From KSL Channel 5 News. Was aired live Jan. 28 @ 7:00 P.M.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the text of Governor Leavitt's State of the State address delivered Jan. 28, 2002, as provided by the Governor's office prior to the speech.

Public Lands

Public lands are another precious resource that will require attention and our best efforts in the days ahead. For rural Utahns, land issues means livelihoods. And from livelihoods comes the connection to life quality, tourism, recreation and the economic well-being of our entire state.

In the next 1,000 days, we are going to end the 30-year struggle for control and access to Utah roads that cross federal lands. Thousands of hours are being spent by citizens to map and document our rights of way. In the end we will win. They are our roads and our rights.

There are other triumphs ahead. In just a few days, 3.5 billion Olympic viewers will see the full panorama of Utah’s incredible landscapes. And it’s time for one place in particular to stand out.

I’m speaking, of course, of the historic San Rafael Swell. These 620,000 acres of canyons, pinnacles, and rock formations were placed in our backyard by generous providence, and we will now show ourselves worthy of that gift.

I’m proud to announce that local and state officials will formally request that the President of the United States use his executive powers to create the San Rafael National Monument. We will release details of the proposal tomorrow. But I can tell you this now. Unlike the scenario involving the Grand Staircase National Monument in September 1996, this is no stealth proposal. While both regions contain spectacular land deserving of protection, the Grand Staircase was created by a different president who developed his executive order in complete secrecy with no notice and no collaboration.

By contrast, the San Rafael proposal is the product of seven years of intense negotiations involving many stakeholders. We will ask President Bush to allow sufficient notice and additional discussion before acting. And you want my guess? The president is going to like this.

We are protectors of the land, but respecters of process. Members of the Emery County Commission and Public Land Council are with us tonight to formalize this request. Please stand. I salute your boldness.

One other thing. I can pretty safely guarantee that if President Bush decides to make the monument declaration in person, he’ll do it in Utah, not Arizona.

A second announcement I want to make involves this administration’s support for Envision Utah and the 21st Century Communities program. As an Olympic legacy, I propose the creation of the Utah Olympic Trails and Streams System. The objective is 715 miles of premier trails, open to hiking, off-roading, horseback riding and biking and within a 15-minute drive of every Utah citizen. In conjunction with the new trails system, the name of our blue ribbon fly-fishing initiative will be changed and those waterways added to the Olympic legacy piece.

These initiatives are worthwhile in their own right, but as always, there is the economic tie-in. It’s about quality of life. It’s about jobs being drawn to a beautiful, exceptional state.

sounds like this clown ins a klinton clone...I wonder how much the sierra club pays him??


:usa:

Originally posted by Yellowsub1962
sounds like this clown ins a klinton clone...I wonder how much the sierra club pays him??


My thoughts exactly...

:usa:

Well I'm not that familiar with Utah's governor or where he stands, however thier is the possibility that this could be used to ensure that motorized recreation is allowed on existing trails in that area. Remember in the Sequoia NM, Clinton specifically prohibited motorized recreation, this could be a chance for us to use the Antiquities Act to our benifiet by having the president REQUIRE motorized access on existing trails. This would then essentially become the first establishment of a "Backcountry Recreation Area" similar to what Blue Ribbon is pushing. Just an idea.

Robert

Very interesting. Good way of looking at it. I didn't stand back and think of it that way.

Well I really don't like the whole NM thing, but it just hit me that maybe we can use this to our advantage. Boy will it kill some of the "enviro" groups if we use their tactics against them.

Robert

Originally posted by Doc Savage
Well I really don't like the whole NM thing, but it just hit me that maybe we can use this to our advantage. Boy will it kill some of the "enviro" groups if we use their tactics against them.

Robert

I agree with you. This thursday we are having a local BLM meeting concerning other issues about the San Rafael. I'm sure there will be some heated discussion and see where everybody stands; against it, or only agree to it with certain stipulations. Such as motorized access.

Thanks for your input. It is much appreciated. :usa:

When Death Valley National Monument was created the charter reasons included preservation of public access to the history of hardship experienced by Pioneer Miners and Inhabitants (European Immigrant and Native American).

