U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–996 2017

S. HRG. 114–472 

THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LARGE-SCALE 

MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 27, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

MICHELLE LANE, Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Lee, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Utah .......................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Herbert, Hon. Gary, Governor, State of Utah ....................................................... 4 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, Representative for the State of Utah, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 15 

Adams, Hon. Bruce, Commissioner, San Juan County (Utah) ............................ 17 

Johnson, Chester, Aneth Chapter, Navajo Nation ................................................ 22 

Singer, Lewis, Blue Mountain Dine ́, Navajo Nation ............................................. 30 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Adams, Hon. Bruce: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition: 

Letter responding to invitation to participate in the 7/27/16 Field Hearing .................................................................................................................. 41 

Proposal to President Barack Obama for the Creation of Bears Ears 

National Monument dated 10/15/2015 ........................................................ 42 

Bishop, Hon. Rob: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 15 

Herbert, Hon. Gary: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Johnson, Chester: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Lee, Hon. Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

National Trust for Historic Preservation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 108 

Singer, Lewis: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

United States Department of Agriculture: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 112 

United States Department of the Interior: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 114 

Utah Dine ́ Bike ́yah: 

Letter dated 7/23/16 responding to invitation to participate in the

7/27/16 Field Hearing ................................................................................... 116 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation: 

Letter to Secretary Jewell dated 7/16/16 ........................................................ 118 

Additional statements for this hearing were submitted and are on file with the Chief Clerk 

of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

(1) 

THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LARGE-SCALE 

MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS 

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. MDT at the 

San Juan County High School, 311 North 100 East, Blanding, 

Utah, Hon. Mike Lee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. This is truly one of the most spectacular places on 

earth. 

I have commented to my staff and to some of your local elected 

officials here today that it is amazing that anyone who ever lived 

here would ever want to leave because it is so beautiful. And the 

physical beauty of the surroundings here is matched only by the 

quality of the people who live here and love their community, people who want to make sure that their community is strong and vibrant and remains a great place for their children and for their 

grandchildren. 

It is no coincidence that every year people travel a great distance, from all over the United States, all over the State of Utah, 

and indeed, all over the world just to have their breath taken away 

by the sights of the canyons, of the natural bridges, the rivers and 

lakes, the valleys and the cliffs and, of course, the Bears Ears 

Buttes, which incidentally, I visited this morning. We climbed to 

the top of the east Bears Ears. All these thing are just sitting right 

in your backyard. But as everyone here knows there is much more 

to this part of our state than just this natural beauty. 

For the people of the Navajo Nation who live here in San Juan 

County and whose forefathers first settled these canyons many 

hundreds of years ago, this corner of the world, known as Bears 

Ears, is not just a place you call home. It is sacred ground. It is 

a source of meaning, a source of sustenance, a place where you 

meditate, where you gather and pray and hold ceremonies. 

It is what unites the generations of families and tribes forming 

an organic and permanent bond that connects past, present and future, all in one place and all at one time. Taking care of ancestral 

land, protecting and preserving it for the next generation, is not optional for many Native Americans. It is a sacred duty, it is part of 

life, and it is part of their tradition and their deeply rooted religious belief. 

2 

Now the same is true in my own faith, as a lifelong member of 

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I believe that pursuant to church teachings that God has created this earth for the 

benefit of man and that man has a sacred duty to use this earth 

wisely and prudently with thanksgiving and with concern for those 

who will live in future generations. 

The people of the Navajo Nation, living in San Juan County, 

have always faithfully fulfilled this responsibility in the Bears Ears 

region caring for their homelands and respecting for as long as 

anyone can remember, just as their forefathers did, the cultural 

lifeblood of the Navajo people of Southeastern Utah. 

Take away their access to the land, restrict their stewardship 

over the bounty, and it may not be long before their culture begins 

to suffer as a result. You can’t take that away, not without doing 

serious damage. Yet, that is exactly what the Obama Administration is contemplating with the potential national monument designation in the Bears Ears region. 

I would like to put forth four goals, four simple goals, that, I believe, are most likely shared by everyone in this room, by the people of San Juan County and, I believe, even by the White House. 

First, we need to protect Bears Ears for future generations to enjoy 

just as we today enjoy it and just as our forefathers going back centuries have enjoyed it. Second, to continue in perpetuity, Native 

American use of the land that has spiritually and physically sustained them for many hundreds of years. Third, establish Native 

American co-management of the Bears Ears region. And fourth, 

preserve multiple use of lands where doing so does not conflict with 

conservation goals. 

Now if these are our shared goals, history proves that they cannot be achieved if we try to pursue them by simply having the 

President of the United States, from a distant perch in Washington, DC, designating Bears Ears as a national monument. The 

Antiquities Act, which the President would use to make a national 

monument designation, simply does not allow for the inclusive, 

grassroots-based, land management required by these shared goals 

that I have outlined. That is the bad news. 

But the good news is that there is a better way, and it is called 

the Public Lands Initiative (PLI) which is a piece of legislation that 

has been written to achieve what a monument designation cannot. 

Instead of simply hoping that current and future land managers 

will cooperate and work equitably with the people of San Juan 

County, the PLI would codify into law clear and fair land management guidelines that ensure that Native Americans and other residents of San Juan County will be actively involved in the preservation of Bears Ears. 

The PLI is different than the proposed national monument in 

this respect because unlike the proposed national monument, the 

PLI requires no leap of faith, no leap of faith that suddenly without 

any standards agreed upon in advance, Federal land managers are 

just going to work cooperatively with local residents. 

Before we introduce today’s witnesses, it is worth acknowledging 

who is not here, who is not in the room with us, who is not present 

for this field hearing today. 

3 

Among those people who are not with us today are officials from 

the United States Department of the Interior and officials from the 

United States Forest Service as well as members of the group that 

calls itself the Bears Ears Coalition. Now just to be clear, they 

were all invited, Representatives from each of those entities were 

invited but they declined to participate in today’s hearing. This, I 

believe, is proof that we did not try, as some may suggest, to ‘‘stack 

the deck’’ with our panel of witnesses today. 

We would have preferred, of course, to have had witnesses from 

opposing viewpoints so as to clarify the debate. That is exactly why 

we began scheduling this hearing well over a month ago, to give 

everyone from all sides of this issue enough time to plan to be here 

as we try to find consensus on this important issue. 

But I cannot force the Obama Administration, I cannot force representatives of the U.S. Department of the Interior or the U.S. Forest Service, and I cannot force members of the Bears Ears Coalition 

to sit down and speak to you today. They would have to do so voluntarily and they have chosen to decline our invitation to do that. 

While I was pleased that Secretary Jewell and other Federal officials visited Utah a couple of weeks ago, Governor Herbert and the 

Federal delegation were unable to join because of the voting schedule of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the 

official business of the National Governor’s Association. I had 

hoped that today’s hearing, which Secretary Jewell has known 

about for over a month, could have served as an opportunity for at 

least someone in the Administration, if not Secretary Jewell herself 

perhaps a representative, to engage with those of us unable to 

make the trip last week and to those of you who tried to attend 

but were unable to do so because of the significant space constraints that kept many people from attending that meeting. 

Sadly, their absence here today seems to fit within the long 

standing pattern. After members of the PLI requested a meeting 

with the Bears Ears Coalition to discuss updates to the initiative, 

leadership of the Bears Ears Coalition responded. They responded 

and said, ‘‘We respectfully decline your invitation. We are satisfied 

that a Bears Ears National Monument, proclaimed by President 

Obama under his authority granted by the Antiquities Act, presents the best opportunity to protect the Bears Ears landscape and 

to assure a strong, Native American voice in monument management.’’ 

