I have noticed that.
Mayor McArthur, how do you envisionlet us just say hypo-
thetically this thing comes about; that we are able to pull it off
here; the part that we play in it. As you mention, there are a lot
of entities involved. How do you envision this coming together?
Give us a little vision here of how you envision this thing to hap-
pen.
Mr. MCARTHUR. Well, I envision the State of Utah coming for-
ward to help us also. They have expressed a lot of desire to do that
through the legislative process and other things and acquiring
some funds. Like I say, we have been strapped with that, but I be-
lieve that through the efforts of the local college and educational
system as well as our own system and the volunteers which we
have, which we have a tremendous amount because of our retire-
ment area; you see how St. George is growing or at least Wash-
ington County over the last decade; I have seen it double in popu-
lation over the last decade, and that has been the history of it with
people moving into the area. We have a tremendous volunteer ef-
fort working.
And what I see in this particular thing working together is try-
ing to work with either ASIA, which is a volunteer organization of
the BLM and others in recommending places that people can visit,
either through the National Park system or through the state park
system or even the other areas, but we believe that working to-
gether with the BLM, whoever we have to work with, and the
schools is very possible. It has worked in the past, and we have a
commitment from them at this point and forward to do it.
I am not exactly sure how it would work, but I know it would
be under, right now, under the direction of the City of St. George,
and we are committed to make it happen.
Mr. HANSEN. So let us just go to the bottom line on it. Let us
say we are able to do the part that we are asked to play on it. The
city is involved; the state is involved; the county is involved; the
schools are involved; and we have got a private entity that is going
to run this show, or is it going to be the City of St. George?
Mr. MCARTHUR. No; it will probably be a private entity is what
we would try to get.
Mr. HANSEN. Which all of these other entities would help
Mr. MCARTHUR. Would work together, absolutely.
Mr. HANSEN. With funding or whatever it is. Okay; the first
thing, then, is the land.
19
Mr. MCARTHUR. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Get that worked out.
Mr. MCARTHUR. The preservation.
Mr. HANSEN. That is taken care of. Then, somebody is structured
to run this private entity. And then, they put a plan together and
say, all right, all these people here are going to put money in, time,
whatever it may be, and then, you come up with a plan of what
to put there: structures, parking lots, fences. The Doctor mentioned
going down in that lower area by the Virgin River as kind of a sce-
nic walkway or something; is that right, Doctor?
Mr. JOHNSON. A scenic walkway that would enhance the park
itself. The stones are on an area of about 2 acres total, but that
is so small, there is hardly room for the parking lot. And so, down
along the edge of the river, which we have volunteered to give to
the entity, whoever it would be, would make a beautiful parkway,
a Jurassic park, so to speak, so that people could have places to
go picnic and to take their families and to have an experience and
be able to spread out under trees and picnic tables, and that would
joinit would be part of that.
We are not talking about a lot of money, and even then, we have
offered the site, the site right on the road for $45,000 an acre, and
that would be, you know, $90,000 for the whole thing. So we are
trying to give as much as we can and still make it possible within
our limits.
Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your generosity, and the people of St.
George have surely commented on it as has your media in that
area of what you have been able to do. But this is not a money
making thing. This is for either the city or any of these entities,
this is an idea to make this open but, yet, in a way that we do not
desecrate it or hurt it in any way.
So this entity would then figure out the logistics: what we are
going to build; the time they can be there; do we have to charge
to offset maintenance and all that kind of stuff? Is that what we
are envisioning here?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. And then, who owns it?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Well, the City of St. George
Mr. HANSEN. In other words, who takes fee title?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Takes which?
Mr. HANSEN. Fee title.
Mr. JOHNSON. The fee title.
Mr. HANSEN. Who takes title to it? I mean, if we are going to ne-
gotiate a sale here, we have got to have a seller. And we have got
the seller sitting here. Who is the guy that is going to own it?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Well, the City of St. George, unless, out of this
negotiation that we work on who runs it and how it works in the
future; if something changes, the City of St. George is the owner.
Mr. HANSEN. I guess it would come under the direction of St.
George.
Mr. MCARTHUR. That is right.
Mr. HANSEN. Because you are going to be the number one entity.
It is in your confines, in your jurisdiction; is that right?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Yes, and we are willing to take that lead.
20
Mr. HANSEN. So in your best estimation, if all these ducks line

up, when are we going to be to that point?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Congressman, the sooner the better. The city
has not just looked at, you know, you have heard people say that
we have to protect the site. We have already gone in and are look-
ing at some materials to help protect the site as best we can. It is
not a permanent building by any means of what we are trying to
do, but there has already been a structure put over it to keep the
sun somewhat off, and now, we are trying to do another one by
maybe investigating puttingif there is some material and things
on the side that we can actually enclose them somewhat for tem-
porary protection until some funds can be acquired, either through
the state or through this, that can actually build something on site.
We are planning on building something on site and going forward
with the design.
Mr. HANSEN. Like an enclosed area?
Mr. MCARTHUR. An enclosed area.
Mr. HANSEN. Enclose some of those areas?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Enclose them.
Mr. HANSEN. Make an area where they will not be deteriorated
further?
Mr. MCARTHUR. Exactly.
Mr. HANSEN. Something like that.
Mr. MCARTHUR. And then, let them go ahead and develop them
and look at them later through study.
Mr. HANSEN. Dr. Johnson, you have an interesting situation
here. As you both testified, and I have seen with my eyes, visita-
tion that exceeds some of our national parks. I could name four or
five national parks that do not even come close to what you get.
I will not, because Lee Davidson will print it in the Deseret News,
and I will be in trouble. Sorry.
But anyway, you get down to the idea thathow do you handle
that? How do you handle that? Here is one man and his wife who
discovered this who probably wants to retireI assume you are re-
tired now.
Mr. JOHNSON. We retired, and then, all of a sudden, this hit us,
and we had to be committed to something. And we started there
early in the morning, 6 or 7 in the morning, and we would be there
until 9 or 9:30 at night. In fact, people would come up with their
headlights and say it is too late to see, but I will shine my lights
on it. And we would say we are so exhausted, we have got to go
home!
Finally, the City of St. George and the surrounding areas devel-
oped a volunteer bureau, and we have finally found 42 volunteers
to help us guide these people through this great find, and they
have been working the last year under extreme conditions: the heat
and the wind and the rain and everything, and they have just hung
in there, and I said someday, we will have a cover for this. We
have got to. I have exhausted about all of my resources to cover
it and to do the things I have needed to do, but now, it is to the
finalwe have got to do something else, you know. It has to be cov-
ered and has to move on with a greater entity, more than just the
enthusiasm of my wife, LaVerna, and I, because we are getting too
old and too tired.
21
Mr. HANSEN. You regret you have only one life to give to this.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do.
[Laughter.]
Mr. JOHNSON. It has been a thrilling experience, even to come
here today. I have fulfilled a dream that we are doing something
that the whole world can really enjoy. And they do: they are so
thrilled. I showed a list of the people who come each day; com-
ments as they write their name. Behind their name is an excla-
mation of thrill, wow, exciting; the beautiful things that they say,
you know. They are all saying what a beautiful experience that
was.
I have seen grown men sitting on one of those tablets and crying
of the immensity of the thought of what happened here, and I am
sitting right next to a foot that set down 200 million years ago. It
is just breathtaking sometimes.
Mr. HANSEN. Dr. Johnson, we commend you for what you have
done for all of us, and I hope it turns into the vision that you have.
And my last question: did your five boys learn how to work?
Mr. JOHNSON. They were great examples. I have four engineers.
I have one Downs Syndrome boy who is 46 years old right now.
Because he worked on the farm, he has a drivers license; he is
married; he has a full-time job. He has driven a car for 10 years
without an accident in a busy place. He is the most successful boy
I have got, and all of the rest of them are great sons with engineer-
ing degrees.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, I am glad the initial thought worked out for
you, then, to teach the boys how to work.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. I thank the witnesses, and we will go
to the next panel.
Mr. HEFLEY. The next panel, for a return engagement, is Tom
Fulton, Deputy Secretary of Land and Mineral Management for the
Department of the Interior. Before we get to that, Mr. Hansen,
would you like to give an opening statement, Mr. Hansen, before
we get to the witness?
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would appreciate it if I could have an opening statement. I
want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2488, the Pilot
Range Wilderness Area. For more than 25 years, many of us have
participated in the Utah wilderness debate one way or another.
The faces change from time to time, but the debate never seems
to end. It is an emotional debate and one with no apparent end in
sight. There have been dozens of attempts to solve the wilderness
issue over the years; none of them successful.
Now, keep in mind that Utah did do the Forest Service; we are
talking BLM here. There have been incremental approaches put
forward and comprehensive statewide proposals introduced. The
number of acres proposed as wilderness have ranged from 800,000
to 9.3 million. Along the way, we have seen national conservation
areas proposed and national monuments created; BLM wilderness
inventories and reinventories; lawsuits and appeals, but
22
unfortunately, we are no closer to resolving this wilderness thing

than we were 25 years ago.
Three years ago, Governor Leavitt proposed using an incre-
mental approach. Rather than arguing over the 9 million versus 2
million, we tried to narrow the discussion down to a much smaller
scale, and ultimately, we were very, very close to reaching an
agreement last year. We learned a valuable lesson: we found that
it was possible to reach agreement when the focus of the debate
was narrowed. When we concentrate on one specific area and nego-
tiate boundaries and specific management language appropriate to
the area, we can address the problem with a minimal amount of
rhetoric. It is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process. But if
it moves the debate forward, I am willing to invest the time.
With that in mind, I introduced the Pilot Range Wilderness bill.
The Pilot Range was not inventoried until the original 106th wil-
derness reviews due to its checkerboard private and public land
patterns at the time. However, through a series of land exchanges
conducted in the 1990s, BLM acquired most of the railroad lands
and the state trust lands in the unit, and subsequently, it was in-
cluded as part of the Babbitt reinventory 2 years ago.
The Pilot Range offers an opportunity to discuss wilderness val-
ues while focusing on a specific unit only. We have made an effort
to take in the most reasonable boundaries, excluding the human in-
trusion as much as possible. We have cherry-stemmed the same
roads as the Babbitt reinventory did. While wilderness advocates
will claim today that we have excluded half the wilderness area,
my colleagues should know that this bill includes 100 percent of
their bill that was called H.R. 1500, the bill supported by Mr. Hin-
chey, and the gentleman, Mr. Young, who is here from the South-
ern Utah Wilderness Alliance. That was just 2 years ago.
The simple fact is this: until 2 years ago, many of our environ-
mental groups did not include the Pilot Range as part of its wilder-
ness proposal. I have never seen it up until 2 years ago. Today, we
will hear about how absolutely precious these lands are. If that is
the case, why were these lands not part of it before? I guess that
is something I would like to hear. In reality, we have excluded an
area north of this range called the Bald Mountain area, as did Mr.
Hinchey 2 years ago. In the Hinchey bill 2 years ago, it excluded
that.
I am interested as to why communications towers, mines, roads
and fences now qualify as wilderness when they did not 2 years
ago. I also am happy to see my friend Mr. Young put in the Deseret
News that he made an interesting statement, so I guess he is here
to acquiesce on that and say that we were right and they were
wrong. And I love your statement here, if somebody did not steal
it from me, when he saidyou can speak for yourself, Mr. Young,
but if you do not mind, I would like to say when you said what
good is wilderness if it has roads, minesoh, this is a quote: What
good is a wilderness with roads, power lines, buildings and commu-
nications towers, SUWA Executive Director Larry Young re-
quested, and their area is exactly what has got in it, and to show
that, we will later, Mr. Chairman, show pictures of their area with
roads, mines, communication towers and other areas in it. So I
23
agree with him completely on that. I am glad to be able to agree

with Larry on something, because he is a pretty good guy.
Water resources within the wilderness boundaries that we have
drawn are minimal. We intentionally have drawn boundaries
around two streams specifically because keeping these streams in
the wilderness would impair the ability of the Division of Wildlife
Resources in the BLM to manage the threatened trout habitat.
Contrary to what some may say, wilderness designation is not a
panacea for wildlife. In this case, it would likely be detrimental to
wildlife resources in this area, restricting the states ability to be
proactive in wildlife management as well as the recovery of endan-
gered species.
The language of this bill, including water rights, management of
fish and wildlife and grazing is the same language as was sup-
ported by the State of Utah and Secretary Bruce Babbitt. If Mr.
Babbitt was comfortable with the language, I hope my colleagues
will see that as well.
There is an issue unique to the wilderness area in the Great
Basin that does not necessarily apply elsewhere in the state, and
that is the impact the wilderness designation may have on the
Utah Test and Training Range. Overflight language has been in-
cluded in other wilderness bills. Our language is very specific to
the Pilot Range. The witnesses today will explain why we must
have language specific to the UTTR that builds upon what we have
done in this area. And like the Chairmanwe both sit on the
Armed Services Committeethis is critical to us, as we see all
kinds of invasions into our test and training ranges.
Finally, I have read criticism regarding the release language in-
cluded in the bill. This is not really a good criticism, because in
fact, the wilderness release language has been a matter of public
policy for years. Virtually every wilderness bill includes some kind
of release language. Language almost identical to what we have in
this bill was passed three times in the 106th Congress. One slight
difference is a reference made to ending the 202 process, which is
necessary because Utah is the only state to have undergone an ad-
ditional reinventory under Section 202 of FLPMA.
The language in this bill reflects the agreement between Gov-
ernor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt last year to end the 202 proc-
ess and bring closure to the wilderness debate on the West Desert.
We intend to bring closure to the wilderness debate on the Pilot
Range with the passage of this bill. Nothing will bind a future Con-
gress from passing a law creating additional wilderness in the Pilot
Range if it deems necessary, and these lands will not be put at risk
by being released back to the BLM management plan. Instead, we
designate wilderness in an area that was ignored by the original
BLM inventoryand I want to make this pointand ignored by
Congressman Owens and ignored by Congressman Hinchey, and I
would hope that they understand that.
Members should note that this bill was introduced; the Auto-
mated Geographic Reference Center discovered a mapping error.
The result is that the number of acres designated using the revised
maps will come closer to 24,000 acres rather than the 37,000 acres
designated in the bill as introduced.
24
I look forward to working with the BLM to prepare a map that

accurately reflects these changes. This is a small step toward re-
solving a bigger issue, and we intend to do others. I may add, Mr.
Chairman, that my brother-in-law, Dean Stevens, does have a
ranch that is east of this area; has nothing to do with this area.
He is a retired gentleman. He could not care less what we did, and
he saidI will not quote what he said, but he is not too interested
in this either way.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
Resources, on H.R. 2488
Chairman Hefley, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2488, the
Pilot Range Wilderness bill. For more than 25 years, many of us have participated
in the Utah wilderness debate in some way or another. The faces change from time
to time, but the debate has continued. It is an emotional debate and one with no
apparent end in sight.
There have been a dozen different attempts to solve the wilderness issue over the
years, none of them successful. There have been incremental approaches put for-
ward and comprehensive, state wide proposals introduced. The number of acres pro-
posed as wilderness have ranged from 800,000 to 9.3 million. Along the way, we
have seen National Conservation Areas proposed, and National Monuments created,
BLM wilderness inventories and re-inventories, lawsuits and appeals. But unfortu-
nately, we are not any closer to resolving the Utah wilderness issue today than we
were 25 years ago.
Three years ago, Governor Leavitt proposed using an incremental approach. Rath-
er than arguing over nine million verses two million acres, we tried to narrow the
discussion down to a much smaller scale and ultimately, we were very, very close
to reaching agreement last year. We learned a valuable lesson during those discus-
sions. We found that it was possible to reach agreement when the focus of the de-
bate was narrowed. When we concentrate on one specific area, and negotiate bound-
aries and specific management language appropriate to the area we can address the
problems with a minimal amount of rhetoric. It is a labor-intensive and time-con-
suming process, but if it moves the debate forward, I am willing to invest that time.
With that lesson in mind, I introduced the Pilot Range Wilderness bill. The Pilot
range was not inventoried during the original 603 wilderness reviews due to its
checkerboard private and public land patterns at the time. However, through a se-
ries of land exchanges conducted in the 1990s BLM acquired most of the railroad
lands and state trust lands in the unit and subsequently, it was included as part
of the Babbitt re-inventory two years ago. The Pilot Range offers an opportunity to
discuss wilderness values while focusing on a specific unit only.
We have made an effort to take in the most reasonable boundaries, excluding the
human intrusion as much as possible. We have cherry stemmed the same roads as
in the Babbitt re-inventory. While wilderness advocates will claim today that we
have excluded half the wilderness in this area my colleagues should know that
this bill includes 100 percent more wilderness acres than did H.R. 1500, the bill
supported by Mr. Hinchey and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance just two
years ago. The simple fact is this. Until two years ago, the Southern Utah Wilder-
ness Alliance did not include the Pilot Range as part of its wilderness proposal.
Today, we will hear about how absolutely precious these lands are. If that is the
case, why were they not part of the SUWA 5.7 million acre proposal for so many
years?
In reality, we have excluded area north of this range called the Bald Mountain
area as did the Mr. Hinchey just two years ago, as did Secretary Babbitt when he
conducted the BLM re-inventory. I am interested as to why communication towers,
mines, roads, fences now qualify as wilderness in 2001 when they clearly didnt two
years ago.
Water resources within the wilderness boundaries that we have drawn are mini-
mal. We intentionally have drawn boundaries around two streams specifically be-
cause keeping these streams in the wilderness would impair the ability of the Divi-
sion of Wildlife Resources and BLM to manage the threatened Lahotan Trout habi-
tat. Contrary to what some might say, wilderness designation is not a panacea for
wildlife. In this case would likely be detrimental to wildlife resources in this area,
25
restricting the states ability to be proactive in wildlife management as well as the
recovery of endangered species.
The language of the bill including water rights, management of fish and wildlife
and grazing is the same language that was supported by the State of Utah and
thenSecretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt last year. If Mr. Babbitt was comfortable
with the language, I would hope my colleagues would be as well.
There is an issue unique to the wilderness areas in the Great Basin that does not
necessarily apply elsewhere in the state and that is the impact that wilderness des-
ignation might have on the Utah Test and Training Range. Overflight language has
been included in other wilderness bills. Our language is very specific to the Pilot
Range. The witnesses today will explain why we must have language specific to the
UTTR that builds upon what we have done in other areas.
Finally, I have read criticism regarding the release language included in the bill.
Opponents wail that this language is unprecedented. They are absolutely wrong
about that and do a disservice to their constituency with their claims. In fact, wil-
derness release language has been a matter of public law for years, virtually every
wilderness bill includes some type of release language. Language almost identical
to what we have in this bill was passed three times in the 106th Congress alone.
One slight difference is a reference made to ending the 202 process which is nec-
essary because Utah is the only state to have undergone an additional re-inventory
under Section 202 of FLPMA . The language in this bill reflects the agreement be-
tween Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt last year to end the 202 process and
bring closure to the wilderness debate in the west desert. We intend to bring closure
to the wilderness debate in the Pilot Range with the passage of this bill.
Nothing will bind a future Congress from passing a law creating additional wil-
derness in the Pilot Range if it deems necessary and these lands will not be put
at risk by being released back into the BLM management plan. Instead, we des-
ignate wilderness in an area that was ignored by the original BLM inventory as well
as Congressman Owens and Hinchey.
Members should know that since the bill was introduced, the Automated Geo-
graphic Reference Center discovered a mapping error. The result is that the number
of acres designated using the revised maps will come in closer to 24,000 acres rather
than the 37,000 acres designated in the bill as introduced. I look forward to working
with BLM to prepare a map that accurately reflects these changes.
This is a small bill that is a small step towards resolving a much bigger issue.
But we must begin somewhere. I hope the members of the Subcommittee will join
me in this effort to begin to resolve the Utah wilderness debate one area at a time.
[A resolution from the Box Elder County Commission submitted

