CHARLESTON, W.Va. – West Virginians are likely to react with suspicion to Trump administration moves toward rolling back the national monuments named by his predecessors, according to a local conservation group.
In an unprecedented step, the White House and U.S. Interior Department have announced they'll review - and possibly revoke or shrink - monument status given to public lands over the last 20 years.
West Virginia voted strongly for Trump.
But, Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, says folks here really identify with the woods and forests, and want them protected.
"The first time a president has ever made that kind of move, and it just feels like it flies in the face of the very people who voted for him," she says. "People take pride in those areas here in West Virginia and are willing to fight to defend them."
Written statements from the Interior Department say they want to give rural citizens more of a voice in what federal land gets extra protection. The agency also argues that recent monuments have been huge - many times larger than the first ones, named early in the last century.
Critics charge the real reason for the review is to make more public land available for energy development.
Rosser says folks will learn a lot watching how the review process goes - if it's dictated from the top, it might be driven by powerful vested interests. But if it's open to the public, she predicts many people will come out to defend public lands.
She notes that's how the monuments are created in the first place.
"Some of these national monuments, most of them, have been decades in the making," she adds. "Local economies have seen great benefits. If they truly listen to the local voices, the business voices will be pressured to keep things as they are."
Rosser and others are backing a push for a Birthplace of Rivers National Monument in the eastern part of the state. One estimate is that a designation could be worth $50 million a year to the local economy.
The century-old Antiquities Act, which empowers presidents to name national monuments, doesn't specifically allow later revisions. Any changes made to current national monuments by the Trump administration are almost certain to be challenged in court.
get more stories like this via email
The remote landscape of southeastern Oregon is receiving additional protections.
The Bureau of Land Management has finalized its resource management plan for the southeast corner of the state and it includes protections for parts of the Owyhee and Malheur Rivers and canyon lands in the region.
Michael O'Casey, deputy director of forest policy and Northwest programs for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said it's an exciting announcement, which will protect sensitive landscape from activities like surface development and road building.
"When that landscape is impacted, it's really hard to bring it back and restore it," O'Casey pointed out. "And so, it's really important to protect the places out there that are healthy and intact and resistant. And resilience is a term that we use, to stresses from climate change or whatever else."
O'Casey noted the plan still allows for traditional uses of the land like hunting and fishing. The BLM's final resource management plan for the district covers four-point-six million acres of public land.
O'Casey stressed the agency deliberated for years on this decision.
"This planning process was initiated in 2010 and so it's been 14 years in the making," O'Casey emphasized. "The good news is that, even though it's been a really long time, was that there was a really robust public comment process throughout this."
O'Casey added appointing the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council in 2014 was an important part of public involvement. The council was made up of a wide variety of area people including grazing, energy and conservation interests, who made recommendations for management in the region.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
get more stories like this via email
Tribes in far northeastern California are pressing President Joe Biden to create a new national monument about 30 miles from Mount Shasta.
The Pit River Tribe is asking the president to use his powers under the Antiquities Act to create the new Sáttítla National Monument on just over 205,000 acres in the Medicine Lake Highlands.
Radley Davis, an advocate for the Sáttítla National Monument and a citizen of the Illmawi Band of the Pit River Tribe, said the area is a very important watershed.
"The headwaters of Northern California goes all the way down into the San Francisco Bay Area, gets collected and goes to the aqueduct," Davis pointed out. "That gets further transmitted down in Southern California for agriculture, so we feel protecting this area is very, very key."
Hydrologists said the volcanically formed aquifers below the surface capture snowmelt and store as much water as California's 200 largest surface reservoirs. The Pit River Tribe and the Modoc Nation continuously use the Sáttítla area for ceremonies and gathering medicines. It is also sacred to the Shasta, Karuk and Wintu tribes.
Davis acknowledged there has been some confusion with some local residents mistakenly thinking the area would become a national park with entry fees, rather than a national monument.
"It would not take away any of the rights that people would have to go up and enjoy the land," Davis emphasized. "The cabin owners would still be able to enjoy the winter and the spring and the summer up there. People would still be able to enjoy horseback riding."
The Pit River Tribe has been in litigation with the Bureau of Land Management and CalPine Energy Corporation for 25 years, trying to block consideration of any geothermal projects.
get more stories like this via email
A new poll showed New Mexico voters expressed a deep affection for lands, water and wildlife and want policies offering greater protections.
The 14th annual Colorado College "State of the Rockies" survey of 3,400 voters in eight Western states found increasing support for conservation even as political affiliation fades.
Dave Metz, principal and president of the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, said they are in favor of requiring oil and gas companies to pay for clean up and restoration on lands where they have drilled and favor limiting where the companies are allowed to drill.
"This year we saw the widest margin in favor of conservation that we have seen in this poll," Metz reported. "For the first time seven in 10 voters told us they would prioritize protecting sources of clean water, air quality and wildlife habitat over producing more domestic energy."
Majorities of New Mexico voters cited loss of habitats and declining fish and wildlife populations, uncontrollable wildfires, and inadequate and polluted water supplies including microplastics as extremely or very serious problems. By a four-to-one margin, they also said they want more emphasis on conserving wildlife migration routes rather than new development, ranching and oil and gas production.
Among respondents, 91% said they regularly participate in outdoor activities on national public lands.
Lori Weigel, principal of the research firm New Bridge Strategy, said many poll respondents expressed concern about children's mental health problems continuing to worsen if they are unable to access public lands where they can spend time outdoors.
"We asked them to tell us, 'Did they think that spending more time in the outdoors and nature; how much would that help?'" Weigel explained. "Virtually everyone said they thought it would help at least somewhat, and we outright had two-thirds telling us, 'Yeah, that would help a lot.'"
Among New Mexico voters, 69% said they think the effects of climate change on the Land of Enchantment over the past 10 years have been significant. Younger, "Gen Z" voters, born between 1996 and 2010 expressed far more concern about the issue than the older "Baby Boom" generation.
get more stories like this via email