But the debate over the future of Bears Ears is far from finished 

much as some would like to pretend otherwise. Everyone here, the 

fact that you are here, the fact that you have given up a perfectly 

good block of time in the middle of perfectly good week to be here, 

demonstrates this debate is not over, that it should not be over. 

We hope that the Bears Ears Coalition will reconsider and will 

meet with us to discuss how best to preserve Bears Ears and how 

best to preserve Bears Ears in a way that is consistent with the 

will and the wishes of the people most directly affected by any action taken in this area. My door is always open. 

As a matter of housekeeping, I would like to remind everyone 

that this field hearing today is the same as a hearing in the United 

States Senate. Even though we are not in Washington, DC, this is 

a hearing of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 021996 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21996\21996.TXT 21996
4 

mittee. We are here to gather information from witnesses and examine a very important issue near and dear to our hearts, the impact of large scale monument designations. The regular rules that 

would apply to a Senate hearing will also apply here. 

In order to allow for time to answer questions and have a bit 

more dialog with everyone who took the time to travel today, we 

will transition to a town hall format immediately following the conclusion of this formal hearing. Governor Herbert, Chairman Bishop 

and I will answer questions about PLI or a national monument, 

and I will invite audience members advocating for a national 

monument to join us in that conversation which, again, will occur 

immediately following the formal portion of this Committee hearing. To ensure that all perspectives are heard, time will be evenly 

divided between opponents and proponents of the national monument during the town hall section of this meeting. 

Before introducing our esteemed witnesses who have generously 

joined us today, I would like to take a moment to thank Principal 

Bob Peterson and the entire staff of the San Juan High School for 

graciously allowing us to use this facility today. Let’s give them a 

round of applause. [Applause.] 

Senator LEE. Principal Peterson, where are you? There he is. 

Give him another round of applause. There he is right there. [Applause.] 

Senator LEE. Okay. It is now time for us to hear from our great 

panel of witnesses. 

As a reminder to each of these witnesses, you will each have a 

few minutes to present your oral testimony that you prepared in 

advance. Any additional written testimony will be accepted for the 

record for two weeks following today’s hearing. So feel free to supplement the record with any additional material, if you would like 

to do so, but do it within 14 days. 

After all witnesses complete their opening statements, we will 

follow with a round of questions before finishing the hearing and 

moving on to the town hall meeting. 

Our first witness, who I am now pleased to announce, is the 

Honorable Gary Herbert, the current Governor of the State of 

Utah. 

I would like to thank you, Governor Herbert, for taking the time 

to be here today and for taking time out of your busy schedule to 

be here with us in Blanding to share your thoughts. 

Governor Herbert? [Applause.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY HERBERT, GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF UTAH 

Governor HERBERT. Well thank you, Senator Lee, and I’m honored to be here with you. 

For the record, I am Gary Herbert, Governor of the great State 

of Utah, and honored to be here to talk about what I think is a 

very important subject for the entire State of Utah, not just for San 

Juan County, but for the entire State of Utah and beyond our borders. I know this is an important discussion and thank you, Senator Lee, for holding this important hearing. 

I appreciate the invitation to come here and speak on behalf of 

the people of Utah. We have differences of opinion on this issue. 

5 

I understand politics, you know, and sometimes the media seems 

to emphasize the differences we have on different issues. 

I’d like to just remind everybody that I think this is an issue that 

most of us have some consensus on. You’ve, kind of, already highlighted that, Senator Lee, by talking about the desire that most everyone has to have some kind of preservation of the Bears Ears 

area, to preserve and protect those uniquenesses that we find in 

that beautiful part of our state here in San Juan County. 

And so, as we talk about this, the discussion really is we don’t 

have opposition to the protection. But really the discussion seems 

to be revolving around how we, in fact, implement protection of the 

Bears Ears area. And how should we, in fact, go about that? Process does count, and I think that’s important for us to all to remember of the process that we’re involved with here on either side of 

this issue. 

As we talk about this today, I hope we don’t lose sight of the fact 

we have consensus on preservation and protection. We have a common goal, so the discussion really should focus around how best to 

achieve this shared goal. 

And I hope that tomorrow’s media headline, rather than emphasizing the differences and the divisiveness, emphasizes the consensus and the common goal that most everybody has about the 

preservation and protection of the Bears Ears. 

Now as I get into my view of this thing, let me just mention a 

key principle that I think pertains to most all of us as we see the 

effective use of government power. We’ve heard the phrase many 

times that government closest to the people governs best. That’s because it’s reflective of those who they’re nearest to. 

I believe that states have a significant role to solve problems of 

most of the issues that we talk about today. And with all due respect to those in Washington, DC, I think that the fact solutions 

come better from the states and the local governments on most 

issues whether it be health care, human services, education, for example, public safety and yes, even the public lands. 

Certainly those who have it in their backyard, that bear the 

brunt of what other decisions are made regarding the public lands 

ought to have their voices heard, considered and respected as part 

of the ability to come up with the appropriate and final solution. 

I would say that no one, I do mean no one, understands the challenges that are uniquely local, for public lands from those who live 

next door and amongst the public lands and so our citizens here 

should be heard. 

This principle we call federalism, and I know Congressman 

Bishop has been a big champion for the idea of shared responsibilities, is something that I’ve championed as the Chairman, as you 

know, Senator Lee, for the National Governors Association. States 

finding solutions and solving people’s problems at that level seem 

to be much more effective in getting things done as we look around 

this great country. That follows with, kind of, the principle I see 

here in solving this particular challenge and unique problem that 

we face here. 

I also believe in accountability. Those who are elected by the people bear the burden of accountability of those who have put them 

into office. I think that is much more germane to the issue than 

6 

some unelected bureaucrat in Washington, DC that really has not 

seen, been here or very seldom understands the backyard of the 

people here each and every day. So that accountability that we 

have and owe to our citizens of this state is best borne by those 

who are elected to the office. 

One of the biggest lessons, I think, we’ve learned over time is 

that local input is critical to getting success and to get buy in to 

whatever the solution is to the problem at hand. And I think 

there’s a significant difference to we, the people of Utah, who have 

something done to us as opposed to something that’s done with us. 

And we’ve seen that, significantly, 20 years ago when we had the 

Grand Staircase Escalante Monument in 1996 when we feel as a 

state that something was done to us and not with us. 

The process was, in fact, closed. There was not openness. There 

was not transparency. In fact, that from the highest office in the 

land, we were in fact lied to, Senator, about what was going to happen on that designation. And consequently, the results are 20 years 

later, we still have animus anger and distrust for the Federal Government because of that lack of process and having something done 

to us that we have evidence of visceral anger still today because 

of that process. 

That being said, process matters. Again, I think people can get 

together around the table and talk about their differences and deal 

in good faith. And I think that’s what the intent has been here to 

deal in good faith. 

So, we have two different competing arguments here. A national 

monument designation by one person who says with the wave of 

a hand this is what’s going to be, or we have a process that would 

be done legislatively that’s taken many years in the process of 

bringing people to the table, led by Congress and Rep. Bishop and 

others of our congressional delegation and saying let’s see if we 

can’t build a consensus and pass something legislatively that, in 

fact, will give us something that we feel like we’ve been participant 

in as co-partners in this as opposed to done to. 

And so, again, I know that sometimes that’s hard. It’s not easy. 

It’s much easier to be a monarchy. It’s much easier to be a dictator 

and say this is how I decree it. 

It’s much more difficult, in fact, to bring people together and discuss the issues, the pros and the cons and reason together and find 

compromise. And some people don’t like compromise. It’s my way 

or the highway. 

