National Monuments Review Suggests “Handful” of Boundary Changes
The study, which has yet to be made public, will not recommend removing any monuments
/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/b5/86/b586c720-5696-4105-be88-39ba153cca20/bears_ears.jpg)
The Abajo Mountains in Bears Ears National Monument
Bears Ears Coalition/Tim Peterson
In April, President Trump issued an executive order instructing the Interior Department to review 27 National Monuments, units of the National Park Service designated and expanded by presidents through the 1906 Antiquities Act. The review was to determine if the decisions to protect the areas were made with “adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders.”
Now, the Associated Press reports, the unprecedented review headed by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has concluded, with the department suggesting that changes be made to the boundaries of a “handful” of properties, though it does not recommend totally eliminating any of the monuments as some critics feared. The review now goes to the president, who has 120 days to decide whether or not to implement the recommendations. It is not known at this time whether those recommendations will be made public, reports Miranda Green at CNN.
According to a summary of the report, Zinke found that over the decades the scope and reasoning behind the designations has changed and that some proclamations were "arbitrary or politically motivated." During Zinke's 120-day review, he visited eight national monument sites in six states and spoke with hundreds of industry officials, Native American representatives, property-rights activists and other stakeholders. The agency also received 2.4 million public comments during the review, which showed overwhelming support for the continued preservation of the 200 monuments.
The review, Zinke says, is an attempt to give the public a voice in the designations, which require no public comment and no congressional approval. “No President should use the authority under the Antiquities Act to restrict public access, prevent hunting and fishing, burden private land, or eliminate traditional land uses, unless such action is needed to protect the object,” Zinke says in a press release. “The recommendations I sent to the president on national monuments will maintain federal ownership of all federal land and protect the land under federal environmental regulations, and also provide a much needed change for the local communities who border and rely on these lands for hunting and fishing, economic development, traditional uses, and recreation.”
Julie Turkewitz and Lisa Friedman at The New York Times report that majority of the 553-million acres put under review was set aside by President Barack Obama, though monuments designated by Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were also part of the study. Prior to submitting the report, six national monuments were removed from the review.
While supporters of the monuments are glad none of them are on the chopping block, the AP reports many are worried about what the extent of the boundary adjustments in the document might be, and demand a public release of the document. “A change can be a small tweak or near annihilation,” Jacqueline Savitz, senior vice president of Oceana, which is advocating for the five Marine National Monuments included in the study, tells the AP. “The public has a right to know.”
Zinke tells the AP that criticisms are unwarranted and that conservationists worried that the administration wants to sell off the land removed from the monuments to timber, grazing and mining interests are overreacting. “I’ve heard this narrative that somehow the land is going to be sold or transferred,” Zinke says. “That narrative is patently false and shameful. The land was public before and it will be public after." If land loses its designation, it will remain public, however, it will revert back to whatever agency was previously was responsible for it. That means stronger protections it was entitled to as a monument could bend to allow such things as hunting, oil development and mining.
While there are no details on what monuments might have recommended boundary changes and how big those changes might be, observers expect Utah’s Bears Ear National Monument, designated by President Obama last December, will see some boundary changes.
“The Bears Ears National Monument contains some objects that are appropriate for protection under the act,” Zinke wrote in a memo released in June. “However, having conducted the review ... I find that the Bears Ears National Monument does not fully conform with the policies set forth [in Trump's executive order].”
The Times report the 1.35 million-acre monument has been a flashpoint since its designation. While Navajo people in the region strongly support the protection of the area, which has historical and religious significance to their culture, opponents argue that it will prevent local economic development from uranium mining and oil and gas development.
According to sources with knowledge of the situation, Nick Sambides, Jr. at the Bangor Daily News reports that the one-year-old Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument appears to be safe from any “dramatic” changes. According to his sources, logging would not be allowed in the monument, though the Secretary would recommend that demonstrations of logging tools and practices be included to honor the region's heritage. That monument has also been a controversial flashpoint between logging interests, locals and environmentalists.
There is a strong precedent for presidents adjusting the boundaries of the monuments. The AP reports that in the last century, presidents have reduced or redrawn the boundaries of monuments 18 times. The Times reports the most dramatic change came in 1915, when Woodrow Wilson cut 312,280 acres from the monument that would later become Olympic National Park in Washington state, effectively cutting the size of monument originally designated by Theodore Roosevelt in half.