The original management of the National Monument included provisions to keep all existing routes open to public access, unless specifically posted closed for public safety reasons. All mining claims were to remain accessible to the public and valid as long as the claim holders maintained the claims. Public access to the historic townships was to be maintained to allow the current (and future) generations of Americans to experience the desolation and hardship encountered living and prospering around Death Valley. The intent was to maintain an accessible living museum of history, one that would educate the public in the hardships demanded to extract the mineral wealth, between Death Valley and Cero Gordo, that created the need for a port in Los Angeles. In short, if you could arrive there by any means, it was to remain legal to preserve public access and honor the historic values unique to Death Valley.

Public access to a living museum honoring the history unique to Death Valley was the reason for the National Monument's creation, not any reference to scenic values or habitat protection.

A casual reader would read this and (knowing the desolation of Death Valley) perceive this included motorized access to the historic mining claims and town sites scattered in the Death Valley area. Unfortunately, the "motorized" adjective was ignored, and overlooked, and eventually eliminated (if it ever existed in print). Long before the Park was established, Trail Canyon, Marble Canyon, and other historic (pre-OHV) dirt-road routes were closed, truncated, and abandoned with respect to maintenance that would keep motorized access open.

The formation of the National Park status further eliminated the public's economical "motorized" access to the historic values, the exact values that motivated the creation of the Death Valley National Monument.

The Wilderness Study Areas implemented in the Desert Conservation Act of 1992 (?, S-21) closed off 85%+ of the Monument's legal motorized access to Death Valley's unique historic values. These WSA's were implemented as Designated Wilderness, without further public input or scientific review, in 1999/2000(?) sealing the loss of economical motorized public access to the Death Valley area's history.

Settle for nothing less than "preservation of public motorized access to all points of historic interest and scenic value" in the print of the Monument's management prescription goals and values. Make the print read that the "Best Available Technology be employed to preserve motorized access and mitigate potential conflict with Endangered Species Act protections". "Road reduction and elimination shall result in zero net reduction in motorized miles of open access routes through implementation of Best Available Technology in road relocation, reconstruction, and improvement." "Road closures will not become permanent until all Available Technological solutions have been exhausted to mitigate threats to public safety and habitat protection."

You may also desire some verbiage regarding maintaining the degree of route maintenance and difficulty consistent with the historic value accessed by the trail. Have something planned when the motorized opposition portrays this as a demand to pave over the Monument.

Happy Trails!

Bush May Create Monument in Southern Utah

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 30, 2002; Page A02


The Bush administration is considering establishing its first national monument in southern Utah after criticizing Bill Clinton for having designated millions of acres as monument land during his presidency.

Utah officials conferred with the White House and Interior Department in recent weeks on a proposal to set aside 620,000 acres of desert canyons, rock formations and Indian carvings as the San Rafael National Monument, an administration official said yesterday. Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R), who disclosed the plan in a speech Monday, will formally ask the administration to conduct a 90-day review as a prelude to a presidential declaration under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

"We are willing to work with Gov. Leavitt to begin a process," said Mark Pfeifle, spokesman for Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton. "We're optimistic that it's beginning in the right way, which is to bring in local stakeholders and elected officials at the ground level."

An Emery County commissioner in southern Utah said potential boundaries for the monument were discussed at a public meeting Saturday. But environmental leaders said the decision to move forward caught them by surprise.

The proposed monument -- about 140 miles southeast of Salt Lake City -- would consists largely of the San Rafael Swell, a giant dome of rock created by tremendous geological upheavals eons ago. The remote desert was once a hiding spot for the outlaw Butch Cassidy. Some consider it among the world's most ruggedly beautiful terrains.

However, the area that would be placed under strict regulations governing tourism, camping, commercial development and mineral extraction would be less than half the area favored by conservationists.

Sierra Club spokesman Allen Mattison said environmentalists fear the proposal will "still allow mining and other destructive activities."

