SANTA FE, N. M. – Protecting national monuments is the subject of a hearing today in the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources.
Tribal leaders and state public-lands officials will testify about the impact of President Donald Trump's decision to slash millions of acres from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.
According to Dan Hartinger, National Monuments Campaign director for The Wilderness Society, the U.S. Interior Department also reviewed the sizes of New Mexico's Rio Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, but hasn't yet made a decision on their future.
"Those New Mexico monuments were part of this review," Hartinger said, "and that's why it's incredibly important for New Mexico to see the committee investigate this, and get to the bottom of what the Trump administration's faulty decision-making was based on."
The administration has said its goal is to protect important sites while still allowing for energy and mineral extraction. But on Tuesday, President Trump signed S. 47, a sweeping public-lands package that gives wilderness protections to 273,000 acres in New Mexico.
Multiple lawsuits are in process that challenge making Utah's national monuments smaller.
Nicole Croft, executive director of the nonprofit Grand Staircase-Escalante Partners, said the proposed Antiquities Act of 2019 would make it clear that a U.S. President can only expand or create national monuments, not shrink them.
"It's really clear to us that Congress has the responsibility and the authority to make boundary changes or to codify," said Croft. "We really don't believe that this is an issue that has presidential authority, and so, any changes to reduce or to expand really are within the hands of Congress."
And Ani Kame'enui, director of legislation and policy for the National Parks Conservation Association, said national monuments across the country would benefit from updates to the Antiquities Act.
"The Antiquities Act of 2019 actually protects over 50 existing national monuments," she explained. "And what it would help do is finalize management plans, codify the boundaries as they were originally designated, and provide some additional protections and funding for the national monuments."
The bill has more than a dozen cosponsors for the House and Senate versions, including New Mexico's Rep. Deb Haaland, Sen. Tom Udall and Sen. Martin Heinrich, all Democrats.
A second bill, known as the BEARS Act, would expand Bears Ears to 1.9 million acres, the boundaries proposed by a coalition of tribes.
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