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; comments as they write their name. Behind their name is an exclamation 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 Down's Syndrome boy who is 46 years old right now. Because he worked on the farm, he has a driver's 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 engineering degrees.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I am glad the initial thought worked out for you, then, to teach the boys how to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

unfortunately, we are no closer to resolving this wilderness thing than we were 25 years ago.

Three years ago, Governor Leavitt proposed using an incremental 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 negotiate 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 wilderness reviews due to its checkerboard private and public land patterns at the time. However, through a series of land exchanges conducted in the 1990's, BLM acquired most of the railroad lands and the state trust lands in the unit, and subsequently, it was included as part of the Babbitt reinventory 2 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 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. Hinchey, and the gentleman, Mr. Young, who is here from the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. That was just 2 years ago.

The simple fact is this: until 2 years ago, many of our environmental groups did not include the Pilot Range as part of its wilderness 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 said—you 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, mines-oh, this is a quote: “What good is a wilderness with roads, power lines, buildings and communications towers," SUWA Executive Director Larry Young requested, 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

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 state's ability to be proactive in wildlife management as well as the recovery of endangered species.

The language of this bill, including water rights, management of fish and wildlife and grazing is the same language as was supported 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 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 this area. And like the Chairman-we both sit on the Armed Services Committee-this 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 included 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 additional reinventory under Section 202 of FLPMA.

The language in this bill reflects the agreement between Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt last year to end the 202 process 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 Congress 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 inventory-and I want to make this point-and 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 Automated 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.

I look forward to working with the BLM to prepare a map that accurately reflects these changes. This is a small step toward resolving 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 said I will not quote what he said, but he is not too interested in this either way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[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 forward and comprehensive, state wide 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 re-inventories, lawsuits and appeals. But unfortunately, 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. Rather 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 discussions. 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 negotiate boundaries 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-consuming 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 series of land exchanges conducted in the 1990's 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 Wilderness 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 didn't two years ago.

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 and BLM to manage the threatened Lahotan Trout habitat. 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,

restricting_the state's 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 then-Secretary 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 designation 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, wilderness 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 necessary 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 between 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 wilderness 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 designate 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 Geographic 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:]

74-154 D-3