Michael O. Leavitt Center for Politics & Public Service

The early stages of what became the 1999 West Desert Wilderness Proposal began in 1996 when Secretary Babbitt ordered a “re-inventory” of the wilderness lands in question after the controversial 1995 Wilderness proposal. Much of the foundation for the bill had already been completed from the previous attempt in 1995 to create an acceptable wilderness bill to the citizens, local governments, and special interest groups in Utah. In July of 1996 work began on reassessing the lands in Utah with “wilderness characteristics”, and by September of 1996 field work had begun. In October of that year the State of Utah, the Utah State Institutional Trust Lands Administration, and the Utah Association of Counties filed suit challenging the Secretary’s authority to conduct a re-inventory. In November 1996 the federal district court issued a temporary restraining order, causing work on the re-inventory to be halted. In March 1998 the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the previous ruling and on June 19, 1998 the injunction was lifted and work resumed.

Many of the same controversial issues that plagued the 1995 wilderness attempt also created problems for the 1999 wilderness legislation. However the main issue that was being addressed by the re-inventory was claims from both environmental groups and local governments that the BLM’s original inventory was a misrepresentation of how much land actually qualified as wilderness.  Environmental groups claimed that the BLM underreported the number of acres that qualified as wilderness, while local governments and OHV groups said that the BLM included land in their proposal that did not meet the requirements for wilderness designation. To make the inventory proceed quickly several things were changed from the previous lands inventory.

Only lands that were not already designated as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) were reevaluated. The other noticeable departure from the usual procedure was that the public was not involved in the re-inventory. This created a considerable amount of controversy. Wilderness was again a very divisive issue in Utah. Urban residents generally favored large amounts of wilderness while rural residents generally favored as little wilderness as possible. Controversial issues included Right-of-ways, water rights, School Trust Lands, buffer zones, release language, and military over flight issues. The wilderness bill proceeded to Congress much more quickly than the 1995 effort, but was still met with great resistance on the floor of the Congress. While the bill eventually ended up failing, pieces of it did pass as separate bills. Part of the original bill was a land exchange swapping state lands inside WSAs for other federal land that was not included in either WSA or Wilderness designation.  This land exchange became a separate bill and was passed by the Congress late in 1999.

In June 2006, Senator Robert F.  Bennett and Congressman Jim Matheson, in consultation with the Washington County Commission and the BLM, introduced a comprehensive county lands bill The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 (SB 3636).  The bill was developed in response to the significant growth in Washington County, the limited amount of private land, and the spectacular resources of these public lands. Although not introduced until 2006, much of the content in the bill had been in the developmental stages for many years. This piece of legislation contained provision for the designation of BLM land for wilderness, the expansion of Zion National Park, the designation of Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Creation of a National Conservation Area-Habitat for the Desert Tortoise. The legislation also called for disposal of lands deemed eligible for disposal. The revenue from these disposals would be used for public land management, for acquisition of conservable lands, and for conservation easements on private lands. The act also allows for the protecting of endangered species through certain designations and for the protection of certain OHV Trails. Summary Title I – Land Disposals SB 3636 directed the secretary of the interior to sell up to 24,300 acres in a two-tiered process. Federal land managers based in Washington County had already identified 4,300 acres of land for disposal, which would be sold after receiving the appropriate federal clearances. These acres would make up the first tier of land disposal. The first sale would occur within one year after the passage of the bill, with at least annual sales thereafter until the final prior to January 1, 2013. The second tier of land disposal includes up to 20,000 acres to be sold only after being identified by federal land managers in cooperation with Washington County. These lands must be selected from within areas identified on a map, excluding wilderness areas, the tortoise preserve, and other areas of critical environmental concern. The secretary of the interior would be authorized to include, where appropriate, restrictive covenants on the deeds of transfer to protect paleontological, archaeological, or other interests to the United States. These sales would not begin until 2011. The proceeds from the land disposal would fund conservation projects as well as federal and non-federal initiatives within Washington County. Projects included, but were not limited to: protection and management of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, processing of wilderness designations, projects relating to parks, trails, and natural areas, and trail repair/reconstruction within the Dixie National Forest. Title II – Wilderness SB 3636 designated the addition of 219,725 acres of land to the National Wilderness Preservation System. At the recommendation of the National Park Service, wilderness designation would be given to 123,743 acres in Zion National Park. Wilderness designations also included 93,340 acres of BLM land and 2,642 acres of Forest Service land. This would have increased the percentage of wilderness acreage in the county from 3.4 % to 17.5%. This bill protected nearly 93% of existing BLM wilderness study areas and included no hard-release language. The bill also designated additional acreage not identified by the BLM but selected by the stakeholders within the working group. Title III – Wild and Scenic River Designation Following the National Park Service’s recommendation, this legislation designates 165.5 miles of the Virgin River and its tributaries as Wild and Scenic Rivers. This designation was the first Wild and Scenic River designation anywhere in Utah. Title IV – Utility Corridors and Rights-of-Way SB 3636 designated utility corridors in Washington County to meet the needs of the growing population. Subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), these utility corridors would be used for transportation, water lines, or other such necessary transmission and utility distribution. The bill addressed the need for a transportation corridor around the south and west of St. George, diverting traffic from the center of the city by incorporating the Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee’s unanimous recommendation for identifying the Northern Corridor Bypass. This unanimous recommendation requires the secretary of the interior to study different routes and then designate the appropriate corridor. This process would allow science and public input to dictate where the corridor should be located. The bill also identifies a pipeline corridor to address the county’s future water needs. Title V – High Desert Off-Highway Vehicle Trail SB 3636 authorized the secretary of the interior to designate a system of existing motorized trails for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.

