SOUTHWEST UTAH PLANNING AUTHORITIES COUNCIL (SUPAC)

Minutes of July 18, 1995 Meeting

** denotes action items

The Southwest Utah Planning Authorities Council (SUPAC) met on Tuesday, July 18, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. at the Federal Interagency Building in St. George, Utah. Those in attendance are listed on the rosters attached as Appendix A to these minutes.
Dane Leavitt, vice-chairman conducted the meeting. He welcomed those present and introduced various people. Tom Contreras is representing Hugh Thompson today. Jim Crisp is here for the BLM. Matt Millenbach, State Director of the BLM has been reassigned to Washington D.C. as the new associate director beginning in September. Bill Lamb will be the Utah State Director for a two year period. Also introduced was Robert Scott with USGS from Denver and he introduced two others from USGS that were also in attendance.
The approval of the May 9, 1995 minutes of meeting was deferred until after lunch.
John Williams gave a financial report of the council's funds. As of July 1, 1994 there was a balance of $2,068.88. That has been audited. $1,562.15 was collected with membership fees, leaving a balance of $3,595.03. Checks have been issued in the amount of $1,048.70, leaving a balance as of July 1, 1995 of $2,546.33. Those that had not paid their dues were reminded to do so. Dane Leavitt expressed thanks to John for the report and for his efforts in this area. Jeannine Holt made a motion to accept the financial report. That motion was seconded by Ted Stewart and all present voted aye.
Brad Barber reviewed the planning calendar. On August 22 there is a Southern Corridor Task Force meeting relating to transportation issues. There are some Andalex scoping meetings coming up. The Virgin River Coordinating Committee will meet on August 2. On August 25 there is a conference put on by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget entitled "Principles for Effective Partnership." This will focus on the basic underlying relationships between state and local governments. Brad Barber said that he would make sure the entire SUPAC council has full information on this conference. The Governor's planning conference will be in November and this will be added to the calendar. Also brought to the attention of the council was a public hearing on the Muddy Creek Project on August 1 in Kanab. There will also be master plan public hearings for the city of Santa Clara in August. If there is anything missing that should be put on the calendar, contact Brad.
Dane Leavitt asked for discussion regarding the SUPAC process. SUPAC was formed in October of 1993 with a Memo of Cooperation. The State is pleased with the process and what this council is doing and they are seeing a similar need in other areas of the state. The State's leading administrators and federal agency heads have been very supportive to the SUPAC process. Dane said the concern and the item of discussion is that as other areas begin a similar process it would become impossible for these state people to attend and support all meetings with their schedules.. Ted Stewart said he would like to throw out on the table the concept of whether this is the time for people at the state level to back away from direct involvement and have themselves replaced with division chairmen, etc. There was some general discussion regarding this. Ron Thompson suggested that perhaps once a year we could have the Governor and the heads of the agencies come for a recap and summary of the biggest issues that would keep them involved in the process and the rest of the year have representatives, division chairman, etc. attend in their places. Don Falvey said he liked the idea of a once a year kind of SUPAC summit summarizing the year's activities, what has been accomplished, and where we are going. Dane said that perhaps the first meeting of the year would be the best meeting to have an annual SUPAC summit with each participant giving a report.
John Redlinger from the Bureau of Reclamation said they would like to discuss SUPAC participation from Arizona and Nevada as it relates to the Virgin River resources. Dane said he felt like that it would be productive to have this participation. Ron Thompson said it does involve the two other states and has kind of been treated as two separate river systems because of the history of the river but there probably should be some cross planning. Ted Stewart indicated that if their counterparts from Arizona and Nevada participated it would triple the size of this committee and make it more impractical. Ron Thompson said there has been some cross planning with these states already in some areas such as the spinedace agreement and the river management plan. Dane suggested that a good solution would be to welcome Arizona and Nevada whenever they having anything to discuss in this SUPAC forum but just leave the present membership the way that it is.

