1

Official Meeting Record Approved by the Designated Federal Official and Committee Chairperson

August 1, 2019

Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee (BENM MAC) Hideout Community Center: 648 South Hideout Way, Monticello, Utah 84535

June 5 - 6, 2019

Wednesday, June 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

In Attendance: Monument Advisory Committee Members: All members attended (Brooks Britt joined by phone). Names are listed in the introduction round robin. BLM/USFS Attendance: Ed Roberson, BLM Utah State Director; Lance Porter, BLM Canyon Country District Manager and the Designated Federal Official for the committee; Gary Torres, BLM Monticello Field Manager; Ryan Nehl, USFS Manti-La Sal Forest Supervisor; Mike Diem, Manti-La Sal District Ranger; Rebecca Doolittle, Bears Ears National Monument Planning Lead; Lisa Bryant Canyon Country Public Affairs Officer and meeting facilitator, and additional support staff. Public/Media Attendance: Thirty-three members of the public attended the first day and 12 the second day. Nine members of the media attended one or both days. Attachment E is a copy of the sign in sheets.

1:00 p.m. – Welcome - Agency Leadership 1. Lance Porter (BLM Canyon Country District Manager and Designated Federal Official for the

MAC) welcomed everyone, thanked members of the MAC and the public for coming, provided a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting and introduced the other agency officials.

2. Ryan Nehl (Manti-La Sal Forest Supervisor) joined Lance in welcoming and thanking everyone for their participation.

3. Ed Roberson (BLM Utah State Director) welcomed everyone and provided background regarding: the Presidential Proclamations establishing and modifying the national monuments; the importance of ongoing land use planning efforts for the Bears Ears National Monument, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, and Kanab planning areas. He discussed public engagement, including: the BLM’s commitment to seeking input and working with tribes in planning for and managing the Bears Ears National Monument, and the importance of advisory committees such as the Bears Ears MAC, Grand Staircase-Escalante MAC, and Utah RAC in managing public lands.

1:20 p.m. - Agenda Review and Meeting Room Logistics – Lisa Bryant Lisa Bryant, Canyon Country District Public Affairs Specialist and meeting facilitator, reviewed meeting and room logistics, the agenda for the day, and welcomed the media, notifying participants and members of the public they may be photographed or recorded during the meeting. 1:25 p.m. - Round Robin – Introduction of MAC Members – MAC Members

● Brooks Britt (paleontologist) – primarily researching Mesozoic vertebrates ● Jamie Bayles (public at large) – works at the University State University, Blanding Campus,

and assists people from various backgrounds achieve higher education goals ● Danny Flannery (dispersed recreation)– lifelong Blanding resident, hunter and outdoorsman

2

● Kelly Pehrson (public at large) – from Monticello, born and raised in San Juan County, former Administrative Assistant to the San Juan County Commission.

● Gordon Larsen (State of Utah) – Governor Herbert’s liaison ● Lee Bennett (archaeologist) – consulting Archaeologist 30-years – management, compliance,

interpretation, and working with the public ● Bruce Adams (local elected official) - San Juan County Commissioner ● Alfred Ben (tribal interests) – serves as the Red Mesa, Chapter Vice President, and he conveyed

through story that his people’s ancestors were in the area before there were any political boundaries

● Ryan Benally (tribal interests) – introduced himself using a traditional Navajo greeting identifying clan lineage and in English, he’s from Montezuma Creek and has strong ties to the area and the mountain

● Miles Moretti (conservation) - lives in North Salt Lake, he first experienced southeastern Utah working for the Utah Division of Wildlife in the 1980s

● Dustin Randall (developed recreation) – grew up in Monticello, runs a guiding operation ● Adam Redd (local business owners) - from Dugout Ranch and grew up locally, owns the

Jackalope Trading Company in Monticello ● Gail Johnson (local grazing interests) - from San Juan County, raises cattle and operates a ranch

west of Blanding ● Zeb Dalton (private landowners) - rancher in San Juan County ● Jared Barrett (developed recreation) – owns and operates Wild Rivers

During the round robin, members joked about taking a message back to DC to extend the charter, expiring on September 29, 2019. The meeting facilitator clarified for the public and others in the room who might not be aware, that the charters for advisory councils are renewed on a two year cycle and that the charter is expected to be extended for two more years. 1:35 p.m. – Confirm Courtesy Code – MAC Members The committee reviewed the suggested courtesy code and confirmed that everyone in the group agreed to the guidelines. Lance requested members of the public hold comments and questions until the public open period and emphasized the purpose of the meeting, which was for the agencies to obtain feedback from the MAC regarding the Draft Monument Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statement (MMPs/DEIS). 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 - Review Presidential Proclamations and MAC Charter – Gary Torres (Attachment B includes the presentation slides) In response to questions, agencies clarified/answered: ● What is the role of the MAC vs. the role of a cooperating agency? The authority for cooperating

agencies is based in the National Environmental Policy Act and they are involved during the alternative development phase and work under a non-disclosure agreement with respect to deliberative documents and information. The MAC advises and makes consensus-based recommendations during planning and will continue to provide advice and recommendations moving forward.

● Can uranium be transported across the monument? It would be determined through appropriate environmental reviews and in conjunction with state and county laws regarding such transport. With respect to the mine used as an example, there is an approved mine plan in place, which authorizes

3

transport of minerals on approved roads across the monument. ● What is the status of the Department of Energy mineral withdrawal? The USFS clarified that the

Department of Energy mineral withdrawal on South Elk Ridge was removed in 1999. ● What is the importance of MAC feedback compared to other feedback? Agency leadership identified

avenues of public engagement and participation throughout the planning process and stated they were all important, none outweigh the other. Agency leaders also added, the administration places a high value on timely decision-making, the tasks and issues before the MAC are complex, and there was an expectation for open dialogue and discussion. Lance provided an example of a different citizen-based working group that thought it would be easy to resolve all the issues, and then, over the course of several working meetings they struggled, and gained a new perspective about how challenging managing public lands can be.

2:45 – 4:30 p.m. – Overview of Draft MMPs/EIS – Lance Porter (Attachment C includes presentation slides). During the presentation the facilitator captured items the group wished to explore in more detail in the morning. The list is included at the end of this section. In response to questions, agencies clarified/answered or the group discussed: ● Adaptive management means that, based on specific criteria, agencies monitor conditions and make

management adjustments, as needed. ● The MAC may choose to recommend management options from any alternative in the Draft

MMPs/DEIS and make a recommendation that agencies include it in the Proposed Monument Management Plans and Final EIS (PMMPs/FEIS). The agencies advised the MAC that options outside the range of alternatives in the DEIS, could require a supplemental EIS.

● Alternative A reflects existing management as identified in the current BLM and USFS resource and land use plans. As a follow up, agency leadership further clarified that land use plans generally last about 20 years, although they can be updated through plan maintenance, and they don’t have an expiration date.

● Agency leadership confirmed there are no active vegetation treatment projects within the monument, although there are projects in other parts of the BLM Monticello Field Office and Manti-La Sal Ranger District.

● MAC members and agency leadership discussed management options related to grazing and how each alternative differed in potential impacts to livestock grazing. Gail also mentioned a permittee concern related to livestock water access on the USFS-administered lands.

● A MAC member asked why the plans included management options for grazing, given the proclamation language stating that nothing in the proclamation would result in changes to grazing. Agencies clarified there are planning regulations requiring the agencies to analyze a range of alternatives related to grazing, particularly in light of the numerous public comments received during scoping. The areas identified as “unavailable for grazing” in Alternative D are not currently grazed.

● Agency leadership clarified that future changes to grazing allocations could be made through a land use plan amendment, if warranted, but it is better to do it at this stage in planning. The agency would make a determination whether a change in allocation is necessary/warranted.

● The MAC discussed management options and Alternatives related to visitor services, including sites identified for public interpretation in the proclamations and sites not identified, group sizes, numbers of groups, visitor caps/limits, current permitting systems, how to address increased visitation impacts in Indian Creek, hardening sites for public visitation, cultural sensitivities with naming and disclosing sites, allowing access while protecting cultural resources, concerns with dispersed

4

camping near livestock and wildlife water sources, and impacts of recreational target shooting. ● The importance for Native American access to collect herbs and medicine, simplifying the

permitting process, and/or making permits more accessible to residents in the southern part of the county, although it was noted that, due to poor internet availability in that area, online permitting may not be the best option.

● The BLM clarified bicycles are considered mechanized vehicles, but not off-highway vehicles (OHVs), which are motorized vehicles.

● Agency leadership clarified no roads are being opened or closed as part of the monument planning process and specific road decisions will be made during implementation level travel planning.