for the record by Mr. Hansen follows:]
26
27
Mr. HEFLEY. Okay; we do have a vote on. I think it is a single

vote. I think maybe this would be a good time to break and recess
long enough to go over and do the vote and then come back and
hear our witnesses. So the Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee will come back to order.
Mr. Fulton?
STATEMENT OF TOM FULTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. FULTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of the
Interior supports H.R. 2488 which, as introduced, designates over
37,000 acres of land in Western Utah as wilderness. We would like
the opportunity to work with the Committee on clarifying and tech-
nical amendments to the legislation before the Committee com-
pletes its consideration of the bill. The proposed Pilot Range Wil-
derness Area lies in Box Elder County, Utah, located approxi-
mately 115 miles northwest of Salt Lake City, along the Utah and
Nevada state line.
The Pilots are a north-south trending mountain range with can-
yons training east to a large alkali flat and west to a broad valley
that extends into Nevada. The Pilot Range meets the scenic and
natural resource values required of the Wilderness Act. The Pilot
Range was not included as a wilderness study area in the Bureau
of Land Management wilderness inventory completed in 1980. The
checkerboard ownership pattern of the lands did not originally lend
itself to that designation.
However, between 1989 and 1993, the BLM concluded a series of
land exchanges with willing private landowners that consolidated
public ownership in the Pilot Range. Last fall, Congress passed the
Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act, which exchanged over
200,000 acres of state and Federal lands. Included in that exchange
were 3,600 acres of state land within the Pilot Range.
With that acquisition, the area proposed for wilderness in this
bill contains no state in-holdings. We would like the opportunity to
work with the Committee to make technical corrections or clarify
a number of provisions in the bill; for example, the current lan-
guage in Section 2(b) regarding incorporating acquired private
lands into the proposed wilderness should be modified to clarify
that only acquired private lands with wilderness character would
be added to the Pilot Range Wilderness.
It is also our understanding that the Chairman may be proposing
some modifications to the acreage of the wilderness area, and we
would like the opportunity to work with the Committee on those
changes. In 1998, the Box Elder County Commission developed an
access road management plan. This plan is a product of rec-
ommendations. The plan was sponsored by Box Elder County with
the benefit of public review, including input from BLM. The BLM
then adopted this through a Federal Register notice.
We would also like to work with the Committee on Section 2(f)
of the bill regarding protection of military needs on the nearby
Utah Test and Training Range and Dugway Proving Ground. We
are in complete agreement on the importance of the mission of
28
these military bases. We would like to consider expanding the

scope of the proposed MOU to include all aspects of military use
in the proposed Pilot Range Wilderness, including placement of and
access to communications and tracking systems.
In addition, we would like to work with the Committee to incor-
porate provisions into the bill to ensure the protection of a par-
ticular species of cutthroat trout currently listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2488,
and I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee
might ask.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulton follows:]
Statement of Tom Fulton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2488
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 2488. The Department
appreciates Chairman Hansens efforts in continuing to address wilderness in Utah.
The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 2488, which designates over 37,000
acres of land in western Utah as wilderness. We would like the opportunity to work
with the Committee on clarifying and technical amendments to the legislation be-
fore the Committee completes its consideration of this bill.
The proposed Pilot Range Wilderness Area lies in Box Elder County, Utah. Rising
to over 10,761 feet, Pilot Peak served as a beacon for travelers headed to California
in the 1840s and, for some, a beacon of false hope. Travelers who had completed
the hot, dry trek across the Great Salt Lake Desert found water in the springs along
the eastern base of the range.
Located approximately 115 miles northwest of Salt Lake City, along the Utah and
Nevada state line, the Pilots are a north-south trending mountain range, with can-
yons draining east to a large alkali flat, and west to a broad valley that extends
into Nevada. The rugged terrain (ridges, side canyons and valley bottoms) meets the
requirements of the Wilderness Act. Diverse vegetation complements the topography
by providing screening from human activity. Opportunities for hunting, camping,
hiking, and photography are outstanding. Horseback riding and pack trips are abun-
dant throughout the area.
The Pilot Range also meets the scenic and natural resource values required in the
Wilderness Act. Elk, bighorn sheep, and deer roam throughout, and the threatened
Lahontan cutthroat trout are present in Bettridge Creek in the southern part of the
proposed wilderness.
The Pilot Range was not included as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) in the Bu-
reau of Land Managements (BLMs) wilderness inventory completed in 1980. The
checkerboard ownership pattern of the lands did not originally lend itself to that
designation. However, between 1989 and 1993, the BLM concluded a series of land
exchanges with willing private landowners that consolidated public ownership in the
Pilot Range. A subsequent BLM wilderness inventory, concluded in 1999, found the
area to have significant wilderness characteristics.
Last fall, Congress passed the Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act (Public Law
106301), which exchanged over 200,000 acres of state and federal lands. Included
in that exchange were 3,600 acres of State land within the Pilot Range. With that
acquisition, the area proposed for wilderness in this bill contains no state
inholdings.
We would like the opportunity to work with the Committee to make technical cor-
rections or clarify a number of provisions in the bill. For example, the current lan-
guage in section 2(b) regarding incorporating acquired private lands into the pro-
posed Wilderness should be modified to clarify that only acquired private lands with
wilderness character would be added to the Pilot Range Wilderness.
Section 1(a) of the bill specifies a map of the wilderness area. We would like the
opportunity to work with Chairman Hansen on that map before H.R. 2488 is re-
ported out of Committee. It is also our understanding that the Chairman may be
proposing some modifications to the acreage of the wilderness area and we would
like the opportunity to work with the Committee on those changes.
In July 1998, the Box Elder County Commission developed an access road man-
agement plan. This plan is a product of recommendations made by a team sponsored
by Box Elder County with the benefit of public review, including input from BLM.
The BLM then adopted this ordinance through a Federal Register notice. We would
29
like the opportunity to work with the Committee to ensure that the map is con-
sistent with the countys road management plan.
We would also like to work with the Committee on section 2(f) of the bill regard-
ing protection of military needs on the nearby Utah Test and Training Range and
Dugway Proving Ground. We are in complete agreement on the importance of the
mission of these military bases. The language of section 2(f) of this bill must ade-
quately provide for military interests while protecting the wilderness resources and
BLMs management of the wilderness area. For example, we would like to consider
expanding the scope of the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) to in-
clude all aspects of military use in the proposed Pilot Range Wilderness, including
placement of and access to communications and tracking systems.
In addition, we would like to work with the Committee to incorporate provisions
into the bill to ensure the protection of the Lahontan cutthroat trout (listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act) and its habitat. Also, because Pub-
lic Law 10665 (October 5, 1999) prohibits land use planning on BLM lands within
the Utah Test and Training Range, we would like to work with the Committee to
add language to clarify Congressional direction in this matter.
Finally, the reference to section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act in section 2(c) of this
bill should be to section 4(d)(8) of the Wilderness Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2488, I am pleased
to answer any questions that the Committee may have.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Fulton.

Colonel Tom Larkin, who is the director of the Utah Test and
Training Range for the United States Air Force. Colonel Larkin?
STATEMENT OF COLONEL TOM LARKIN, DIRECTOR, UTAH

TEST AND TRAINING RANGE, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Colonel LARKIN. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you and good
afternoon. We also thank you for the chance for early coordination
on this bill and the chance to talk about the impacts of this bill
on the Air Force Utah Test and Training Range, commonly known
as the U-T-T-R or UTTR. As the 388th Fighter Wing range direc-
tor, my organization provides operational oversight of the UTTR. I
will begin by saying that maintaining continued access to the
UTTR is absolutely vital to the Department of Defense, our civilian
test customers, and we take our stewardship responsibility seri-
ously as we weigh our military priorities with environmental con-
cerns.
The mission of the UTTR is to train warriors and test weapons,
and the UTTR is the primary training range for the 388th Fighter
Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing, stationed at Hill Air Force Base.
Both of these wings, in the last 4 and a half years, have deployed
to combat zones 12 times, and the 388th has recently deployed
twice on counter-drug operations.
At the UTTR, we fly about 15,800 sorties every year. Of those,
approximately 390 are test sorties; another 1,000 are large bomber
sorties: B-1, B-2s, B-52 sorties. Another 2,500 are Navy and Marine
sorties, and another 200 are allied air force sorties. Additionally,
we conduct cruise missile testing, ground weapons testing, NASA
support, industry testing as well as support to universities and
high schools.
At the UTTR, we test about 99 percent of all the air-to-ground
weapons in the U.S. inventory, which, simply stated, means that
if we strap it to an airplane and use it to attack ground targets,
we are testing it there at the UTTR.
30
My comments on the wilderness bill, H.R. 2488: this legislation

ensures the proposed wilderness area does not adversely affect our
ability to conduct realistic military training and testing operations.
It is my opinion that military range operations and wilderness
areas can be compatible. In this bill, it is of particular note that
low-level overflight will not be restricted. Also critical is language
allowing us to use and maintain current on-the-ground electronic
systems as well as installation of required follow-on systems.
I must also emphasize the importance of the language concerning
emergency access and/or control or restriction of public access. If an
accident occurs on the range, it is vital that we have immediate ac-
cess and authority to control all access and to include the public
to the area concerned without any requirement to gain approval
from other agencies. This access is required to protect the lives of
air crew; ensure the safety of the public and for the protection of
classified materials and programs. A case in point: we have had an
F-16 go down in the Fish Springs Wilderness Study Area, and we
were able to recover that aircraft with only minor environmental
impact.
My review of this proposed bill indicates no immediate impact to
military or national security operations on the UTTR. However, ad-
ditional language that would protect the interests of other national
agencies and civilian research and test operations may be desirable
in some form, perhaps an MOU.
In summary, training and reliable weapons give us the edge
needed for victory. We must continue to train and test realistically.
At the UTTR, providing one of the worlds best test and training
ranges while preserving the wilderness environment is, can and
should be compatible. Of the 1.7 million acres of DOD land within
the UTTR complex, less than 1 percent is developed for military op-
erations, while the remaining 99 percent is maintained in a
wildernesslike condition.
The condition of the UTTR is due in large part to the efforts of
the United States Air Force and to protect this environment in ac-
cordance with public law. We protect this environment to guar-
antee our continued access to this range and because it is the right
thing to do. I repeat: the access to the entire range is of vital im-
portance to the Department of Defense, other national agencies and
civilian institutions and industry.
At this time, I would like to go forward to the map and give you
a quick visual overview of the range and answer any of your ques-
tions.
This range is truly a national treasure. I dropped my first live
bombs on this range many years ago. It is a great place. It is
unique also in that it is only about 45 miles to 70 miles away from
our home base there, Hill Air Force Base. We do not have to ex-
pend much in the way of time and fuel to get to this range. It is
about 92 miles across at the widest point; then, from the northern
tip to the southern tail there, it is about 200 miles. The range is
divided along Interstate I-80 at about the two-thirds part, and
where the wilderness area sits, it is the intersection of three of the
critical sub-airspaces: A, B and restricted area 6404 Charlie. And
that is part of our land bridge between the twoI am sorry; air
31
bridge between the two ranges. We have a low altitude air bridge
there.
When we test cruise missiles, we oftentimes fly them around
down here; take them up this air bridge; use this mountainous ter-
rain up here to test the full capabilities of the weapon and bring
it back home to the range for impact.
Do you have any questions?
[The prepared statement of Colonel Larkin follows:]
Statement of Colonel Thomas Larkin, Utah Test and Training Range,
U.S. Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, Utah,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you about the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) and the challenges
we face in properly managing the associated range and airspace. I also appreciate
the opportunity to discuss H.R. 2488 and specifically the proposed language that
addresses the vital activities that take place on the UTTR. As the 388th Range Di-
rector, my organization provides key functions and capabilities required for support
of Air Force operational test and training programs at the UTTR. This includes
range infrastructure systems, equipment, software, targets, facilities, data proc-
essing and display, land and airspace, security, and safety.
I will begin by saying that maintaining continued access to our ranges and air-
space is absolutely critical. In fact, if our ability to train our aircrews continues to
diminish, America will soon lose its only edge in air combat proficiency. We can no
longer rely on current Air Force technology to provide an advantage against our
next adversarythat next adversary already has access to more advanced equip-
ment than ours. It is only our superior training that enables pilots to have the
upper hand in air combat. Additionally, AF ranges accommodate important civilian
industry aeronautical testing and provide for public use and natural and cultural
resource protection. We take our stewardship responsibility seriously as we balance
our training priorities with environmental concerns.
Background
The mission of UTTR is to train our warfighters and to safely test weapons that
require large amounts of airspace and landmass. This range provides the largest
overland safety footprint available in the Department of Defense (DoD) for aircrew
training and weapons testing. By footprint, I mean a large land area that can safe-
ly accommodate weapons that may be fired dozens of miles away from a target. Of
the total 12,574 square nautical miles comprising the Range, 6,010 are restricted
airspace and 6,564 are Military Operating Areas (MOAs). The range supports train-
ing customers with capabilities for air-to-ground, air-to-air, and ground force exer-
cises. This includes testing and training for allied forces, other national agencies,
civilian industry, and civilian academic institutions.
UTTR is the primary training range for the pilots who fly the F16 Fighting Fal-
con for the 388th Fighter Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base.
Approximately 15,800 sorties are flown annually within the UTTR airspace. These
15,800 sorties include approximately 390 test sorties, 650 B1B sorties, 380 B52
sorties, 2,500 US Navy/Marine Corps sorties, and 200 allied air forces sorties. Addi-
tionally, we conduct Cruise Missile testing, ground weapons testing, NASA support,
industry testing, as well as support to universities and high school research projects.
UTTRs capabilities are critical to the successful fielding of the weapons systems
America will depend on to secure its future. Tomorrows weapons will be more so-
phisticated and have greater ranges than the weapons of today. UTTR is ideally
suited for testing and training of these advanced systems. Since we cant predict
technology developments, we need to be able to use the capabilities of UTTR flexi-
bly. The proposed bill provides UTTR the flexibility to successfully accomplish the
mission today and tomorrow.
Comments on H.R. 2488
The Air Force supports the protection of wilderness and has many effective pro-
grams in place near our installation and training ranges with that goal in mind.
Our experience with these programs shows that, if done correctly, military training
and environmental preservation can be effectively accomplished. This proposed leg-
islation ensures that designation of the Pilot Range Wilderness does not adversely
affect our ability to conduct realistic training and testing operations. The proposed
Wilderness bill is an excellent example that military range operations and wilder-
ness areas can be compatible.
32
The proposed Wilderness area in the Pilot Range interfaces with three of the key
UTTR sub-airspaces, the LUCIN A and B MOAs, and the 6404C Restricted Area.
In FY00 we flew 7780 sorties in these areas at varying altitudes from 100 feet AGL
to 58,000 feet AGL. This airspace is vital to our operation on the northern portions
of the UTTR and provide a critical air-bridge between the north and south parts
of the range, which are divided along Interstate Highway 80 (I80).
Key provisions of this legislation acknowledge the UTTR and Dugway Proving
Ground as unique and irreplaceable national assets and that continued unrestricted
access is a national security priority. We support the concept that designation of wil-
derness areas and testing and training missions are not incompatible. Under-
standing the Wilderness Act does not prohibit or restrict low-level overflights;
H.R. 2488 recognizes that fact in the provision specifically noting that low-level
overflight will not be restricted. Language allowing continued use and maintenance
of on-the-ground electronic systems, as well as the installation of newly required
systems, is also critical.
I must also emphasize the importance of Sec 2., Paragraphs (4) and (5) concerning
emergency access and or control or restriction of public access. If an accident occurs
during a military or civilian test it is imperative that we have immediate access and
authority to control all public access to the areas concernedwithout any require-
ment to gain approval from other agencies. This access is vital to protect the lives
of aircrew, insure the safety of the public, and protect classified materials and pro-
grams. Case in point, weve had an F16 go down in the Fish Springs Rangea Wil-
derness Study Areaand we were able to recover our aircraft with only minor envi-
ronmental impacts.
Summary
Maintaining our edge in air combat is directly linked to robust training capabili-
ties, capabilities inherent in continued access to AF ranges and airspace. The AF
recognizes the need to balance its test, training, and readiness requirements with
responsible stewardship. We continue to look to our installations, ranges, and air-
space to provide the AF the operational flexibility, efficiency, and realism necessary
to continuously enhance readiness while allowing commanders to minimize, to the
extent possible, the impacts of their mission on the community and the environ-
ment. Providing one of the worlds best training and test environments while pre-
serving the wilderness experience can and should be compatible.
A newspaper article from the Ogden, Standard Examiner, July 6, 2001, identifies
the UTTR as one of the most pristine spots in the nation, according to Professor
Neil West of Rangeland Resources, Utah State University.
Of the 1.7 million acres of DoD land within the UTTR complex, less than 1% is
developed for military operations while the remaining 99% is maintained in a wil-
derness-like condition. The condition of the UTTR is due in large part to the time,
efforts and resources expended by the United States Air Force to protect the envi-
ronment in accordance with the laws of the United States, the State of Utah, and
the State of Nevada. To date, Hill Air Force Base has spent approximately $4.9 mil-
lion on various environmental programs on the UTTR. Future expenditures of over
$15 million are estimated to ensure continued environmental protection. We protect
this environment to guarantee effective combat testing and training and because its
the right thing to do.
Continued access to the entire Utah Test and Training Range is of vital impor-
tance to the Department of Defense, other national agencies and civilian institutions
and industry. The future geopolitical environment remains uncertain, but one aspect
continues to be critical for the success of the United Stateswe must strive to con-
tinue testing and training in our established military ranges while minimizing the
impact of our operations on the surrounding environment. With the advent of future
airpower weapons systems requiring sufficient airspace to train in, the UTTR, along
with our other military ranges, must be preserved in their entirety. Your kind con-
sideration of these comments and your efforts to protect the UTTR as a national
treasure are deeply appreciated.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Well, I think most of my questions probably
would go to Mr. Fulton.
Mr. HEFLEY. Okay.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The first question, Mr. Fulton: your testi-
mony states that the administration support for a 37,000-acre
33
wilderness, but it is our understanding that we are only asking to