But again, I think, for us in Utah, we understand that compromise is not a dirty word and something that is necessary to find 

the good for the whole. 

Again, I appreciate that aspect of what’s being done here and I 

appreciate Congressman Bishop having over a thousand different 

public meetings in trying to bring consensus and bring people together. 

Not doing this has a host of negative consequences that we’ll 

have, that can take place. And again, we know people have different points of view but I think what we have with the PLI now, 

the Public Land Initiative, is, in fact, somewhat of a culmination 

of much work and effort by many people and not just the result of 

some kind of media hype or out of state or out of area lobbying 

7 

campaign or editorial campaign as opposed to really hearing the 

voice of the people. 

I think, as you can tell, I’m in the camp of doing this legislatively 

as opposed to a national monument. I think it’s the best way to 

bring consensus and bring good will out of the end product. There’s 

probably a lot of reasons that we’ll talk about here this afternoon 

about why this is a better way, but it’s the only way we can truly 

guarantee the outcome is through legislative action. You’ve already 

touched on that, Senator Lee, that the only way we can have a 

guarantee of the outcome and the process of management going forward is through legislative action. 

I expect, and Congressman Bishop can talk to this, that the current version of the PLI is not the final edition. I expect there’s opportunities to modify in some way and fine tune it to address some 

of the issues that, maybe, have been raised since it’s been released. 

But I believe that the PLI represents our best chance to find a 

way to find, kind of what I call, the messy middle. Not everybody 

is always happy about the middle, but compromise is what we need 

to look for here in this process and I think the PLI gives us a 

chance to do that. 

Let me say a couple more things, if I could, before I sign off, and 

I have extended my remarks which will be on file for you to look 

at. 

But again, I mention the fact that, you know, the challenges that 

we uniquely saw with the national monument enforcement, again, 

this Grand Staircase Escalante monument, 1.9 million acres. They 

have one forest ranger to enforce, law enforcement, to take care of 

the management responsibilities on that area, and that’s way too 

few when it comes down to it. If you don’t have local buy in it 

makes it very difficult, in fact, to manage the properties. 

The Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument Management 

Report for 2014 read this way, ‘‘Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument is experiencing constantly increasing recreational 

use as a result of national and international advertising, promoting 

as an iconic canyon country destination. This presents management 

challenges balancing use with adequate protections of the monument’s objective and values. Increased backcountry visitor impacts 

include increased graffiti, human waste issues, water quality concerns and parking congestions. Dispersed campsites are proliferating. Plain efforts are needed to ensure adequate use of management and resource protection.’’ 

Now that costs money and resources. I don’t think that those 

who’ve been arguing for protection of Bears Ears want to see that 

kind of end result. And so, just doing it as a national monument, 

I think, has unintended consequences which I think, in fact, our 

Native American brothers and sisters would not like to see happen. 

This last year the Grand Staircase Escalante had 1,400 reported 

cases of vandalism. According to the BLM there have been only 25 

cases of vandalism reported in the Bears Ears region since 2011. 

I’ll say it again, 1,400 cases of vandalism on the Grand Staircase 

Escalante last year alone and only 25 cases since 2011 in the Bears 

Ears area. That’s 1,400 times more common vandalism in an area 

that we want to respect and treat as sacred lands. 

8 

Let me just give you some comparison numbers too, Senator. As 

we look at the size and magnitude of this monument, 1.9 million 

acres being proposed, it’s by comparison larger than the entire 

State of Rhode Island, just over, we have about 3,000 square miles 

in the monument. Rhode Island is 1,200 square miles. 

Rhode Island currently has 93 state troopers to patrol an area 

that is, again, about 40 percent larger or smaller than the Bears 

Ears region. They have, BLM has two full time officers assigned on 

patrol to protect the entire Bears Ears region. 

And Rhode Island, Providence, the responsibility for that area is 

comprised of 20.5 square miles that the Providence Police Department has a budget of $69 million last year, $69 million. 

Just so, again, for comparison the entire budget of the BLM National Conservation Lands System nationwide, Senator, you know 

this probably as well as anybody, responsible for over 50,000 

square miles of protected lands, is only $64 million. 

So the resources to be committed to this thing are going to be 

sparse, indeed, if we look at the reality. 

So proper protection, I think, is important. But cooperation of the 

local community is to have buy in is why I think the PLI presents 

us with the best option. 

A unilateral monument designation will divide the people, not 

only here in Utah, but elsewhere. I think division is not healthy 

for what we’re trying to accomplish with the Bears Ears region. 

On the other hand, a legislative consensus solution like the PLI 

as proposed by Congressman Bishop has the potential to bring people together to ensure local cooperation and put in place a durable 

solution not only for the short-term, but for the long-term benefits 

of the people of Utah, the people of San Juan County, our Native 

American friends and for the people of America. It will give us the 

best long-term benefit in protecting and conserving public lands on 

nearly 18 million acres outside of just the Bears Ears region. 

So the intended consequences of the PLI must go beyond just the 

Bears Ears area and a national monument creation would knock 

that all out the window and eliminate all the potential we have 

with the PLI that goes above and beyond the Bears Ears. 

So there is a right way to do this, I believe, and a wrong way 

to do it. The process involved with the PLI is, in fact, the right 

way. And my sincere hope is that with your help and the congressional work of the House and the Senate, that we can show that 

the current Administration of President Obama and his folks that 

this is a better way. 

If you really care about the land this is not some kind of a political tomahawk to be used, no pun intended. If this really is about, 

in fact, the Bears Ears region, protecting, conserving the land, the 

PLI is by far, the superior way to go about doing it. 

So thank you for giving me the time. [Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Governor Herbert follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 21996.001
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 21996.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 21996.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 21996.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 21996.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 21996.006
15 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Governor Herbert, for your 

testimony. 

We are now going to be privileged to hear from our next witness, 

who is Congressman Rob Bishop. Congressman Bishop represents 

Utah’s first congressional District. He is also currently serving as 

the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and as 

Governor Herbert just mentioned a moment ago, he has held more 

than a thousand meetings around the state as he has worked relentlessly to put together his Public Lands Initiative. 

Congressman Bishop? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, REPRESENTATIVE FOR 

THE STATE OF UTAH, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, thank you. And I appreciate—— [Applause.] 

That was nice. If you do it when I finish, then I’ll be impressed, 

but—— [Laughter.] 

I’m not finished yet. [Laughter.] 

Anyway, thank you. 

I’m happy to be back here with you, and I appreciate the invitation. I feel saddened that many in the Administration have not 

taken the opportunity of joining us here in an official Senate hearing which would have been extremely healthy. 

I also realize that there are some people that have said this hearing is biased. There is one thing I want to say about that. Of course 

it’s biased, this is a Senate hearing. Everything the Senate does is 

biased. If it was on the House side, everything would be cool. We’d 

be great. [Laughter.] 

Nothing personal, but that’s right. 

I do want to spend a second talking about the history of the Antiquities Act and then something also about PLI, especially as it relates to Bears Ears. 

The Antiquities Act was passed in 1906. I hope people realize 

there were only 46 states in the nation then. There was no Park 

Service, there was no BLM and there were very few environmental 

laws, in fact, none at all. 

In the debate on the floor of the House for that Antiquities Act 

Congressman Lacey turned to a Western Congressman by the 

name of Stevens and said what we’re trying to do is preserve old 

objects of special interest which simply meant that the purpose of 

Antiquities was to find a specific archeological, scientific or historical thing and preserve it. 

Unfortunately, some Presidents have made like a Marine National Monument and the antiquities was a whole bunch of fish. 

Grand Staircase Escalante I asked Katie McGinty was the specific 

entity was and she said well, there’s a lot of interesting plants. 