Items identified by the MAC for possible consideration the following day: ● Visitation and recreation topics, including: how to address increased visitation; balancing recreation

access, other multiple uses (ie grazing), and protection of the monument resources; which sites will be highlighted and hardened for visitation and how they will be managed; a permit system for climbers in the Indian Creek area; group sizes, the number of groups and/or visitor caps; visitor education, infrastructure, services and/or targeted outreach; and recreation management zones; and front country vs. backcountry experiences.

● Clarifying target shooting language ● Dispersed camping near water sources, potential conflicts between recreation and livestock/wildlife ● Native American concerns including identifying site(s) for tribal ceremonies, ways to ease

permitting requirements for plants/etc. ● Rights-of-Way (ROWs): clarifying language noting differences in language for Shash Jáa and

Indian Creek units, and better rationale for avoidance/open/exclusion areas ● Cultural landscapes ● Wildlife ● Clarification of wood gathering rules and regulations, request to simplify or make permitting more

accessible, particularly to residents in the southern part of the county ● The Charter and a discussion of annual operating costs and the MAC’s role. Agency leadership

clarified the costs of the meeting are primarily administrative related to meeting space, travel, agency support. In order to focus on the Draft MMPs/DEIS, this was deferred to a future administrative discussion.

● The role of law enforcement in resource protection and the potential use of security cameras. 4:30-5:15 p.m. Public comments to the BENM MAC Members of the public who requested time to speak were each allotted three minutes to speak in the order they signed in. Although their main points were captured, there may be some errors and incomplete sentences in the written transcriptions. The BLM provided the committee with copies of emails submitted prior to the meeting (Attachment D)

1. Anna Tom: She introduced herself using a traditional Navajo greeting identifying clan lineage. (She was also speaking for her mother Betty Jones) – We have family history here and live in McCraken Mesa, my mother also lived in Butler Canyon, when she was a child she raised and grazed sheep. At the time, in 1934 (before the GLO and BLM) my dad had the grazing there. My family wants to let Native people to graze. There was a permit for a Native American to graze and they want to use this permit. (She held up a copy of a tourism guide with a photo of a hiker at a cliff dwelling) How are you going to keep these Anasazi ruins? How long will it take to wash off the sandstone, how many people will it take

5

to wash away all of the sandstone? As Native Americans, this is against our religion, it’s important to keep distance, keep some people away, cover with screen or fencing, and protect these areas.

2. Genevieve Mitchell: Originally from Arizona, my maternal grandfather is from Aneth. I want to emphasize that our grandparents wanted us to carry on the traditions, it is up to the grandchildren to reconnect, to protect the grazing permits for Ute people and collect herbs/medicines for ceremonies. Our ceremonies have to be done in a certain timeframe, they can’t wait for the BLM to open doors for us to get a permit. So request consideration of how our ceremonies can be done in a timely way.

3. Sylvia Zhonnie: Congratulations to MAC and you will be the voice of all people in San Juan County. I feel comfortable with Alternative D to allow access so that people can have benefits to it, such as wood gathering and other values that benefit Native Americans. Please consider a recommendation to designate a ceremonial ground and consider a horseback riding trail. Consider a way to acknowledge the warriors, what their story is behind the Bears Ears, it’s important for the young people, to give them stories about the warriors.

4. Marjorie Haun: I think this is a fascinating process, and believe in it, it’s important. It’s troubling - the treatment you have received in the media. You have been vilified and much of the reporting is negative. There is an overwhelming native group that is boycotting process, the Tribal Coalition should be participating in the process. To them it is a foregone conclusion that this is going to fail, everyone needs to look at this objectively. I believe that we have the best people who applied and will give this [planning process] the fair treatment it deserves.

5. Leland Grass: (Introduced himself using a traditional Navajo greeting identifying clan lineage). I’m from Arizona, I came here tracking the stories about Bears Ears and the controversies and I have a group of medicine men and elders, to talk about issues among our people and focus on healing and bears ears and talking about the Anasazi. Very sensitive issues, talking about this - it affects the youth, like today, everyone is gathering but there is no healing. It affects a lot of people we should step back a little more and focus on healing, not be in controversy, it should be more about healing, not about rock climbing and not about shooting. I would like to talk more and it should be about healing.

6. Josh Ewing: I live in Bluff, run a non-profit organization, Friends of Cedar Mesa, we advocate for natural and cultural resources in the region. We run an education center about Bears Ears, monitoring initiatives, helping visitors, conducting research, and involved in advocacy of the area. Encourage you to consider what message the plan sends: The preferred alternative is the least protective and in some areas it is less protective that 2008 [Monticello Resource Management] plan. What is important to you? …the least protective plan for smallest area? Or something better? When the political pendulum swings back in the next election it will hit the locals the hardest. Instead of the least protective alternative, I respectfully urge you to select the alternative and options offering the most protection of resources.

7. Libby Fayad: General Council for the National Parks Conservation Association, which has joined others in the litigation regarding the modification of the BENM. Emphasized the importance and beauty

6

of the area and the need to protect it. I hope that you will not do anything as a committee to damage any part of this area, and I believe the area will be made whole again, when litigation prevails. Please include the parks as part of your considerations.

8. Harrison Johnson: I live north of Montezuma Creek – McCracken Mesa. Congratulations to all committee members on this board. With respect to the issue of Bears Ears, Shash Jaa, IC, this area should belong to the locals, we are the fixers, and can fix it right. I am happy with Trump and Zinke for downsizing the monument. My Aneth Chapter is against the Diné Bikéyah believing they deceived us saying that we can move back to raise our sheep. That will not happen. Feels deceived. The committee should make a recommendation that Shash Jáa and Indian Creek make a monument for my ancestors. Bears Ears Butte was called enemy lookout point. For grazing, I would like a fair resolution and get our cows up there.

8. Jonah Yellowman: I am a Spiritual advisor for Diné Bikéyah, spoke of boundary lands and the Creator created it all for a purpose, told the story of the two rivers (one male, one female) that come together here and the Bears Ears are at the center of this sacred place including Comb Ridge, San Juan River, Colorado River, and Bears Ears. Ancestors used to hunt, use the area for prayers and ceremonies, this knowledge is now being set aside. Please have respect for our people, all tribes that came together asking for this.

9. Cynthia Wilson: I am from Monument Valley. Utah Diné Bikéyah want to come back to practice traditional hunting and ceremonies. How does this management plan incorporate the 75 elder interviews and views of 5 tribes recorded for history, especially when we don’t have representation from these tribes? Obama recognized critical insights come from ancestral people, where are those voices on this committee? Each of those voices is important. The unity of the 5 Tribes asking for protection of the Monument incorporate indigenous knowledge and land practices to the team. This plan only includes Western views and needs to incorporate more indigenous management views.

10. Kelly Mike Green: I am a lifelong resident of San Juan County and I support Alternative D and believe the reduction in size and the less attention the area receives is better for protecting resources. I It’s important to have continued access to the area for ceremonies, herb, wood, and pinyon nut gathering, continued use of existing roads, mountain bikes should have the same use as other use. Will BLM and USFS add more wilderness after this plan is signed? Who is responsible when road washouts occur and who will repair them and will access be maintained? Will a fee be established, and could some of that money be used for search and rescue and help law enforcement?

11. Tim Peterson: Representing the Grand Canyon Trust: Thanked the committee members for their time and volunteerism, expressed concern with wasting people’s time, having this meeting and planning while the repeal of the monument and Trump Proclamation is under litigation. Recommends holding off on planning until litigation is done and focusing resources on addressing increased visitation. The original proclamation requires the 5 tribes be involved, and they need input for not only just Shash Jáa and Indian Creek Units, but the entire 1,350,000 acres. Everyone has a story and perspective, engaging

7

one-on-one, person-to-person offers opportunities to find common ground and, as others have called for, for healing. I hope the path forward includes everyone.

12. Rachel Nelson: Representing Friends of Indian Creek, Salt Lake Climbers and Access Fund, climbing advocacy groups, promoting access through responsible recreation. Climbers are the largest recreation user group in Indian Creek. Please protect climbing access and camping. Proclamation 9558 includes climbing as an important recreation opportunity. Climbing groups and climbers continue to work with the BLM and provide comments for management planning and implementation level plans for climbing opportunities, we’ve participated in surveys of users, please look at comments submitted. Please support the highest number of acres managed as VRM I. Support Alt C as it offers protections and allows access for climbing on hoodoos in Shash Jáa, and we can utilize best practices to camouflage hardware. She was disappointed to not be appointed to serve on the MAC and wants to be of assistance.

