Members Present:

CANNING, Michael - DWR

GEORGESON, Michael - DEQ - Drinking Water

HARTY, Kimm - Utah Geo. Survey - DNR

HOPKIN, George - Agriculture

LITTIG, Pamela - DOGM

MORTENSEN, Duane - DERR

RATZLAFF, Bruce - DNR

TRIMMER, Edie - Forestry, Fire & State Lands

WATANABE, Judy - Emergency Management

Others Present:

BAUER, Andi - Uinta Natl Forest

BLOCH, Stephen - SUWA

DEPIETRO, Marlene - Forest Service

DIAMOND, Danielle - SUWA

OTT, Barbara - Forest Service

SCOTT, Tom - Forest Service

WATKINS, Tim - GOPB

BEDEL, Mark - GOPB

WRIGHT, Carolyn - GOPB

I. Approval of Minutes

Bruce Ratzlaff called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. Michael Georgeson made a motion to approve the June 12 minutes as submitted. George Hopkin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

II. Quality Growth Commission - Mark Bedel -

The Utah Quality Growth Act of 1999 directs the Quality Growth Commission to make recommendations to the legislature on implementing a policy of no net loss of private land:

After lengthy and thoughtful deliberations about maintaining the important balance between critical land conservation and the economic interests of the state, the Commission has unanimous support for a four-pronged recommendation to the legislature, which emphasizes these points:

• Achieve Net Gain. The Commission recognizes that private lands serving aa compelling public purpose should be preserved and, conversely, public land not serving a compelling public purpose should be converted to productive private use. The Commission believes it is in the state's best interest to facilitate the reallocation of public and private lands to best meet the needs of current and future residents. Due to the preponderance of publicly owned land in the state, the State must strive over time to achieve a net gain of private land.
• Set High Standards State critical land preservation funds should only be used for the truly critical and highest priority projects, which serve a compelling public and statewide interest. Decisions about the use of these funds must include a balancing of conservation and economic interests of the state since both are relevant to quality growth.
• Build Capacity to Monitor. The State must implement the necessary procedures to monitor the goal of a net gain of private land and to set high standards for state involvement in land conservation.
• Provide More Resources for Planning. Prudent decisions require careful research, information, and long term strategic thinking. In order to make the best decisions, the State must provide additional resources for critical land planning and other state and local planning activities.
• Findings

The Utah Quality Growth Commission finds that approximately 78% of the surface acres of land in Utah are owned by public entities or sovereign Indian nations. The Commission recognizes the value of these lands to many Utah residents, but questions the long-term economic viability of continuing this level of public ownership.

The extent of public land ownership in Utah is extreme among states. With 66% of its land held in federal ownership, Utah's share is more than twice the national average and ranks second only to Nevada among the 48 contiguous states. Another 8% of the land is owned by state government, primarily the State and institutional Trust Lands Administration. Approximately 4% of the land is owned by Indian nations. This leaves only one in every five acres in the state (approximately 22%) for private development.1

As a Commission we can envision a future scenario where Utah's economic vitality could be compromised because of the lack of developable land in the state. Moreover, we believe that economic opportunity for residents is a primary component of quality growth.

Recommendations

The Utah Quality Growth Commission endorses a statewide goal of a net gain in private land ownership and offers these recommendations for achieving this goal

1. Pro-actively Pursue All Feasible Mechanisms to Realize a Net Gain in Private Land The State must aggressively pursue all feasible mechanisms to achieve a net gain of private land in Utah. Viable mechanisms include State and Institutional Trust Land exchanges and sales to private ownership; aggressive pursuit of surplus federal lands (ex. Surplus lands identified via the Bureau of Land Management planning process); and congressional action. The Commission recommends that the State review public lands, which are adjacent to rapidly developing areas to determine which are the highest priority lands to transfer to private ownership, while preserving environmentally sensitive lands based on the high criteria to be established by the Commission pursuant to recommendation 2 below. As these lands are identified, the State must pro-actively work to transfer them to private ownership

2. Set Very High Standards for State Participation in Critical Land Conservation The Commission must set in motion an even more rigorous process for determining when there is a compelling public interest for state participation in a land preservation project. To date the Commission has strived to participate in projects when these criteria are met:

• Broad state interests are served (wildlife habitat, wetland preservation, view sheds protection, cultural resource preservation, agricultural preservation, public access provision, watershed protection)
• Willing seller exists
• Significant local support is present
• Substantial matching funds are present
• Economic development potential is not diminished
• Housing afford ability is not adversely affected
• The project must be approved by at least two-thirds of the Commission members (9 of 13)