Plants and fish are not antiquities. 

The second element was it had to be in immediate danger. So, 

for example, President Obama did Ce`sar Cha`vez’s home. Now 

that’s an antiquity, a thing, but it was not in any danger of immediate harm. 

The third element was it was always supposed to be in the smallest area possible. So on the debate they actually thought of amending the bill and they debated it on the House floor and the discusVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 021996 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21996\21996.TXT 21996
16 

sion was whether they should put a limit on how big these monuments would/should be and the discussion was whether they should 

be 320 acres or 640 acres, not 1.9 million acres. [Applause.] 

Unfortunately, when they wrote it they didn’t put a specific number in there. They just said the smallest footprint possible. But you 

realize what the three things that we’re talking about concluded. 

Now if this is all about management by the Administration, it’s 

already Federal land. The Administration has all sorts of tools from 

NEPA and FLPMA and everything else. This has got to be something more than simply about management. I think there’s a political aspect to this which is sad. 

It is also going to be sad that lots of presidents have used the 

Antiquities Act, both Republican and Democrat. Well, big deal. The 

ones who have used it have used it sparingly. FDR was elected four 

times, four terms. He only did use the Antiquities Act four times 

and one of those was overturned. 

If you go from like the mid–1960’s to the mid–1990’s, that 30- 

year period, they had seven presidents. Only one of those seven 

presidents used the Antiquities Act, of course, he used it 15 times. 

But there was only one who used it in that time period. 

So, to me, there are three presidents, who in my estimation, have 

not used it but have abused it. Most presidents do one, two, maybe 

three monument designations. Jimmy Carter did 15. Bill Clinton 

did his first one in his re-elect which was Grand Staircase 

Escalante and then 21 more as he left the door. And Barack 

Obama is trying to break that record now. It’s seven in his first 

term and now he says he wants to have a legacy. To me, that’s an 

abuse of it. 

Now, as much as I think the Antiquities Act is a legislative function mistakenly given to the Executive branch and the criteria is 

ignored today and the practice is abused today, there is still a better way of doing conservation efforts. And I think the PLI initiative 

is what we’re trying to do. 

It’s been frustrating because we’re trying to bring people who 

have never really compromised together before to actually compromise. That’s frustrating, and it’s taking a long time. 

But I think we do have a good bill. And specifically for this area 

for Bears Ears, we have a better way of preserving the area by 

having two conservation areas plus some wilderness gives flexibility for those who want to use it for the traditional activities as 

well as those who want to conserve it. 

But the important part to remember here is that it can only be 

done if you actually write it in statute. For Grand Staircase 

Escalante, the proclamation said grazing rights would be preserved. They haven’t been. They eventually change as time goes on 

which is one of the reasons why we should do this statutorily not 

in some proclamation that has not guaranteed what the future will 

be. 

That means that when we talk about management of this area, 

the management practice that is currently in this bill is the management that is legal now without changing any legislation. 

What the Administration has promised that they would like to, 

as a co-management, cannot legally be accomplished by the Administration. 

17 

But Senator, the Senate and the House can. If we were to put 

that statutorily into practice, then it could be done. And I think, 

to me, that’s the key element that you have to realize what the Administration has promised us as far as management of this land 

cannot be done. They cannot deliver. 

But congressionally, in statute, they can, we can deliver it and 

we could make sure that it is guaranteed and stayed there permanently. 

So, they may talk about executive orders of the past, even Freedom of Religion Act. In all of those they are still dominated by the 

underlying legislation saying the Secretary of Interior shall do everything they talked about to the extent practical. That’s the 

phrase I’m trying to get out of every piece of legislation coming 

through my committee, because it is too nebulous and it never 

guarantees what will or will not be the practices. 

It also has no cause of action. If you think the Administration 

is doing something they weren’t supposed to do than what they 

promised, there is no legal recourse about it. You’re stuck. That is 

something that can be changed. 

And I’m going to tell you right now, unfortunately, I think the 

bill is done. I don’t want to change it a whole lot but there is one 

thing I’m willing to fine tune and fine tune the management concept so that we can put into statute what will and will not be accomplished in there. We can actually have some kind of cooperative 

co-management practice but doing it the right way. A Presidential 

Proclamation cannot guarantee squat. 

Thank you. [Applause.] 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Congressman Bishop. 

We are going to be privileged next to hear from Bruce Adams. 

In addition to being a San Juan County Commissioner, Bruce 

Adams is additionally qualified to testify before us because he is a 

fourth generation rancher and knows this land as well as anyone. 

Commissioner Adams? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE ADAMS, COMMISSIONER, SAN 

JUAN COUNTY (UTAH) 

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Senator Lee. [Applause.] 

I want to thank you on behalf of the San Juan County Commission for holding this hearing. In my lifetime I’m not aware of any 

hearing by the Senate ever in our county. There may have been. 

I’m only 67, so. [Laughter.] 

But thank you so much for doing this for not only us, as commissioners, but for this constituency that is here today. They appreciate it very much I know. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. [Applause.] 

Mr. ADAMS. As you stated I am a public land grazer. I’m in the 

cattle business so I’m here to represent the grazing community, to 

represent farmers and ranchers in San Juan County. 

I also want to make some comments about the city’s watershed, 

both in Monticello and Blanding, if you’ll allow me to do that. 

First of all, a historical perspective might help you to understand 

the history, the grazing history in San Juan County. 

In 1879 families loaded into 80 wagons in Parowan, Utah and 

began a journey to San Juan County. They brought with them 

18 

1,000 head of horses and cows. The purpose of this expedition was 

to establish a settlement among the Native American people and 

help them with their domestic needs. Even though the settlers encountered some hostility at first, they soon became great friends. 

After these families settled in what would be known as Bluff, 

Utah, four families moved to the base of the Blue Mountains and 

established the beginnings of the present day community of Monticello. When these early settlers arrived at the base of the Blue 

Mountains, they were met by the LC and Carlisle cattle companies. 

These two cattle outfits were composed largely of Texas cowboys 

and outlaws hiding from their misdeeds. 

The grass was so plentiful in the area it is a matter of historical 

record that each cattle company was running nearly 10,000 head 

of cattle, 10,000 yearlings, east of Monticello and down in the Verdure Creek drainage. At this time grazing was free and unregulated. 

As a result, these grazing companies, along with others, overgrazed the land in the name of quick profitability for their investors and with little regard for the land which they were grazing. 

The early settlers were anxious to find a place not being grazed by 

the large companies, to graze their cattle that they had brought 

with them from Parowan. 

In the meantime, the Federal Government was developing policies for grazing public land and in 1934 passed the Taylor Grazing 

Act. It was signed by President Roosevelt and was intended to, and 

I quote from the record, ‘‘stop injury to the public grazing lands by 

preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for the orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the grazing 

of the livestock industry dependent upon the public range.’’ This 

Act was welcomed by the livestock men here in San Juan County, 

and it brought stability to the settlers who depended on grazing the 

public land for their livelihood. 

On July 16, 1946, the Grazing Service and the General Land Office merged to form the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. The 

BLM was in charge of the grazing permits that exist even today. 

These grazing permits have great value to the decedents of their 

ancestral families who obtained the rights to graze over 150 years 

ago. Many of the original grazing permits are still part of the family heritage that exists today. 

I would like to tell you the history of the BLM grazing permit 

I graze my cattle on. The first holder of the grazing permit was a 

man named Darryl Redd. He passed that permit on to his son, 

Lemuel Hardison Redd, and then through the guidelines of the 

BLM I obtained the permit from him. Only three individuals have 

ever held the rights to graze that permit. 