Following the public comment, the meeting was ended for the day by agency leadership thanking everyone for attending.

Thursday June 6, 2019 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m. - Brief overview of yesterday’s activities and agenda for today - Facilitator, Lance Porter

Lance thanked everyone for their input, good discussion and identified topics of discussion. Agency leadership expressed that they were looking forward to the recommendations and advised the MAC to prioritize issues and focus on high level recommendations to accomplish the work ahead and use the analysis in the Draft MMPs/EIS to help with recommendations.

8:15 a.m. - Select a Chairperson – MAC Members

Lisa defined the duties of the chairman for the MAC: ● Lead the meetings with support from BLM facilitator; ● Assisting in identifying discussion topics and provide input for meeting agendas; and ● Reviewing and approving official record of meeting notes prior to public posting.

Three members were nominated and seconded: Bruce Adams, Gordon Larsen, Ryan Benally.

Bruce Adams was elected by an anonymous vote. Bruce accepted and immediately motioned for nomination of a vice-chair and nominated Ryan Benally, who was approved by a unanimous vote of the committee.

8:30 a.m. - Bears Ears National Monument Draft Monument Management Plans and Draft EIS – MAC discussion and feedback – MAC Members

General discussion, including:

8

● Throughout the meeting, members reiterated frustration at the lack of time allotted for this task and thorough discussion of issues. They spent time discussing how best to accomplish the meeting goals by the end of the meeting.

● House on Fire needs attention/infrastructure to support the high number of visitors ● The growing number of climbers in Indian Creek ● Higher visitation in general ● Acceleration of the cultural resource management plan ● Need to protect and preserve sites named in the proclamations and draft plans ● Impacts occurring now due to high visitation ● Planning level vs implementation level decisions ● Consider security cameras at sensitive sites ● Discussion of Traditional Cultural Properties and lack of Cultural Landscape discussion in the Draft

MMPs/DEIS, context of Cultural Landscapes may encompass more than just the lands within the monument, which are a component of the larger landscape

● Importance of interpretive materials including Native American and pioneer history ● Conflicts between allowing access/visitation and protecting cultural resources ● Visitor education/interpretation ● Tribal concerns with hardening sites prolonging life versus natural degradation; importance of the

area to origin stories, ancestral use of the region, areas important in different ways to different groups, and keeping sharing traditional knowledge

● Establishing a ceremonial ground near the Bears Ears Buttes including recognition of tribal warriors and leaders - such as K’aayelli (Navajo leader from 1800’s), a place to teach youth, set up teepees and pray for elders and veterans, place for teaching

● How much to disclose about ceremonies/ceremonial grounds – disclosure vs privacy, how this affects agencies ability to manage uses and conflicts

● Responsible recreation, visiting sites respectfully, value of guides teaching visitors to not enter structures, cliff dwellings, etiquette for visiting sensitive cultural sites

● Kigalia Ranger Guard Station as possible location for ceremonial sites ● Simplifying and/or speeding up permit processes for ceremonial gatherings, there are specific times

these occur, make permitting for hunting, wood gathering easier, closer to residents in southern San Juan County so they don’t have to drive to Monticello, which presents a hardship for many, consider tools like Letter of Understanding for ceremonial activities, establishing certain stipulations and thresholds under which permits/permission isn’t required

● Form a subcommittee to further explore some of these issues; agency clarification that while GSA FACA regulations do not require public notice of subcommittee meetings, in an effort to be more transparent, the BLM regulations require advance announcements of subcommittee meetings and that they are open to the public. The review and approval of Federal Register Notices generally takes 90 days before publication. Useful tool for future meetings, but doesn’t meet the timeline for this task.

9

● Target shooting – clarification of how it differs from hunting, challenges/opportunities, and need to clarify language in the plan to be more specific to address concerns, but allow for it as much as possible

● Fire and vegetation management, discussion of management tools, such as chaining ● Purpose of recreation management zones in several alternatives to help provide and manage various

visitation experiences i.e. front country vs backcountry ● Permitting, visitor caps, group sizes, numbers of groups ● The BLM clarified that in the alternative table (chapter 2), when Alternative A said “No Similar

Action”, that meant there was no decision or management guidance in the 2008 Monticello Resource Management Plan specific to that particular topic or issue addressed in alternatives B, C, and D.

● ROWs inconsistent language in the alternative table, how it relates to travel planning and RS2477 (plan doesn’t address RS2477)

● Conflicts between recreation and livestock grazing – water sources, camping, language in the plan favoring recreation when conflicts are identified

● Group wanted to discuss wildlife and paleontology as well as many other items in the draft plan, but ran out of time and were very frustrated by the lack of time allowed. Discussed extending the meeting, but several members had to travel, and generally it’s better to stay within the times published in the Federal Register. Agencies acknowledged the challenging time limitations and offered to factor in more time for future meetings given members’ engagement and desire for thorough discussions. Affirmed the good work the group completed in the short time and expressed appreciation for their engagement and obvious preparation for this meeting.

In summary, eleven motions were made and seconded and had sufficient support to carry forward as recommendations to the agency. Several motions were made and seconded but lacked majority support to carry forward as a formal recommendation. Recommendations are listed below: Motions considered and carried forward as formal recommendations to the agencies: Recommendation 1: The Proposed Monument Management Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PMMPs/FEIS) should have a greater emphasis and more discussion regarding cultural landscapes (all cultures, including Native American and pioneer heritage) and accelerate completion of the Cultural Resource Management Plan (target 1 year to complete). Recommendation 2: Identify ceremonial grounds for Native American use, include interpretation and signage for warriors and history of Bears Ears and include the historic interpretation. Involve tribal preservation officers and others with tribal expertise in developing interpretive materials. Thoroughly recognize the trade-offs of publicizing and identifying ceremonial locations and being respectful of tribal wishes for privacy in ceremonial practices.

10

Recommendation 3: As a future agenda item: MAC &/or subcommittee would like to discuss and provide input on the list of public use sites identified in the DEIS (from the Presidential Proclamations) as well as how they will be managed and allocation strategies. They may wish to consider additional sites for hardening and visitation and provide guidance regarding managing front and back country sites differently. The MAC requested sufficient time and opportunities to provide input of these issues prior to implementation. (note: this was not a unanimous recommendation, 3 dissenting, concern seemed to be with sites listed in the DEIS, and wanting to address it now rather than later). Recommendation 4: With respect to fire management options, the MAC recommends carrying forward Alternative D, and adding language broadening the discretion for use of chaining. The PMMPs/FEIS should include language from Alternative C and D to allow more flexibility in chaining as a management tool where it is appropriate and consistent with the protection of monument resources (similar to language in Alt C minus the word “only”). Recommendation 5: Under Lands and Realty - Clarify language in Alt D (lines 1 & 2) so that the words “granted” and “issued” are consistent. Recommendation 6: Under Lands and Realty – MAC expressed a preference for Alternative A due to concerns with limiting flexibility in authorizing ROWs. (Lines 1 and 2) (note: this was consensus by voice vote, but not “enthusiastic”) Recommendation 7: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics – MAC recommends carrying forward Alternative D, which is the same as Alternative A (strong consensus). Recommendation 8: Livestock Grazing- MAC prefers for Alternative D for the Indian Creek Unit and Alternative A for the Shash Jáa Unit. Recommend modifying language in DEIS to read “Maintain, improve, and authorize new range improvements to allow for effective range management” and eliminate the first bullet under 2.4.5.2. “Recreational high use areas”. Recommendation 9: Target shooting: MAC recommends clarifying, refining the language regarding where shooting is allowed, so that it does not overly restrict recreational target shooting. Recommendation 10: Change language regarding climbing anchors to allow for the use of top anchors with the condition they are camouflaged, and chains and webbing are removed. Recommendation 11: In general the MAC favors Alternatives A or D and recommends for topics not addressed by the MAC during this meeting, due to lack of time, that management options from Alternatives B or C are not carried forward (majority in favor, consensus not reached, 3 dissenting). Additional discussion: The MAC expressed significant frustration regarding the lack of time to provide recommendations on all the alternatives and to more fully discuss visitor services, group size limits, wildlife, and paleontology. The preference of the group was to provide for existing uses and maximum flexibility in management and access within the monument, which is perceived to be best represented in Alternatives A or D. Members expressed concerns with greater limitations identified in Alternatives B and C. Due to the

11

general nature of this recommendation and members’ concerns about not fully knowing the potential ramifications of this recommendation, there was not a full consensus, but a majority were in favor. Motions considered, not carried forward as recommendations:

● Expand dispersed camping near isolated springs and water sources from 200’ to 1000’ (ref 2.4.7.2 bullet 2) – 5 in favor, 7 against, 3 abstained, primary concern was this restriction could close out entire canyons to dispersed camping as some are very narrow.

