A memo from Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke to President Donald Trump on recommendations for reducing the size of national monuments was leaked to the public last week, and although it mentions 10 monuments for consideration, little else was revealed regarding the amount of reductions.
The review of the monuments was in response to a presidential order issued in June directing Zinke to look at all designations over 100,000 acres since 1996 made using the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906.
That Act allows presidents to designate national monuments without public comment, environmental review or further consent of Congress. Although public comment and review is not required, Congress did impose limits by defining that objects within a monument be “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objectives of historic or scientific interest.” Additionally, designations were restricted to federal lands and limited to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects.”
Zinke’s report notes that since 1996 alone, the Act has been used 26 times by presidents to create monuments that are over 100,000 acres and have included private property within the identified boundaries.
In writing to the president, Zinke said the review found that each monument was unique in terms of the objective(s) used for justification, proclamation language, history, management plans, economic impact and support. In addressing the size of designations, Zinke wrote, “Adherence to the Act’s definition of an ‘object’ and ‘smallest area compatible’ clause on some monuments were either arbitrary or likely politically motivated or boundaries could not be supported by science or reasons of practical resource management.”
A presidential review of monuments is not a new concept. Zinke’s memo points out that the Act has been used to designate or expand national monuments on federal lands more than 150 times. It has also been used at least 18 times by presidents to reduce the size of 16 national monuments.
The leaked memo caused some environmental groups to respond with threats of lawsuits should the president remove acres from monument status.
Jamie Williams, president of the Wilderness Society, issued a statement regarding the memo saying, “Acting on these recommendations would represent an unprecedented assault on our parks and public lands and undermine bipartisan progress to protect our lands and waters that dates to Theodore Roosevelt.”
He continued, “If President Trump acts in support of these recommendations, The Wilderness Society will move swiftly to challenge those actions in court. We urge the president to ignore these illegal and dangerous recommendations and instead act to preserve our natural wonders that are at the core of our great nation.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also reacted with disapproval, saying in a press release that shrinking the boundaries would subject several of the country’s most treasured public lands and waters to drilling, logging, commercial fishing and other destruction.
Vowing legal action, Rhea Suh, NRDC president said, “If President Trump accepts Zinke’s advice, and moves to eviscerate monument protections, he’d be ignoring the law—and the will of the American people.”
Suh added, “We will stand for the nearly 3 million people who urged the administration to protect these monuments—in court, if necessary.”
In discussing the possible downsizing of monuments, Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council (PLC) and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Federal Lands, said it is important to remember that changing the designation does not change ownership of the land.
At WLJ press time, the actual number of acres under consideration had not been released, but Lane said, “I can tell you that what we’re seeing in these recommendations falls in line with what we’ve been talking to them about and some of the concerns we have expressed.”
Lane went on to say, “We’re very pleased with what we have seen in the report on grazing. The fact that they want to go back in and protect grazing inside all 10 of the monuments that are part of the report we view as a real affirmation that they have heard our requests to evaluate how grazing is treated inside these monuments; we really feel like this has been a reasonable and measured result.
“After all of the hysterics we have heard that ‘the sky is falling’ from the environmental community; what we’ve seen is actually a really businesslike, moderate, reasonable proposal and we hope the president will take advantage of that,” Lane added.
Monuments designated for further review by Trump include:
• Bears Ears, Utah;
• Cascade-Siskiyou, Oregon and California;
• Gold Butte, Nevada;
• Grand Staircase-Escalante, Utah;
• Katahdin, Maine;
• Northeast Canyons and Seamounts, Massachusetts;
• Oregon Mountains-Desert Peaks, New Mexico;
• Rio Grande Del Norte, New Mexico.
Marine monuments under review include the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the Central Pacific Ocean and the Rose Atoll National Monument in the South Pacific Ocean.
Lane explained that although several monuments could be reduced in size it will not change ownership. “It is important to point out that nobody loses, no land changes hands as part of a monument designation. All that happens is that the status of that land inside its current ownership is elevated or reduced.”
As an example, Lane pointed to the 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears Monument established in December 2016. If that monument were reduced by 1 million acres, the land would still be federal land and would still be accessible to the public. Noting that he is speculating on a leaked document, Lane said that if this action were taken on Bears Ears it would be in line with what PLC and NCBA have suggested. He added, “You don’t need to take that extra million-acre buffer around a monument to protect it; and when you do that you really disadvantage those local communities that need that agricultural engine to drive their economies.”
As Trump’s decision remained in limbo at WLJ press time, Lane said landowners and ranchers need to let their voices be heard. He pointed out that in local papers around the country, particularly in the West, there is a “steady drumbeat” of environmental activists posting their opinions about these monuments.
“What we are not seeing enough of is the real story getting out there from landowners and ranchers on the ground who really understand the impacts of this,” Lane said. He encouraged ranchers to engage in discussions by writing to local papers to explain how these decisions affect their businesses.
“Ranchers who are being impacted by these monuments are the experts. They know more about the fall-out from this than anybody else and the reason they know more about the fallout is because no review was done before these monuments were created. So, they are the on-the-ground bellwether; they know what’s going on with these monuments so it is critical that everyone get out and make their voices heard.” — Rae Price, WLJ editor