designate or the sponsor is asking to designate 22,000 acres, and
the map that is being prepared reflects the 22,000 acre figure. Does
the administration support the designation of only 22,000? Yes or
Mr. FULTON. Yes; the answer is yes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And the 22,000-acre wilderness would ex-
clude significant lands that have wilderness characteristics in the
Pilot Range. Would your analysis of H.R. 2488 not be different if
you used the 22,000-acre figure that the sponsor intends for the
area?
Mr. FULTON. No; I do not think so. While it is true that the Pilot
Range has more than 22,000 acres of land that has wilderness
characteristics, it is not the Department of the Interior that makes
the wilderness designation. That is a factor done by the Congress,
and the administration would support the bill as proposed to be
amended to the 22,000-acre number.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Even though there are some areas of par-
ticular concern right at the border, the boundary of that wilderness
and that that area of particular concernI think it is an area of
particular concernwould not be included in that area?
Mr. FULTON. Well, we would anticipate working with the author
of the bill and others to arrive at a management plan that provides
the wilderness designation for the 22,000 acres and then, in the re-
source management plan for the additional acres, those acres
would be managed under a different regime.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I see; thank you.
And I wanted to ask you, too, Mr. Fulton, a question about the
military. Last Congress, Former Secretary Babbitt personally testi-
fied that military use language identical to that found in 2488 was
an unprecedented intrusion and destruction of wilderness. That is
a quote: The unprecedented intrusion and destruction of wilder-
ness, and gives the Air Force more control over BLM public lands
than they currently have. Why should we or why would we support
permitting the military to have this amount of control over the
area as wilderness more so than it has over other, regular public
lands?
Mr. FULTON. We do not see this as a matter of control but rather
as partnering up with an important mission of a sister department,
the Department of Defense; the criticality of being able to accom-
plish the defense mission for the country is one that is important.
Since the Department of the Interior controlsthe Bureau of Land
Management controls nearly one in four acres of land in the United
States, it is just very important that the two departments work
closely together to make sure that both accomplish their missions.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I still have some questions in my own mind
about it, and, you know, we have had several discussions, maybe
more outside of this Committee, about the readiness of our armed
forces, which I fully support the need for exercises and for our mili-
tary to be properly trained for the missions that we may need them
to go to to defend us and the rest of the country, so I am not in
any way wanting to interfere with that, but I am just questioning
whether that is compatible with wilderness.
Mr. FULTON. I do not think that that compatibility is exclusive.
Some of the best areas of wilderness or nondevelopment assets are
34
within our military bases, so we do not find that a military use of

a land area would make that automatically not useful as wilder-
ness.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I do not have any other questions at this
time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hansen?
Mr. Fulton, does the Secretary support the language in the bill
regarding grazing rights, water rights and wildlife management?
Mr. FULTON. Yes, sir, she does.
Mr. HANSEN. Is BLMs current ACEC designation providing ade-
quate protection for wildlife management?
Mr. FULTON. Does she support that?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes.
Mr. FULTON. Yes; we would anticipate working closely with state
fish and game officials as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service to
make sure that fish and game animals are adequately protected.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Fulton, in 1964, when the bill was passed, a
lot of phrases were used. One was considered what is pure wilder-
ness. And Senator Humphrey commented on that on the Senate
side. Of course, he made the statement: he said the very most wil-
derness there could ever imagine in the United States, Alaska and
Hawaii, would be 30 million acres. Alaska has got over 100 million
acres all by itself and going up.
Anyway, that pure thing came down to the idea of no roads; is
that right?
Mr. HANSEN. No structures.
Mr. HANSEN. No buildings, no cattle ponds, no roads; he men-
tioned that; no fences. That is the pure definition, is it not?
Mr. HANSEN. So those who tout the idea of pure wilderness
would kind of agree with that; would you agree with that?
Mr. FULTON. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. So some of the things have wilderness characteris-
tics but have those things in them.
Mr. HANSEN. And so, really, whether it is BLM, Forest Service
or Park Service, you will find that sometimes, Congress does what
they very well want to do. I mean, we could put New York City in
wilderness if it had enough votes.
Mr. FULTON. It is certainly the prerogative of the Congress.
Mr. HANSEN. We would hope that would not happen. Sometimes,
the idea really appeals to me, however.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. But carrying that on, you get down to the point of,
well, what is pure wilderness? Now, do you not feel that it is the
position of Congress to try their very best to follow their own law?
Mr. HANSEN. And is that not the position of the Secretary and
you folks working at Interior, you folks who wear the uniform, to
follow the law of the land?
35
Mr. HANSEN. I figured it was.

Colonel, let me ask you a question about a question my friend
Mr. Young made in a recent email. He referred to the language
protecting the UTTR as the worst part of the bill. In addition, in
his testimony, he states: Members of Congress should recognize
Section 2(f) for what it is: an antiwilderness initiative that is un-
necessary; erodes the authority of the Department of the Interior
and unnecessarily restricts individual freedom that is not restricted
on other public and private lands far closer to Hill Air Force Bomb-
ing and Gunnery Range.
Now, do you agree with that?
Colonel LARKIN. No, sir, I do not. If we look at the entire range
there, and there are quite a few wilderness study areas inside the
range on BLM properties; we overfly wilderness study areas and,
on other ranges, wilderness areas all the time. This is not some-
thing new or different.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. So in your opinion, it is very necessary that this
language in this bill is in there to protect the work that you folks
do; is that right?
Colonel LARKIN. Yes, sir; low-level flying and all types of over-
flight over the wilderness area is of vital importance to us. We
have to be able to not only test the weapons capability from the
very lowest altitudes that it can operate at and be employed at;
also, the very highest. Also, we need to be able to train our air
crews to employ that weapon or different types of weapons in all
sorts of environments.
Mr. HANSEN. I had the privilege of flying in one of your F-16-B
models in the back seat there. I have never been so sick in my life
but anyway
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. let me point out that we got pretty low. How low
do you go in those things? I thought we were dragging our wheels
to the grass when we were there.
Colonel LARKIN. The illusion of speed; sometimes, it can get pret-
ty low, though. And most of the time, it is to the limits of the train-
ing of the pilot, but that can vary from anywhere on high-speed air-
craft from about 100 feet to no higher than, you know, 500 feet is
what we would call low altitude. But helicopters can fly 10 feet
from the earth at 100 knots and do so all the time.
Mr. HANSEN. If we took the suggestion of some of the environ-
mental groups regarding overflights of wilderness, parks and other
pristine areas, what would that do to the training? That is unfair,
because I did not explain what some of their language is, and it
varies, but a lot of these folks just do not want any overflights. In
fact, we had a lady on this Committee by the name of Sala Burton
who put in a bill at one time that said you could not fly over any
national parks at any altitude.
Colonel LARKIN. I think you would tie up a lot of airways that
we would have a lot of bottlenecks.
Mr. HANSEN. 379 units of the Park Service wouldI would hate
to be an airline pilot. I do not know how you could make it from
the East Coast to the West Coast.
Colonel LARKIN. Right.
36
Mr. HANSEN. And I do not know how the Air Force could even
fly.
Colonel LARKIN. Well, if we just look at this training range and
try to make our overflights, we would be unable to. To my under-
standing, there is basically 100 million acres worth of this type of
property, and we overfly approximately 10 million of that right now
without impact.
Mr. HANSEN. Does the Air Force know of any studies where you
feel it would be detrimental to wildlife?
Colonel LARKIN. No, sir, I do not. I do not know if the Air Force
does. I can take that back for the record.
Mr. HANSEN. What about to domestic animals: cows, sheep,
goats?
Colonel LARKIN. Again, I am not aware of any of those studies.
I know studies have been done, but I do not know them off the top
of my head, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, both of you, for your testimony today.
Mr. HEFLEY. We will go to the next panel: Mr. John Harja, man-
ager of legal analysis for the Governors Office of Planning and
Budget in the State of Utah; Mr. Larry Young, executive director
of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Mr. Harja, do you want to start?
STATEMENT OF JOHN HARJA, MANAGER OF LEGAL ANALYSIS,
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET, STATE OF
UTAH
Mr. HARJA. I would be happy to.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to talk today
about H.R. 2488. To get started, I would like to explain a little bit
about a discrepancy involving some acreage. Mr. Hansen had asked
the state to put together a map and calculate the acreage for this
area that he proposed. This same area had been the subject of a
study by the State of Utah in the previous administration, Mr.
Babbitt, and that proposal had included 37,000 acres. That was a
proposal; it was no more than that, and it came to the Congress,
and it underwent some scrutiny and ultimately did not proceed.
However, as part of that proposal, Mr. Hansen indicated that he
would like to propose some changes. The result of all of that was
a little SNAFU where we got the wrong map and, in fact, we
should have told him originally that 23,000 acres were included in
his proposal, which is what is shown on that map to my left. That
is the reason there was a discrepancy. It was a SNAFU by the
State of Utah, and Mr. Hansen, we take responsibility for that.
The state would support wilderness in this area if our concerns
are met, and those concerns concern water rights, wildlife rights
and who manages wildlife, the Air Force as was just discussed, dis-
continuing the planning process for the area, no buffer zones, con-
tinuation of grazing rights, and assorted other goodies.
We spent a fair amount of time, we being the State of Utah and
the Department of the Interior under the previous administration
spent a fair amount of time out in this area. We looked at the
mountain range; we looked at the lands nearby. We looked at
37
manageable boundaries; we looked at who owns the land. You will

see a lot of white on that map. That is privately-owned land. We
actually looked into the State of Nevada at Pilot Peak itself, which
is the highest point of the range.
And it would certainly make sense to include Pilot Peak, but it
is in the State of Nevada, and it is our position that the Governor
of Nevada should be proposing that. In addition, the land is still
the checkerboard that you can see on that map. The checkerboard
was caused by the transcontinental railroad grant. It was the rea-
son that Pilot Range was not included in the first round of BLM.
BLM acquired all of the land inside the Utah portion but has not
acquired in Nevada, and so, you have got the checkerboard problem
there.
But more importantly, in Utah, I would like to spend a little time
talking about water and wildlife. Water is allocated out of the Pilot
Range. This is an isolated range that rises from the basic 5,000-
foot level of the Great Salt Lake up to about 10,000-plus. It is an
isolated range surrounded by sagebrush. As Mother Nature in-
tended, rain and snow falls on the mountain and then, in the
spring, flows away. That water is diverted in springs, some of
which are fairly high on the mountain, and brought by aqueduct
and pipeline to various sources.
To the north, the water was originally, a long time ago, allocated
to the railroad. It was used in the steam engines, and it is now al-
located for wildlife and is used in the area of Lucen, Utah, for bird
habitat for the migratory bird treaties of the United States of
America. To the south, a lot of the water is diverted for endangered
fish use; the lahonton cutthroat trout, I will talk about in a minute;
and to the City of Wendover, which is apparently going to move,
as I understand it, Mr. Hansen.
To the south, the lahonton cutthroat trout were proposed for and
added to the threatened list. At the request of the Federal Govern-
ment, our wildlife folks looked and, quote, found lahonton cutthroat
trout in a pond in Donner Creek, which is at the southern end.
Donner Creek is named after the Donner party, who moved
through the area.
And they were moved to Bettridge Creek and another creek in
the southern part of this area. They were not native to the area.
They were found there; were probably put there by people, and
they then were moved again. An ACEC has been put together, an
area of critical environmental concern, to help manage that, and
that is working very well.
There are some lahonton cutthroat trout in a pond at this private
ranch that was mentioned, and those are kept there with permis-
sion and on purpose, and they are used to harvest eggs to try to
recover the species.
In terms of wildlife folks, we have a number of concerns, the
state. The state uses aircraft for a couple of purposes, and we go
into this area with permission of the Air Force. They are used to
count sheep, bighorn sheep, which have been reintroduced in the
area. They are used to count deer and elk and such. They are also
used to thin out the herds when necessary.
Fire is an important tool, either fire or vegetation manipulation.
This area, when it burns, tends to open up. However, when it does
38
burn, it also introduces invasive species such as cheat grass, and