Environmental leaders said their greatest concern is that the administration will allow the continued use of large, four-wheel drive vehicles in roadless areas of the San Rafael Swell, which they say is ruining the terrain and natural habitat.

During his 2000 campaign, Bush criticized Clinton for making wholesale use of the Antiquities Act to create national monuments, largely in the West and Southwest, without adequately consulting local property owners, business leaders and officials. Clinton created 19 national monuments, including southern Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante. The designation imposed tough restrictions on commercial and recreational activities on nearly 6 million acres of federal land.

Administration officials and groups that had criticized Clinton said yesterday that Leavitt and Bush are avoiding past mistakes by carefully working with local stakeholders in developing a land use plan.

Terry L. Anderson, executive director of the conservative Political Economy Research Center of Bozeman, Mont., said Clinton had been "heavy-handed," while the Bush administration appeared to favor monument designations "evolving more from the ground up than the top down."

Larry Young, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Salt Lake City, said Bush "has the opportunity . . . to provide strong environmental protection for this area -- or he can . . . turn it into an overland playground."


© 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58633-2002Jan29.html

President George Bush

<Today's Date>, 2002

Dear President Bush,

It has come to my attention that there is currently some consideration being give to declaring the San Rafael Swell a National Monument.

I urge you to deny this request. I feel that this gesture is simply a ploy to keep those who choose to recreate with motorized vehicles, from this land.

I strongly support the need for environmental responsibility and feel that I practice ethical stewardship. The "Green" groups see the issue of shared use recreation as "easy pickings". Haven't we had enough of their tactic of using lawsuits to make it so expensive to defend that our government is forced to acquiesce simply because of money? Limiting access to our public lands is not the solution.

Please don't be swayed by this thinly veiled ploy.

Sincerely,

<Your Name>
<Address>
--------------------------------------

E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov

Washington Office:
Phone: (202) 456-1414
Fax: (202) 456-2461
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

It helps if you use this letter as a skeleton, and add your personal comments to it.

Crowdog
www.crowley-offroad.com

This is what I've been sending out to all the ATV & 4x4 Clubs and Associations that I know of around here:



**** 4x4 Club and/or Associtation,

It has come to our attention that Gov. Leavitt is going to request that President Bush declare the San Rafael Swell a national monument in light of the 2002 Olympics.

For KSL CH.5 News coverage: http://www.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/govt/state_02.htm#lands

I am urging everybody to oppose this and send a letter to the President asking to deny this request. http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F

:::::::: You may use the following clip of my letter as a template ::::::::::::::

Dear Mr. President,

As you may know, local and state officials from Utah will formally request that you use your executive powers to declare the San Rafael a national monument in light of the 2002 Olympics. As a resident of Price Utah (within thirty minutes of the San Rafael Swell), I among family members and friends please urge you to deny their request for a national monument. We believe it is a step in the wrong direction for the beautiful land we spend so much time on.

We are avid outdoorsmen who enjoy the land as it is. We access the land via motorized and unmotorized vehicles to simply enjoy what we have. We are afraid that by declaring this a National Monument will have a great impact on how we can use and enjoy our land.

I am among thousands who feel the same way about this most recent issue. Please don't let them take our land away from us. Thank you for your time.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Please help spread this message to others in your club and/or family.

Thank you,

Shane L. Herzog
solution@castlenet.com
Bent Metal 4 Wheelers
Price, Ut




Thanks for your addition Crowdog. :usa:

Read what the locals have to say about this stupid idea, and there is a poll to go along with it. Sentiment is very much against the monument.

http://www.ecprogress.com/index.php?id=1&go=news&pub=012902#1
LANDS COUNCIL PROPOSES SAN RAFAEL MONUMENT


EDITOR’S NOTE: The Emery County Progress is interested in knowing what you think about the proposed San Rafael National Monument. Let your voice be heard by participating in our poll on this web site or submitting a letter to the editor. You may mail your letters to the Emery County Progress at P.O. Box 589, Castle Dale, UT. 84513, or by e-mail (editor@ecprogress.com) or feel free to bring your letter to the Progress office at 190 East Main in Castle Dale. All letters must include the author’s name, hometown and a daytime telephone number for verification purposes. Telephone numbers will not be printed in the Emery County Progress.