I could give you many examples of families who have obtained 

grazing permits from their settler ancestors. I just want to point 

out that these grazing permits are part of our heritage and obviously have great value to San Juan County with the families continually participating in grazing throughout each generation. 

Agriculture is one of the most important industries in this county. In fact, it ranks in the top two for economic importance in the 

county. When you are raised in a family that depends on cattle 

grazing, it becomes part of your soul and fiber. You live and 

19 

breathe the cattle business. You raise you children to love the land 

and take care of it so that it will take care of you. 

Cattlemen are the original environmentalists, because they could 

see the value of good land management. We welcome new ideas 

and improved management practices, but with only eight percent 

private property in this county we must be able to graze public 

land. 

Congressional Code Title 43, Chapter 8A, Subchapter 1–51b 

states, ‘‘Preference shall be given to issuance of grazing permits to 

those within or near a district who are landowners engaged in the 

livestock business.’’ 

State Code 63–38d–401(6)(m) includes state policy for public land 

grazing and supports grazing of domestic livestock. 

I am not sure what a new monument in San Juan County would 

do to livestock grazers, but I can tell you what has happened in 

Garfield County, Utah after the designation of the Grand Staircase 

Escalante monument. 

One hundred six thousand AUMs were permitted at the time of 

the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument creation. Approximately 40,000 were actually used in 2015, a 60 percent cut. 

Seedlings and vegetation treatment have not been maintained due 

to restrictive regulations. Prohibition against the non-native seeds 

have reduced range land health. Maintenance and improvement of 

water development has largely been eliminated. Monument designation has attracted visitors creating conflicts with pre-existing 

livestock operations. Monument designations have closed roads and 

reduced access to range improvements and allotments. Land use 

restrictions and zoning regulations have complicated feeding, watering, herding, and managing livestock operations. Monuments always reduce AUMs. [Applause.] 

Watersheds of both Blanding and Monticello are included in the 

proposed Bears Ears National Monument. That would devastate 

the communities of Monticello and Blanding. 

I urge you to do everything you can to stop this monument from 

happening in San Juan County. 

Thank you. [Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 7 here 21996.007
21 


Insert offset folio 8 here 21996.008
22 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Commissioner. It is great to 

hear from you, and I appreciate your insights. 

Our next witness is Mr. Chester Johnson. We owe Mr. Johnson 

a great debt of gratitude for driving up from Aneth today. I know 

he is busy caring for his 92-year-old mother, so he has a lot on his 

hands. 

Chester was born in this county, and he has lived almost his entire life here in San Juan County. He retired just a few years ago 

in 2010, although he doesn’t look old enough to be retired, after a 

long career as a social worker. A career in which he was able to 

use his Bachelor’s Degree and his Master’s Degree that he earned 

from the University of New Mexico and from New Mexico Highland 

University, respectively, to help the Navajo people in his career in 

social work. 

Mr. Johnson? [Applause.] 

STATEMENT OF CHESTER JOHNSON, ANETH CHAPTER, 

NAVAJO NATION 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for coming out. 

My name is Chester Johnson. I am a direct descendent from 

Kayellii, who was a Navajo warrior that had traveled in the Bears 

Ears region for many years. He believes in freedom and protection 

of land and independence. These are some things we carry on within our family, and many are living in the Aneth area are descended 

from this Kayellii warrior. 

Today I am here to give testimony on the sacredness of the Bears 

Ears region, also I’m supporting the PLI proposal. And I will elaborate on opposing the Bears Ears coalition proposal. 

Bears Ears is always sacred land to the Navajo. It’s an inspiration to us, it gives us strength as well as a healthy life. It provides 

good food and good hunting meat for us Native people. Annually 

we come out and hunt and picked pinons for food. 

Bears Ears is also homeland for our ancestors. We go in good 

mind and good way to walk the land Bears Ears and give us a 

peaceful and renew our physical being as well as spiritual. This is 

the way we look at Bears Ears and this is the way our warrior, 

Kayellii, has courageously fought for his freedom and fought to 

maintain our land. 

When you walk on the land on Bears Ears, it’s a beautiful area. 

It’s an inspiration to us and this is where we go for medicine and 

for prayer. 

This is why we want protection for Bears Ears and we—the medicine person that goes out and gets medicine, that’s where they go 

for fresh medicine as well as conducting their ceremony, and we’d 

like to maintain this openness to our Native people as well as for 

other people using the land at the current stage. 

If President Obama succeeds in making Bears Ears land a national monument, the Utah Navajos will be shut off from traditional practices as well as harvesting medicine and conducting 

healing ceremonies. 

Now I will go on to the supporting PLI proposal. To me, this proposal expresses the needs, crucial needs, of the Navajo people in reVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 021996 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21996\21996.TXT 21996
23 

lation to culture, spiritual belief and economic development that 

could bring prosperity to Utah Navajo. 

Some of the things I will point out in my speech here is number 

one, the PLI proposal advocates a national monument area designation of Bears Ears and establishes certain region of wilderness 

area. That proposal is the majority supported by Utah, San Juan 

County citizens. 

This is a comprehensive land proposal put together by the citizens of San Juan County. No one is excluded, and we all encourage 

people to participate in making this proposal by public meetings 

throughout the counties. I was part of the group discussion for this 

proposal from the beginning to the end when it was sent to our 

commission last year. 

Because the Utah Navajo were encouraged and they advocate for 

this proposal because it respects and values the tie they have with 

the Bears Ears. It also leaves access to the things that they would 

need at the Bears Ears region. Also again, it will bring prospect in 

the economic development through this proposal to reservation. 

There is heart and soul that this proposal is co-management 

which has been some lengthy discussion among the panel up here. 

And we believe in it, that it can be done. We get most of the county 

and Navajo included in this believe this is greater protection for 

our public land in San Juan County. 

Another thing that we, many people, in the Aneth region, things 

that we favor with this proposal because there is a possibility of 

transferring Federal mineral rights on the McCracken extension of 

the Navajo reservation to the Utah Navajo Trust Fund. 

These are the outstanding reasons why I support the PLI proposal. Also I think I have the right to express my opinions and support for public land, how it should be controlled and managed. 

Through the PLI proposal, we have the opportunity to establish or 

to create land management policy as well as decisions that will assure greater protection for public land. 

And I mentioned that I oppose the Bears Ears Coalition proposal. 

Here are some things that I feel that needs to be shared with the 

public, the way we see from the Aneth area, Aneth Chapter. 

The proposal was written only for a few people. Most of these 

were people that are from outside San Juan County. We feel that 

it was written by environmentalists, archeologists, and rock climbers and Indian tribes from New Mexico and Arizona. They lack the 

knowledge of the Bears Ears. That’s how we feel. And here they’re 

put in some position where they can make decision and policy and 

make a national monument out of Bears Ears land. 

Bears Ears Coalition is also proposing/imposing a national monument, closing 9.9 million acres. To us, this is an insane and senseless act. The motive for this type of action is greed, pride and inclination of satisfying specific interest groups. It totally excludes people of San Juan County. [Applause.] 

And this proposal does not benefit us. 

The proposal also establish—asking for the national monument 

as well as accessibility for native people to use, obtain and use, 

natural resources. 

24 

As explained, the Antiquities Act probably is not going to allow 

both ways. This is a tactic that was used with the Utah Navajo just 

to gather support for their proposal. [Applause.] 

And many Navajo are beginning to realize now this is what 

they’re doing, just to gain support for the proposal that they have 

written. Collaborative management is what they call is going to be 

established to regulate the national monument that they hope to 

have established. 

