Bead 12: Dear Department of the Interior

Dear Department of the Interior,

Officially, I am responding to your invitation for comments on the national monuments review President Trump has asked you to undertake.  As you know, the review encompasses 27 national monuments designated or expanded since 1996 under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906.  You've been asked to consider how well these designations/expansions conform to the original intent of the Antiquities Act, whether the monuments support "multiple use" utility of federal lands, whether the monuments interfere with the use of nearby non-federal lands, whether the monuments can be managed properly, and how the monuments might be harming states, tribes, and localities.

You've instructed the public to comment not on the affected national monuments per se, but on the review.  It seems you're eager to do a good job.  You want to know if you are reviewing enough monuments; are there perhaps some you've left off the list?  You want us to weigh in on the various criteria Trump instructed you to use in your review, and to make suggestions for additional criteria you might adopt.  In short, you want us to leave our values out of it.  If I believe that federal lands--and monuments, parks, and wilderness areas in particular--should be managed for ecological integrity and the enjoyment of future generations, you don't want to know about it.  If we, the commenting public, wish to defend the existence of the affected monuments, it must be in terms of the technicalities raised by Trump's executive order, none of which have anything to do with the function monuments serve in our society and our natural landscapes.

I do have comments for you.  Official comments.  But first, since we're talking, I have a few unofficial thoughts I'd like to share with you.  Grievances, you might call them.

Up until quite recently, I thought of you as an old friend.  You were where I fell in love with the desert (Arches and Zion National Parks, 1994) and where I took some of my first steps alone on a trail (Rocky Mountain National Park, 1994).  You were where I got lost for two days in the wintertime and had to bushwhack with skis strapped to my pack (Glacier National Park, 1996), and where I returned in kinder seasons to hike, camp, and swim in the shadow of your glorious Continental Divide (Glacier National Park, 1998-2003).  I stitched myself in and out of you on the Pacific Crest Trail (Sequoia, Kings Canyon, Yosemite, Lassen, Crater Lake, Mt. Rainier, and North Cascades National Parks, 2002) and later the Appalachian Trail (Shenandoah National Park and Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, 2004).  You were where I studied black bears as a graduate student (Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, 2007) and where I encountered nine grizzly bears in a day (Denali National Park, 2013).  For the past seven years, you have been my neighbor; I enjoy slipping past the crowds at your front door to meet you where our souls touch, on Florence, Simmons, Gibbs, Hoffman, Conness, and all the high country in between (Yosemite National Park, 2010-present).  

But a few months ago, when Tioga Pass was deep under snow and I was stoking my woodstove at 3,000 feet, you became a stranger.  It was a cold day in January.  The 20th, I believe.  Suddenly, after a kinship longer than most modern marriages, you turned off.  Now your face is blank, stony (Mt. Rushmore National Memorial, 1993).  Your hands, once gentle, now move with icy precision.  I have no idea what they'll do next.

Denali National Park, 2013

Ahem.  Back to the public comment period, only open for 15 days for Bears Ears on account of all the Native people that support its national monument designation, but lack Internet access.  Open until July 10 for the 26 monuments with lower fossil fuel potential, and less controversy.  Let the record show that I am in favor of all 27 of these national monuments, not to mention the other 130 monuments created under the Antiquities Act.  I stand with that great Republican conservationist, Theodore Roosevelt, who signed the Antiquities Act into law and used it liberally in the years to follow.  I stand with the 15 presidents since T. R. (including another 7 Republicans) who have used the Act to set aside those lands under imminent archaeological or ecological threat, or unable to garner enough support in Congress for a National Park designation, or both.  The Antiquities Act of 1906 became law for good reason, and I support its use.

I know I'm not strictly following instructions.  But I am about to.  In response to your first suggested objective for public comments:  No, I don't think there are any national monuments missing from your to-review list, because I don't think any monuments warrant ex post facto review.