that causes problems with sage grouse, an assumed to be at least
a species that may be considered for listing, if I can get it right.
We are also concerned about predators and access, predator con-
trol, that is.
In terms of water, this range does have its own water. It flows
out. The State of Utah is concerned about language that would re-
serve water rights. The Department and the state did agree on the
language that is in this bill. In relevant part, it is the same lan-
guage that was in House Resolution 3035 last Congress.
The point is that the water rights are protected, and we do not
need a reserved water right. The range will get the water it needs
and does not need to have a reserved water right, and the State
of Utah supports that. We also support the various appendices that
are mentioned in terms of grazing and wildlife management. Those
reports that are mentioned do allow all of the activities I have
mentioned as long as they are compatible with wilderness, and the
State of Utah is comfortable with that and believes it ought to be
reaffirmed in this bill.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harja follows:]
Statement of John A. Harja, Manager of Legal Analysis, Governors Office
of Planning and Budget, State of Utah
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly
about the provisions of H.R. 2488, a bill to designate certain lands in the Pilot
Range in the State of Utah as wilderness.
The area proposed for designation is a desert mountain range in the Great Basin
geographical region of Utah. The range culminates in a 10,000 plus foot peak which
is visible for miles across the salt flats adjacent to the Great Salt Lake. The early
pioneers traveling to California, including the DonnerReed party, used the peak as
a route marker, hence the name Pilot Peak. Pilot Peak itself is within the State of
Nevada, but most of the range is in Utah. At the base of the range is a spring
known as Donner Spring; a place where the Donner party stopped to refresh them-
selves after the hard crossing of the salt flats.
The state of Utah and the Department of the Interior negotiated and assembled
a proposal for wilderness designation in the West Desert Region of Utah in 1999.
The proposal included 17 different areas aggregating about one million acres of land
up and down the western part of Utah. The Department and the State negotiated
and dickered over the specific areas to be included in the proposal, and the bound-
aries of those areas. The two parties also discussed the terms of management for
those areas, and reached agreement on some, but not all of those. The state of Utah
fully supported the resulting package. That agreement was introduced into the Con-
gress as H.R. 3035 in the 106th Congress, but ultimately did not receive approval.
One of the areas proposed for designation in the negotiated proposal was the Pilot
Range. The state would again support a bill for the designation of the Pilot Range
as wilderness, subject to the bill containing proper language concerning water
rights, grazing rights, control and management of fish and wildlife, release of lands
not designated, no-buffer zones, and, in this particular case, operations of the Air
Force in the Utah Test and Training Range.
Normally, I would have included in the list of issues an exchange of the school
trust lands within the boundaries of the areas designated as wilderness. However,
subsequent to the agreement on the proposed wilderness package in 1999, the De-
partment and the state negotiated an equal value exchange of the trust lands for
other BLM lands. This proposed exchange was approved by the Congress, and be-
came P.L. 106301. I am therefore able to state that the current proposal to des-
ignate the Pilot Range as wilderness does not present the difficulty of school trust
lands.
The state of Utah is vitally concerned about the effects of wilderness designation
on the water allocation process and water rights. Decisions about water rights and
allocation are rights reserved by the states, and properly so allocated by federal law.
The area proposed for wilderness is a high mountain range rising steeply out of the
39
flat desert and sage lands immediately around it. That water which flows out of the
mountains is allocated to, and diverted for, various uses outside the proposed bound-
aries, including an allocation to the town of Wendover south of the range. Within
the proposed boundaries, the range naturally receives the snow and rainfall nec-
essary for the ecosystem to function. Those natural processes would remain unaf-
fected by the designation of the area as wilderness. The Department and the state
recognized this unalterable fact in 1999, and therefore agreed upon the water lan-
guage in H.R. 3035, which language is duplicated in relevant part in H.R. 2488.
The state of Utah supports the water language in Section 2 (h) of H.R. 2488 as
drafted.
Similarly, the management of fish and wildlife will remain with the state in the
proposed wilderness area. The state manages for many purposes, including the pro-
tection of species which may be declining in numbers, and may become candidates
for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The state needs to be able to be
proactive with its management, and be able to manage in a cost-effective manner.
This may require aircraft overflights to count herd size, vegetation alteration
through prescribed fires, noxious weed treatments in order to encourage native
plant growth, reintroduction of animals such as bighorn sheep, or management of
cutthroat trout in the streams coming from the mountains. These management tech-
niques can be accomplished in a manner compatible with the wilderness environ-
ment, as provided in the original wilderness act. Appendix B of the Report to the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to accompany H.R. 2750 of the One Hun-
dred First Congress (H. Rept. 101405) presents further guidance on how fish and
wildlife management can be accomplished in a manner compatible with wilderness,
and the state of Utah supports the reaffirmation of these principles at this time.
The Department and the state agreed to the language on this issue in H.R. 3035,
which language is used again in H.R. 2488. The state of Utah supports the lan-
guage contained in Sections 2(c) and 2(e) of H.R. 2488.
The state of Utah supports the continued use of the land within the wilderness
areas by those ranchers who have grazing rights in the area. This is a use specifi-
cally authorized by law. House Report 101405, Appendix A, and section 101(f) of
Public Law 101628 contain further guidance on grazing in wilderness areas, and
the state supports reaffirmation of those important principles at this time. The De-
partment and the state agreed to the language in H.R. 3035, which is identical to
the language in section 2(g) of H.R. 2488. The state supports the language con-
tained in section 2(g) of H.R. 2488.
The state and the Department entered into the negotiations about a wilderness
proposal for the western regions of Utah in order to reach some finality on the issue.
Areas which met the criteria for wilderness designation, and which added substan-
tially to the wilderness system were proposed for designation. Other areas, which
may have had important functions for the economy, wildlife protection needs, or did
not add significantly to the wilderness system were not put forward. One of the
major points of the negotiation was the reaffirmation of areas not proposed for des-
ignation as multiple-use lands. The state notes that the Pilot Range was not found
suitable for protection under section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Manage-
ment Act of 1976, largely because of the great amount of private land in the range
caused by the checkerboard pattern of the transcontinental railroad grant. In the
interim between the final statewide recommendation of the Bureau of Land Man-
agement for wilderness in Utah, and the 1999 negotiations, the Bureau acquired the
private land within the boundaries proposed in the current bill. Therefore, although
the land in the Pilot Range was never designated as a section 603(c) wilderness
study area, the area was studied pursuant to the provisions of section 603(c). The
area is currently a candidate for study under the process identified by the Federal
Register notice of March 18, 1999, although the study process has been placed on
hold in the area awaiting the results of an Air Force study. The Department and
the state agreed to a cessation of further study of the issue in the H.R. 3035 nego-
tiations, and the current language reflects that agreement. The state of Utah sup-
ports the language in Section 3 of H.R. 2488.
The state of Utah also strongly supports the language in Section 4 of H.R. 2488.
Many activities occur near the Pilot Range, including an interstate freeway, trans-
continental railroad and activities of the military. These activities must be allowed
to continue, and the no-buffer zone language of H.R. 2488 is designed to insure
this is the case.
The state is also very concerned about the effect of wilderness designation upon
the activities of the Air Force in the Utah Test and Training Range. The state was
adamant in the negotiations concerning the West Desert proposal that wilderness
not have an impact on the operations of the Air Force in the UTTR. The UTTR is
critical to the operation of Hill Air Force base, and the base is a crucial component
40
of Utahs economy; one of the largest single employers in the state. I will defer to
the Air Force to state its specific requirements for bill language necessary to insure
this result.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak. The state looks for-
ward to working with the Committee as the bill moves forward.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Young?

