In what could be a boon for certain industries like coal, oil, ranching and fishing, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has recommended to President Trump that certain national monuments be reduced in size. Zinke, who had been reviewing more than 25 national monuments and who it was feared would recommend that some be stripped of their national monument status, instead said that he only recommended some changes; he has not publicly specified exactly what those changes are.
Boundary ‘Adjustments’
Zinke told AP that he is recommending changes to a handful of sites, including unspecified boundary adjustments, saying that some of the parks are too large. If boundaries are narrowed, the implication is that those areas may be open to drilling, mining, or other industry. Any areas removed from national monuments would still be under federal control, Zinke said.
The Interior Secretary was reviewing 27 monuments via an executive order from President Trump, who charged that the millions of acres put under protection by President Obama were part of a “massive land grab,” according to The Hill.
Report Summary Applauds ‘Well-Orchestrated’ Campaign
In a summary of the report that Zinke released to the public, he said the comments he received in favor of maintaining existing monuments demonstrated “a well-orchestrated national campaign organized by multiple organizations.” One such campaign was from clothing manufacturer Patagonia, which released its first-ever television ad to drum up support for keeping the monuments. The ad featured founder Yvon Chouinard, who admonished, “Our Secretary of the Interior Zinke has said he believes in public lands. Let’s hold him to it. Let’s let him not back down on that.”
Zinke’s summary said the comments he received about the review were “overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining existing monuments.”
Of those who opposed national monuments – primarily supporting rescinding or modifying the existing monuments to protect traditional multiple use – most were local residents associated with industries such as grazing, timber production, mining, hunting and fishing, and motorized recreation, he said. Opponents pointed 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 landowners encompassed by or adjacent to a monument to sell.