I believe this system is not workable and is something that will 

bring Arizona and New Mexico tribes to manage our public land 

that is located here in San Juan County. And to me, that will be 

a lot of disagreement. 

How could these tribes manage our land? How would they work 

with us, with the Navajo as well as other ethnic groups in San 

Juan County? They have no knowledge of what we need and how 

we use this land is the way we look at it. [Applause.] 

A co-management board, Navajo Nation is mentioned as one of 

the members to sit at this table to regulate and manage this national monument that they hope to establish. 

In the past we realized that Bears Ears region was in the United 

States Claims Indian Court, and it was pushing this to the level 

that we can have access back to Bears Ears region through this 

court. But Navajo tribes step in under Peterson Zah’s Administration, early 1980’s, when the money was offered to the tribal government, over $30 million, and they accepted that money which means 

that the Navajo Tribal Nation cannot, we’re told they cannot touch 

the case or matters related to Bears Ears in the future and here 

they designate the Navajo Nation as one of the board members to 

regulate this national monument that’s going to be established. 

[Applause.] 

And many of us in the Aneth area believe that we have a good 

chance in some way to reclaim some of this Bears Ears land 

through this court case. We protested. We said no to the Navajo 

Nation. Don’t take the money. Let’s pursue with the case. But it 

didn’t happen. 

At that time my father, who is deceased now, was an official and 

I’d travel with him through his different places. Don’t accept the 

money. We’re still pursuing the case, but we lost and it was sad 

that it has happened. 

And I’d just like to share this with the audience. This is how 

much the people in Aneth are so involved and so tied to Bears Ears 

land. 

And the last one I’d like to share with you about the coalition 

proposal. It’s a sacred document. That’s how we look at it. The 

Aneth people has never read it or nobody has full knowledge of 

what’s in the proposal. [Applause.] 

This proposal doesn’t mention what’s good for Aneth people. They 

had never contributed to it. This is why I oppose the coalition proposal. 

I am in support of Public Land Initiative Proposal. It stands for 

national conservation area and it stands for the wishes of Utah. It 

also will bring great protection for public land in San Juan County. 

25 

Also, again, that I, we, really feel that on the PLI proposal 

there’s going to be some economic development that Utah Navajo 

will benefit. 

A majority of the Navajo as we go travel into different chapters, 

they support the PLI Initiative. They don’t support the coalition 

proposal. It’s only written by a few people and this is why how we 

feel about it. It caused a lot of division, their proposal caused a lot 

of division in the Utah community, even in the family as well as 

with the friends. This is how much it has caused us pain this way. 

This is why we oppose it, and I’m one of them that oppose this proposal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to—[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 9 here 21996.009
27 


Insert offset folio 10 here 21996.010
28 


Insert offset folio 11 here 21996.011
29 


Insert offset folio 12 here 21996.012
30 

Senator LEE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and I am 

grateful to have such an enthusiastic audience with us today as 

well. [Laughter.] 

Senator LEE. Our next and final witness today is Mr. Lewis Singer. [Applause.] 

Senator LEE. Mr. Singer is a Navajo Indian from Caliente, Arizona. He graduated with three degrees from Brigham Young University in education. He has been an educator, serving as a school 

administrator on and off the reservation for the San Juan School 

District for over 30 years. Upon his retirement he worked for Utah 

State University Eastern at the Blanding Campus for five years. 

Lewis and his wife, Donna, have seven children, 21 grandchildren and get this, were foster parents to 57 Navajo boys. That 

is a lot of boys. [Applause.] 

Mr. Singer’s wife, Donna, who was instrumental in helping to establish the Utah Navajo Health System in San Juan County, the 

Utah Navajo Health System now has four clinics and even helped 

build the Blue Mountain Hospital right here in Blanding. 

Mr. Singer? [Applause.] 

STATEMENT OF LEWIS SINGER, BLUE MOUNTAIN DINE ́ , 

NAVAJO NATION 

Mr. SINGER. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

I wanted to thank you and the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee for being here today. As you can see we have a 

lot of people that are very concerned about this issue here today. 

And this hearing is vital for our, you know, what happens in the 

future to our land here, all the Native Americans and the Indian 

people and the Bilaga ́ana people, the white people who reside in 

this community. 

We’re having this meeting in their behalf and I’m grateful that 

those, that Governor Herbert, our commissioner, commissioners, 

are here today. I know that Rebecca is in California on another assignment or she would be here. And Bob Bishop, we appreciate 

your attendance here today. 

And so, the Bears Ears Coalition has recommended that 1.9 million acres of San Juan County land be designated for a national 

monument. On the land that is being proposed for a monument the 

Native people, the Indian people and the local people have been 

able to gather to hunt, to gather wood and traditional medicinal 

herbs and hold traditional ceremonies. National monument status 

would restrict access to the land, require payment of entrance fees 

and may restrict or prohibit traditional activities such as hunting, 

gathering wood, picking pine nuts, as Chester just mentioned, acquiring medicinal herbs and performing ceremonies on the land. 

Just this past year I’ve had the opportunity of going to BullfrogHalls Crossing and other monuments, and I’ve had to pay a fee 

every time I’ve entered those monuments. And I think you’ll find 

the same restrictions at other monuments as well. 

Secret meetings have been held by supporters of a national 

monument to encourage Native Americans to believe that a monument will help them reclaim land that they lost. Our elderly people 

are really enticed with the idea that they can reclaim their land 

which we think will never happen. And so, opponents of the monuVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 021996 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21996\21996.TXT 21996
31 

ment have been denied access to these meetings because we’re not 

invited or admitted. 

And also, brochures have been developed and passed out among 

the Native people in an effort to get their support for a monument. 

These brochures declare that the Native people will still be allowed 

access to the land and conduct their traditional activities but the 

restrictions that will be enforced once the land becomes a national 

monument will not allow for these activities. 

As you see some of our Ute people that performed at the beginning of this meeting, they came to a meeting that was being held 

here a week ago and they were denied access by their leader to the 

meeting that was being held in White Mesa because they were 

against the monument. 

The Navajo people can tell you that this is the truth based on 

their experiences with the Wupatki and Canyon de Chelly National 

Monuments in Arizona. 

In Wupatki, generations of Navajo sheep herding has almost disappeared due to the National Park Service’s limiting access to the 

land that Navajo families have managed since the 1870’s. Now all 

that remains of a once thriving Navajo community is a Navajo 

elder woman whose home will be claimed by the National Park 

Service when she dies. 

In Canyon de Chelly, the Federal Government has removed more 

than 300 sacred tribal relics and human remains from Navajo 

property. The Navajo Nation, I hope, would never have had agreed 

to this monument designation if they had known what was going 

to happen beforehand. 

The Navajo people have given up enough of their tribal lands for 

national monuments as well as our Anglo people will be giving up 

land. 1.9 million acres is many times more land than many other 

national monuments. How can we, as a Native people, as people of 

this county, trust the United States Government when they provide 

reservations, for example, and then come back and claim them as 

national monuments? 

We ask the Secretary of the Interior to extend consideration of 

this action and complete more review of the negative consequences 

that a national monument would put on the local people and especially the Native people, who have fought for America, even after 

the degradation that they experienced at the hands of the Federal 

Government. 

My father and uncle were both code talkers. My nephew fought 

in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with many other Native soldiers for 

the American people. My brother served in the military. Taking 

away access to land which they and their families use in honor and 

which was established on tribal lands such as Canyon de Chelly 

and Wupatki by the Federal Government doesn’t seem like very 

much gratitude for their sacrifices and service. 

I thank you for your time. [Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Singer follows:] 

32 


Insert offset folio 13 here 21996.013
33 


Insert offset folio 14 here 21996.014
34 

Senator LEE. Thank you so much for your prepared remarks 

which were very insightful. 