STATEMENT OF LARRY YOUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Larry Young. I am a native Utahn and executive director
of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to meet with you today to express our organizations
views on H.R. 2488.
I have already submitted written testimony on behalf of the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and the Wilderness Society. We
in Utah and others across the country support protection of our
last remaining wild places in overwhelming numbers. We firmly
believe that Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act, now sponsored by
more than 150 Members of Congress, is the wisest course to adopt
with respect to resolving the ongoing debate about how much wil-
derness to designate in Utah.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2488 does not share this vision. Nonethe-
less, we would support H.R. 2488 if it protected all lands in the
Pilot Range that are included in Americas Red Rock Wilderness
Act and if it included clean management language. H.R. 2488 fails
on both counts.
For example, it would protect less than half of the remaining wil-
derness within the Pilot Range in Utah. When H.R. 2488 was in-
troduced on July 12, it proposed to designate 37,000 acres of wil-
derness, but it already has been rolled back from this truncated
wilderness proposal to the current inadequate 22,000 to 24,000
acres, even though Representative Hansen introduced last year a
37,000-acre Pilot Range Wilderness as part of H.R. 3035.
Yet now, Members of Congress are being asked to eliminate some
15,000 acres of wilderness and to make an unprecedented Congres-
sional finding that these lands previously proposed as wilderness
by the bills sponsor and identified by the BLM as having wilder-
ness characteristics are nonsuitable for wilderness designation.
This nonsuitability language goes far beyond anything Congress
has ever before enacted into law. It is hard release language that
seeks to halt the wilderness study planning process that is cur-
rently underway, and it seeks to blacklist deserving wild lands
from future wilderness designation. It goes on to release wilderness
study areas established under authority of Section 603(c) of
FLPMA, even though there are no wilderness study areas in the
Pilot Range. The inclusion of language in H.R. 2488 referring to
nonexistent WSAs illustrates the sponsors intent to use it as a
template for future bills that would compromise genuine wilderness
protection.
We also have serious concerns with the military use language in
Section 2(f). To date, Congress has passed more than 100 wilder-
ness bills. All but two have been silent with respect to military use.
The two that included language related to military use: the Arizona
41
Desert Wilderness Act and the California Desert Protection Act, did
not include language such as that proposed here. Specifically,
H.R. 2488 contains unprecedented language eliminating existing
BLM authority to manage land under its control. It allows the De-
partment of Defense to unilaterally install and maintain new build-
ings, equipment and temporary roads lasting up to 50 years inside
wilderness areas. It allows unrestricted perpetual motorized access
to wilderness areas, and it grants the military control over citizen
access to wilderness areas.
None of this has ever before been granted to the Department of
Defense in designated wilderness. We would not be opposed to bill
language that protected military training needs related to the pro-
posed Pilot Range Wilderness if they were based on language simi-
lar to the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act and the California Wilder-
ness Desert Protection Act.
However, the unnecessary practical effect of Section 2(f) in its en-
tirety is to cede authority to manage public lands covered by this
bill to the Department of Defense. In fact, the Department of De-
fense is given far greater control of proposed BLM wilderness in
the Pilot Range than it has over ordinary BLM lands, even those
BLM lands directly adjacent to the Hill Air Force Range some 20
miles to the east of Pilot Range.
Because H.R. 2488 is intended to serve as a template for a series
of county-level wilderness bills throughout Utah, Congress must
decide if it is willing to pass a series of bills that leave out large
tracts of qualifying wilderness, permanently bar these deserving
lands from protection as wilderness, reify unacceptable manage-
ment language and leave the issue of wilderness protection in Utah
unresolved and more contentious than ever.
For all these reasons, the implications of this bill extend far be-
yond the Pilot Range itself. Again, we cannot support H.R. 2488 as
it is currently written. We recommend that an additional 27,000
acres in the Pilot Range be added to the bill and designated as wil-
derness and that the unprecedented harmful language be replaced
by standard military overflight and equipment maintenance lan-
guage, standard water language and standard release language or
no release language at all.
Unless these and other changes discussed in our written testi-
mony are made, we urge you to reject H.R. 2488.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Larry Young, Executive Director, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, on Behalf of The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and The
Wilderness Society, on H.R. 2488
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands, we are pleased to have been invited today to present this testimony
regarding H.R. 2488 on behalf of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and our
18,000 members in Utah and across the nation. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alli-
ance was formed in 1983 as an advocacy and educational organization dedicated to
the goal of protecting the publics unique and irreplaceable landscapes in Utah for
future generations of Americans. The lands of most concern to our members are
those administered by the Bureau of Land Management, an agency which holds in
public trust more than 23 million acres land in Utah, predominantly in southeastern
and western Utah. These lands, the spectacular mesas of sinuous canyons, the sand-
stone spires and graceful arches, the isolated desert mountains that rise like islands
out of the sagebrush sea basins, are gems of unparalleled magnificence owned by
42
all Americans. What remains of these treasures in their national condition, unaf-
fected by development, should be placed into the National Wilderness Preservation
System, thereby maintaining a lasting legacy of protected land.
Concurring in our testimony today is The Wilderness Society, an organization of
200,000 members nationwide, founded in 1935 and dedicated to ensuring that future
generations will enjoy the clean air and water, wildlife, beauty and opportunities
for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts, and mountains pro-
vide.
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding set-
tlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within
the United States leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in
their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to secure
for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an endur-
ing resource of wilderness. Such was the intent of Congress in enacting the Wilder-
ness Act of 1964.
To the chagrin of the majority of Utahns, we are fast losing the extent and variety
of our wilderness. In Utah, of the 23 million acres administered on behalf of the
public by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), only 40 percent still qualifies for
designation as wilderness. Because so little remains, Congress would be wise to set
aside more rather than less. Bold steps are necessary to protect for the future what
remains of these national treasures that are international attractions. Nowhere out-
side of Alaska is this natural heritage more in evidence than in Utah.
Most people in Utah would like to see our political leaders be bolder in their ap-
proach to settling the wilderness question. And since these are truly lands of na-
tional interest, Americans deserve better. We in Utah and others across the country
support protection of our countrys last remaining wild places in overwhelming num-
bers. We firmly believe that enactment of Americas Redrock Wilderness Act, now
sponsored by 150 Members of Congress, is the wisest course to adopt.
H.R. 2488: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED LEGISLATION
Unfortunately, H.R. 2488 does not share this vision. It would protect only 0.2%
of the lands deserving of wilderness designation and included in Americas Redrock
Wilderness Act. Even within the Pilot Range, the proposal excludes more than half
the land deserving of protection, even though these excluded lands contain no user
conflicts, and their designation as wilderness would enhance both the experience of
wilderness and the protection of wildlife and other wilderness resources. Worse yet,
H.R. 2488 is saddled with unprecedented hard release language that would black-
list deserving wild lands from future wilderness designation, and unprecedented
management language that would weaken the Wilderness Act of 1964. In several
instances, the unacceptable management language serves no purpose other than to
establish precedence for future wilderness bills in Utah and across the country.
Although passage of H.R. 2488 would do very little to actually resolve the conten-
tious Utah wilderness debate, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance would gladly
support the bill if it protected all lands in the Pilot Range that are included in
Americas Redrock Wilderness Act and if it included clean management language
that offered genuine wilderness protection that did not undermine the Wilderness
Act of 1964. However, because H.R. 2488 ignores worthy lands in the Pilot Range
and includes unacceptable management language, the Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance does not support H.R. 2488 in its current form.
Furthermore, our opposition to H.R. 2488 extends beyond our concern with its in-
adequacies with respect to the Pilot Range. Congressman Hansen has already ac-
knowledged his intent to introduce a series of wilderness bills on a county-by-county
basis (Salt Lake Tribune, July 17, 2001, p. A4) and H.R. 2488 is intended to serve
as a template for these future bills. Congress must decide if it is willing to pass a
series of wilderness bills that shortchange acreage within proposed wilderness units,
permanently bar deserving lands from protection in the National Wilderness Preser-
vation System, reify unacceptable management language, and leave the issue of wil-
derness protection in Utah unresolved and more contentious than ever. For all these
reasons, the implications of this bill extend far beyond the Pilot Range itself.
Below, we discuss our concerns with H.R. 2488 in detail. We address the fol-
lowing:
The Pilot Range: Land Worthy of Genuine Wilderness Designation Not Offered
by H.R. 2488 (pp. 25). This section provides a description of the Pilot Range,
with special emphasis on proposed wilderness units that are partially included
in H.R. 2488.
Critical Places Omitted: Half a Wilderness (pp. 58). This section focuses on ex-
cluded portions of the Pilot Range.
43
Problems with Management Language (pp. 811). This section focuses on the
unprecedented hard-release and military use language, as well as other seri-
ous management language problems in H.R. 2488.
H.R. 2488 and Utahs Wilderness: A Terrible Template for the Future (pp. 11
12). This section summarizes our opposition to H.R. 2488 as it is currently writ-
ten.
THE PILOT RANGE: LAND WORTHY OF GENUINE WILDERNESS DESIGNATION NOT
OFFERED BY H.R. 2488
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, along with the more than 200 other con-
servation groups that make up the Utah Wilderness Coalition, has long been a pro-
ponent of adding lands within the Pilot Range to the National Wilderness Preserva-
tion System. The Pilot Range, located in the Great Basin on the UtahNevada bor-
der, is an outstanding example of BLM lands in northwest Utah deserving of wilder-
ness designation. The Pilots typically snow-covered peaks are more than an historic
landmarkthey are a haven both for wildlife and for human visitors seeking soli-
tude, spectacular views, outstanding hunting opportunities, and untrammeled nat-
ural conditions. Utahs Pilot Range wilderness includes alpine meadows and basins,
pinon-juniper forest, sage-covered slopes cut by rocky canyons, and rare perennial
streams; it is home to herds of elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn ante-
lope, and mule deer, and Utahs only population of threatened Lahontan cutthroat
trout. The Pilot Range deserves permanent protection by appropriate wilderness leg-
islationunfortunately, H.R. 2488 is not it.
The Pilot Range includes three proposed wilderness units. Unfortunately,
H.R. 2488 includes only limited portions of the southern two units: the Pilot Peak
Unit and the Central Pilot Range Unit. All of the Bald Eagle Mountain Unit is ex-
cluded. Below is a description of the two partially included units followed by a de-
scription of deserving portions of the Pilot Range that have been excluded from
H.R. 2488.
Pilot Peak Unit Description: The Pilot Peak Unit straddles the Utah/Nevada state
line, with approximately 27,000 acres on the Utah side and 23,000 acres on the Ne-
vada side, giving this wilderness unit a total of about 50,000 acres of public land.
The BLM has inventoried the Utah side of the Pilot Peak unit and found it to have
wilderness characteristics. Unfortunately, of the 27,000 acres in Utah, about 14,000
acres of this deserving unit, including portions of a BLM-designated Area of Critical
Environmental Concern, are excluded from H.R. 2488.
Pilot Peak is one of the gems of the Great Basin. Its 10,716-foot symmetrical
shaped top was a landmark for early explorers and later for such famous wagon
trains as the DonnerReed Party, which passed to the east and north of this range
in 1846. This wagon train was so badly weakened and so far behind schedule from
traversing 80-plus miles of desert playa salt flats before reaching the life-giving
spring at the edge of this peak, now named Donner Spring, that they became snow-
bound in the Sierra Nevadas that fall. The peak was named by John C. Fremont
during his expedition in 1845. Kit Carson, the expeditions guide, sent ahead to lo-
cate water, found a line of springs at the eastern base, now known as McKeller
Springs. Carson is reputed to have guided the rest of the Fremonts expedition
across the salt flats by sending up smoke signals from the peak, hence Fremonts
name for it.
The Pilot Peak Wilderness Unit encompasses bench lands starting at 4,300 feet,
and climbs to lofty alpine regions of the peak and ridges at 10,716 feet, more than
a mile above the valley floors below. Pilot Peak features two perennial streams,
Donner and Bettridge Creeks (both inexplicably excluded from current or future wil-
derness designation by H.R. 2488). In April of 1977, a Utah Division of Wildlife Re-
sources (UDWR) fisheries biologist sampled Donner Creek at the request of the Bu-
reau of Land Management (BLM) and discovered Lahontan cutthroat trout. It is be-
lieved they were transplanted into Donner Creek in the early 1900s. The Lahontan
cutthroat trout derive their name from Lake Lahontan, an ancient inland fresh-
water lake which existed during the ice age in Nevada. The lake extended from
what is now Wells, Nevada, on the east, to what is now Pyramid Lake on the west.
The great lake disappeared about 13,000 years ago, leaving a remnant population
of the trout in lower lakes and streams of the Lahontan Basin in Nevada and Cali-
fornia.
Due to hybridization with other trout species throughout its original range, the
Donner Creek population is now believed to be the only pure strain of the Pyramid
Lake variety of the Lahontan cutthroat trout in existence. For this reason, in May
of 1988 the BLM designated approximately 1100 acres, including the watersheds of
both Donner and Bettridge Creeks, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern
44
(ACEC), thus providing greater protection and management of the threatened
Lahontan cutthroat trout. The species was originally listed as endangered in 1970
(35 Fed. Reg. 16047) and was reclassified as threatened (40 Fed. Reg. 29864) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Unfortunately, all but the north-
ern edge of this ACEC would be excluded from current or future wilderness designa-
tion by H.R. 2488completely excluding Donner and Bettridge Creeks.
Vegetation in this region is quite diverse depending on elevation, water, and slope
angle. The upper reaches of this peak and north-facing slopes have pinon and juni-
per forests, cliffrose, mountain mahogany, aspens, willow, sagebrush and lupines.
Pinon and juniper forests, which provide diverse habitat, extend down in places to
around 5,000 feet along the bench lands. South-facing slopes and high ridge tops
are dominated by sagebrush, native grasses, and mixed mountain brush commu-
nities. Lower elevations, bench lands and drainage bottoms are a mix of
rabbitbrush, native grasses such as Indian ricegrass, and greasewood.
Wildlife is abundant, consisting of mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain lion, bobcat, badger, coyote, jackrabbit, cotton-
tail, various ground squirrels and rodents. The deer population is minimal through-
out the Pilot Range, but the perennial streams and associated dense vegetation
within the ACEC make this area quite important to deer year-round. The Utah Di-
vision of Wildlife Resources has identified much of this unit as high priority mule
deer and elk habitat. Raptors found within the ACEC, and throughout the unit, in-
clude the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, kestrel, great horned owl, and Coopers and
sharpshinned hawks. An active red-tailed hawk nest has been located in the Donner
Creek drainage. Upland game birds in the ACEC consist of the mourning dove and
chukar partridge. Sage grouse and Hungarian partridge are found in Pilot Range.
Reptiles that commonly occur in the area include the Great Basin rattlesnake, Great
Basin gopher snake, and the Salt Lake horned lizard.
Views from Pilot Peak and surrounding mountain areas are impressive. A visitor
has an expansive 360-degree view of the Grouse Creek, Hogup, Promontory, Cedar,
Stansbury, Deep Creeks and the Wasatch Mountains on the Utah side of this range
and into Nevada, ranges such as the Toano, Delano, Goshute, Pequops and the Ruby
Mountains, along with many others into the Great Basin can be seen. Rising above
the vast playa salt flats of the Great Salt Lake Desert, once covered by ancient Lake
Bonneville around 15,000 years ago, one can see the Silver Islands, Crater Island,
Lemay Island, Pigeon Mountain and the Newfoundland Mountains.
Precipitation in this area mostly comes in the form of snow in the winter months
from October through April. Precipitation varies from around six inches at the lower
elevations to around sixteen inches at the upper elevations of Pilot Peak. Numerous
springs are a direct benefit from this precipitation, providing critical wildlife habi-
tat. Opportunities for hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding, scenic pho-
tography, hunting, wildlife viewing, backcountry skiing and sight seeing are abun-
dant throughout this entire unit.
Central Pilot Range Unit Description: The Central Pilot Range Unit is situated
in the middle of the Pilot Range in the northwest corner of Utah while a small por-
tion of the western flanks enters Nevada. It has a north-south orientation that is
typical in the Great Basin. The southern boundary utilizes the impressive Patterson
Pass jeep routewith its many granite rock outcroppingswhile the northern
boundary uses the many private inholdings and routes at the historic mining area
of Copper Mountain. The eastern boundary is a well-used route and an aqueduct
system that provides water for local ranching and for the railroad at Lucin. The
western boundary, which at times is in the state of Nevada, uses private ownership.
This wilderness unit encompasses bench lands from 5,300 feet in elevation, to al-
pine ridges at 7,800 feet, with the impressive Box, Cook, and Hogans Alley canyons
on the west and McGinty Canyon on the east. Vegetation at higher elevations and
on north-facing slopes is dominated by pinon and juniper forests, mountain mahog-
any, and mixed mountain brush communities. South-facing slopes and high ridge
tops are dominated by sagebrush, native grasses, and mixed mountain brush com-
munities. Lower elevations, bench lands and drainage bottoms are a mix of
rabbitbrush, native grasses, and greasewood.
Around 15,000 years ago, the inland sea of Lake Bonneville was shaping much
of what is these bench lands today. Several ancient lake shorelines can be seen, and
impressive deltas were formed from sediment flowing into the lake and settling.
This is most obvious on the western portion of this unit.
This region has abundant wildlife, with big game animals such as elk, mule deer,
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope inhabiting many portions of
this unit. Mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, coyotes, bats, ravens, and several
species of reptiles also inhabit this unit. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
has identified this area as high priority habitat for mule deer and elk. This region
45
also lies along a major migratory route for such raptors as the golden eagle and the
red-tailed hawk, which feed on the many small mammals and rodents. Occasionally,
turkey vultures can be seen soaring above searching for a meal.
Views from this area are breathtaking. From the upper reaches of the unit, a vis-
itor has an impressive 360-degree view of the Grouse Creek, Raft Rivers, Hogup,
Promontory, Cedar, Stansbury and Wasatch Mountains on the Utah side of this
range, and into Nevada, ranges such as the Toano, Delano, Pequops and the Ruby
Mountains can be seen. In the expansive playa salt flats of the Great Salt Lake
Desert, which was once covered by Lake Bonneville, one can see the Silver Islands,
Crater Island, Lemay Island, Pigeon Mountain and the Newfoundland Mountains.
To the south, along the ridges, 10,716-foot Pilot Peak looms over the desert land-
scape below.
Precipitation in this area mostly comes in the form of snow in the winter months,
providing the necessary ground water to feed the many springs in this unit. Visitors
to this area are immediately struck by the overwhelming feeling of solitude and re-
moteness. Opportunities for hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding, scenic
photography, hunting, wildlife viewing, and sightseeing are abundant throughout
this entire unit.
CRITICAL PLACES OMITTED: HALF A WILDERNESS
Without explanation, H.R. 2488 excludes more than half the Pilot Ranges wilder-
ness in Utah. Of the 49,000 acres that qualify for wilderness protection, H.R. 2488
omits 27,000 acresleaving only 22,000 acres of proposed wilderness in the bill.
When H.R. 2488 was introduced on July 12, it proposed to designate 37,000 acres
of wildernessbut its sponsors already have rolled back even this truncated wilder-
ness proposal to the current inadequate 22,000 acres. (Representative Jim Hansen
and Utah Governor Mike Leavitt agreed last year that the Pilot Range wilderness
should be at least 37,000 acres, and Rep. Hansen himself introduced last year a
37,000-acre Pilot Range wilderness as part of H.R. 3035. Yet now H.R. 2488 has
moved the goalposts to a minimal 22,000 acres.)
H.R. 2488s boundary excludes the entire 12,000-acre Utah Wilderness Coalition-
proposed Bald Eagle Mountain Unit at the north end of the range. Though there
is a communication tower at the northern edge of this area, this does not detract
from its remoteness or wildness; the Bald Eagle Mountain unit is still predomi-
nantly natural in character and deserving of wilderness protection.
Inexplicably, the bill also cuts off 15,000 acres of BLM-identified wilderness from
east and south sides of the Pilot Peak Unitthis omitted wilderness clearly meets
all standards set out in the Wilderness Act, has been confirmed by the BLM as wil-
derness quality land, and has been recommended by the Governor of Utah and the
previous Secretary of the Interior for wilderness designation. It provides spectacular
views, solitude, and wildlife habitatyet H.R. 2488 fails to protect it. The Pilot
Range deserves at least 49,000 acres of wilderness, not the minimal 22,000 acres
proposed in this bill.
Why exclude parts of the Pilot Range that have been determined by the BLM to
have wilderness characteristics and that previously have been proposed for wilder-
ness designation by Governor Leavitt and Congressman Hansen? One possible ex-
planation is that these lands are primarily bench lands falling at the foot of the
mountain range. But these excluded benches and creeks (including creeks currently
a part of the BLM designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern) are an inte-
gral part of the Pilot Ranges Great Basin wilderness landscape. The BLM has rec-
ognized that these lands enhance the experience of solitude and recreation, and pro-
tect wildlife and other wilderness resources. In its 1999 FLPMA 202 Wilderness In-
ventory of another Great Basin mountain range, the Cedar Mountains, the BLM ex-
plicitly recognized that bench lands enhance solitude and offer critical wildlife habi-
tat (see BLM Utah Wilderness Inventory, http://www.ut.blm.gov/wilderness/wrpt/
wrptnwcedar.html). The same is true for the Pilot Ranges eastern bench lands
which offer views of vast open spaces to the Silver Island and Newfoundland Moun-
tains. The bench lands by themselves would be worthy of wilderness protection,
given that they would constitute a unit of more than 10,000 acres that offer rec-
reational opportunities, stunning views, and the protection wildlife. When added to
the Pilot Peak Unit, they become even more valuable.
Inexplicably, Congress is being asked not only to exclude these lands from wilder-
ness designation, but to determine that they are nonsuitable for wilderness des-
ignation (see Section 3 of H.R. 2488). This finding is particularly repugnant be-
cause the BLM has identified these lands as having the necessary qualities for entry
into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and because the sponsor of
46
H.R. 2488 sponsored last years H.R. 3035, which found these very same lands
quite suitableand indeed proposed themfor wilderness designation.
Finally, H.R. 2488 also omits more than one square mile of wilderness-quality
land at the northwest corner of the Pilot Range unit, in the middle of the range.
This area, which is mostly State land, should be added to BLMs inventory unit and
included in the Pilot Range wilderness areaas part of its 1999 reinventory, BLM
made a point of drawing boundaries to include deserving State sections along the
boundaries of potential wilderness units, and this area is deserving. (In addition,
both the BLM boundary and H.R. 2488 use an incorrect road alignment on the
cherry-stemmed Patterson road; and both mistakenly include a stock tank in the
northeast corner of the Pilot Range unit.)
The ecological significance of excluded bench lands beneath the mountains of the
Pilot Range: The lower elevation benches that support Utahs distinctive Great
Basin mountain ranges are an ecologically integral, and functionally irreplaceable,
habitat type in the Great Basin desert. These ecological transition zones play an
important role in both surface and groundwater hydrology, and in fulfilling the
needs of native aquatic and terrestrial species.
Hydrologically, the benches are the link that enables both surface and ground-
water to flow from the mountains to the critical lowland valleys below, which in
turn provide a haven for migratory wetland birds and rare desert fish. Of critical
importance in the case of the Pilot Peak benches, the benches are known to contain
an amount of natural seeps and springs. Destroy these springs with roads, ORVs,
water usurpation and other developments, and the creeks that bring water from
both the springs and high mountain runoff will eventually cease to be perennial,
with certain impacts to aquatic species that live in these creeks, as well as wetlands
in the valleys below.
A prime example of the hydrologic importance of these bench lands to aquatic
wildlife is illustrated in the case of the federally listed Lahontan cutthroat trout.
The Pilot Peak range is home to the only known population of what is believed to
be the last remaining pure strain of the Pyramid Lake variety of Lahontan cut-
throat trout. As in all Great Basin mountain ranges, the Donner (a.k.a. Morrisson)
and Bettridge Creeks that support these cutthroat are susceptible to sudden high
flows, which can wash the trout clear down to the valley floor on the west slope of
the Pilot Range. Unless the benches through which these creeks flow are adequately
protected from development, future road-building, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and
water diversions, the streams and essential protective riparian ecosystems could be-
come degraded to the point where fish washed down into the valley would not have
a functional, perennial and healthy system that would enable the trout to make
their way back up to their proper range.
Indeed, species other than fish rely on functional streams and their associated,
healthy riparian areas through the bench land transition zone. Deer and elk are
known to use healthy riparian corridors through mountain benches as a migration
route from their winter ranges on the valley floors to their summer ranges in the
mountains. And only on the benches will one find the critical cottonwood-willow as-
sociations which constitute necessary habitat for neotropical migrant birds, as well
as game birds such as chukar. The cottonwood-willow association is not found in the
coniferous zone that dominates most high mountain ranges in the Great Basin, nor
will it be found on the valley floors, where creeks either dwindle to nothing, or
water is gathered in lotic systems with emergent plant associations.
Bench land ecosystems also offer important habitat for terrestrial wildlife. A good
example is the sage grouse, which is soon to be a candidate for federal listing. While
sage grouse prefer the more open habitats of the valley floors for lek sites and
breeding, the benches (with more alluvial soil and less alkaline conditions that fea-
ture more robust grass and forb communities) offer the habitat most necessary for
nesting and brooding. Taller grass on the benches can protect nests and chicks from
predation, while higher density and diversity of forbs offer the greater nutrition re-
quired by nesting birds and their young. Right now, protection of any habitats
known to be important to sage grouse should be taken very seriously, because there
is an active petition to list this species under the Endangered Species Act.
Lastly, the bench lands excluded from H.R. 2488 are also home to many species
identified on the BLMs sensitive species list, including critical habitat for the
LongBilled Curlew and the Ringtail Cat.
The wilderness value of the excluded Bald Eagle Mountain Unit: The Bald Eagle
Mountain wildernessexcluded entirely from H.R. 2488lies on the northern por-
tion of the Pilot Range. It is situated in the northwest corner of Utah and a small
portion lies within Nevada. This wilderness unit is classic basin and range topog-
raphy, oriented in a north to south direction and has elevations from 5,000 to over
8,000 feet at the mountain summit. Deep canyons run east and west from the ridge
47
lines and are covered in pinon pine and juniper forests. Mountain mahogany and
mixed mountain brush communities dominate the north-facing slopes, while the
south-facing slopes and ridge tops are dominated by sagebrush and native grasses.
Rabbitbrush, native grasses and greasewood are common in drainage bottoms and
bench lands.
Views from this area are spectacular with the Silver Islands, Crater Island,
Lemay Island, Pigeon Mountain and the Newfoundland Mountains all surrounded
by the expansive playa salt flats of the Great Salt Lake Desert which was once cov-
ered from the inland sea of Lake Bonneville around 15,000 years ago. Distant views
to the Grouse Creeks, Raft Rivers, Hogup, Promontory, Cedar, Stansbury and the
Wasatch Mountains can be seen out on the Utah side of this range. Into Nevada,
ranges such as the Toano, Delano, Pequops and the Ruby Mountains can be seen.
Though there is a communication tower at the northern edge of this area, this does
not detract from its remoteness or wildness; the Bald Eagle Mountain unit is still
predominantly natural in character and deserving of wilderness protection.
Wildlife is abundant in this region. Mountain lions, elk, mule deer, Rocky Moun-
tain bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, bats, ravens and reptiles inhabit this unit.
This region also lies along a major migratory route for such raptors as the golden
eagle and the red-tailed hawk. The southern portion of the unit contains interesting
and historic mining activity, including the remains of a aerial tramway that once
hauled ore off the mountain. Visitors to this area are immediately stuck by the over-
whelming feeling of solitude. Opportunities for hiking, camping, horseback riding,
scenic photography, hunting and sight seeing are abundant throughout this entire
unit. The Bald Eagle Mountain Unit is also likely home to many species identified
on the BLMs sensitive species list, including: high-value habitat for the Bobolink,
Burrowing Owl, Ferruginous Hawk, Osprey, Swainsons Hawk, and ShortEared
Owl, and critical habitat for the Ringtail Cat.
PROBLEMS WITH MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE
In the history of enacting wilderness legislation, which to date has added a total
of 106 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System, great care has
been taken to maintain the purity of the wilderness concept and to observe standard
prescriptions that have made consistent in large measure the management of wil-
derness. H.R. 2488 contains unacceptable new prescriptions that diverge from this
pattern of consistency in management prescriptions. This legislation is sadly flawed
and, if enacted as currently drafted, would result in a pronounced weakening of wil-
derness standards. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance cannot support erosion
of the wilderness concept as embodied in H.R. 2488. Below, we discuss in detail sev-
eral sections of H.R. 2488 which raise serious, significant concerns that must be
brought to light and addressed before this bill can pass muster.
Section 2(e): We are concerned that Section 2(e) as written would permit construc-
tion within wilderness areas of water developments such as game guzzlers, de-
signed to increase the population of non-native species. Construction of any new fa-
cility in wilderness (except for narrow exceptions) is inconsistent with the definition
of wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness Act. This section must be revised to clarify
that management activities do not include construction of facilities for water sources
to artificially increase populations of either non-native or native species.
Section 2 (f): This section represents one of the most disturbing provisions of the
entire bill. The language far exceeds anything ever included in any wilderness bill
for public lands. More than 100 wilderness laws have been enacted. All but two
have been silent with respect to military use. The two that included language re-
lated to military use, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 and the California
Desert Protection Act of 1994, did not include language such as that proposed here.
Rather, each bill put in place adequate protections to ensure that the military would
be able to conduct low-level overflights and to maintain existing communication and
tracking installations.
Specifically, H.R. 2488 contains unprecedented language eliminating existing
BLM authority to manage lands under its control. It allows the Department of De-
fense to unilaterally install and maintain new buildings, equipment, and temporary
roads lasting up to 50 years inside designated wilderness areas; it allows unre-
stricted perpetual motorized access to wilderness areas; and it grants the military
control over citizen access to wilderness areas. None of these new rights have ever
before been granted to the Department of Defense in designated wilderness. In addi-
tion, the plain text of Section 2(f) would exempt the Department of Defense from
other land management statutes such as FLPMA, NEPA, and the ESA, statutes
that fully apply to the Department in almost all circumstances.
48
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance would not be opposed to bill language
that sought to enact protections for military training needs related to the proposed
Pilot Range wilderness if they were based on language similar to the Arizona Desert
Wilderness Act of 1990 and the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. In addi-
tion, given that the Wilderness Act of 1964 already provides for emergency access
and response in the event that human life or health is at risk, the language in Sec-
tion 2 (f)(4) is unnecessary and redundant.
However, the unnecessary practical effect of Section 2 (f) in its entirety is to cede
authority to manage public lands covered by this bill to the Department of Defense.
In fact, H.R. 2488 would give the Department of Defense far greater control of pro-
posed BLM wilderness in the Pilot Range than it has in the 20 miles of ordinary
private, State, and BLM lands between the proposed Pilot Range wilderness and the
Hill Air Force Bombing and Gunnery Range.
Proponents of this bill may argue that national security rests upon inclusion of
the language contained in H.R. 2488. They may even call into question the patriot-
ism of those who challenge the necessity of the language. However, their argument
is flawed for several reasons.
First, no one denies that the nations military readiness is an extremely important
matter, but it should be noted that significant acreage near the Utah Test and
Training Range where such preparedness is practiced has been included in Wilder-
ness Study Areas for more than ten years. The Air Force has flown hundreds of sor-
ties, or practice runs, annually during the last decade, and military personnel at
Hill Air Force Base have acknowledged that Wilderness Study Areas have in no way
affected their ability to ensure pilots are properly trained, equipment thoroughly
tested, and emergencies quickly handled. The Air Force already has a working
agreement with the Department of Interior for emergency access, recovery of equip-
ment, and the like. Designating the Pilot Range as wilderness with more appro-
priate management language than that contained in H.R. 2488 would continue to
protect military interests and national security without degrading the Wilderness
Act of 1964. For example, military operations have not been hampered or com-
promised by the more acceptable management language in the Arizona Desert Wil-
derness Act of 1990 and the California Desert Protection Act of 1994.
Second, if national security really does rest upon ceding control of the proposed
Pilot Range wilderness to the Department of Defense, as H.R. 2488 would, then it
follows that all the land between the proposed wilderness and the Hill Air Force
Bombing and Gunnery Rangesome 20 miles awaymust be of equal or greater
importance to national security and in need of similar or more stringent manage-
ment language. It follows that practical control of these other lands also ought to
be turned over to the Department of Defense so that it could unilaterally build in-
stallations and roads and control human access. Yet H.R. 2488 remains silent with
respect to these lands even as it seeks to reify language that would weaken the pu-
rity of wilderness protection in future wilderness bills.
In summary, Section 2(f)(3) and (5) go far beyond anything ever included in pre-
vious wilderness bills, they are not necessary to provide for military training needs,
they give the BLM less control over BLM wilderness lands than other BLM lands
(even other BLM lands closer to the Hill Air Force Range), they give the military
unilateral authority to close or restrict public access to Department of Interior ad-
ministered public lands, they allow wilderness designation to be used as an excuse
to expand Air Force control beyond lands specifically withdrawn for military use.
Members of Congress should recognize Section 2(f) for what it isan anti-wilder-
ness initiative that is unnecessary, erodes the authority of the Department of Inte-
rior, and unnecessarily restricts individual freedom that is not restricted on other
public and private land far closer to the Hill Air Force Bombing and Gunnery
Range.
Section 2(h): This section on water rights is one of the most troublesome because
it diverges from the management language that has been used in the vast majority
of past wilderness bills. It should go without saying that a wilderness requires
water, especially a desert wilderness like the Pilot Range. The Wilderness Act de-
fines wilderness as a place where the earth and its community of lifeits eco-
systemsare untrammeled by man. Ecosystems require adequate water to sustain
their plant and animal communities. Yet H.R. 2488 expressly prohibits the reserva-
tion of any water right for wilderness in the Pilot Range, leaving open the possi-
bility that critical watersheds could become entirely dewatered, threatening the
long-term survival of the Pilot Ranges wild ecosystems. It is imperative to get a re-
served water right for this wilderness arealocal wildlife, including the threatened
Lahontan cutthroat trout, need it, and it would set a terrible precedent not to get
reserved water for this island range surrounded by desert. Indeed, the BLM has
designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern to protect the two Pilot
49
Range creeks that harbor these threatened fisha very important water-related re-
source. Yet H.R. 2488 includes another unexplained special finding, the suggestion
that Congress would recognize that there is little or no water-related resources in
the Pilot Range Wilderness. The fact that these important threatened fish and
other wildlife depend on the Pilots scarce water, should lead to the logical conclu-
sion that the scarcity of water should require an express water right.
In the California Desert Protection Act and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act,
Congress expressly provided a water right with identical language: Congress here-
by reserves a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of this title. Water
rights are adjudicated by State water laws, and nothing in the California or Arizona
legislation or other wilderness bills has ever superseded State law, which means
that the water right conferred upon wilderness is junior to all existing rights and
claims at the time of enactment. There would be no usurpation of existing water
rights. H.R. 2488 must expressly reserve a water right for wilderness by using the
same language as the California Desert Protection Act and the Arizona Desert Wil-
derness Act, or the legislation will remain unacceptable.
Section 3: Wilderness release is one of the most important matters in legislation
of this type because wilderness is a non-renewable resource and once it is gone, it
is likely gone forever. Therefore, Congress and the conservation community have
been extremely vigilant in safeguarding the opportunity to designate lands in the
future that qualify but that are not included in a specific piece of legislation at the
time of its enactment.
The wilderness release language in H.R. 2488 has two major flaws that under-
mine the wilderness process laid out under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and FLPMA.
First, Section 3 includes an unprecedented hard release provisiona special, non-
standard finding that non-designated lands within the Pilot Range are nonsuitable
for wilderness designation, and are no longer subject to the requirement of section
603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 pertaining to the
management of wilderness study areas. The finding of nonsuitable for wilderness
is unwarranted and unexplained, and could put these lands off-limits to the BLM
and the Congress for future wilderness designations. (Furthermore, the finding is
unnecessary with respect to Wilderness Study Areas established under authority of
Section 603 of FLPMA since there are no Wilderness Study Areas in the general
area of the Pilot Range.) Inclusion of this hard release language reveals the true
intent of H.R. 2488to serve as a template for future wilderness bills that would
limit the eventual amount of wilderness added to the National Wilderness Preserva-
tion System. The cumulative intent of this language is to establish a norm of hard
release for future wilderness billsa provision that Congress has never approved
in the past. Finally, the language in H.R. 2488 is ambiguous regarding what lands
are being released, as it does not specify what constitutes the Pilot Range.
Second, the bill would terminate the BLMs ongoing designation of new Wilder-
ness Study Areas under Section 202 of FLPMA on 15,000 acres of Pilot Range lands
which the BLM found to have wilderness quality, but which this bill omits. Seen
in the context of Utahs ongoing wilderness controversy, it is clear that H.R. 2488
is meant as a tool, directly in Box Elder County and as a precedent elsewhere, to
thwart completion of BLMs long-overdue designation of additional Wilderness
Study Areas in Utah. The completion of the 202 review process, and adoption of re-
source plan amendments to establish WSAs for lands found recently by BLM to
qualify as wilderness, is of preeminent importance to the conservation community,
and this option should not be precluded by the legislation.
In order to be acceptable, H.R. 2488 must delete nonsuitable for wilderness des-
ignation language, references to Section 603 of FLPMA, and release language ter-
minating the BLM 202 process. It should also clarify language with regard to what
constitutes the Pilot Range.
Section 4: The adjacent management language in Section 4 would restrict BLM
from protecting wilderness areas from impairment by activities taking place at their
borders. This section is unnecessary and unacceptable. This unfortunate boilerplate
language essentially mandates that the agency shall permit any kind of develop-
ment right up to the boundary of wilderness, no matter that there might be dif-
ferent designs or locations that would work just as well and would safeguard impor-
tant wilderness values such as silence, solitude, undisturbed wildlife, and the like.
This section should be deleted.
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS WITH MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE
Designation of wilderness entails not only adding special places into the National
Wilderness Preservation System, it means assuring that the concept of wilderness
and the standards for managing it are maintained. The Southern Utah Wilderness
50
Alliance urges the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands to give seri-
ous consideration to maintaining the integrity of the wilderness idea and the Wil-
derness Act of 1964, not undermining it as H.R. 2488 does currently. We will be
unable to support the bill unless the reasonable changes suggested specifically and
generally above are in large measure adopted, and would be pleased to work with
staff on modifications that the committee should adopt.
H.R. 2488 AND UTAHS WILDERNESS: A TERRIBLE TEMPLATE FOR THE FUTURE
H.R. 2488s chief sponsor has indicated he views it as a model for designating wil-
derness one county at a time, throughout Utah. The reasons to add what wilderness
remains to the system established in 1964 by Congress are many. Unfortunately,
this bill in its present form is a terrible model to pursue the goal of designating wil-
derness.
First, it is a plainly inadequate proposal for wilderness within Box Elder County.
It would designate as wilderness only 12 percent of the qualifying wildlands in Box
Elder County, and less than half the qualifying lands in Utahs Pilot Range itself.
It would fail to designate any wilderness at all in the Newfoundland Mountains
(recommended by BLM), Crater Island and Silver Island Mountains (both rec-
ommended by Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt last year), or the Grouse Creek Mountains
and Grassy Mountains (recommended by the Utah Wilderness Coalition and not yet
inventoried by the BLM), all located wholly or partly in Box Elder County.
Second, it would create unprecedented weakened wilderness areas, allowing the
construction of new buildings and equipment, temporary roadbuilding, and perma-
nent motorized access in so-called wilderness.
Third, without justification it simply hands the keys to BLM wilderness over to
the Air Force, allowing the military to lock the public out of the public lands.
Fourth, it fails to reserve a water right for the wilderness it designatesputting
at risk the health of the ecosystem it claims to be protecting.
Fifth, within the Pilot Range it would shut down BLM efforts to protect thousands
of acres of acknowledged wilderness outside this bills inadequate boundary and es-
tablish a Congressional finding that lands excluded from wilderness designation in
this bill are unsuitable for wilderness designationthereby barring BLM from
protecting these excluded lands as wilderness in the future.
This model, if followed, would prevent wilderness designation on millions of acres
of Utahs wilderness and fail to give genuine wilderness protection to the few lands
actually designated. It would lead to future wilderness bills driven by unacceptable
management language, and weaken the Wilderness Act of 1964. Utah wilderness
and the National Wilderness Preservation System deserve better. So do the majority
of Utahns and Americans who value wilderness.
Noted national author and Utah native Terry Tempest Williams wrote this about
our duty to protect our remaining wild places:
The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see
beyond our time. They are kneeling with hands clasped that we might act with re-
straint, that we might leave room for the life that is destined to come. To protect
what is wild is to protect what is gentle. Perhaps the wildness we fear is the pause
between our own heartbeats, the silent space that says we live only by grace. Wil-
derness lives by this same grace. Wild mercy is in our hands.
H.R. 2488 as currently written lacks the grace and mercy that the Pilot Range
and National Wilderness Preservation System need you to demonstrate. The future
of wilderness is in your hands. If excluded lands are added and unacceptable man-
agement language changed as outlined in this testimony, the Southern Utah Wilder-
ness Alliance could support H.R. 2488 even though we believe Americas Redrock
Wilderness Act is a far better vehicle for protecting deserving Utah lands as wilder-
ness. Without such change, we urge members of the subcommittee to reject
H.R. 2488. Again we would be pleased to work with staff on modifications that the
committee should adopt.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Pallone?
Mr. PALLONE. I guess what I would like to do is to ask Mr. Harja
to answer some of the criticisms that Mr. Young made, and specifi-
cally, Mr. Harja, if there are lands unsuitable for wilderness in the
Pilot Range, why did the Governor agree to this 37,000-acre des-
ignation previously? In other words, Mr. Young says this has been
51
reduced considerably. Why has that occurred if the Governor pre-

