Following a directive issued by President Donald Trump in April, Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke released a report summary of his review of national monument designations under the Antiquities Act of 1906. During the review, Zinke visited eight national monument sites in six states.
The executive order required Zinke to provide a final report to Trump summarizing his findings within 120 days. One monument, Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, was mentioned in the executive order but specific details were not mentioned in the summary.
Livestock producers expressed encouragement by the action, but with no details, the Public Lands Council (PLC) and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association are encouraging the White House to act quickly. Ethan Lane, Executive Director of the Public Lands Council and NCBA Federal Lands, stated: “It is clear presidents have repeatedly abused their authority under the Antiquities Act locking up over 250 million acres of land and water without local input or economic analysis.” He continued, “We are grateful to Secretary Zinke and his team for soliciting feedback from those most affected by executive land-grabs, and look forward to swift action from the White House in response to the recommendations that align with the original intent of the Antiquities Act.”
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued a statement that he is encouraged by the recommendations, saying the previous designations were inconsistent with the law and outside the act’s size limitations. “It is my hope that President Trump takes this opportunity to begin realigning uses of the law with its intended purpose. It’s also incumbent on Congress to pursue reforms to the act that ensure it is being used to protect antiquities while providing meaningful local input in the designation process and reasonable continued public access to these iconic areas. Ultimately, only Congress can restore integrity to this law and prevent future abuses,” Bishop said.
Offering a different view, a press release from House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Raul Grijalva’s (D-AZ) office said the report “documents the strong influence of the oil and mining industries over the soon-to-be-completed Trump administration ‘review’ of 27 national monuments around the country and sheds new light on the review’s unpopularity.”
Grijalva’s office also said the report finds that the administration’s review, far from being based on a desire for more public input, suffers from a nearly complete lack of public transparency and that from the beginning, Zinke has, “failed to engage all but a narrow range of sympathetic stakeholders. The review is being conducted based not on public demand but at the behest of the administration’s industry allies—demands that directly contradict overwhelming public support for maintaining national monuments as they currently exist.”
Additionally, Grijalva’s office said recommendations that could include a unilateral executive action to shrink or rescind monuments, would be illegal, and a recommendation for congressional action would “prove extraordinarily politically unpopular.”
In Zinke’s summary he briefly described the proponents and opponents of monument designations, writing:
“Proponents tended to promote monument designation as a mechanism to prevent the sale or transfer of public land. This narrative is false and has no basis in fact. Public lands within a monument are federally owned and managed regardless of monument designation under the act. Proponents also point to the economic benefits from increased tourism from monument recognition. On this point, monument status has a potential economic benefit of increased visitation, particularly to service-related industries, outdoor recreation industries, and other businesses dependent or supported by tourism. Increased visitation also places an additional burden and responsibility on the federal government to provide additional resources and manpower to maintain these lands to better support increased visitation and recreational activities.
“Comments received were overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining existing monuments and demonstrated a well-orchestrated national campaign organized by multiple organizations. Opponents of monuments primarily supported rescinding or modifying the existing monuments to protect traditional multiple use, and those most concerned were often local residents associated with industries such as grazing, timber production, mining, hunting and fishing, and motorized recreation. Opponents point to other cases where monument designation has resulted in reduced public access, road closures, hunting and fishing restrictions, multiple and confusing management plans, reduced grazing allotments and timber production, and pressure applied to private land owners encompassed by or adjacent to a monument to sell.”
Prior to the Aug. 24 deadline, six monuments were removed from the review list, those are: Craters of the Moon, ID; Hanford Reach, WA; Upper Missouri River Breaks, MT; Grand Canyon-Parashant, AZ; Canyons of the Ancients, CO, and Sand to Snow, CA.
When the summary was released, the House Natural Resources Committee and WLJ sources pointed to a complete report being made public “very soon.” As of press time additional details were not available. — WLJ