Your second suggested objective for public comments is the application of Trump's various review criteria to the 27 national monuments in question.  In this letter, I will focus on one broad criterion:  whether the monument designations jibe with the original intent of the Antiquities Act.  Trump would like us to consider whether the monuments "are appropriately classified under the Act as 'historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest'" and whether they conform to "the Act's requirement that reservations of land 'not exceed the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'"  But to suggest that the original language of the Act is sacrosanct is to deny its evolution, over the past century, in courtrooms and Congress, and in the hands of its primary practitioners, our presidents.

Federal courts have repeatedly weighed in on the Antiquities Act, and have always ruled in favor of the national monument and President in question.  Court opinions have explicitly validated "objects of historic or scientific interest" ranging from early fur trapping trails and glacial formations (Wyoming v. Franke, 1945) to rare desert fish (Cappapert v. United States, 1976) to a caribou herd (Anaconda Copper Co. v. Andrus, 1980), to scenic vistas (Tulare County v. Bush, 2002).  In fact, in Anaconda Copper Co. v. Andrus, the court found that "obviously, matters of scientific interest which involve geological formations or which may involve plant, animal, or fish life are within this reach of the presidential authority under the Antiquities Act."  As to size, federal courts have upheld monument designations as large as 10.9 million acres on land (Alaska v. Carter, 1978) and 89.5 million acres at sea (Dettling v. United States, 2013); it is worth noting that the latter designation was made by President George W. Bush.  In Tulare County v. Bush, the court found that the Antiquities Act does not require presidents to make any particular investigation regarding the "smallest area" criterion of monument designation; it is wholly up to the president's discretion.

Similarly, although Congress has had numerous opportunities to abolish individual national monuments, restrict the size or conditions of designations allowed under the Antiquities Act, or repeal the Act altogether, it has done almost nothing in this regard.  On the contrary, Congress has regularly acted to fund or expand monuments, or to upgrade them to National Park status.  In the political backlash that followed Jimmy Carter's designation of more than 56 million acres of national monuments in Alaska, Congress passed legislation that limited future use of the Antiquities Act in Alaska--but at the same time, validated Carter's efforts by incorporating most of his Alaska monuments into the national park system.  We have Congress's vision to thank for Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, Zion, Bryce Canyon, Denali, Glacier Bay, Olympic, and Acadia National Parks, all of which got their start as Antiquities Act monuments subjected to no small amount of local scorn.

After more than a hundred years of congressional debate, the Antiquities Act stands, and has managed to retain its original broad language with respect to which lands are eligible for protection, and how much land can be protected.  Moreover, the courts have affirmed that a monument's size and purpose is a matter of presidential discretion, and has upheld monument designations of every stripe.  Like our judicial and legislative branches of government, I trust the judgment of the presidents that designated the 27 national monuments under review.  Namely, I feel the monument designations appropriately protect objects of historic or scientific interest, and are properly sized.

Since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, only three U.S. presidents have declined to designate national monuments under the Antiquities Act.  These are Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.  Richard Nixon gets props for establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and signing the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act into existence; I will overlook his dispassion for monuments.  

As to our current president, his use of the Antiquities Act remains to be seen.  So far, he appears interested in the Act only insofar as he might be able to spin it to overturn monument designations, which would be unprecedented and almost certainly indefensible.  I can only hope that he--and you, my former friend--can resist the advances of corporate special interest groups and keep the best interest of the American public and our collective ecological and cultural resources in mind.  Please continue to protect our national monuments.  

Notwithstanding your about-face on January 20, I can't blow you off.  In a month or two, the snow will have melted from the High Sierra, and that is where I will be.  I like to think that somewhere, deep down, we still have common ground.  Please don't prove me wrong.

Sincerely,

[Bekah]


References 

Interior Department press release and link to public comment portal:  https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-releases-list-monuments-under-review-announces-first-ever-formal

Congressional Research Service article summarizing the Antiquities Act and its use in national monument designations:  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41330.pdf

Cornell Law Review article summarizing the Antiquities Act and its use in national monument designations:  http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2894&context=clr

National Park Service website providing information on all national monument designations/expansions under the Antiquities Act between 1906 and 2006:  https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/monumentslist.htm