By JAMES L. DAVIS
Editor, Emery County Progress THE SAN RAFAEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A near capacity crowd gathered at the Museum of the San Rafael on Saturday to hear the Emery County Public Lands Council’s latest proposal to protect the San Rafael Swell. After years of failed efforts to pass a San Rafael bill for the management of the area the council suggested that perhaps the best way to protect the Swell might be in having President George W. Bush declare it a national monument.

Governor Mike Leavitt, Senator Mike Dmitrich and a representative of Congressman Chris Cannon’s office were all in attendance at the public meeting to voice their support for what Governor Leavitt termed a bold proposal.

“This is a very bold action. This is the kind of thing that changes the map forever. I have studied very carefully the process that’s being proposed and I am persuaded that it can be done and I am persuaded that if this community decides that this should be done, then now is the time,” Governor Leavitt said.

The more than 200 people in attendance for the meeting listened carefully as Wes Curtis and Dennis Worwood of the lands council detailed the actions the county has taken in the past to protect the San Rafael. Twice the county has attempted to have a piece of legislation passed to protect local interests for land management of the San Rafael. The first time was in 1998 and, according to Curtis, it was “our local recipe for land management.” The bill was met with a firestorm of protests and was pulled from the floor of the House. The second piece of legislation was sent forward in 2000 and in that version the county made some compromises in hopes if environmental groups wouldn’t support the legislation then they would at least not oppose it. This bill was also met with protest and was pulled from the floor of the House after it had been amended to the point where county leadership no longer felt that the people of the area would support it.

County commissioners and the lands council have spent the past year trying to develop a plan that would be more successful. Members of the lands council held a series of meetings with members of the wilderness coalition to attempt to find some common ground, and while they reported that the meetings have met with some success, the differences were still too extreme.

“In the meetings a very good rapport was developed and progress was made, but we haven’t been able to bridge the gap that exists,” Curtis said.

In looking for options for the county, Curtis said that the council had come upon some “interesting surprises,” namely that there is a new and friendly administration that would support the proposal, but only if it was what people of the county wanted.

In detailing the proposal to have the San Rafael Swell declared a national monument, Curtis said that the language for the management of the monument would read as the first bill proposed by the county in 1998 had, which was considered the ideal language from the county’s point of view.

The very idea of a national monument leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many in the area after President Bill Clinton created the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. The creation of that monument was met with howls of protest because it was commonly felt it had been forced on Utah without public involvement or support. Organizers of the public meeting were quick to point out that the proposal for the San Rafael was only a proposal and would go no further without public comment and support.

During the meeting Curtis detailed what led the council and county leadership to consider the monument proposal. “We have felt for a long time that the environmental agenda is too extreme. They would eliminate cattle grazing, eliminate roads and that is not in the best interests of our citizens,” he said.

By having the area declared a monument it will “give us an opportunity to go back to the original recipe that we came up with in 1998. Rather than go through Congress we would do it administratively,” Curtis said.

President Bush could declare the San Rafael a monument under the Antiquities Act, which entitles presidents to declare by public proclamation objects of historic or scientific interest. Unlike the Grand Staircase, which was declared a monument for its scientific interests, the San Rafael would be declared a monument for its historic interests, which is an important difference when it comes to its management.

With a friendly administration county leadership said it was critical that if the county was to do something, that they must act quickly. With the 2002 elections approaching Republican control of Congress could easily shift and with Congressman Jim Hansen preparing to retire, the climate in Washington could be very different. According to Commissioner Randy Johnson, Congressman Hansen has been instrumental for the state not only for what he has been able to do, but for what he has been able to stop from being done.

Under the environmentalist’s Red Rock Wilderness proposal, almost 50 percent of Emery County would be declared wilderness. But during the meeting the council and commissioners admitted that even if the area was declared a monument, it wouldn’t stop the possibility for wilderness designations. The president cannot declare wilderness, only Congress can designate wilderness areas. But it is felt that if the area was declared a monument it might take some of the pressure off the area for wilderness designations.