I am now going to ask a few questions of our witnesses. After we 

are finished with that portion of it, we will gavel out from the hearing, then we will begin the town hall component of this meeting 

where we will have an opportunity to hear from members of the 

public. 

I would like to start with Mr. Singer and Mr. Johnson. I just 

want to ask you, generally, to describe to us very briefly what kind 

of impact has the debate surrounding the proposed Bears Ears National Monument had on your communities? 

Mr. SINGER. Well, just to give you an example. Just this past 

year I’ve had the opportunity of delivering firewood to an elderly 

grandmother down at Monument Valley twice because she was out 

of firewood, and that’s what she depended on for heat and for cooking. And so, that’s one example. 

And then later on when we had a big snowstorm here in this 

area, one of the leaders called me from down in Monument Valley 

Chapter and asked if we could bring firewood down to the Chapter 

for people that were relying on firewood to heat their homes and 

to cook and that kind of thing. 

And so, I went to one of our church leaders here and in our community here and he was very gracious in allowing us to load a 

pickup truck and also a trailer load full of firewood so that those 

people could sustain themselves and relying on the firewood that 

they depend on in this area. 

Senator LEE. Mr. Johnson, anything to add there? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I’d like to add that we still depend on Bears 

Ears region for hunting. I think this is going to be limited. This 

is going to be eradicated to the limit that we’re not going to be allowed. And this is something that we just don’t just hunt for meat. 

We use the buckskin for ceremony as well. To some extent, this is 

going to be very limited. 

Also, we came down for enjoyment and for spiritual practices 

when we—when we diminish also that we were not allowed to 

come on to pick pinions which Bears Ears region is grow a lot of 

good pinions and red berries which the Navajo still use to come 

down also. 

And for those people that are basket makers, I’m sure they go 

up there for good willow, cut them and make a basket in that way 

that they sell it for economic benefit and economy wise and things 

like that. I think it’s going to be very limited. It will eliminate to 

some extent. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. Thank you. 

Governor Herbert, as Governor of Utah you have occasion to 

interact regularly with officials from the Federal Government, including officials from the Executive Branch of Government. Tell me 

how you think the designation of a national monument at Bears 

Ears, how would that impact the interactions you have, the interaction between the Governor’s Office and the White House or more 

broadly, the interaction between the State of Utah, the government 

of which you oversee as its Chief Executor, and the Federal Government, generally? 

35 

Governor HERBERT. Well, I understand the issue is one that’s 

emotional and for the people particularly close to the area in question it becomes very personal. And we need to look no farther than 

what happened 20 years ago when we had the Grand Staircase 

Escalante monument. And we still have the scars today, 20 years 

later. 

Senator LEE. Tell me what you mean by that, the scars? 

Governor HERBERT. People don’t trust the Federal Government. 

Again, that process, I mean, talk about a bad process. Our congressional delegation, every one of them, was lied to. Our Governor 

found out about the designation of the monument by reading it in 

the Washington Times. 

The President went and stood across in a neighboring state to 

make the declaration. He didn’t even come to Utah. Had no public 

input. So that was probably the worst of the worst. I would shudder to think if that was the same thing that was to happen here 

today. So we still have the scars. We still have the anxiety. We 

have the animus, the anger. 

And a monument here will be divisive. I’ve said this. It’s not a 

matter of should we protect the Bears Ears area. Everybody has, 

I think, consensus on that. But the process of how we do it makes 

a big difference in relationships between the State of Utah and all 

of Utah’s three million people and the Federal Government if we 

feel like they did it to us again as opposed to doing it with us. 

The PLI is with us. It’s consensus. It’s the appropriate way to do 

it where we can all feel a part of the outcome and buy into it. The 

designation of the monument is, kind of, somebody, kind of, sticking it to us for whatever reason. Some of it, as the Congressman 

said, feels like it’s just political. 

Senator LEE. So, in other words, if you were advising—Yes. [Applause.] 

If you were advising the President of the United States and he 

were asking your advice, you might be inclined to tell him, look, 

you guys own two-thirds of our state. That is a lot of our state to 

own. One would think that if you want to own that much of a state, 

you might want to have a good relationship with its residents and 

a good relationship with its Governor and its elected officials 

throughout the state. That certainly should be taken into account 

heavily when deciding to take a step like this. 

Governor HERBERT. Absolutely. [Applause.] 

If it’s really about protecting and preserving areas of critical 

need, I get it. But the PLI does much more than that. It protects 

even beyond Bears Ears and preserves and protects there. 

So, again, if it’s really about what we can do to manage correctly 

the public lands, the PLI is a much better vehicle to get that done 

which brings us together rather than divides us a national monument would do. 

Senator LEE. Many of the promises the Obama Administration 

has made to the Bears Ears Coalition may well be sincere but history, in my opinion, suggests that many of those promises are likely to prove hollow just based on our track record, based on the 

track record of the Federal Government, based on the track record 

of Federal land managers and their interactions with the people of 

Utah. 

36 

Should President Obama decide to create a national monument, 

to put out a proclamation out of the Antiquities Act designating the 

Bears Ears as a national monument, current law, in my opinion, 

provides no certainty for Native Americans to continue practices 

that are essential to their way of life, that are important to them 

for spiritual and historical and cultural reasons. 

To remember from today’s hearing, only one thing, forget everything else, just remember this, there is no law, there is no judicial 

precedent that guarantees that Native Americans will have continued access to or use of their sacred sites on this land, if that land 

is, in fact, designated as a national monument. There is nothing in 

existing law that provides that guarantee. 

Now——[Applause.] 

Now, to be clear some are going to respond to this, and they are 

going to point out that prior national monument proclamations 

have cited a handful of statutes that sound like they guarantee 

some of these protections. But we discovered that upon further examination they’ve proven to be completely toothless. 

President Obama has cited Executive Order Number 13007 

which tells land managers to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Native American sacred sites. But these supposed protections, supposed protections that are often invoked by people who 

are wanting to promote the idea of a national monument, quickly 

deteriorate. This supposed accommodation is qualified by language 

limiting Native Americans access to these lands. I quote, Representative Bishop referred to this earlier, ‘‘To the extent practicable, permitted by law and not clearly inconsistent with the 

agency.’’ You do not have to be a lawyer to look at that and realize 

that that is a loophole that is so wide you could drive a 747 and 

an airbus 8380 through it side-by-side. [Applause.] 

Moreover, Executive Order 13007 does not provide a cause of action. What does that mean? It means if they violate it there is no 

remedy in court. You cannot just bring them to court on that. And 

so, it’s toothless. It draws near to this principle with its words, but 

its heart is very far from protecting religious freedom. 

Past presidents have also cited the American Indian Freedom of 

Religion Act of 1978. That too, provides no cause of action for potential religious freedom violations by Federal agencies and does 

not prohibit Federal agencies from adopting policies that would inflict serious harm on sacred sites. I find this a little alarming. 

Congressman Bishop, tell me this. In what ways does the Public 

Lands Initiative provide more certainty? In what ways would it 

provide more protection for religious freedom and for access by Native Americans to these sacred sites than they would have access 

to in the event, in the unfortunate event, of Presidential Proclamation designating a national monument in the Bears Ears? 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, the language appeal, I tried to take away 

every kind of loose language that could be interpreted differently. 

So what we are trying to do is actually write down the specifics of 

what will and will not take place. So this idea of, you know, to the 

extent practical will not be found in there. But the bottom line is 

still the difference, as you already mentioned. 

We have the ability in Congress to establish statute, though if 

it’s not in existence right now, we can change it to make it happen. 