● As a way to speed up the process recommend members vote on each alternative for each resource topic and then agency can just record the votes, rather than try to reach consensus. Voice vote, majority not in favor

● Recommend Alternative A for all recreation decisions. A majority was not in favor, with the primary concern that they lacked time to thoroughly consider the ramifications of these complex issues.

Agencies thanked everyone for coming and Lance Porter adjourned the meeting.

Handouts/Materials: ● Attachment A - Agenda ● Attachment B – Presentation: Overview of Proclamations and Charter ● Attachment C – Presentation: Overview of the Monument Management Planning Process ● Attachment D – Comments emailed to the MAC prior to the meeting ● Attachment E - Meeting sign in sheets ● Excerpt of the Alternative Table in Chapter 2 of the DEIS ● Monument Advisory Committee Charter ● Bears Ears National Monument ePlanning webpage ● Monument Advisory Committee Federal Register Notice ● Advisory Committee Meeting Press Release

Bears Ears National Monument

1

Monument Advisory Committee – Charter and Proclamations Overview

2

A citizen’s group established to provide information and advice to afederal agency or agencies. The committee members represent a variety of expertise and experience and deliberates issues to collaboratively develop consensus driven recommendations.

What is a MAC

MAC Object and Scope of ActivitiesThe Committee will provide information and advice regarding:

• The development of the management plans• Implementing the management plans• Implementing Secretarial Orders applicable to this area

3

MAC Duties

• Provide information and advice regarding the development of the Monument management plans and, as appropriate, management of the Monument.

• Where applicable, provide recommendations on implementation of Secretarial Orders, policies and programs, regulatory reform initiatives and collaborative solutions to address wildland fires on public lands

4

Presidential Proclamation 9558December 28, 2016

5

• Established the Bears Ears National Monument• Required agencies to draft Monument Management Plans• Identified objects of historic and scientific interest• Required the establishment of a Monument Advisory Committee• Established a Bears Ears Commission to provide guidance and

recommendations for the Monument• Allowed for continued grazing, following laws, regulations, and policies for

issuing and administering grazing permits• Withdrew all forms of mineral location and entry, subject to valid existing

rights

Presidential Proclamation 9681December 4, 2017

• Modified Proclamation 9558 • Adjusted the reservation of land to the smallest area compatible with the

proper care and management of Monument objects– Established the Shash Jáa and Indian Creek Units, with two satellite areas: 201,876

acres of federal land• Changed the name of the Bears Ears Commission to the Shash Jáa

Commission– Shash Jáa Commission only applies to the Shash Jáa Unit– Includes the San Juan County Commissioner representing the 3rd District

• Clarified language for livestock grazing and the timing for drafting a Travel Management Plan

• Continued withdrawal from mineral location and entry, subject to valid existing rights

6

Participation Avenues• Public Involvement

Public comment periods and five public meetings during scoping and for the Draft MMPs/EIS

• Cooperating AgenciesState and local government, Tribes, and other Federal agencies

• Shash Jáa Commission • Tribal Consultation- Face-to-face meetings and conference calls regarding the Monument Management Plans- American Indian Tribal Collaboration Framework, Cultural Resources Allocation and Management

Strategies and Cultural Resources Monitoring Framework for the draft EIS

• Monument Advisory Committee7

Questions?

Bears Ears National Monument Monument Advisory Committee - Draft Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statement Overview

1

Bears Ears National Monument Planning

Area

2

Encompasses the Indian Creek and Shash Jáa Units for a total acreage of 228,784 of which 201,876 acres is Federal land

Shash Jáa Unit is jointly administered by the BLM and USFS (32,587 acres) - Two satellite Units: Moon House and Doll House

Purpose and Need

The purposes of the Draft Monument Management Plans (MMPs) are to:

• Provide protection and the proper care and management of the “object[s] of antiquity” and “objects of historic or scientific interest” of the BENM that were identified in Presidential Proclamations 9681 and 9558

• Provide a comprehensive framework for the BLM and USFS to manage recreation, other resources, and multiple uses within BENM

3

• Alternative A – No Action• Alternative B – Maximizes protection of

Monument objects and values by prohibiting or restricting certain uses

• Alternative C – Emphasizes adaptive management to protect the long-term sustainability of Monument objects and values while providing for recreational access and other multiple uses

• Alternative D (preferred) – Provides greatest management flexibility and fewest management restrictions while protecting objects identified in the Proclamations

Alternatives

Common to All Alternatives

5

• Requires compliance with applicable statutes, regulations and guidance, including NHPA, ESA, FLPMA and NFMA

• Ensures the proper care and management of the objects identified in Proclamation 9558 as modified by Proclamation 9681

• Tribal Collaboration Framework• Cultural Resource Monitoring Framework• Cultural Resource Allocation Criteria and Management Strategies.• Traditional uses such as plant collection and ceremony allowed to continue• Best management practices and stipulations would be applied to avoid,

minimize and mitigate potential impacts• Travel management planning deferred to implementation

Preferred Alternative (D)

6

• Provides flexibility in managing visitor use through implementation level decisions

• Maintains existing levels of livestock grazing and provides for continued vegetation management, including woodland harvest

• Includes designation of recreation management zones providing for a diversity of recreation experiences, including increases in recreational infrastructure in high-use areas

• Maintains existing motorized recreation opportunities

7

● BLM Monticello Field Office 2008 Resource Management Plan

● USFS Manti-La Sal 1986 Land and Resource Management Plan

Monument Management Plans will amend the following:

Livestock Grazing

8

• Proclamation 9681 allows for the continuation of livestock grazing and administration on Federal lands within the Monument and allows livestock grazing to continue to be governed by laws and regulations other than the proclamation

Allocation Monument Unit Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D(Preferred)

Livestock GrazingPercent Available/Suitable

Shash Jáa 96% 67% 93% 93%

Percent Available/Suitable

Indian Creek 90% 36% 90% 90%

Cultural Resources

9

Management Common to All Alternatives:● Manage cultural resources in order to protect them and make sites, as appropriate accessible for

public enjoyment.● Emphasizes collaboration and consultation with Native American Tribes and the Shash Jáa

Commission.● An activity-level cultural resources management plan would be developed within 2 years of the

completion of the MMPs.● Emphasis on education and interpretation.● Designation of the following as public use sites:

o Butler Wash Developed Roadside o Mule Canyon Kiva o River House Ruin o Butler Wash Panel o Arch Canyon Great House complex

o House on Fireo Moon House Ruino Doll House Ruino Hole-in-the-Rock Trail/San Juan Hillo Butler Wash Dinosaur Track Site

o Big Kachina Panel o Salvation Knoll o Newspaper Rock o Shay Canyon

Cultural Resources Range of Alternatives

10

Indian Creek

Shash Jáa

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt D. Preferred

X X No Similar Action

All climbing routes, trails, and access points open. As part of the cultural resource monitoring and mitigation plan in the cultural resources management plan, the agencies would survey and monitor popular routes with potential to impact cultural resources.

The BLM would close or reroute climbing routes, trails, and access points to avoid or reduce impacts to significant cultural resources or, if closure or routing is not practicable, implement mitigation to avoid significant impacts to site integrity.

Same as Alt. D All climbing routes, trails, and access points open. However, if survey and monitoring information gathered proactively or through site clearances indicates impacts to significant cultural resources, the agencies would do the following:

● Educate climbers on potential climbing impacts to cultural resources and how to “Respect and Protect” and/or self-regulate to avoid impacting these resources

● Work with climbing organizations and SRP/SUP holders to increase volunteer monitoring and to educate climbers

● If impacts continue, close or reroute climbing routes, trails, and access points to significant cultural resources

Cultural Resources Range of Alternatives continued

11

Indian Creek

Shash Jáa

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt D (preferred)

X Shay Canyon - Hiking limited to designated trails except for side canyons

Same As Alt D with the following:

The BLM would reroute or close trails that impact cultural site integrity

Same as Alternative D with the following exceptions: If monitoring indicates impacts to cultural site integrity (see management above), the BLM may harden, reroute, or close trails or develop viewing platforms as necessary to protect sites.

The BLM would provide education or interpretation to inform recreational users of the importance of not impacting cultural sites.

Shay Canyon Hiking trails would continue to be open for public use.

Development of hiking trails would be allowed consistent with maintaining Monument objects and values and in consultation with American Indian Tribes.