According to Governor Leavitt, the key to preventing wilderness designations which would hamper access to public lands rests not so much in legislation or even in a presidential proclamation, but in the quiet title actions underway throughout the state in regards to RS2477 roads. Emery County, along with counties throughout the state, have been mapping RS2477 roads for years and that work continues. Proving that valid roads exist in the San Rafael is the key to access, according to Leavitt. The declaration of a monument would have no impact on that work. “They’re our roads and they’re our right and in the end I think we will win,” the governor said.

If the area were to be declared a monument its declaration would meld with the San Rafael Heritage Area legislation, which is a bill to manage tourism in the area. That legislation is currently being prepared for introduction on the floor of the House.

On several occasions county commissioners and members of the lands council made it clear to the audience that the decision to go forward with the monument proposal rested in the hands of the people of Emery County, but they were quick to caution that doing nothing may in the end be a mistake.

“We can sit back and enjoy the ride, but if we do that we have to be willing to accept what’s at the end of the tunnel,” said Commissioner Ira Hatch.

Although county leadership admitted that the proposal had not been fleshed out, they said it had reached the point where they needed public input on whether to pursue the idea or let it die. After the meeting Worwood said that written comments on the proposal were three to one in favor of the idea. From here the proposal will be submitted through the governor’s office to the Department of the Interior, which will begin the process of soliciting public comments and come up with a final proposal. When that final proposal is finalized, the citizens of Emery County will have the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposal. According to Worwood if the county approves of the final proposal then the president will designate the monument. If the county doesn’t like the final proposal, then he will not.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC OPINION ON MONUMENT PROPOSAL VARIES

By JAMES L. DAVIS
Editor, Emery County Progress HOW THE MONUMENT WOULD WORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposal for a national monument would encompass 621,000 acres of the Swell and the language of its management would harken back to the 1998 legislation that Emery County citizens agreed upon in a series of public meetings.

— The monument would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management, not the National Parks Service. There would be no federal reserve water right and the state of Utah would continue to manage and administer wildlife as if the monument did not exist. The monument would be wilderness neutral and wilderness study areas in the San Rafael would remain intact. Only Congress can designate wilderness areas.

— There would be established a monument advisory council with local representation. A monument management plan would be established within three years of its designation with local and state input.

— Wildlife in the monument would continue to be managed and administered as if the monument did not exist.

— There would be no federal reserve water right in the monument.

— The primary purpose of the monument would be to protect historic objects in the Swell.

— The monument would be visitor friendly and accessible and allow for multiple use.

— Boundaries of the monument would include the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry.

— Travel in the monument would reflect the Bureau of Land Management Travel Plan for the San Rafael, which is expected to be released in February. In regards to roads and travel in the Swell, Commissioner Randy Johnson said: “There are only a few roads we differ philosophically with the BLM on and that can be taken care of administratively.”

— In regards to grazing nothing in the proclamation would effect existing permits and the BLM would operate as if the monument did not exist as far as grazing was concerned.

— Funding for the management of the monument would come from the federal government with no increase in taxes or requirement for matching funds from the county.

— There would be no air quality standard change for the county with the establishment of a monument.

Public comments for the proposal will be accepted at it moves through the process.

The proposal to have the San Rafael Swell declared a national monument was met, for the most part, with cautious support by those who attended the Emery County Public Lands Council meeting on Saturday.

In detailing the events which had led the lands council to make such a proposal, Wes Curtis said that the council had gone forward on the premise that “you control your own destiny or someone else will.”

After years of struggle to create a San Rafael National Conservation Area the county’s attempts have only met with failure after continued battles with environmental groups who are well organized, financed and connected to those who make the decisions in Washington.

But with a friendly administration which is supportive of the proposal, county leaders tried to persuade local citizens that the national monument proposal might be the county’s last, best hope for the San Rafael.