37 

A Presidential Proclamation, as nice as they are, they still can’t do 

that, even though he can say almost anything he wants to, it is not 

the same thing as changing the law. 

That’s what we’re trying to do with PLI. We are trying to change 

the law so that recreation, so that economic activities, grazing, traditional activities, they can be maintained. 

And if we’re talking about co-active or cooperative management, 

I like that concept. I think it has a great deal of opportunity. 

The President in a proclamation could not make what they have 

said they want to do. They cannot make it happen. But we could, 

and I’m willing to do that. I’m going to make sure that kind of cooperation in the management could take place, but it has to be 

done in statute otherwise there is no guarantee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. [Applause.] 

Commissioner Adams, are you aware that past national monument designations on BLM land have prohibited grazing entirely? 

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, I am. That’s why I’m so passionate about the 

fact that monuments do away with AUMs. 

Senator LEE. Right. 

What would happen if grazing were strictly prohibited in San 

Juan County under a designation? I assume that would be bad. 

Mr. ADAMS. I think one of my compatriots out there said war. 

[Laughter.] [Applause.] 

It would virtually devastate this county. Agriculture is probably 

number two in the county as far as importance for people to make 

a living. 

You take this national monument, 1.9 million acres. We have five 

million acres in this county, one of the biggest counties in the 

United States. It’s bigger than some states but only nine percent 

is private, or eight percent is private property. 

So we have to find a way to make a living on public land. If you 

eliminate grazing in this county you’re going to eliminate the livelihood of hundreds of families. It will devastate this county, and it 

will devastate the livelihood of farmers and ranchers in this county 

from now on. It is the most divisive proposal that has ever faced 

this county to my knowledge is this monument idea. [Applause.] 

Senator LEE. Congressman Bishop, talk to me about co-management. Some people who have been advocates for the idea of a Bears 

Ears National Monument have suggested it is all going to be okay 

because we will have co-management. 

First of all, tell me, is there any way co-management can work 

under existing law? Secondly, even if it could, without adequate 

constraints built into the law, are there additional concerns that 

could flow from that unless the terms of the co-management are 

clearly spelled out in law? 

Mr. BISHOP. That’s an easy one. 

No, there’s no way under existing law that you can have the comanagement that the Administration is talking about. 

Senator LEE. So, just to be clear. If the President issues a proclamation under the Antiquities Act saying I, President Barack 

Obama, hereby designate the Bears Ears as a national monument 

at two million acres and it’s bigger than Yosemite National Park 

and I don’t care what the people of San Juan County think or 

whatever he says in there. If he then says, and I hereby put in moVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 021996 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\21996\21996.TXT 21996
38 

tion a co-management structure. Those are empty words. Is that 

right? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, sincerity may be actually there, but if he were 

to actually—and they were to try to implement that, anybody could 

sue and it would be kicked out. I mean, they would lose because 

it violates the law as it’s presently constituted. But that’s what I 

said is the only way you get around that is if you actually pass 

statute that changes the law. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

This has been an extraordinarily useful exercise. 

In a moment we are going to gavel out of this hearing and we 

will move on to the next phase of our meeting, the town hall portion of the meeting where we will have the opportunity to hear 

from those of you who have come to talk to us and about your concerns and about your thoughts on this concept. 

I want to thank you once again for coming. I also want to thank 

each of our witnesses for coming, who provided valuable testimony. 

It is very important that we, as citizens of a state where most 

of the land is owned by the Federal Government, it is very important that we remember that we have certain rights as U.S. citizens 

and that those rights need to be protected and they won’t be protected unless we voice our concerns when the government is going 

to do something. We will always endeavor as citizens to voice them 

in a diplomatic way, in a civil way, but in a way that makes no 

mistake about the fact that our opinions matter and that when actions are taken that affect us locally, that affect us individually, 

that affect us personally, we are not going to simply accept whatever decision happens to be made from Washington, DC without 

expressing our opinions because our opinions matter. 

I am reminded of a scene near the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when a delegate from Massachusetts named Elbridge Gerry arose on September 3rd, 1787 to address his fellow 

delegates to express concerns about the proposed Constitution 

which was still undergoing some revisions. He explained that he 

was worried about provisions in the proposed Constitution that 

might give Congress too much power on a number of points, one 

of them involving the ownership of public land. 

And he uttered words to the effect of this, that if at the end of 

the day Congress ends up acquiring too much land within particular sovereign states, the people of those states might be compelled to an undue humble obedience to the Federal Government. 

I wonder sometimes whether when Elbridge Gerry was speaking 

whether he had us in mind. I wonder whether he saw San Juan 

County in particular. And I wonder whether we need to revisit, as 

a people, not just as residents of this part of the state, not just as 

residents of Utah, but as an American people, why it is that it 

makes sense. 

In what universe is it fair for the Federal Government to own 

this much land in our state, for the Federal Government to render 

our state so subservient on so many levels for the will and whim 

of bureaucratic administrators who are far from us? [Applause.] 

The information we have obtained today has proven incredibly 

helpful. The record will remain open for a period of two weeks after 

39 

this meeting has concluded and during that time witnesses are free 

to submit additional information. 

We will now gavel out and reconvene in just a couple of minutes 

in order to take your questions. This hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(40) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 21996.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 21996.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 21996.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 21996.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 21996.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21996.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21996.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 21996.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 21996.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 21996.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 21996.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 21996.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21996.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21996.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21996.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21996.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 21996.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 21996.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 21996.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 21996.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 21996.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 21996.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21996.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21996.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21996.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21996.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21996.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21996.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21996.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21996.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21996.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 21996.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 21996.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 21996.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 21996.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 21996.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 21996.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 21996.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 21996.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 21996.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 21996.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 21996.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 21996.057
84 


Insert offset folio 58 here 21996.058
85 


Insert offset folio 59 here 21996.059
86 


Insert offset folio 60 here 21996.060
87 


Insert offset folio 61 here 21996.061
88 


Insert offset folio 62 here 21996.062
89 


Insert offset folio 63 here 21996.063
90 


Insert offset folio 64 here 21996.064
91 


Insert offset folio 65 here 21996.065
92 


Insert offset folio 66 here 21996.066
93 


Insert offset folio 67 here 21996.067
94 


Insert offset folio 68 here 21996.068
95 


Insert offset folio 69 here 21996.069
96 


Insert offset folio 70 here 21996.070
97 


Insert offset folio 71 here 21996.071
98 


Insert offset folio 72 here 21996.072
99 


Insert offset folio 73 here 21996.073
100 


Insert offset folio 74 here 21996.074
101 


Insert offset folio 75 here 21996.075
102 


Insert offset folio 76 here 21996.076
103 


Insert offset folio 77 here 21996.077
104 


Insert offset folio 78 here 21996.078
105 


Insert offset folio 79 here 21996.079
106 


Insert offset folio 80 here 21996.080
107 


Insert offset folio 81 here 21996.081
108 


Insert offset folio 82 here 21996.082
109 


Insert offset folio 83 here 21996.083
110 


Insert offset folio 84 here 21996.084
111 


Insert offset folio 85 here 21996.085
112 


Insert offset folio 86 here 21996.086
113 


Insert offset folio 87 here 21996.087
114 


Insert offset folio 88 here 21996.088
115 


Insert offset folio 89 here 21996.089
116 


Insert offset folio 90 here 21996.090
117 


Insert offset folio 91 here 21996.091
118 


Insert offset folio 92 here 21996.092
119 


Insert offset folio 93 here 21996.093
120 


Insert offset folio 94 here 21996.094
121 


Insert offset folio 95 here 21996.095
122 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 96 here 21996.096