Recreation and Visitor ServicesProposed Decisions Common to Each Unit

12

Indian Creek Unit:● Requirements for handling of human waste and other waste, and pets● Prohibits target shooting near cliffs, climbing walls, cultural sites, developed recreation sites and shooting

toward natural and/or geologic features

Shash Jáa Unit:● Establishes 8 recreation management zones to provide for a variety of user experiences● Requirements for handling of human waste and other waste, and pets● Dispersed camping allowed within 150 feet of designated roads● Prohibits target shooting near cliffs, climbing walls, and cultural sites, developed recreation sites and

shooting toward natural and/or geologic features● Allows for climbing on arches and hoodoos, but does not allow placement of permanent hardware (bolts)

Group SizeIndian Creek - Alternative D

13

Area Group Size

Bridger Jack WSA A Special Recreation Permit or letter of agreement would be required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 12 individuals or 8 pack animals.

Shay Canyon ACEC A Special Recreation Permit or letter of agreement is required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 50 individuals or eight pack animals (day use only).

Lavender Mesa ACEC A Special Recreation Permit or letter of agreement would be required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 12 individuals.

Group SizeShash Jáa- Alternative D

14

Area Group SizeOutside of Recreation Management Zones (RMZ)

A Special Recreation Permit or letter of agreement would be required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 25 OHV/mechanized vehicles, 50 individuals, or 15 pack animals.

Trail of the Ancients RMZ A Special Recreation Permit or letter of agreement would be required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 25 OHV/mechanized vehicles, 50 individuals, or 25 pack animals.

Arch Canyon RMZ (on BLM-managed lands)

A Special Recreation Permit letter of agreement would be required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 25 OHV/mechanized vehicles, 50 individuals, or 15 pack animals.

San Juan Hill RMZ For all other activities an SRP or letter of agreement is required if an organized event/activity group size exceeds 25 OHV/mechanized vehicles, 50 individuals, or 15 pack animals.

Group SizeShash Jáa Unit Alternative D

15

Area Group Size

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House RMZ

• Permits required and managed through the Cedar Mesa permits reservation system; 20 people per day allowed for private use and 16 additional people allowed on commercial guided trips or tours led by BLM-trained docents.*

• Maximum group size would be 12 people.* Access to the interior corridor of Moon House would be limited to four people at any one time.*

Arch Canyon RMZ (on USFS-managed lands)

• No limit on group size (individuals) • No limit on number of groups

The Points RMS (on USFS-managed lands)

No group size limits set.

South Elks/Bears Ears RMZ (on USFS-managed lands)

No group size limits set.

Doll House RMZ (on USFS-managed lands)

No group size limits set. Closed to pack animals and pets

Changes in Allocations

16

Resource Use Current Management Preferred Alternative D

Livestock Grazing Shash Jáa: 96% availableIndian Creek: 90% available

Shash Jáa: 93% available (3% reduction)Indian Creek: 90% available (no change)

Rights-of-Way Avoidance: 36,193 acresExclusion: 11,373 acresOpen: 154,151 acres

Avoidance: 124,504 acres (+88,311 acres)Exclusion: 11,373 acres (no change)Open: 65,809 acres (-88,342 acres)

Recreation Shash Jáa: 2 SRMAs (85,750 acres) 2 RMZs (30,343 acres) 1 ERMA (11,642 acres)Indian Creek: 1 SRMA (48,996 acres) 1 ERMA (22,900 acres)

Shash Jáa: 1 SRMA (129,980 acres) 8 RMZs (48,467 acres) No ERMAIndian Creek: 1 SRMA (48,996 acres) 1 ERMA (22,900 acres)

OHV Use Closed: 13,852 acresOpen-Limited: 155,079 acresOpen: 0 acres

Closed: 13,852 acres (no change)Open-Limited: 155,079 acres (no change)Open: 0 acres (no change)

Mineral Resources The Monument was withdrawn from all forms of mineral location and entry upon designation, subject to valid existing rights, under Presidential Proclamation 9558, as modified by Proclamation 9681. Therefore, the MMPs do not include decisions regarding management of mineral resources.

Next Steps

17

● The Agencies will issue the proposed plans and final EIS

● Prepare documents for:- 30-day protest period- Governor’s 60-day consistency review

Questions?

6/3/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Bears Ears.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexSZX2ZoXosy1IXk7a0HKGXn8PCRpwNh-V7mNhaotyIdJqhI/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] Bears Ears. 1 message

Colton Hunt <coltonhunt_56@msn.com> Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:25 AMTo: "blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov" <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

As a local of San Juan county I am in strong opposi�on of a na�onal monument. However undoing thisatrocity wont fully happen . I believe the land should be allowed for hun�ng, hiking, horse riding, ATV,camping,dirt bike use, Na�ve American cultural use and wood gathering. It makes li�le to no sense to �e upthe land and keep others from enjoying its beauty. It is my opinion that having it crawl with tourists willbring pollu�on and over crowding similar to Moab and other monuments and parks. This area is my homeand area I helped raise cows and learned to be man. You'll no�ce this is not a form le�er filled out by manyothers that were asked by a professor or paid by an environmental group. I am just your average San Juancounty resident asking for my way of life and the land I love to be le� open for use. Thank you.

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQkKNrOjewztTWnh6MmFeIW6LmimMMhDsgYoNHpTsw-YaP8/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permt… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

Bob Picard <bpphoto@roadrunner.com> Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:26 PMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

Hi,

Concerning protection to Bears Ears…

It’s time to afford the American Indian the diversity and inclusion they deserve after their near extinction due to genocide.We protect insects, animals, environmental sensitive areas from extinction, it’s high time we apply the same concern andeffort to save the Bears Ears Indian culture, let’s not lose this opportunity.

Thank you,

Bob Picard

Ventura, CA

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

Bob Tregilus <v2gbob@gmail.com> Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:27 PMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

Please add the following to upcoming Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee public comments. --- I support the original 1.35-million acre Bears Ears Monument designation. Now that the Monument is on the public's radar, more than ever the region needs strong protections. I'm a frequent visitor, at least once per year and sometimes twice per year, and I was dismayed during my last visit to the Bears Ears / Comb Ridge / Cedar Mesa region in October by the increase in visitors to the existing Monument and adjacent former Monument areas. I literally got into a traffic jam on the Lower Butler Wash Road involving ORVs, 4x4s, SUVs, motorcycles, and bicycles. It was unbelievable. And most of those public lands users were quite clueless to the fragility of the area, trampling cryptogamic crusts, driving and parking off established roads, &c. I should not have to say it: but the fragile canyon country landscape and cultural sites of SE Utah are irreplaceable, once damaged or destroyed they are gone forever. And not protecting the region is robbing future generations of their heritage, both First Nations as well as the recent arrivals from around the world. It's no different than if people were allowed to trample, abuse, steal, and destroy our precious national treasures in the Library of Congress or Smithsonian Institution. No different at all. Sadly, dozens of rangers are now needed to protect the Bears Ears Monument and adjacent BLM areas. Protect and respect Bears Ears! Regards, Bob Tregilus 2805 W Pinenut Ct Reno, NV 89509 -- ---

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

carolyn edlund <chedlund502@gmail.com> Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:57 PMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

Dear Committee Members, There is a difference between considering what immediately advantages us in the here and now and what provides lessquantifiable advantages to our children and grandchildren. What we choose to do now may forever diminish or precludetheir enjoyment, and understanding, of public lands. Please provide strong protections for Bears Ears, as was done by previous generations (e.g., in connection withYosemite, the Grand Canyon, ...). Consider the loss, had the past's visionaries not stepped up. The original Bears Ears site, left unprotected and subject to only mildly controlled use, will be changed forever.Saving more, rather than less, would be a worthy goal and would demonstrate that we, as a generation, care that futuregenerations experience this unique place. Thank you, Carolyn Edlund

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] "BENM-MAC"

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] "BENM-MAC" 1 message

Clint McKnight <cmck3240@gmail.com> Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:39 PMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