The Commission proposes to strengthen the criteria to ensure that funds are used only when a parcel provides a compelling public benefit or benefits not otherwise provided by public lands, and is therefore unique and/or irreplaceable and is thereby suitable for conservation. This would be done by establishing a technical advisory team to make objective recommendations to the Commission regarding the merits of proposed projects and the ultimate balancing that must occur between conservation and economic interests. This team will be comprised of technical experts in these areas:

• Wildlife habitat
• Wetlands
• Viewsheds / scenic quality
• Historical/cultural preservation
• Agriculture
• Recreation
• Water shed / water quality protection
• Affordable Housing
• Economic Development
• Local Government

The team will have these functions:

• Develop evaluation criteria by discipline
• Analyze projects based on these criteria
• Conduct site visits when necessary
• Present findings to the Critical Lands Subcommittee

3. Build Capacity to Monitor.

The State must implement the necessary procedures to monitor land ownership and use restrictions in the state. The Commission has established a 2000 baseline for acreage, but has an incomplete inventory of use restrictions and knows even less about the dollar value public vs. private land in the state. From this point forward the State must (a) maintain and improve the inventory on acreage and use restrictions, (b) begin to monitor changes in value, and (c) start collecting local government land ownership data.

4. Provide Resources for Planning.

The State must allocate additional monies for state and local planning. Since critical lands often transcend local jurisdictional boundaries it is imperative that local governments coordinate their critical land planning. State resources for planning should create incentives for coordination and cooperation among local governments in identifying planning for the preservation of critical lands. The Commission firmly believes that quality growth in this state will not happen by accident or chance, but rather will require purposeful thinking about and careful preparation for the future. Additional money is needed for state and local government to do this, including data collection, mapping, locally driven planning processes, and tool development.

Uinta National Forest Plan Revision - Marlene DePietro

The Uinta National Forest began its Forest Plan revision process in 1999 with the release of the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS). Public issues were identified from comments generated through review of the AMS. These issues were used to help develop the six alternatives that have been analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

What is a Forest Plan?

Forest plans provide the framework for making decisions regarding natural resource management activities and uses. They provide a road map that shows where we want the state of natural resources and the types and level of use to be in the future.

SUMMARY

The Notice of Availability for the Forest Plan Revision was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2001. The extended, 120-day comment period will end on Tuesday, September 4, 2001.

There are two preferred alternatives:

Alternative B

• Recommends 30,420 acres for wilderness designation
• Would result in closure of approximately two miles of road
• Closes the Strawberry Project lands and two allotments on the Pleasant Grove Ranger District on Mount Timpanogos to grazing
• Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) of 640 CCF
• Complies with the requirements of the Roadless Rule (i.e., no timber harvest and no road construction or reconstruction within inventoried roadless areas)
• Does not close any roads because of roadless areas
• Does not preclude motorized trail use in roadless areas
• Would result in a slight reduction in motorized trails (approximately seven miles- but no change in the anticipated new trail construction)

Alternative D

• No recommendation for additional wilderness designations
• Would NOT close the two allotments on the Pleasant Grove Ranger District or the Strawberry Project lands
• ASQ of 6400CF
• Complies with the requirements of the Roadless Rule (i.e., no timber harvest and no road construction or reconstruction within inventoried roadless areas)
• Does not close any roads because of roadless areas
• Does not preclude motorized trail use in roadless areas
• Would not measurably change the miles of motorized trail

The revised Forest Plan is not a travel management plan; it sets broad guidelines, which will be used to develop a travel management plan at a later date.

Although the revised Forest Plan may identify areas recommended for wilderness designation, it is not a wilderness management plan. A wilderness management plan would be developed after congressional action designating a new wilderness area. Should areas be added to an existing wilderness area, the existing wilderness management plan for that area would need to be amended.

The game retrieval policy is still in effect and will be in effect for this year's hunting seasons. The revised Forest Plan is currently in draft form. No decision has been made; therefore, the features of the Draft Forest Plan do not take effect yet. After completion of the comment period, the revised Forest Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be finalized and a Record of Decision will be issued. If no appeal has been filed after 45 days, implementation would begin.

Wasatch National Forest Plan - Tom Scott

A power point presentations was given by Tom. Please see attached.

IV. Adjournment

There being no further business to bring before the Committee, Bruce Ratzlaff, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.