What's not clear is whether presidents actually have the power to rescind a national monument designation, and may be one reason none were recommended for elimination. “No President has ever abolished or revoked a national monument proclamation, so the existence or scope of any such authority has not been tested in courts,” legislative attorney Alexandra M. Wyatt wrote in a paper about National Monuments released by Congressional Research Service in 2016. “However, some legal analyses since at least the 1930s have concluded that the Antiquities Act, by its terms, does not authorize the President to repeal proclamations, and that the President also lacks implied authority to do so.”
-------------------------------
by Jason Daley
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
452 visitors
Federal land that is removed from "Monument" status will be open to exploitation (mining, logging, drilling, ...);
From public treasure to private profit!
The essence of Republican management...
People are over reacting says Zinke...BS say I.
I would have taken bets that the boundaries of Bears Ears would be changed. That was a no brainer if you've followed the saga on it...After all it's just a bunch of Indians trying to protect it.
The Times report the 1.35 million-acre monument has been a flashpoint since its designation. While Navajo people in the region strongly support the protection of the area, which has historical and religious significance to their culture, opponents argue that it will prevent local economic development from uranium mining and oil and gas development.
Can't imagine why the Navajo people would want to save their holy ground. How would it go over if we suddenly found your church a good mining spot and wanted to desecrate it for oil and gas? Not to mention that this land belongs to the public not just the Navajo and not to corporations. Sometimes, the people come first. It actually says that in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
Oh, please, Perrie! You know better than that.
Indian lands are up for grabs. Always have been, always will be.
Well, I can't say that I am unbiased about this, being Indian, but the land is also a national treasure, meant to be enjoyed and shared with all the people (with the exception of the most spiritual areas). What we need to get over as a nation, is not who made it a national park, but the value of it being a national park. We need to stop politicizing every aspect of every act.
But, Perrie!!
There's money to be made!
Not for the public who "own" the land, of course.
Bob I do realize that, but I am hoping that this government will not let our past and the people's property be over ridden by private greed. I hope they are listening.
You're joking, right?
You're being sarcastic, right?
I'm sure that in many cases a compromise can be found between protecting the intended lands and waterways that should be protected and the vast overreach of protected lands by #42 and #44. None of the areas are being done away with and borders have been adjusted before.
Money!
Actually it's time to undo the punitive actions against the state and the local communities near those places created by #42 and #44. They wanted to lock up the land so local people there could get no economic or recreational use of the land so that only urban hippies in Birkenstocks carrying granola infested backpacks could visit.
C4P,
Who gives you the logical pretzels that you distribute on NT?
Comment removed skirting the CoC [ph]
These are the actual local people XX...Notice the birkenstock they are wearing....70% of Utah residents want Bears Ears left as it is now....Before you speak XX, you should really know what your talking about.
I suspect that the one Clinton set up in Utah to protect his Indonesian friends from American competition in clean coal will be scaled back some to allow some of that resource to to be in use to generate clean American energy.
From the first day I heard the words "clean coal", I knew it would not happen. Technically, it's possible. If coal were our only available energy, we could make it work. But there’s competition from other energies that are simpler, and therefore intrinsically less expensive.
The only way for clean coal to be competitive would be with big subsidies... and it would still be a non-renewable source. If we're going to subsidize anything, it should be renewable.
What?
Trump lied about "clean coal"?
Gosh.....
C4P,
I don't think you believe your own posts. They are consecrated bullet-points from your Ministry of Trurh, so you post them. Dutiful soldier.
How is making me the target 🎯 of your personal attack not a coc violation on your part?
How is my post an attack?
To say that I'm posting stuff I don't believe in for one. Questioning my personal character. Accusing me of posting stuff as directed by someone else.
Oh... gosh...
If any of that is untrue, I certainly apologize...
The Navajo people are well acquainted with uranium on their land...The legacy left behind is over 500 abandoned uranium mines on their land.
Of course not many people are aware that the largest radioactive spill in U.S. history took place at Church Rock NM....Everyone remembers 3 Mile Island but three months later the Church Rock spill took place. Very few people are aware or it...Wonder why?
Yes, it's now a Superfund Clean up site...Wow 40 plus years later, BFD.
Jeez, K!
You're as bad as Perrie.
If there's uranium, then of course there are mines. And who would bother to clean up afterward? I mean... who cares?