May 21, 2019 Dear Bears Ears Advisory Committee Members, I’m writing to encourage this Committee to make management choices which offer the strongest level of protection to thenatural and cultural resources of Bears Ears National Monument. The “Preferred Options” selected in the BLM’s DraftManagement Plan are insufficient to protect this fragile landscape, and do not reflect the overriding will of public commentthat BLM has received and that you are no doubt aware of. One question I would ask of the Committee is which member is tasked with and capable of considering the uniquespiritual experience that the this vast and undeveloped landscape provides for visitors? Greater Bears Ears offersopportunities for solitude, silence, and spiritual renewal which are unique and beyond value. This experience must beprotected. I am dismayed at the appointments to this Committee whose members were clearly selected to facilitate the illegaldownsizing of Bears Ears National Monument, and enable the exploitation of it’s natural resources, despite a legalagreement signed between the governments of the United States and the Navajo, Hopi, Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zunitribes. Native American interests and rights to management participation in Bears Ears, which was guaranteed by that treaty, arenot fulfilled by this Committee. Giving 2 seats out of 15 to Tribal members is disproportionate and intentionallymarginalizing. It is also unrepresentative of the majority of the local population. Each of the 5 Tribes which participated in the formation of the Monument should receive representation by a member oftheir Tribe. This Committee is supposed to represent “all points of view”, yet which member advocates for the significant point of viewcurrently being tested in the courts, that the Monument’s original boundaries must be restored? While this Committee itself cannot change it’s make-up, it has a responsibility to recognize where it falls short ofrepresenting those who were not allowed to participate. Committee members are tasked to rise above self-interest and toserve a greater good, ensuring that the spirit of the original Bears Ears agreement is fulfilled, and that the will of allAmericans for this unique Public Land is carried out. Yours is a sacred duty and a once-in-a-lifetime responsibility, and it will be your legacy. Clint McKnight Durango, CO

6/1/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexR_XqPoR1lsux4DvnEaQtVYhriQ6BEnwYFQ6i5qQynJL8x6/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 2 messages

Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:57 PMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

As a recent visitor to Bears Ears National Monument, Cedar Mesa, and environs, I urge theAdvisory Committee to support strong protective measures, both for the astonishing antiquitiesthroughout the area and for the natural beauty, at the very least inside the restrictive boundariesnow declared by the Trump Administration. What is destroyed can never be regained.Ellen SmithPalo Alto CA

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov> Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:02 PMTo: Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com>

Thank you. Your comment will be provided to the Monument Advisory Committee.[Quoted text hidden]

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQkKNrOjewztTWnh6MmFeIW6LmimMMhDsgYoNHpTsw-YaP8/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permt… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

Josh Ewing <josh@cedarmesafriends.org> Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:04 PMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.govCc: Gary Torres <gtorres@blm.gov>, Lance Porter <l50porte@blm.gov>, Gordon Larsen <gordonlarsen@utah.gov>, MikeDiem <mdiem@fs.fed.us>

As directed in the press release of May 2nd, we are submitting the attached letter to the Bears Ears National MonumentAdvisory Committee prior to its meeting on June 5th and 6th. We will have representatives at the meeting in person, butwe also welcome written questions about the attached comments as well. Sincerely, Josh EwingExecutive Director, Friends of Cedar Mesa(o) 435.414.0343 (m) 801.410.0773567 W. Main Street, PO Box 338 | Bluff, UT 84512 web:CedarMesaFriends.org twitter: @joshewing facebook: @cedarmesafriends***Note: Due to the extreme volume of emails I receive, I do not check email obsessively multiple times a day. Itry to look at emails first thing in the morning and in the afternoon. Do not send me an email expecting a same-day response. If something is urgent, send me a text or call me. Thanks! ***

FCM_BENM_MAC_Letter_Final.pdf 122K

Bureau of Land Management

Canyon Country District

82 East Dogwood

Moab, UT 84532

blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

Delivered via e-mail

Re: BENM-MAC Written Comments

May 28, 2019

Dear Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee:

Friends of Cedar Mesa (FCM) writes to provide comments to the Monument Advisory Committee

(MAC) as it begins to provide the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service

(USFS) with advice about the Monument Management Plan (MMP) for the area encompassed by

Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) as defined by Presidential Proclamation 9861. Our

comments relate to the proposed decisions that may be taken by the BLM Monticello Field Office

and the USFS Manti-La Sal National Forest as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) being prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Utah locals care deeply about these lands and have a strong ethic of stewardship. However, FCM is

concerned that the current preferred alternative in the Draft MMP sends the opposite message—that

Utahns are against protecting our cultural heritage, that we want to undermine conservation of

public lands, and that even the small area defined as a National Monument by President Trump

should be managed in a less protective way than other National Monuments in the United States.

As you know, visitation to the BENM area has been increasing dramatically over the last decade, and

the current controversy over the monument’s boundary guarantees that visitation will continue to

increase. FCM sees a clear need for a visitor management strategy and a plan for cultural resource

protections to lessen, manage, and mitigate the damage to the archaeological and natural resources

in this area—damage that is already happening.

FCM is concerned about the current preferred alternative in the MMP/DEIS because it is the

alternative with the greatest potential to affect cultural resources and other Objects and Values

within the monument. If we don’t strategically manage visitation, recreation, travel, cultural

resources, and other resources and activities within the BENM, we’ll continue to see damage from

uneducated visitors, looting, vandalism, and other impacts (e.g. human waste issues) resulting from

skyrocketing visitation to an area that has more prehistoric and historic sites than any other U.S.

National Park or U.S. National Monument.

The MMP/DEIS analyzes a monument area that is only 15% of the monument’s original (and in our

belief actual, legal) size; therefore, an enormous area included in the original boundary is already no

2

longer afforded any potential protections that should be contained in an MMP. This makes it all the

more important that we protect the resources within the current monument boundary since many

places of enormous scientific, historic, spiritual, and recreational value are not included in the

planning effort and are open for exploitation by out-of-state extractive corporations. Moreover, the

exclusion of lands that were originally included in the monument boundary highlights the importance

of conducting a careful analysis of cumulative impacts—an increase in visitation to the monument is

likely to affect cultural resources throughout the broader area, not simply in the area defined by the

proclamation.

Prioritizing the protection of cultural resources is consistent with the purpose and vision of the

National Conservation Lands System, of which the monument planning area is a part. Based on our

review of the current preferred alternative, BLM is essentially making this a monument “in name

only,” since the least protective alternative is selected at almost every step of the analysis. In fact,

the current preferred alternative in the MMP/DEIS decreases protections for some resources when

compared to the current status quo.

If the BLM and USFS do not develop an MMP that establishes adequate protections for cultural

resources (including traditional cultural properties), increased visitation to the area will result in

adverse effects to cultural resources. The BLM and USFS will have failed to meet their mandates to

protect cultural resources from impacts and/or mitigate such impacts and will be vulnerable to legal

challenges over the level of protections established for cultural resources. Such a situation could

lead to continued litigation, exacerbate community tensions, and create a situation in which the final

outcome would be less palatable to the agencies and local people than selecting adequately

protective options to begin with. Furthermore, continued controversy resulting from the creation of a

minimally protective MMP is likely to do what none of us want—further increase visitation to a fragile

area where resources to manage visitors are not sufficient to protect cultural and natural resources.

FCM seeks to support the BLM and USFS as they analyze potential protections of, and impacts to,

cultural resources as part of the MMP/DEIS. We encourage the agencies to select reasonably

protective options as part of the MMP/DEIS process. We hope the MAC will provide the same

encouragement to the agencies as they work through the MMP/DEIS process. In the remainder of

this letter, we review a few of our most pressing concerns about the MMP/DEIS and provide a brief

summary of other concerns related to cultural resources within BENM.

Public Use Sites

FCM supports the BLM and USFS in their efforts to strategically develop a plan to provide better

public access to prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the BENM boundary. Providing

opportunities for the public to visit historic properties is an effective way for people to develop an

appreciation of prehistory, history, and the priceless value of public lands. We need to have Public

Use sites and be able to direct visitors to those sites instead of having people search the internet for

sites to visit. However, there is always a need to balance enhanced public access with the risk of

adverse effects to historic properties.

Most of the detailed analysis of impacts to cultural resources has been postponed until the agencies

develop a cultural resources management plan. This postponement means that no real analysis has

yet been done to assess whether the selected Public Use sites are suitable for public use. FCM is

particularly concerned about the creation of the Shay Canyon Rock Art Public Use area and the Doll

House Public Use area. The management actions described for these areas are vague, they do not

provide strong protections for the named cultural resources, and they do not address potential

impacts to cultural resources in the vicinities of these named resources. These two areas are highly

likely to see an increase in visitation even as the agencies have no plans for management actions

3

such as hardening routes, rerouting trails, closing hiking trails, providing greater law enforcement

monitoring, or providing education or interpretation information.

FCM is also concerned that no Public Sites have been identified for Comb Ridge or Cedar Mesa.

These areas are experiencing significantly increased visitation but lack amenities such as restroom

facilities, educational/interpretive signage, marked trailheads, or designated trails. The entire area

lacks a strategic management plan for cultural resources and is vulnerable to visitor impacts.