viously agreed to the 37,000?
Mr. HARJA. Certainly; Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt
agreed to 1 million acres in the West Desert of Utah and agreed
to a certain set of languages, language management prescriptions.
That included 37,000 acres in the Pilot Range. However, there were
a lot of discussion points and a lot of compromises made.
That 37,000 acres includes, if you look at the map up there, all
the way to the east, where there is a dark line running down north
and south, where Tim is pointing it out. The boundaries to the west
that are shaded there constitute another manageable point; that is,
there is an old road running right along the base of the mountains,
and you can see it in the lower right-hand picture there; that the
state, in fact, argued was a manageable boundary.
So I would answer you that in the spirit of compromise, we
agreed to the 37,000 acres. Mr. Hansen has chosen to propose
something different, and we will leave that up to the Congress to
decide.
Mr. PALLONE. Well, the issue of the roads, again, was another
issue that Mr. Young brought up, you know, whether there are
these roads. I mean, if there are these roads in the Pilot Range
that disqualify certain lands from wilderness, why are they not list-
ed on this county road map, the Box Elder County road map?
Mr. HARJA. Tim, if you would take those pictures down and go
back to the map, the boundaryyou can see a boundary running
along the shaded area there, but from the eastern proposed bound-
ary, there are about five roads that move west up into the moun-
tains. And if we were tothose roads were all cherry-stemmed in
the original proposal, and there is one coming down from the north
and one coming up from the south right along where he is pointing
there.
There is no connection on the county road system. The county
has decided that that old road is something that they do not need
anymore. But if you connect the dots, you can get a manageable
boundary. You can see a spot where people can find the boundary.
One of the things the BLM was very concerned about out there was
finding the boundary. The main road is easy, but there is another
spot. And so, if you go to the eastern boundary, you are going to
have it bisected east to west by five roads that move right up into
the mountains. And there is some question about whether that
makes sense.
Mr. PALLONE. Now, what about Mr. Youngs statements about
not using the standard military water language, you know, that
has previously been used? I mean, he suggested this is somewhat,
you know, extraordinary in terms of the standards that are being
used.
Mr. HARJA. The military language, is that what you are
Mr. PALLONE. Well, he suggested that there are a lot of extraor-
dinary things going on here, you know, that this is not, this, you
know, standard military water language about, you know, what can
be, you know, he referenced that, and I do not know all of the de-
tails, but I would just like for you to respond to it.
Mr. HARJA. Sure; Hill Air Force Base is one of the major employ-
ers in the State of Utah, and the UTTR is a major part of it staying
52
in business. The state and the Department did not negotiate Air
Force language. That was up to the Air Force to discuss in the
previous effort. Overflights are easy, but it is more than over-
flights. The Air Force needs to be able to get out there to recover
accidents. If you go out there on a daily basis, you will have B-2s,
B-52s, cruise missiles flying by.
You know, the State of Utahs position has been you need to pro-
tect the UTTR. Whether this language or any other language is ap-
propriate, we are not as vested in the result, as long as the UTTR
is protected, and I would simply defer to the Air Force to state
what they think they need.
Mr. PALLONE. Well, it just seemed to me that listening to his
criticism, that there are a lot more things that could be done to
maybe meet him halfway on this, and I mean, do you have any
general response to his comments?
Mr. HARJA. In terms of a number of things: in terms of wildlife,
I think we disagree. I think we need the ability to actively manage
wildlife in this area. There are a number of reintroduced species
that we need to be able to deal with: bighorn sheep, chuckers,
lahonton cutthroat trout. Wilderness does not solve those problems.
We need to be able to work the land. We need to be able to manip-
ulate it if necessary. We need to be able to help prescribe burns
and then reseed it.
I think the appendix that is mentioned allows us to do that, and
that is why we support that language.
In terms of water, I do not think you need a Federally-reserved
water right here, mostly because it is not the amount; it is that
there is drift in the principle, in the mission of that language, and
it starts to be used to support manipulations of the wrong type,
and that is why the state is concerned. Habitat manipulation is
what I am talking about.
In terms of the Air Force, I have no problem with the existing
language, as Mr. Fulton has explained. So that is kind of where the
State of Utah is.
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I
was not here to ask the Air Force some questions; I will submit
those in writing, and I am assuming, based on the person who tes-
tified, if I direct those to you, Colonel, that will work. Thank you,
Colonel.
To the State of Utah, I am in a bit of a dilemma here. When the
State of Utah has a management area that the state is managing,
do you find yourself often going in and working with local units of
government, changing your definitions, your goals on how the state
is going to manage its habitat areas, its water areas, its land areas
when you are conceding as much as it appears to be conceded in
this language?
Mr. HARJA. The State of Utah, by the structure of government,
is the proper entity to control general wildlife activities on all
lands, including BLM lands. We do not control on Department of
Defense lands; we do not control in national parks. But everywhere
else, it is the State of Utah that is responsible for the habitat.
53
Ms. MCCOLLUM. And so, Mr. Chairman, sir, what is the goal
here? To make sure thatwill the State of Utah be encouraging
nonnative species, plants and animals, in, quote, unquote, a Feder-
ally-designated wilderness area, or does the State of Utah look at,
you know, well, this is our land, and we are going to manage it,
and this is kind of okay?
Mr. HARJA. No; the State of Utah attempts to set out manage-
ment plans for each species. Some are natural; some are re-
introductions. In these particular mountains, there have been plans
in many years, and there are in fact already bighorn sheep that
have been reintroduced. It is because they had difficultythe
sheep caught diseases from domestic sheep and were nearly elimi-
nated.
We do not believe that we run around indiscriminately proposing
a species for here or there. However, if you look at the lahonton
cutthroat trout, for example, they were not originally there, and
they were moved there before everybody discovered that they were
threatened. Now that they are there, it is the State of Utahs inten-
tion to make sure that they survive, and we will participate with
the Fish and Wildlife Service in any recovery plan that may be nec-
essary. We simply are not convinced that the simple answer for
that is wilderness. The answer is much more complex. It involves
a plan, a recovery plan, that will probably extend well into the
State of Nevada, and it may involve counting the cutthroat. It may
involve electroshocking in order to count them.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have another question; I have
limited time.
Sir, do you, on state lands, do you have buffer zones between,
you know, state lands and lands that are either commercial, highly
developed, potential to develop when the state has property in
Utah that it is trying to set aside or protect? Is that a normal thing
for the state to try to do?
Mr. HARJA. No, we do not normally look to board buffer zones,
no.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. We do in Minnesota, so I am just trying to get
theto use a bad pun, the lay of the land.
Mr. HARJA. If you are looking at a commercial zone, it is local
zoning that would do that. We would not.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. So in any of your state-designated lands, you
have no buffer zones, no zoning ordinances where, you know, there
is kind of a protection area?
Mr. HARJA. In our state-managed wildlife areas, we do not have
that, no. I cannot speak for local zoning. I am not aware of that.
But in terms of our state-managed wildlife areas, we do not con-
sider buffer zones.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. And when yousee, what I am struggling with
is I see that people have tried to come up with a compromise, Mr.
Chair, Chairs, I should say. People have tried to come up with a
compromise. But what concerns me about some of the language in
the bill is that we start having dual meanings for the same word,
and I always found that that caused more problems legislatively
back home than it solved anything.
And so, when we start doing that, I think we set ourselves up
for more headache and more heartbreak along the way. So that is
54
my struggle with this, and that is what I am going to try to work