Dane Leavitt asked if everyone would agree that SUPAC will keep moving forward not always with department heads but with people with authority. Roger Holland said he did not agree with this, he feels it will water down the process and make it harder to accomplish things. Dane said he shares the concerns but the reality of the situation makes delegation necessary. There was some further discussion of the SUPAC summit idea and when it should be. Diane Nielson said the first meeting of January would conflict with legislature. Ted Stewart suggested March would be a good time at the end of the legislature. Ted Stewart made a motion to designate March as the annual SUPAC meeting where state and regional agency and governmental heads be requested to attend. Dana Meir seconded the motion and all voted aye.
Wild and Scenic River items were next on the agenda. Tammi from Senator Bennett's office discussed budget problems. Senator Bennett's office has prioritized this. Tim Stewart on Senator Bennett's staff is also working on this and will try and use the language from the SUPAC council in the appropriations bill. That will help skirt authorization and they are working on that right now. Two bills were passed out, the first one being bill language developed at the May SUPAC meeting and the second being a modification of that one. Senator Bennett is trying do it a little different than how it is usually done with the authorization in one bill and funding in another bill. If this doesn't happen then the bill will have to go through the usual process. Tami or Tim from Senator Bennett's office will keep the SUPAC council advised on the status of this. Ted Stewart asked that they convey to Senator Bennett that the council is supportive of this and anything he can do to move this forward.
There was discussion of the appropriation and funding for the study. Ron Thompson asked if this group wants to see river studies discontinued and are we in a position to do anything about this. Scott Loveless said that we have to consider the law as it is written now and that this is mandated by law. Ted Stewart said the reality is that we have to do it after which he made a motion that the council pursue the statewide study as the preferable method. Roger Holland seconded the motion and all voted aye.

The next item on the agenda in regard to wild and scenic rivers was a report from the three federal agencies regarding the joint wild and scenic river criteria draft. Tom Contreras reported on this and said the three agencies met, took comments and did some internal reviewing and have a criteria draft. The next step is to send out the final draft to the key public. There was discussion of who should receive those copies and perhaps putting it in the federal register asking for comments back.

Dane Leavitt asked if we could have that distributed to the SUPAC council and then put it on the agenda to discuss at September meeting. Scott Loveless said that it needs to be made available publically when it is given to the SUPAC council since it is a proposed federal action. Tom Contreras said after it is reviewed internally in the three agencies they will get it out to the SUPAC council in preparation for September meeting and discussion.

Jim Crisp reminded the council that all BLM plans have to address wild and scenic river eligibility. The Dixie Resource Plan is presently on hold but it does address wild and scenic river suitability. He said it does not reflect coordination that he would be comfortable with and he would not be opposed to deferring it until a statewide study is done. He wants SUPAC council to be aware of this if the plan comes out published in September. There are no changes since last year and they were directed not to make any changes for a variety of reasons.

After a short break, Dane Leavitt informed the council that the Army Corp of Engineers and the Paiute Indian Tribe have both reaffirmed their participation in the SUPAC process since the last meeting.

Returning to wild and scenic issues, Barbara Hjelle gave a report on "state study" options under the Wild and Scenic River Act. She reviewed sections of the wild and scenic river act and discussed congress' intent. She said she would discuss the role of the state which is more significant than most think. There are only two ways a river can be included in the system. Either congress designates or a state proposes for designation. In Section 5 of the act congress listed additional rivers to be studied for inclusion. She reviewed section 5(c) which says that studies shall be pursued in close cooperation with appropriate agencies of the affected State and its political subdivisions as possible. This shows congressional intent to have the states very involved in this process. She said that there is nothing in this section that says federal agencies shall make determinations. Section 6 also provides for close cooperation of the state which further appears to show congressional intent that states should have very integral role in the wild and scenic river process. She suggested that we might want to discuss the possibility of a state funded statewide study under 2a and have a moratorium on federal studies being conducted under 5d. Brad Barber asked if anyone is aware of other states dealing with the statewide studies. It might be worthwhile to have somebody research this and see what others states experiences have been. Scott Loveless said that a recommendation can be made independent of a state under 5d. It is a planning decision under FLPMA.