Visitation to the area will continue to increase, and FCM views the development of a strategic visitor

management plan as the highest priority for land management for the area.

Group Size Issues

The preferred alternative in the MMP/DEIS leaves some areas without group size limits. Such limits

are one of the most effective ways of minimizing impacts to cultural resources. Changes to (or the

elimination of) limits to group sizes is one area in which the BLM and USFS are selecting the

alternative that lessens protections for cultural resources in comparison to the current status quo.

This is not simply a matter of requiring a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) for groups above a certain

size; limits on the overall sizes of such groups, with or without SRPs, should be established. Even

simply increasing the minimum size of a group that needs an SRP removes significant oversight that

comes with the SRP process. Moreover, the lack of a cultural resources management plan and a

monitoring plan means that the impacts from changes to group sizes will remain unknown. As

currently configured, the preferred alternative has enormous potential to cause substantial impacts

to cultural resources—and no plan is in place to monitor those impacts.

Delay of the Cultural Resources Management Plan

By postponing development of the cultural resources management plan and monitoring plan, the

BLM and USFS are postponing the identification of clear management actions (including mitigation

options) and timelines. This leaves the cultural resources vulnerable to impacts from increased

visitation. We reiterate the suggestion we made in our Section 106 comment letter that an interim

plan is needed to identify and guide the execution of protective measures such as stabilization work,

monitoring, and the development of educational information for sites slated to be Public Use sites.

FCM is also concerned that pushing development of the cultural resources management plan into

the future means that critical work to protect cultural resources and manage visitation will be

delayed. This delay will be happening even as visitation has skyrocketed. Protections and

management planning are needed now. We cannot wait years before addressing the need for

signage, infrastructure, and strategic guidance.

Target Shooting Issue

To protect sensitive cultural resources, particularly sensitive rock art sites, FCM recommends that no

target shooting be allowed in or in the vicinity of cultural resource sites. This may mean banning all

target shooting in the monument given the number of sites in the area. A complete ban on target

shooting within the monument would be the simplest measure to enforce (rather than defining an

area of potential effects [APE] around each cultural resource site and attempting to ban target

shooting within that APE)—particularly since the area of the monument has already been reduced so

substantially.

4

Summary of Other Concerns

FCM has already submitted written comments as part of the NEPA and NHPA processes. A brief

summary list of some of the key concerns communicated in those letters is below:

• Lack of establishment of APEs, lack of appropriate analytical contexts, and lack of effort to

identify historic properties—particularly for sites designated as Public Use sites and the areas

around the proposed Public Use sites

• Incomplete analyses of direct and indirect impacts and determinations of effect

• Lack of a landscape-level approach to cultural resources management and lack of adoption

of the Outdoor Museum Ethic approach

• Delay in preparation of the cultural resources management plan, monitoring plan, and travel

management plan

• Lack of an interim plan and programmatic agreement for managing adverse effects to

cultural resources while the other plans are being prepared

• Lack of intent to survey climbing routes for cultural resources, the overall increase in

climbing activity, and SRP holders guiding climbing clients

• Expansions of areas for new rights-of-way and increased off-road vehicle use

• Inadequate measures to protect cultural resources during vegetation and fire management

activities

Thank you for the opportunity to participate as a member of the MAC. We look forward to the

discussions at the meeting in June. Please direct any future inquiries and correspondence to me at

josh@cedarmesafriends.org or 801.410.0773.

Sincerely,

Josh Ewing

Executive Director, Friends of Cedar Mesa

josh@cedarmesafriends.org

801.410.0773

PO Box 338, Bluff, UT 84512

6/1/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexTJrUJmaBgpj3P0Sz_WZL-Ws4m1LnzTDEh1rWLdEvm8ULAE/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permt… 1/2

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 3 messages

Jen Libera <jenlibera9@gmail.com> Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:41 AMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

I have been a visitor to South East Utah for the past 36 years. I am very concerned about theamount of traffic that has begun to occur in the past few years since the announcement of theMonument in the national news. I have personally see much degradation and damage to manyarcheological sites with the exterior boundaries of the current Monument.

Weakened protections for what remains of the gutted monument would not best serve these publiclands. On the contrary, a stronger level of protection for what currently remains of the monumentwould demonstrate to the nation that Utahns do, in fact, care about the cultural and naturalresources in southeastern Utah.

It is critical that the committee push for a vigorous and detailed cultural resources plan for strategicvisitor management to address the ever-increasing numbers of people exploring the monument.

I am also concerned over a lack of balance on the 15-member committee, as the Department ofInterior did not select a single proponent of the original monument to serve. Alternatively, nearlyevery member seated is an outspoken opponent of President Obama’s 1.35-millon acre monumentdesignation.

This should not be an approach in which an unbalanced committee guides decisions that are not inthe best interest of protecting this internationally significant landscape.

jen liberajenlibera9@gmail.com

Jen Libera <jenlibera9@gmail.com> Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:52 AMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

jen liberajenlibera9@gmail.com

Begin forwarded message: From: Jen Libera <jenlibera9@gmail.com>

6/1/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexTJrUJmaBgpj3P0Sz_WZL-Ws4m1LnzTDEh1rWLdEvm8ULAE/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permt… 2/2

Subject: BENM-MAC Date: May 31, 2019 at 8:41:10 AM MDT To: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov I have been a visitor to South East Utah for the past 36 years. I am very concernedabout the amount of traffic that has begun to occur in the past few years since theannouncement of the Monument in the national news. I have personally see muchdegradation and damage to many archeological sites with the exterior boundaries ofthe current Monument.

Weakened protections for what remains of the gutted monument would not best servethese public lands. On the contrary, a stronger level of protection for what currentlyremains of the monument would demonstrate to the nation that Utahns do, in fact, careabout the cultural and natural resources in southeastern Utah.

It is critical that the committee push for a vigorous and detailed cultural resources planfor strategic visitor management to address the ever-increasing numbers of peopleexploring the monument.

I am also concerned over a lack of balance on the 15-member committee, as theDepartment of Interior did not select a single proponent of the original monument toserve. Alternatively, nearly every member seated is an outspoken opponent ofPresident Obama’s 1.35-millon acre monument designation.

This should not be an approach in which an unbalanced committee guides decisionsthat are not in the best interest of protecting this internationally significant landscape.

jen libera

14 Misty Lane Durango, CO 81301

jenlibera9@gmail.com

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov> Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:07 PMTo: Jen Libera <jenlibera9@gmail.com>

Thank you Jen, your comment will be provided to the Monument Advisory Committee.[Quoted text hidden]

6/1/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexTJrUJmaBgpj3P0Sz_WZL-Ws4m1LnzTDEh1rWLdEvm8ULAE/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permt… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

Kelly Ray Mathews <kelray63@gmail.com> Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:44 AMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

I have been a visitor to South East Utah for the past 20 years. I am very concerned about theamount of traffic that has begun to occur in the past few years since the announcement of theMonument in the national news. I have personally see much degradation and damage to manyarcheological sites with the exterior boundaries of the current Monument.

Weakened protections for what remains of the gutted monument would not best serve these publiclands. On the contrary, a stronger level of protection for what currently remains of the monumentwould demonstrate to the nation that Utahns do, in fact, care about the cultural and naturalresources in southeastern Utah.

It is critical that the committee push for a vigorous and detailed cultural resources plan for strategicvisitor management to address the ever-increasing numbers of people exploring the monument.

I am also concerned over a lack of balance on the 15-member committee, as the Department ofInterior did not select a single proponent of the original monument to serve. Alternatively, nearlyevery member seated is an outspoken opponent of President Obama’s 1.35-millon acre monumentdesignation.

This should not be an approach in which an unbalanced committee guides decisions that are not inthe best interest of protecting this internationally significant landscape.

Kelly Mathews

14 Misty Lane

Durango, CO 81301

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

michael hardy <m_hardy_50@hotmail.com> Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:13 PMTo: "blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov" <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

It’s evident there is a lack of balance on the 15-member commi�ee, as the Department of Interior did not select asingle proponent of the original monument to serve. Nearly every member seated is an outspoken opponent ofPresident Obama’s 1.35-millon acre monument designa�on.

This unbalanced commi�ee should not be the ones making decisions that are not in the best interest of protec�ngthis interna�onally significant landscape. The public lands involved here would be much be�er served by a morebalanced monument advisory commi�ee. The commi�ee as announced lacks even a single proponent for themonument, while there are many an�-monument cri�cs. That means the BLM and the Forest Service are askingpeople who don’t think the monument should exist for advice on how to manage it.

I have li�le faith the commi�ee, as selected, is going to act without prejudice when making decisions regardingprotec�ons for this Federal land.