on to understand what the words definitions actually are going to
mean for today, for tomorrow, and for the future.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hansen?
Mr. Harja, the language in the bill that we have proposed, the
water language, is that not the same language that we worked out
with Secretary Babbitt?
Mr. HARJA. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. It is identical, as I recall; is that correct?
Mr. HARJA. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. The access to that endangered fish, does our bill
give us latitude to go in and take care of that, while Mr. Youngs
does not? But what about wildlife? How come they are so tough on
wildlife? I will ask you, Mr. Young: you talked earlier about wild-
life, yet you oppose guzzlers.
Mr. YOUNG. We oppose guzzlers in wilderness land.
Mr. HANSEN. But that is the only way you can give wildlife a
drink.
Mr. YOUNG. Indigenous species
Mr. HANSEN. How can you have it both ways?
Mr. YOUNG. Indigenous species that belong to the web of life that
belongs in that wilderness area should be able to survive, in par-
ticular, if you reserve a water right so that there are the water re-
sources that are inherent to that location.
Mr. HANSEN. But you oppose wildlife getting a drink unless you
can go back and say it was indigenous to it before even the pio-
neers came into the valleys; is that not right?
Mr. YOUNG. No, I would say reserve a water right so that the
land can be managed as it exists in its wilderness state. If you re-
serve the water right, native species should be able to have ade-
quate water.
Mr. HANSEN. Reclaiming my time, the trout were supposedly up
there. There is a big question whether they were or not; really de-
bated, and if we took your language, how do we take care of those
trout?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, there are several ways in which the trout could
be taken care of. Of course, you would include Bettridge Creek
within the designated wilderness, and so, that watershed would be
protected. BLM and State Wildlife Management would have a
number of ways of getting to that.
Mr. HANSEN. They could walk in.
Mr. YOUNG. They could walk in, and there are alternatives to
that, as you know, that are possible within designated wilderness.
Mr. HANSEN. Like what?
Mr. YOUNG. Where appropriate, and this is something that has
to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, you look at the specific
area, and you look at alternatives: whether or not the resource can
adequately be managed through walking in or else, in some in-
stances, it would be possible to cherry stem an existing route, put
a gate on it and have it open only for administrative use in des-
ignated ways.
55
Mr. HANSEN. Well, we tried to do that on San Rafael, and you

folks opposed that. Why?
Mr. YOUNG. Give me more clarity on specifics of what you are
asking. It is not clear to me.
Mr. HANSEN. Maybe you do not recall that; on Sids Mountain in
San Rafael, we had the desert bighorn sheep down there, and that
was a whole issue.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, there, you had routes that
Mr. HANSEN. And you folks testified against it, and you are say-
ing the same thing. Now, you are for it. I do not understand that.
Mr. YOUNG. No, I am not really saying the same thing. There,
we had wilderness study areas and a number of routes being
claimed that clearly were not necessary to get in and monitor the
bighorn sheep, protect the habitat for the bighorn.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Young, you folks from the environmental com-
munity always talk about pure wilderness. In fact, it is in your lan-
guage and in your testimony, pure language. I brought that up to
the gentleman from BLM; I brought that up to the Air Force. Pure
language is no structures. Pure language is no roads. Pure lan-
guage is no sign of man as if man was never there. That is a direct
quote out of the law.
Let me show you this picture. Is that a structure?
Mr. YOUNG. It is a structure that is cherry-stemmed out of the
Bald Eagle Mountain unit. It is not included in our proposed wil-
derness.
Mr. HANSEN. Is that a structure?
Mr. YOUNG. I cannot see what it is. My eyes are bad.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, it is kind of like a telephone pole.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes; I guess I would answer that, because that is
close enough; I can see.
Mr. HANSEN. That is a structure.
Mr. YOUNG. I would answer that in saying that it is certainly no
more of a structure than the dams in the Lone Peak Wilderness
Unit.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Young, is that a road?
Mr. YOUNG. That is not, as I see it, a road. It is a route. Judge
Campbell on June 29
Mr. HANSEN. Or a way? Would you call it a way?
Mr. YOUNG. I would call it a user-constructed route.
Mr. HANSEN. On this side is our bill; on that side is your bill.
What is the difference?
Mr. YOUNG. That is a good question. One would wonder a route
that has been closed by BLM and on both sidesI was out there
last Saturday, perhaps in that specific place and
Mr. HANSEN. What I am saying basically is the quote that you
gave the Deseret News saying what good is wildernessif this is
your quote, and boy, I hope I never hold you accountable for every-
thing that it says in the newspaper; if you do not hold me account-
able for it, we are even, okay?
This is the quote: What good is a wilderness with roads, which
we have got; power lines, which we have; buildings and commu-
nication towers, SUWA director Larry Young questioned. So I
have that same question: why do we want to call it wilderness if
we have got all those things in it?
56
Mr. YOUNG. Well, we do not have communication sites.

Mr. HANSEN. What is this?
Mr. YOUNG. I do not believe we have a legal road.
Mr. HANSEN. What is that?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, it is not a communication site in any wilder-
nessif it is the Bald Eagle Mountain Unit, then, it is cherry-
stemmed out.
Mr. HANSEN. Now, wait a minute. We are going back to pure wil-
derness. Is pure wilderness to have cherry stems in it, or was that
a device of Congress to think of a way to take care of some prob-
lems?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, I think there is some ideological debate over
that these days.
Mr. HANSEN. May I quote the Sierra Club on that? But you are
not representing the Sierra Club, are you?
Mr. YOUNG. I am the executive director of the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, and I do not think I will ever be the executive
director of the Sierra Club.
Mr. HANSEN. I understand they pay more. You ought to look for
that one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. Anyway, as you get down to the idea, in effect, they
have stated that cherry stems are not pure wilderness; that that
is a device of man that should not even be there; in other words,
we are doing it for a water system; something like this that you
mentioned, something like that, a road to get in to take care of
those fish; they would all be considered a cherry stem.
What I cannot understand, really, is they boil it all down to this:
at one time, we could have settled this thing with you folks at 3.2
million acres. I had an agreement from Clive Kincaid, the first guy
that had SUWA. Did he not start it?
Mr. YOUNG. Clive was the original founder. I would be happy to
give Clive a call and see if he remembers that agreement.
Mr. HANSEN. Whatever; it does not matter to me.
Anyway, the 3.2, we could have done this thing. Then, you went
for a long time on 5.7. Strangely enough, when Mr. Babbitt did his
inventory, inside of a month or so, you went to what? 9.3? My ques-
tion is this: in this beautiful area we are looking at out here, I can-
not understand why you did not have this in your 5.7. You did not
have any of this in.
Mr. YOUNG. I would be happy to answer that.
Mr. HANSEN. The floor is yours.
Mr. YOUNG. There were two primary reasons: first, as BLM ear-
lier or the Department of the Interior earlier noted, this is an area
that historically was checkerboarded with private ownership due to
the construction of the transcontinental railroad. BLM worked very
hard to block those lands together so that they would be able to
have a more manageable piece of land, and at that point, they de-
termined that it would be appropriate to inventory it to see if it
had wilderness characteristics. When they did so, they did indeed
find that it had those characteristics.
We had a similar experience with that land.
Mr. HANSEN. So you are saying if there is private land or state
land, you would not consider this as being appropriate.
57
Mr. YOUNG. No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the

extent of checkerboarding was so intensive, where you had every
other section
Mr. HANSEN. But is it not true that you have in your proposal
of nine-point-whatever it is some checkerboard sections?
Mr. YOUNG. We certainly have state lands within.
Mr. HANSEN. And some private lands?
Mr. YOUNG. And some private in-holdings, absolutely, as you see
in all wilderness proposals.
Mr. HANSEN. And that is checkerboarded every bit like this was.
I will get back to the question: why did you not do it in thewhy
is it now sacred, pristine ground? It has got structures in it; it has
got roads in it; it has got cattle ponds in it; it has got all of that
stuff, and now, it is sacred and pristine, but just a year or two ago,
it was not.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, the first part of that answer is what I
just said: just as BLM found that it was now appropriate to con-
sider it, we did the same. The second is that in our original inven-
tory, we made certain not to include anyplace that we had not been
out on the ground. We knew that there were places of wilderness
quality that were not included, but we sought to be very conserv-
ative and very rigorous.
Mr. HANSEN. Let us get to the bottom line: is it not true that you
just do not want any wilderness put in there because it would fold
you guys up?
Mr. YOUNG. I have to tell you from the bottom of my heart, Mr.
Hansen, that that is not true.
Mr. HANSEN. Then why is it that you went from 3.2 to 5.7 to 9.3?
I bet if I put a bill in here for 9.3, you would want 12.5. In fact,
one of your guys even said that to me.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Hansen, if we had a clean bill with clean man-
agement language, and if it was for 9.3 million acres with reason-
able, sensible boundaries, I would quit my job.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Young, let me say this to you: the bill that is
before you right now is everything you asked. It is there. It is
clean; it has got the boundaries; it has got the standards; it is ev-
erything. If we went to what you have, we have get a convoluted
mess. We have roads that people have used, that the county has
maintained. We have structures; we have the whole thing. At one
time, you did not even want it. And now, all of a sudden, we have
proposed it, and you are against it.
I have been on this Committee 21 years, and I have never seen
SUWA be for anything, even I heard them object to Wayne Owens
on a few things, your hero. And I may ask another question: when
Wayne Owens was sitting right here on this Committee in the ma-
jority, the Democrats had the House; the Democrats had the Sen-
ate; the Democrats had the President, and I was ranking on the
Committee that Mr. Hefley now chairs. We could not get him to
ask for a hearing. Now, why is that?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am not here to speak for Mr. Owens. At that
time, I was a professor at Brigham Young University, and I hon-
estly cannot speak for him.
58
Mr. HANSEN. From the bottom of your heart, if we gave you a

pure bill, you would come in here and testify in favor of it; is that
right?
Mr. YOUNG. I have already said today
Mr. HANSEN. I gave you one.
Mr. YOUNG. I have already said today that if we had clean man-
agement language without the unprecedented military use lan-
guage; without the unprecedented release language; with standard
water language and had boundaries that adhered to the boundaries
in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act for the Pilot Range, we
would support it.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me correct you on one thing. When you were
talking about military, you mentioned the California Protection
Act. I handled it for the minority side; 3 days; we had that lan-
guage in it. Go back and check it. We had that language in it.
Mr. YOUNG. We would be happy to check the language in the bill
as passed.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, moot point, but it was in it.
Mr. YOUNG. The bill as passed?
Mr. HANSEN. It was taken out by some environmental groups
that took it out. We have that same language here. Do you think
it is important? I would never question your patriotism, Mr. Young.
I know you are a very patriotic fellow. But I do question your folks
understanding of military problems. The Colonel was here talking
about the necessity of overflights; the necessity of high-low, the
whole nine yards, and I cannot understand why you have put that
objection.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, I suppose for much the same reason that the
Department of the Interior last year strongly opposed similar lan-
guage.
Mr. HANSEN. On this?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, on this military use language.
Mr. HANSEN. We hardly consider Mr. Babbitt the criteriawell,
never mind. I will not get into that.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I think I have gone over my time. I
apologize, and next time you go over your time in full Committee,
I will look the other way.
Thank you, Mr. Young.
Mr. HEFLEY. You owe me a little time there, Mr. Hansen, but I
know this is important to you, and this is your state, and I think
that is very important to give deference to you and your state.
Let me ask you, Mr. Young: assuming you are not going to get
what you want, and I think that is a fairly good assumption, then,
would you be for this if this is all you are going to get, because you
are adding 20-some-thousand acres of wilderness, which is what
your agency wants to do, and at this point in time, if this was all
you were going to get, would you be for this bill?
Mr. YOUNG. In its current form, this bill is unacceptable. It con-
tains language that would undermine the Wilderness Act of 1964;
the military use language; the release language; the water lan-
guage. These are things that not only we but conservation groups
across the country will be very, very concerned about.
Mr. HEFLEY. You do not think that language needs to be modeled
to fit the various situations? You have various levels of wilderness,
59
obviously, and I have packed on horseback into a lot of wilderness

areas, and you have different levels of wilderness; you have dif-
ferent things going on up in the wilderness. You have head gates
in some wilderness and not in others and salt licks in some wilder-
ness and not in others and all kinds of things.
So you do not think that it is legitimate to designate a wilder-
ness with specific language that accommodates that particular wil-
derness and, for instance, the cutthroat trout situation here which
we have which we do not have everywhere in every wilderness?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, as I noted, we have had more than 100 wilder-
ness bills passed. All but two have been silent with respect to mili-
tary use language. We would be willing to accept military use lan-
guage similar to those in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, the
California Desert Protection Act and language that would protect
low-level overflights; language that would protect the capacity to
maintain equipment on the ground.
Mr. HEFLEY. We have had some enormous problems, and I think
the Colonel could tell you that, with this because there is not the
proper language in there, and you get the wilderness designated
and so forth, and then, the groups such as yours come in and try
to shut down the training missions of the Defense Department.
And, you know, that is very, very important. I mean, these are two
values that are both important.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, it is interesting.
Mr. HEFLEY. But I guess you have to decide whether the value
to protect the nation is more important than the wilderness value
or if the two can be compatible if you compromise a little bit.
Mr. YOUNG. We think they can be compatible. There have been
wilderness study areas within the UTTR for more than 15 years;
hundreds of thousands of sorties have been flown. The Colonel indi-
cated one instance where there was a downed airplane, jet plane
within a WSA, and the military was able to go in and make that
retrieval. We have had really no difficulties with the interaction be-
tween Interior and Defense within the UTTR over the past 15
years, even at the same time that we have had hundreds of thou-
sands of acres of wilderness study areas that we have a keen inter-
est in and other lands that we have a keen interest in.
What we really are seeking is the balance that would come with
appropriate military use language, language that did not take
away from us the opportunity to experience wilderness but still left
the airspace intact; language that still gave the military access to
existing equipment for maintenance. We are very comfortable with
that and supportive of that.
Mr. HEFLEY. Okay; thank you very much.
Does the other gentleman from Utah have any questions?
Mr. CANNON. Thank you; I do have questions, and I would appre-
ciate some time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Cannon, you are recognized.
Mr. CANNON. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Harja and
Mr. Young for coming out today. We appreciate that. As a matter
of fact, I was just thinking, Larry: I do not think you have ever tes-
tified while I have been here, have you?
Mr. YOUNG. Not on this side; over on the Senate side, I have.
60
Mr. CANNON. Well, welcome. Welcome to the lions den, so to

speak.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you; thank you.
Mr. CANNON. Your organization has been working with the coun-
ty commissioners in Emery County on the San Rafael bill. Is that
making progress, or are we at an impasse?
Mr. YOUNG. I hope it is making progress. We have invested a lot
of time. I have personally been attending those meetings. I have
been disheartened by the lack of civil discourse in the debate about
wilderness designation in our state. I do not think it is good for our
state, and I hope that I can be a positive force for more responsible
conversations.
So I think it has been a good several months as we have worked
with representatives from Emery County, and we do have a major
meeting that we will be having over the next few weeks, and I
think that will be a meeting that will help determine whether or
not this has been a successful exercise.
Mr. CANNON. Well, thank you. I want to just for the record point
out that you and I have always had very pleasant conversations,
and the discourse between us has been very civil, even when we
have disagreed pretty stridently. Have you identified what the con-
cerns are that remain between those who are proposing the Center-
field bill and SUWA?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir; we have looked at a broad range of issues,
and everythingbecause this is a bill that is seeking to be a na-
tional conservation area rather than a wilderness bill per se, it
means that management language is much more complicated, and
the issues at stake are much more complicated. So we will be meet-
ing with the county commissioners and I think really addressing
seven or eight key issues during our multi-day meeting.
Mr. CANNON. Okay; great.
Let me just point out from my perspective that the issues are
complicated and difficult, but the language should not be; if you are
dealing with a context for resolving the problems over a long period
of time that that can be done with lots of different kinds of lan-
guage, and I hope we can make some progress on that.
You said you were attending the meetings. Are you living in
Utah now?
Mr. YOUNG. I am living in Utah. I moved back to Utah a little
over a year ago, and it is nice to be back home.
Mr. CANNON. No wonder I had not seen you here. Welcome.
In the discussion of Centerfield, I mean, embodied in that discus-
sion is that you are dealing with now, instead of one large wilder-
ness bill for the whole state, you are dealing with wilderness and
other concepts. Is that something that your organization has now
decided to live with so that, in fact, we will be able to take some
of these smaller pieces; solve some of the problems that are critical
now; and move on rather than tying everything up until we can do
it all in one big bundle?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, we think that the best way to approach this
issue is in a comprehensive, statewide fashion. And so, we remain
strong supporters of Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act, and we
are excited about the progress and the momentum building for
that. However, in the 106th Congress and in the 107th Congress,
61
we have demonstrated in several instances a willingness to engage