There was continued discussion about state participation. The legislative language in the proposed appropriation bill for wild and scenic river study doesn't have language to allow state participation. Ron Thompson said the federal agencies have to give some consideration to state study under Section 202 of FLPMA. Scott Loveless suggested that if the state made a recommendation and the secretary approved it that would carry a lot of weight but Federal agencies could still make recommendation.

Jeannine Holt from Senator Hatch's office informed the council that Senator Hatch is working with Senator Bennetts office on this and Senator Hatch has written to Senator Gorton asking for the three million dollars for wild and scenic river study but they won't have any answer until September. *Dane suggested that at the September meeting there be further discussions on this and an update on funding and also a review of the joint criteria draft.
A copy of a letter from Governor Leavitt to Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, United States Forest Service with the attached SUPAC resolution regarding the moving of the North Kaibab Ranger District to the Dixie National Forest, was passed out to all present. Hugh Thompson said he met with Connie Frish and they are working towards sharing those resources and neither one has any animosity about the northern Kaibab coming into the Dixie National Forest. Right now they are looking at how they can shares resources and people. Roger Holland indicated he had also met with her and she seemed in favor of the realignment. Tom Contreras said they want to try this kind of coordination between two national forests and two regions. Roger Holland said that Kanab and Fredonia are very supportive of this realignment. Dane asked if Kane County had passed any resolutions regarding this. Roger indicated they had not but that would be a good next step.
The next item on the agenda was the appeals process resolution draft. The newest version with revisions was passed out. Page two has been totally changed. Roger Holland read 1 through 5 on page two of the resolution. He said the intent is to keep appeals without any basis or merit from continually stalling the process and holding up things. Ron Thompson said he would like to see the costs put back on the appellant if their appeal is in bad faith and without merit and is just an attempt to stall and hold things up. John Williams said the purpose of this should be to require the appellant to have more responsibility in their appeals and this would help streamline the whole process. Don Falvey said we need to include language that fits all the agencies more carefully. Dane said he was uncomfortable with the wording as it requires a definition of strategic plan and could cause problems for various agencies and others. Brad Barber said that the way # 1 is written it would not include an EIS and so that paragraph probably would need rewording. Paragraph two was discussed and it was decided to add the following last sentence to it. Issues not raised in the scoping and comment periods are barred from being raised on appeal.

After discussion it was decided to add to #3 as the last sentence. If the administrative law judge finds the appeal is only for delay and without a legitimate legal basis in fact or law the judge can forfeit the bond. There was discussion of who the bond would be forfeited to. Ted Stewart said the bond is for the purpose of eliminating bad faith appeals and it doesn't really matter who the bond goes to.