The bill gave the secretary two years from the passage of the bill to complete a travel plan identifying the appropriate existing routes to include in the trail system, making sure to allow for public participation in the final decision. The legislation did not authorize the creation of any new trails to be included in the trail system. By identifying these trails in an environmentally sensitive way, an opportunity is created for managed and responsible OHV use on the heavily used west side of the county. Title VI – Red Cliffs National Conservation Area SB 3636 created the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, giving permanent protection to the endangered desert tortoise.  The current habitat management plan would expire in 2016. Issues and Opposition The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 was seen by Utah’s congressional delegation and other stakeholders in Utah as a viable solution to the county’s current challenges. It was based on precedent legislation passed in Nevada, which Congress approved unanimously and which has worked extremely well to meet their growth needs. (These Nevada Public Lands Bills are summarized in Appendix 1.) Many believed it would responsibly manage growth in Washington County while putting conservation measures in place that would protect these natural treasures for future generations. This bill, however, was opposed by some environmental and wilderness advocacy groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Wilderness Society and others as well as members of Congress, for a variety of reasons. In their opinion, the bill failed to preserve over 70% of lands considered to be of wilderness quality in the Zion-Mojave region and would allow the sale of up to 25,000 acres of public lands, with some of the proceeds paying for local governmental agencies to build roads and water projects. They believed this would allow for the extensive building of pipelines, roads, and utilities, as well as the development of an off-road trail system throughout the county, all the while not protecting enough of the country public lands. Opponents of the bill made sure that members of Congress and the media knew the Washington County bill was not what they wanted for their wilderness. The environmental community was able to convince 120 local, regional and national organizations to go on record opposing this bill; newspapers across the country took editorial stands against it; and members of Congress received well over 100,000 emails from their constituents, and countless phone calls and letters opposing the bill.  On Tuesday, December 5, 2006, Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) acknowledged in the press that they would not be able to pass their Washington County Growth and Conservation Act (SB 3636/ HR 5769) during this session of Congress.  As it turned out, incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) persuaded House leaders to include his own White Pine County lands bill in tax legislation that passed both houses in the last 24 hours of the Congressional session. The Emergence of Vision Dixie Throughout the discussion of the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 there was disagreement on many issues, but one issue where agreement could be found was in the need for a comprehensive regional vision for the future. While the Lands Bill was still being discussed and debated locally and in the halls of Congress, various organizations were working diligently to develop a process whereby all interested parties could pursue a model for cooperative, regional planning to provide a vision for this fast-growing part of America. After much discussion, it was decided that the county would support and sponsor a Washington County Regional Quality Growth initiative. In a subsequent discussion, it was agreed that the planning effort would be called Vision Dixie, and the County Commissioner would take the leadership role in the development of this process. Stakeholders saw value in the process to guide the county’s future even if there were no Federal Public Lands Legislation. The purpose of Vision Dixie was to create a long-term vision that ensured a high quality of life in Washington County for years to come. Vision Dixie engaged residents in a facilitated conversation about growth, gathering their ideas, employing sound data and scenario analysis, and outlining publicly supported principles as the foundation for a long-term vision. Washington County Lands Bill Phase II Once the Vision Dixie process was completed as committed, discussion has gone forward with revisiting the Lands Bill, making revisions and moving it forward in the Congress. This discussion will address the land conversion issues identified by Vision Dixie and make other revisions based on the outcomes of the process. There has also been considerable discussion and work on incorporating many of the other issues and concerns identified in the original version of the bill, including expanding the amount of wilderness protection and additional National Conservation Areas. As of October 2008, the bill has not passed the congress but there is hope that the new version of the bill will receive considerably more support than the earlier versions, and that sometime in 2008 the bill may pass the Congress. If that does occur, Vision Dixie will be heralded as a great success model for how to provide a vision for a region and move forward with comprehensive public land legislation. However, the bill also contains much complexity and it is certainly possible that the bill will not pass and the various issues and their resolution will continue to be debated. In either case it can be argued that Vision Dixie has been a huge success and will help guide growth and development in the county for the next 10-30 years.