in serious conversations. Unfortunately with the current bill, we
were not invited to have similar input, even though I think there
were opportunities for that, even opportunities within a week of
the time that the bill was filed.
Mr. CANNON. When you say the current bill, you are talking
about the Pilot Range
Mr. YOUNG. Correct.
Mr. CANNON. Okay; right, because you have been in conversation
with our Centerfield guy
Mr. YOUNG. Absolutely.
Mr. CANNON. for a year now, right?
Mr. YOUNG. Absolutely.
Mr. CANNON. Good; but moving to the Pilot Range; now, in fact,
I want to ask one other question before I get to the current bill.
Are you familiar with the theory of the recreational opportunity
spectrum?
Mr. YOUNG. That is a new one to me.
Mr. CANNON. Okay; let me ask you this: do you view the wilder-
ness designation as a recreational designation or a land protection
designation? And I do not know if you have a policyI have talked
to several members of SUWA who view it as recreational. So if you
can answer for SUWA and for yourself, I would appreciate that.
Mr. YOUNG. For SUWA and for myself, the values inherent in
wilderness extend far beyond recreation itself. Those values include
protecting a range of resources: archaeological, scientific, wildlife.
They include values of basic spirituality; so a range of values that
extend far beyond recreation itself.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I see my time has expired and yield
back.
Mr. HANSEN. [Presiding] Do you want some more time?
Mr. CANNON. Yes, actually.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, I will give it to you in just a minute.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you this: and I am very grateful to see
this. I did not think I would ever see the day where you were work-
ing intensively with county commissioners in Emery County on San
Rafael.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes; it was not a process we initiated. We think that
the most appropriate way to resolve this issue is with a comprehen-
sive, statewide bill. With the West Desert Initiative between the
Governor and the Secretary, we sought to be productive in our in-
volvement. In the San Rafael Swell area in Emery County, we have
sought to be responsible and productive in our involvement. And
so, even though these are not our bills, and they are notit is not
a process that we would construct in this particular fashion, we
have tried to go to the table and be strong advocates for protecting
what wild places remain but also engage in responsible conversa-
tion.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, you have made an abrupt change from the
memorandum that I have received that says that you would not in-
volve yourself in that, and we tried to get you folks to do that
many, many times. Was it Ken Rait who was on Take Two with
the then-Director of Natural Resources Ted Stewart and said they
62
did not do it? And then, I was on Take Two with another one who
said they would not do it, and no one ever responded to our cor-
respondence when we asked you, the Governor and Inot you; I
am referring to the Southern Utah Wilderness Allianceto work
with us on this wilderness bill that we introduced, which was state-
wide, which you have now said you would rather go statewide.
Would it not have been better if you had come to the table in-
stead of taking that hard line position? And we could have worked
that out possibly, maybe the Governor and Babbitt and SUWA and
the Sierra Club and the cattlemen and the ATVs and the
Backcountry Pilots? We could have all sat down and worked it out.
That is how we did the 1984 Wilderness Bill that passed. That was
the only way we got it to go. But we could not get you folks to do
it. Now, you come and tell this Committee that that is what you
want to do. What caused the change?
Mr. YOUNG. Two responses to that: the bill in the 104th Con-
gress, as introduced, was deeply flawed. We sought to participate
in a series of public hearings that were conducted throughout the
state. We sought to submit public comment. But the resulting prod-
uct fell far, far, far from the vision that the conservation commu-
nity has and was unacceptable.
Mr. HANSEN. Who did you talk to? I was the author of that bill.
No one came to me. I had people come to the hearing that criticized
it. We even asked. I remember Governor Leavitt in Nephi asking
to have people come and sit down and talk about it. Not one person
showed up. And then, we got thiswas it Ken Rait? Am I saying
it right?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, you are; that is
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Rait put a memorandum out, and I am sure
you have got a copy of it. If you do not, I will furnish it to you.
It said we will not do that. Now, you are telling this Committee
today that you now intend to sit down and become players on these
things. Is that correct?
Mr. YOUNG. What I am telling you is that since January 1999,
we have sat down in two different settings: first in the West
Desert, second in the San Rafael Swell area, and we have sought
to engage in constructive conversations. These are not bills that we
are sponsors of. They are not bills that we are encouraging. But we
are willing to sit down and see if there is sufficient common ground
to fashion bills in these areas.
Mr. HANSEN. I commend you for that. I hope that is the way you
go, because you are never going to get this thing doneI will guar-
antee it; when we are both pushing up daisies, Mr. Young, unless
people will sit down and talk.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, one of the challenges
Mr. HANSEN. There is part of your testimony that says come, let
us reason together, and I think that if you folks would do that, this
thing would have been done 10 years ago. But you have always
taken that hard line. This is the most dramatic testimony I have
ever heard from SUWA that you just gave, that you have changed
your way of doing business; you will now sit down and work on
bills.
Now, you added another thing I kind of liked a minute ago: you
said we should be civil in these things. I could not agree more.
63
Mr. YOUNG. One of the challenges, from my perspective

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me; go ahead.
Mr. YOUNG. One of the challenges from my perspective is we
have so often a reification of images of one another. I have heard
again and again and again that the only reason that SUWA exists
is to raise money, that we are not interested in designated wilder-
ness. It is not a true statement. It is not why I left my tenured pro-
fessorship at Brigham Young University; took a pay cut in order
to become executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alli-
ance. It simply is not true.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, let me say this: let us go back to the civil
thing. Do you think it is fair when we get into these issues for your
people or our people to make personal attacks on you?
Mr. YOUNG. You know, I always feel that we never make
progress when we call somebody dumb. Now, their bill may be
dumb, or their proposal may be dumb, and I think that is okay to
say. But when we end up calling the person dumb, yes, I prefer not
to do that.
Now, do I control everyone who belongs to the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance? Absolutely not. Excuse me.
Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. Well, you would be surprised how many
things we have traced, written in the paper, to Southern Utah Wil-
derness Alliance and the Sierra Club. I wish it was just a mild
word like dumb: accusing them of being on the take; accusing them
of brown envelopes being shoved under their door and all that
stuff; I do not think that is called for.
I cannot think of a time when anyone on this Committee ever
personally took you on, Ken Rait on, Clive Kincaid on or any of
those people personally. Now, we will disagree with you. That is
fair. That is the fun of it. That is the good part of it. It is like in
a debate, being one of the old dogs here, I have been asked to tell
a lot of Republicans how to run, and our first statement is do not
ever get into personalities. Are issues fair? Absolutely, issues are
fair.
I think you folks have substantially hurt your cause by making
personal attacks on a lot of people.
I yield to whatever you want, because I am leaving, and I am
going to give you this.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CANNON. Hallelujah!
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman!
Mr. HANSEN. He has been waiting to be a Chairman forhow
long you been here now?
Mr. CANNON. I thought I was going to make it this time, too, but
not in this Committee.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me thank you, Mr. Young. I appreciate your
coming. Mr. Harja, thanks so very much, and you folks who have
sat through this very interesting exchange.
Mr. CANNON. [Presiding] And let me point out that this is not
long. I am now 1 minute late for a meeting that will take me 2
minutes to get to.
Mr. HANSEN. At the end, you have got to adjourn it, you know.
Mr. CANNON. I think I can get those words.
64
But I do have a followup that I wanted to do. I would encourage

you to take a look, and we have some information on the rec-
reational opportunity spectrum. It is an intriguing idea, because
the concept is that what you are doing with the wilderness is desig-
nating a way to have recreation, and the array of recreation, one
of those concepts is what you mentioned; I think you called it spir-
itual. Maybe people have different views, but it is the ability to be
away from modern society.
And it seems to me that there is a theoretical problem that I
hope you will begin to struggle with. In fact, let me just divert, and
I wanted to say this when Jim was here; but for the record, I want-
ed to be clear that since you have taken over, and it has gotten bet-
ter as you have asserted your role there, the personal attacks and
the personal offensiveness has declined dramatically. Now, we have
differed very much on what the truth is, and I have been very di-
rect with you when I believed that your organization had stepped
over the line.
But the civility of the discussion has not just been unilateral. I
hope that I have contributed to that; you certainly have contributed
to the civility of that discussion.
But back to the recreational opportunity spectrum. There is a
theoretical problem that isresponding the way that you did to
your last question, the last question I asked, which is there are an
array of values that are important in wilderness; it seems to me
that that argumentif you are arguing that wilderness is impor-
tant because it is recreational; because the concept is getting dis-
tance from modern mankind, that is the context in which you get
the largest amount of wilderness, because you want to create
places where you can actually get away.
If, on the other hand, you are talking about archaeological or
spiritual or recreational or other limited kinds of recreational,
other kinds of uses of land under the designation of wilderness,
then, you have the problem of complexity, and the problem with
the wilderness concept is it is not complex. The wilderness process
is a heavy-handed, harsh, clear designation and, in fact, is being
used right now to impede the process of controlling wildfires in Col-
orado, where they are allowing chainsaws to go in but no dumping
of slurry from airplanes or helicopters, and presumably, if we get
firemen in danger, those firemen will be extracted by helicopter,
but, you know, the rigidity of the act has been demonstrated under
those circumstances.
So what I want to do is give you an opportunity to respond to
the complexity that you have indicated you think is important in
the wilderness concept and how you deal with those with wilder-
ness legislation or designation as opposed to a more complex legis-
lative structure.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, in the past 37 years, since the Wilderness Act
was passed, we have I think entered approximately 104 million
acres of land into the National Wilderness Preservation System. I
may be off a few million acres but somewhere in that vicinity, and
I think that we are a better nation for that. I think that the Wil-
derness Act, which provides statutory protection in the law, has
served us very well.
65
One of our concerns is when we create these wilderness bills with

exceptions, with language that undermines genuine wilderness pro-
tection with unprecedented language like that contained in
H.R. 2488 that we weaken the National Wilderness Preservation
System. And we think that lands that are worthy of wilderness
designation should be afforded the protection envisioned by the
1964 Wilderness Act.
Mr. CANNON. If I might, with the forest wilderness that we have
done in Utah, for instance, we have protected watershed. It is an
incredibly important thing and very successful. But in your state-
ment, if I might just point out, you are talking about preservation
and protection of land in the context of wilderness, and I think the
question I asked you is do you view this as protection of the land,
or do you view it as a recreational? You answered it is complex.
Do you want to readdress that? Are we dealing with protecting
land, or are we dealing with the opportunity for human beings to
have a different kind of experience that can only be had in the con-
text of wilderness?
Mr. YOUNG. Well
Mr. CANNON. Then, again, how do we deal with the complexities
that those two very different concepts hold? I do not know that you
can answer that. I just want to suggest that the issue here is not
one of philosophy purity; it is one of balancing the competing inter-
ests that are there.
And moving away from that, I would like to ask just another
question, and I may have missed this because I was not in here,
but you have said that the Pilot Range has wilderness characteris-
tics. At the same time, you are complaining about the overflights,
which would be inconsistent with wilderness characteristics. Is
your position that we ought to reclaim this from the overflights? In
other words, are you going from the wilderness, the approach to
wilderness backwards from what the concept originally was, which
was to identify wild areas and saying we could reclaim these wild
areas by eliminating overflights?
Mr. YOUNG. I have stated already, and I do not think you were
here, that we would be willing to accept military use language
similar to that in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, the California
Desert Protection Act. Our position, I think, is that wilderness is
a place where the presence of man is largely unnoticed, and yes,
it may be that on occasional days for a few seconds, there is a low-
level overflight that is intrusive, but it is a fairly short-term intru-
sion, and the experience of wilderness is not fundamentally com-
promised.
Mr. CANNON. So the idea that there are currently overflights in
your mind does not discount the area as wilderness?
Mr. YOUNG. We have felt very good about the capacity for wilder-
ness study areas within the UTTR to retain their wilderness char-
acteristic over the past 15 years or so that those two entities, wil-
derness study areas and the UTTR, have coexisted?
Mr. CANNON. Great; thank you.
Mr. Harja, do you have anything that you would like to add at
all to this debate?
Mr. HARJA. A little bit. One, I would just like to note for the
record that Mr. Young mentioned Bettridge Creek at the south end
66
of the proposal there. I believe there is a road that parallels the

creek, and there is an aqueduct, and the idea of cherry-stemming
the road would also encompass the creek. So I am not sure you are
going to get a lot of protection there.
Second, I think the State of Utah would agree with Mr. Hansen
and yourself that this is a balancing process, and I do not believe
there is any wilderness in the Lower 48. If you want wilderness,
you need to go to Siberia or Alaska. What there is is rural land.
That rural land is being usedhas been used since the Indian
times and the pioneers for a lot of purposes. What the state is in-
terested in is the balance between those uses and setting aside this
land as some sort of protection zone, which we have agreed to do.
We have all of those appendices that were previous Congres-
sional statements about how those lands were managed. They in-
clude wildlife management techniques; they include grazing; and
we would argue they include the water needs. We support that.
That is a compromise. It is there; it is law, and we support the re-
affirmation of that here.
That is it; thank you, Congressman.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you; actually, another question occurs which
I would like to ask you, Mr. Young. We had Teddy Roosevelt, III
in our Committee the other day, and I had a very interesting dis-
cussion with him. I asked him and would like to just repeat my
question to you about the possibility of doing aare you familiar
with Deseret Ranch in northern Utah and the concept of holistic
resource management?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, I am.
Mr. CANNON. Would you support or oppose or do you have an
idea yet an experiment in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument that would utilize the techniques of holistic resource
management in that area? You realize that the rainfall is about the
same; you know, this is a big, huge area in the monument, of
course, but in much of the monument, the rainfall is about the
same as that very lush Deseret Ranch. Is that something that you
personally or that your organization would be interested in seeing
happen?
Mr. YOUNG. While we as an organization do not have a formal
position, I suspect that as long as the management technique did
not compromise the integrity of the wilderness-quality lands con-
tained in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act, it would not be an
issue that we would address. But if it did compromise those lands
as the holistic management strategy was implemented, then we
would have concerns. So it is an open question that we would have
to look at.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Roosevelts response was, you know, the bison
used to wander the area; they chewed the grass down so it had the
ability to grow up more robustly. They left biotic material; they
broke up the surface. He understood the concept and then went on
to say that if there was a small study that the groups that he is
associated with would tend to support that.
I asked him if 100,000 acres would be viewed as a small study;
he thought that that would be. We are not going to get a con-
sensus, I am sure, on every detail, but you recognize the difference
in the lushness of the Deseret Ranch and what we now have in
67
southern Utah. Is that something in principle that you personally

would like to see happen?
Mr. YOUNG. Would I like to see the experiment?
Mr. CANNON. The experiment, relatively small, 100,000 acres.
Mr. YOUNG. As I said, we would have to look at the specifics. We
would have to see if it would compromise wilderness quality lands.
If it did not, then it is probably an issue that lies beyond the realm
of our organizations focus, but we most likely would not have a
problem. The question is what would its impact be on wilderness
quality lands.
Mr. CANNON. As I understand what you are saying is that if this
is outside the Red Rock Wilderness area, and I do not know how
much is outside; I mean, you know, that is a huge area. I do not
know if you could do that experiment outside. But if it were out-
side, you would not care. On the other hand, if it were inside some
of those areas, you would care. Is it possible to come to an agree-
ment? Should we pursue discussion with you, or should we go
about it with other groups?
Mr. YOUNG. Oh, I think if the holistic system would compromise
wilderness, when we seek passage of Americas Red Rock Wilder-
ness Act, and so, we do not have an antigrazing provision within
that bill.
Mr. CANNON. Good, because I think that the Cow Free in 93, No
More Moo in 92 movement by some of the environmental groups
was deeply destructive to the environment, and I hope that we can
turn that around. Just for the record, the Deseret Ranch is a re-
markable place that is healthy and robust and highly productive of
life, and I think that the area where I grew up, to a large degree,
in southern Utah that is now in that monument could have the
same robustness, and I would like to see that happen.
So we will probably deal with you again on that in the future.
Thank you again very much for your time.
John, did you have something you wanted to add? You look
like
Mr. HARJA. I am fine.
Mr. CANNON. Okay; we thank you, and with that, this Committee
will be in recessnot in recess; it is actually adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]


HOUSE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOUSE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOUSE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - H.R. 2385 and H.R. 2488

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H.R. 2385 and H.R.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

July 26, 2001

Serial No. 107-54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

Thursday, July 26, 2001

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m., in Room

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hansen, do you have an opening statement you

We are trying to think of a way to do this, expedite it and with-

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I would prefer waiting on this, Mr. Chairman.

view, to accomplish the purchase and transfer of the property. We

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Fulton.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

the word dilophosaurus, di means two; and lopho means ridges;

this excavation in a very organized way to find the most complete,

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, both of you.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I do not think I have any questions, Mr.

because it has cost me a lot of money and a lot of time, and I am

Mr. MCARTHUR. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. So in your best estimation, if all these ducks line

unfortunately, we are no closer to resolving this wilderness thing

agree with him completely on that. I am glad to be able to agree

I look forward to working with the BLM to prepare a map that

[A resolution from the Box Elder County Commission submitted

Mr. HEFLEY. Okay; we do have a vote on. I think it is a single

these military bases. We would like to consider expanding the

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Fulton.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL TOM LARKIN, DIRECTOR, UTAH

My comments on the wilderness bill, H.R. 2488: this legislation

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

wilderness, but it is our understanding that we are only asking to

within our military bases, so we do not find that a military use of

Mr. HANSEN. I figured it was.

manageable boundaries; we looked at who owns the land. You will

burn, it also introduces invasive species such as cheat grass, and

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Young?

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Young.

reduced considerably. Why has that occurred if the Governor pre-

my struggle with this, and that is what I am going to try to work

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we tried to do that on San Rafael, and you

Mr. YOUNG. Well, we do not have communication sites.

Mr. YOUNG. No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the

Mr. HANSEN. From the bottom of your heart, if we gave you a

obviously, and I have packed on horseback into a lot of wilderness

Mr. CANNON. Well, welcome. Welcome to the lions den, so to

we have demonstrated in several instances a willingness to engage

Mr. YOUNG. One of the challenges, from my perspective

But I do have a followup that I wanted to do. I would encourage

One of our concerns is when we create these wilderness bills with

of the proposal there. I believe there is a road that parallels the

southern Utah. Is that something in principle that you personally

You might also like