“This is a unique opportunity and something we will have to move on quickly or it will disappear, which is why we wanted to include the public as soon as possible so we can hear from you,” Curtis said.

After detailing some of the specifics of the proposal, the lands council opened the floor for questions and comments. At the beginning of the meeting those in attendance were asked to sign in and let it be known if they wished to make comments. With an audience composed of ordinary citizens, ranchers and members of the off highway vehicle community, questions were many and varied.

The fact that the language of the proposal would mirror the language of the first bill proposed by the county in 1998 seemed to allay a great many concerns from the audience, while others were concerned that the proposal might be something other than it appeared.

“It looks like a sheep to me, but I worry that somewhere under there, there might be a wolf,” said Bruce Funk during the public comment period of the meeting.

The input of consideration of public comments was an area of concern for many as well. If the proposal is to go forward there would be a 90 day comment period before any proclamation is made and, according to county leaders, if the comments were negative, the proposal would be stopped.

The greatest concern for many is that the monument would not stop any wilderness designations. Wilderness designations would still be a possibility because Congress, not the president, is the only governmental body which can designate wilderness.

“If you leave everything to chance I’m not sure I like our chances. The monument does not resolve wilderness issues, but it takes away the urgency,” said Commissioner Ira Hatch.

Others voiced opposition to the proposal because they feared it would lock up the land from public access, a viewpoint the council and county commissioners did their best to dispel.

Even if the proposal is sent forward exactly as the county wanted, commissioners cautioned that things could change and if that were to happen the county would have the option to stop the monument proposal from moving forward.

“The president will not declare a monument unless Emery County says so. It will continue to come from the ground up,” said Commissioner Randy Johnson.

That possibility for changing the language of the monument is what concerned some. “I just want it to be done exactly as we set it out,” said James Gilson.

Still others were of the viewpoint that something needed to be done and after years of effort it was time to act.

“It’s time we settled in on a program. We must face the fact that there are other people involved in the use of Emery County. We’ve tried everything else, let’s do it,” said Eugene Johansen.

During the meeting Governor Mike Leavitt said that whatever the county decides, he would support them. “In making this proposal we would be making a proactive statement to a problem. You are wise to go forward and if you choose to go forward I’ll be with you,” he said.

Off-road groups unhappy with monument plan

2/5/2002

The Spectrum

Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY — When Gov. Michael Leavitt proposed a new national monument in southeastern Utah last week, off-road vehicle enthusiasts experienced deja vu.

Brian Hawthorne, director of Utah Shared Access Alliance, an off-road recreational group, said he and residents near the area in Emery County first heard about the idea at a meeting days before the governor’s State of the State speech, when he made the announcement.

“I and others left with a clear impression that Utahns would have time to comment on the question of whether to forward the proposal to the president,” Hawthorne said. “I was shocked when the governor announced the formalization of the request just 48 hours later.”

The group has asked Leavitt to hold off on the request to President Bush until it is discussed further with locals.

Leavitt proposed designating the new national monument on about 620,000 acres in the Colorado Plateau known as the San Rafael Swell. The governor was quick to point out it would be unlike the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which was created in a surprise announcement by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

“This is no stealth proposal,” Leavitt said of the monument designation.

Leavitt’s spokeswoman, Natalie Gochnour, said the governor intends an open, public process before Bush acts on the proposal. “We consider the announcement part of the process,” Gochnour said.

In his speech, Leavitt said he will ask Bush to allow sufficient notice and additional discussion before acting, she noted.

Emery County officials had lobbied Utah’s congressional delegation to have it declared a “national conservation area,” which would have allowed off-road vehicles to use the area.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, proposed a bill last session that would have done that. The bill died under lobbying by environmentalists who want to protect the area as wilderness and limit off-road vehicles.

“Although local groups and even environmentalists have engaged in various forms of public lands planning over past years, no one ever suggested those efforts be used for designating a national monument,” Hawthorne said. “It seems to me the governor is so eager to prove that monuments can be done right with this process.”

http://www.thespectrum.com/rest.php?section=localnews&storyid=5935

Utah Shared Access Alliance - www.usa-all.com