Michael Hardy

P.O. Box 91, La Sal, UT 84530

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Fwd public : comment on federal register

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/4

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] Fwd public : comment on federal register 2 messages

o <bk1492@aol.com> Sat, May 4, 2019 at 8:48 AMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov, information@sierraclub.org, info@pewtrusts.org, info@earthjustice.org

i oppose all develoipment around bears ears and believe it is an incredibly necessary part of being totally protected asnational land owned by 328 millions people and not as open land there for rich white men to devellop. i oppose indiansas well developing in this area. the preservation of this monument to gods work needs to be preserved. this commentis for the public record. pleaser receipt. b ker bk1492@aol.com

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2019)] [Notices] [Page 19108] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2019-09125] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [19X L1109AF LLUTY00000 L17110000.DQ0000 LX.SS.J0650000] Notice of Public Meeting for the Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee, Utah AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee (BENM-MAC) will meet as indicated below. DATES: The BENM-MAC will hold a public meeting on June 5-6, 2019. The meeting will be held on June 5, 2019 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and continue on June 6, 2019 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hideout Community Center, 648 South Hideout Way, Monticello, Utah 84535. Written comments to address the BENM-MAC may be sent to the BLM Canyon Country District, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532, or via email with the subject line ``BENM-MAC'' to blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov. Written comments must be received by Friday, May 31, 2019 to be considered by BENM-MAC members in their first meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Bryant, Public Affairs

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Fwd public : comment on federal register

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 2/4

Specialist, BLM Canyon Country District, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532; phone 435-259-2187; or by email at lmbryant@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Committee will provide information and advice regarding the development of the Monument Management Plan. Agenda topics will include welcoming new committee members, reviewing the charter, providing an overview to, and soliciting information and advice from, the BENM-MAC regarding the development of the Draft Monument Management Plans and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Shash J[aacute]a and Indian Creek Units of the Bears Ears National Monument. BENM-MAC members will also select a person to serve as chair. The final agenda will be posted online at https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-me/utah/mac. The meeting is open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals. There will be an opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Depending on the number of people who wish to speak and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Written comments may also be sent to the BLM Canyon Country District at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. All comments received will be provided to the BENM-MAC for their consideration and posted on Committee's website. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment that the BLM withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. Detailed meeting minutes for the BENM-MAC meetings will be maintained in the BLM Canyon Country District and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4-2. Anita Bilbao, Associate State Director. [FR Doc. 2019-09125 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov> Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:45 AMTo: Lisa Bryant <lmbryant@blm.gov>

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: o <bk1492@aol.com> Date: Sat, May 4, 2019 at 8:48 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd public : comment on federal register To: <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>, <information@sierraclub.org>, <info@pewtrusts.org>, <info@earthjustice.org> i oppose all develoipment around bears ears and believe it is an incredibly necessary part of being totally protected asnational land owned by 328 millions people and not as open land there for rich white men to devellop. i oppose indiansas well developing in this area. the preservation of this monument to gods work needs to be preserved. this commentis for the public record. pleaser receipt. b ker bk1492@aol.com

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Fwd public : comment on federal register

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 3/4

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2019)] [Notices] [Page 19108] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2019-09125] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [19X L1109AF LLUTY00000 L17110000.DQ0000 LX.SS.J0650000] Notice of Public Meeting for the Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee, Utah AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Bears Ears National Monument Advisory Committee (BENM-MAC) will meet as indicated below. DATES: The BENM-MAC will hold a public meeting on June 5-6, 2019. The meeting will be held on June 5, 2019 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and continue on June 6, 2019 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hideout Community Center, 648 South Hideout Way, Monticello, Utah 84535. Written comments to address the BENM-MAC may be sent to the BLM Canyon Country District, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532, or via email with the subject line ``BENM-MAC'' to blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov. Written comments must be received by Friday, May 31, 2019 to be considered by BENM-MAC members in their first meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Bryant, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Canyon Country District, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532; phone 435-259-2187; or by email at lmbryant@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Committee will provide information and advice regarding the development of the Monument Management Plan. Agenda topics will include welcoming new committee members, reviewing the charter, providing an overview to, and soliciting information and advice from, the BENM-MAC regarding the development of the Draft Monument Management Plans and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Shash J[aacute]a and Indian Creek Units of the Bears Ears National Monument. BENM-MAC members will also select a person to serve as chair. The final agenda will be posted online at https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-me/utah/mac.

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Fwd public : comment on federal register

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 4/4

The meeting is open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals. There will be an opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Depending on the number of people who wish to speak and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Written comments may also be sent to the BLM Canyon Country District at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. All comments received will be provided to the BENM-MAC for their consideration and posted on Committee's website. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment that the BLM withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. Detailed meeting minutes for the BENM-MAC meetings will be maintained in the BLM Canyon Country District and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4-2. Anita Bilbao, Associate State Director. [FR Doc. 2019-09125 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P

5/30/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexQHv6b9WuTJbYIM0FdV9u9d4QVfsS7xFiCQXUgzB8--tA87/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] BENM-MAC 1 message

susanzb@aol.com <susanzb@aol.com> Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:24 AMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

RE: Management of Bears Ears Dear Madam and Sir, As a resident of the state of Utah, I want to voice my strong support for an ongoing protection of public lands, includingBears Ears. My family relocated to Utah about three years ago. One of the reasons motivating this move was thenatural beauty of the state, which is also its major asset for the tourism industry of the state. Over the last few years, Ihave followed the discussions surrounding the creation of Bears Ears National Monument. I am very concerned thattribal voices are ignored or at least not adequately represented. I am equally concerned that decisions about futureuse of these lands are made before an ongoing legal process has been concluded. I thus urge you to opendiscussions and create a forum that represents the many different views on this topic and defers to the legalproceedings. Sincerely,Klaus Bielefeldt

6/1/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] comments on Bears Ears Management plan

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexR_XqPoR1lsux4DvnEaQtVYhriQ6BEnwYFQ6i5qQynJL8x6/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthid… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] comments on Bears Ears Management plan 2 messages

Susan Raleigh <seraleigh007@gmail.com> Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:49 AMTo: blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov

To Whom it May concern: I have been a visitor to South East Utah for the past 25 years. I am very concernedabout the amount of traffic that has begun to occur in the past few years since theannouncement of the Monument in the national news. I have personally seen muchdegradation and damage to many archaeological sites with the exterior boundaries ofthe current Monument.

Weakened protections for what remains of the gutted monument would not best servethese public lands. On the contrary, a stronger level of protection for what currentlyremains of the monument would demonstrate to the nation that Utahns do, in fact, careabout the cultural and natural resources in southeastern Utah.

It is critical that the committee push for a vigorous and detailed cultural resources planfor strategic visitor management to address the ever-increasing numbers of peopleexploring the monument.

I am also concerned over a lack of balance on the 15-member committee, as theDepartment of Interior did not select a single proponent of the original monument toserve. Alternatively, nearly every member seated is an outspoken opponent ofPresident Obama’s 1.35-millon acre monument designation.

This should not be an approach in which an unbalanced committee guides decisionsthat are not in the best interest of protecting this internationally significant landscape.

Sincerely, Susan Raleigh

seraleigh007@gmail.com

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov> Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:10 PMTo: Susan Raleigh <seraleigh007@gmail.com>

Thank you Susan, your comment will be provided to the Monument Advisory Committee.[Quoted text hidden]

6/4/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Bears Ears Use

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AH1rexSsm6wu-PdUlGd_mepJW9jkVYt1pUVW0r9ToAwxwu2x3F48/u/0?ik=aa6d820e4d&view=pt&search=all&permthi… 1/1

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

[EXTERNAL] Bears Ears Use 2 messages

Liz Adams <lizadams98@gmail.com> Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:50 AMTo: "blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov" <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov>

I am a resident of Blanding for my entire life. I was extremely grateful to see this monument reduced in size to what wehave now. I would like to see the land used to not only preserve it, which would mean limiting tourist impact on it, but forthe locals to be able to continue to use it for hunting, camping, job creation, wood and pant gathering, ranching, andwater if needed. Our watersheds and potential water sources need protected and need to remain under local control. We have a right to exist here and not be everyone’s playground. We need the land to help sustain us. The only way topreserve the artifacts and unique landscapes found in this area is to not let them become commercialized and overrun bythousands. Thank you.

MT_Mail, BLM_UT <blm_ut_mt_mail@blm.gov> Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:35 AMTo: Liz Adams <lizadams98@gmail.com>

Thank you, your comment will be provided to the Bears Ears Advisory Committee.[Quoted text hidden]