The Escalante Canyons and the surrounding area are a unique and splendid landscape which also has considerable interest by recreationists and preservationists. The Canyons of the Escalante Ecoregion idea was presented in 1994 as a collaborative effort between the National Park Service, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, the U.S. Forest Service, the Utah Travel Council, the BLM, Garfield County, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Kane County.  The goal of the proposal was to create a special designation of the Escalante Canyons region that protected the land while also utilizing traditional land use values and creating economic growth for the surrounding communities.  The land area included in the designation would be divided into four different categories. Wild Lands would be areas that are in their pristine condition with little to no evidence of man; many of these areas were already designated as WSA or Wilderness. Natural Lands were areas that showed evidence of man’s presence (roads, trails, abandoned mines, structures, etc.) yet are still deserving of having their natural beauty and values protected. No new permanent structures or manmade features would be allowed. Multiple Use Lands would follow the current land management policy and principles of Multiple Use Lands. Enterprise Lands would be areas specifically designated and set aside for development and maximization of economic gains. Other concerns raised in the drafts of this proposal concerned the finances of such a park.  Since such a project would require cooperation between many different agencies each controlling parcels of land within the park, financial operations would also have to be coordinated. Funds would be raised by a series of fees and taxes such as a user fee to enter the park and new local taxes on things such as hotels and restaurants. Emphasis would be placed on taxes and fees aimed at tourists, who would be the primary users of the park.