Dane suggested that we give the resolution back to the committee working on this for another revision of the items discussed. Roger suggested broadening the scope of the committee. Scott Loveless indicated that it would be inappropriate for the federal agencies to vote on this resolution. If there is language anyone wants to suggest to this committee, pleas feel free to do so.
John Redlinger is the program manager for Bureau of Reclamation. His office services this area which is in the SUPAC area of interest and he said he was wondering if the Bureau of Reclamation should be a member of SUPAC. Ron Thompson said that the Bureau hasn't played a role in this basin for decades. Dane Leavitt indicated they were initially invited when SUPAC was formed. Dianne Nielson said although they originally opted not to participate it should be open to any entity that wants to participate. Dane said he feels that if the Bureau of Reclamation wants to participate and pay the $60 fee a year they should be included. Ron Thompson said if and when the SUPAC council deals with issues that deal with reclamation facilities they need to participate but other than that there is nothing in this area that they deal with. After further discussion Ted Stewart made a motion to allow the Bureau of Reclamation's membership on SUPAC. Roger Holland seconded the motion and all voted aye with the exception of Ron Thompson who voted no. *Dane will bill Bureau of Reclamation.
Bob Scott from USGS was introduced. He said that it might be helpful to exchange information resources. They have done a lot a work in this part of Utah and are presently working in Southern Utah. He wondered if it would be appropriate for them to explain to us as an informational organization what they are doing and then illicit information from SUPAC on problems and concerns. It was decided they would do that at the September meeting. *Dane will allocate one-half hour at the September meeting for USGS.
The next item on the agenda was a presentation on the Zion Canyon transportation system by Don Falvey. He first showed a slide presentation of the history of transportation in Zion Park. The slide presentation showed the history of tunnels, roads, etc. in Zion National Park and showed the continued increase in visitation over the years. How to handle the numbers of people that visit and the traffic congestion has become a great concern. The campgrounds are always full as well as the parking lots. People are parking up roads when parking lots are full. They want to change this and remove congestion so that visitors can have a more quality experience. The question has become -- how do they do this? The need for a transportation system has been identified and documented since the 1970's in various park planning documents. A Development concept Plan was approved April 1994, which incorporates the recommendations of a transportation study. A cooperative effort is underway between Zion National Park, Town of Springdale, Zion Natural History Association, Zion Theater Group, Sandie National Laboratories, The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and local citizens and businesses.
The proposed transportation system contemplates shuttle vehicles operating in Zion Canyon from the south end of Springdale to the Temple of Sinawava at the end of the upper canyon. The six-mile long portion of Zion Canyon that is in the park will be accessed by open-air trams originating at the Transit/Visitor Contact Center located at the South entrance to the park. The first half of that six-mile scenic drive will be used by hikers, bicyclists, shuttle vehicles, private vehicles (the private vehicles eventually will be eliminated from this part), service trucks and tour buses associated with Zion Lodge. The Town will provide free parking and shuttle stops for a town loop that will operate from the South part of Springdale to the Transit/Visitor Center and will be free to users. Shuttle stops will be identified by common signs. He reviewed the proposed location for the shuttle stops. Don answered questions and explained the funding. The fiscal year 1996 budget reuqest totals $7.6 million and will fund Phase II improvements. Fiscal year 1997 (Phase III) is budgeted at $8,400,000 for completing facilities and purchase additional transit vehicles.
The next item on the agenda was a data sharing presentation by Loyd Johnson. Loyd gave a demonstration of getting onto the Internet and navigating around in the Internet. He said the Yahoo index is a very good one that indexes most everything on Internet. He discussed home pages and the possibility of SUPAC having a home page on the Internet where the SUPAC information would be available to all agencies. The difference between Internet and the bulletin board system is that on the bulletin board you can only look at data and the bulletin board cannot provide graphics like maps. He would recommend keeping the bulletin board as it still has a use especially since some don't have Internet interface. He would recommend that Governor's Office of Planning and Budget be administrator of the SUPAC home page on the Internet. They could provide a home link on the home page to the BLM, Forest Service, etc. This would avoid excess cost but will provide access to go from home page to home page. He recommends a 486 with 8 rams memory, windows and a 28.8 modem for Internet use. Each home page owners maintains their own data and own home page so that you can obtain most current data. There was discussion of some of the different agencies creating home pages. Loyd Johnson answered various questions. Loyd explained some of the tools that are most helpful in moving throughout the Internet: Yahoo, bookmarks and searching.
Brad Barber proposed that we encourage all council members and agencies to use this technology and we can start to build data and everyone will know where it is. Dane Leavitt suggested that we have a presentation on how to develop a home page and get progress reports regularly from SUPAC membership on their development of a home page.
The minutes of the meeting of May 9, 1995 were reviewed by the membership after which Cary Peterson made a motion to approve them as written. Ron Thompson seconded the motion and all voted aye.
The next meeting was scheduled for September 19, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. at the Interagency Building. Dane Leavitt reviewed the items to be included on September's agenda.
There being no further business before the Council, Ron Thompson moved to adjourn the meeting and Roger Holland seconded the motion. All voted aye.

Action Items:

At the September meeting there be further discussions on wild and scenic river issues including an update on funding and also a review of the joint criteria draft.
Dane will bill Bureau of Reclamation for fees associated with membership on SUPAC council.
Dane will allocate one-half hour on the September meeting agebda for USGS to inform SUPAC what they have been doing in this area and to address any concerns or questions.