Implementation of the Vision To implementation of the vision embodied in these broad goals required extensive coordination. In the months after the designation of the Monument, the state of Utah, local government entities, and the federal government have worked to forge a cooperative three-year planning process. That process, along with several other important components helped make the vision a reality, as addressed below. Monument Planning Team The state of Utah had significant capabilities that were essential to ensuring interdisciplinary expertise in the development of the Monument plan. Accordingly, the state assigned five people to work full-time on the Monument planning team in Cedar City. As fully integrated members of the planning staff, rather than visitors with occasional input, they were an intrinsic part of the planning effort. As a result, the plan benefited from their expertise and access to vital information.  Also, to ensure local acceptance and involvement, a member of the Five County Association of Governors joined the team. The state members of the planning team included a wildlife biologist, geologist, paleontologist, historian/anthropologist, and community planner/socioeconomics expert. Subcabinet Advisory Group A subcabinet group of state officials was formed to support and provide an interface between state agencies and the members of the planning team. Because the subcabinet group was a full partner in the planning process, all work done by any agency with respect to the Monument was done in conjunction with and reviewed before release by this subcabinet group. Community and Economic Development Strategy Committee The state of Utah, in partnership with local governments in Kane and Garfield Counties, proposed developing a community and economic development strategy for the land adjacent to the Monument and for other Monument planning issues that directly affected the surrounding communities. This effort provided an opportunity to maximize short- and long-term benefits to local cities, counties, and other political entities. One of the major goals of the team was further consideration of economic, social, and community planning issues in the Monument management plan and promotion of compatibility between their economic strategy and the plan. One member of this strategy team with appropriate background and experience was to serve as the state’s representative on the Monument planning team. In addition, DOI will provide assistance to this team, as will the governor and state agencies. The team reported to the Southwestern Utah Planning Authorities Council (SUPAC) to ensure coordination with all other governmental entities in the region. The members of the team were appointed by the governor in consultation with local elected officials. Its membership was not to exceed twenty-five members and included representatives from the Southern Utah University, Governors Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, Utah Travel Council, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Garfield County Commission, Kane County Commission, city mayors, Paiute Indian Tribe, area business leaders, and environmental groups. Ex-officio members included representatives from the BLM, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, Rural Development Council, SUPAC, Utah State Legislature, and Utah’s congressional delegation. Existing Areas of Cooperation The planning process also capitalized on the current state and federal agency coordination efforts. These include, but are not limited to: (1) the State Resource Development Coordinating Committee, which facilitated the governor’s consistency review as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); (2) the recent assistance agreement between the BLM and Kane County for community participation in the Monument Planning effort; (3) SUPAC, which coordinated the exchange of planning information between cities, counties, and state and federal agencies throughout southwestern Utah; and (4) the Five County Association of Governors planning office, which facilitated planning for counties in southwestern Utah. Data Exchange The state and federal agencies whenever possible, facilitated the exchange of data between their agencies and other entities, both to ensure that the highest quality information was available to the planning effort and to enhance the public’s knowledge and understanding of the Monument. This data exchange included both tabular data and geographical (digital) data. Innovative telecommunications strategies such as those suggested by Governor Leavitt in other contexts were employed, as well as electronic transfer capabilities. Scientific Research The state participated in developing an organized and efficient approach to Monument research by identifying research needs that deserved attention from state agencies, federal agencies, academic institutions, and others. Scientific research addressing the paleontologic, archaeologic, and energy or mineral resources and was valuable to the state of Utah. The value of many of these resources is obvious, but the value of others may have been known only to a handful of scientists involved in that field. Identification of these issues prior to the initial phases of the management plan development ensured that the plan was based on sound scientific information. To accomplish that objective, the State Advisory Council on Science and Technology, which acts as a liaison to both academic and private scientific experts within the state, hosted a Scientific Forum in Cedar City during November 1997. The conference was designed to ensure focus on high priority research needs and cooperation in funding and project design, and to reduce the potential for duplication of effort. Conclusion Despite the flawed process that led to its declaration, the Monument creates a unique opportunity to establish a new model for environmental management and intergovernmental coordination. Governor Leavitt has made his policy clear- the state will fully engage as a partner in the planning process. The state’s commitment to the process arose from the unique economic and demographic setting of the communities adjacent to the Monument, whose economies were tied to public lands. The state’s vision for the Monument is to preserve the area’s resources while providing real and sustainable economic benefits to the surrounding communities. To implement this vision, the state participated on the Monument planning team working to ensure that Monument planning capitalized on the existing areas of cooperation and that data are exchanged efficiently. Ultimately, the state used this process to heal the wounds created with the formation of the Monument.

National parks and Monuments /Utah School Trust Land and Federal Land Exchange Governor Mike Leavitt and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt unveiled a historic land swap between the state and the federal government in May of 1998.  The agreement implemented the largest public land exchange identified anywhere in the continental United States.  The Federal Government Received:

• • All state inholdings in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 175,000 acres
  • All state land inholdings in Utah’s National Parks/National Recreation Areas 69,700 acres
  • All state inholdings in the Navajo and Goshute Indian Reservations 45,200 acres
  • Nearly all state inholdings within the National Forests 70,100 acres
  • Alton Coal Field Tracts Previously Designated Unsuitable for Mining 2,500 acres
  • Total Surface Acreage to be Received by the Federal Government 362,500 acres
  • Additional Mineral-Rights-Only Acreage 90,900 acres

The State of Utah Received:

• $50,000,000 in cash immediately following enactment of legislation
• $13,000,000 additional to be generated from the sale of unleased coal,