THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

WASHINGTON

MEMORANDUM F

FROM:

SUBJECT: Final Report Summa z g Findings of the Review of Designations Under

the Antiquities Act

Executive Summary and Impressions of the Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
In 1906, Congress delegated to the President the power to designate a monument under the
Antiquities Act (Act). The Act authorizes the President singular authority to designate national
monuments without public comment, environmental review, or further consent of Congress.
Given this extraordinary executive power, Congress wisely placed limits on the President by
defining the objects that may be included within a monument as being "historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest," by
restricting the authority to Federal lands, and by limiting the size of the monument to "the
smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects." Congress retained its
authority to make land-use designations without such limitations. Even with the restrictive
language, use of the Act has not always been without controversy. In fact, even Theodore
Roosevelt's first proclamation of the roughly 1,200-acre Devil's Tower in Wyoming was
controversial. Since that time, the use of the Act has largely been viewed as an overwhelming
American success story and today includes almost 200 of America's greatest treasures.

More recently, however, the Act's executive authority is under scrutiny as Administrations have
expanded both the size and scope of monument designations. Since 1996 alone, the Act has been
used by the President 26 times to create monuments that are over 100,000 acres or more in size
and have included private property within the identified external boundaries. While early
monument designations focused more on geological formations, archaeological ruins, and areas
of historical interest, a more recent and broad interpretation of what constitutes an "object of
historic or scientific interest" has been extended to include landscape areas, biodiversity, and
viewsheds. Moreover, features such as World War II desert bombing craters and remoteness
have been included in justifying proclamations.

The responsibility of protecting America's public lands and unique antiquities should not be
taken lightly; nor should the authority and the power granted to a President under the Act. No
President should use the authority under the 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 objects. It is Congress, and not the President, that has the authority to make
protective land designations outside of the narrow scope of the Act, and only Congress retains
the authority to enact designations such as national parks, wilderness, and national conservation
 2

and recreation areas. The Executive power under the Act is not a substitute for a lack of
congressional action on protective land designations.

You were correct in tasking me to review and provide recommendations of all monuments that
were designated from 1996 to the present that are 1) 100,000 acres or greater in size or 2) were
made without adequate public consultation. This is far from the first time an examination of
scope of monuments has been conducted. Existing monuments have been modified by
successive Presidents in the past, including 18 reductions in the size of monuments, and there is
no doubt that you have the authority to review and consider recommendations to modify or add
to a monument.

The methodology used for the review consisted of three steps. The first step was to gather the
facts which included the examination of existing proclamations, object(s) to be protected,
segregation of the object(s) (if practical) to meet the "smallest area compatible" requirement, the
scientific and rational basis for the boundaries, land uses within the monument, public access
concerns, authorized traditional uses, and appropriate environmental and cultural protections. As
directed by you, the second step was to ensure that the local voice was heard by holding
meetings with local, state, tribal, and other elected officials; non-profit groups; and other
stakeholders, as well as providing an online format for public comment. The final step was to
review policies on public access, hunting and fishing rights, traditional use such as timber
production and grazing, economic and environmental impacts, and potential legal conflicts, and
to provide a report to you no later than August 24, 2017.

The review found that each monument was unique in terms of the object(s) used for justification,
proclamation language, history, management plans, economic impact, and local support.
Adherence to the Act's definition of an "object" and "smallest area compatible" clause on some
monuments were either arbitrary or likely politically motivated or boundaries could not be
supported by science or reasons of practical resource management. Despite the apparent lack of
adherence to the purpose of the Act, some monuments reflect a long public debate process and
are largely settled and strongly supported by the local community. Other monuments remain
controversial and contain significant private property within the identified external boundary or
overlap with other Federal land designations such as national forests, Wilderness Study Areas
(WSA), and lands specifically set aside by Congress for permanent forest production.

Public comments can be divided into two principal groups. Proponents tended to promote
monument designation as a mechanism to prevent the sale or transfer of public land. This
narrative is false and has no basis in fact. Public lands within a monument are federally owned
and managed regardless of monument designation under the Act. Proponents also point to the
economic benefits from increased tourism from monument recognition. On this point,
monument status has a potential economic benefit of increased visitation, particularly to service
related industries, outdoor recreation industries, and other businesses dependent or supported by
tourism. Increased visitation also places an additional burden and responsibility on the Federal
Government to provide additional resources and manpower to maintain these lands to better
support increased visitation and recreational activities.
 3

Comments received were overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining existing monuments and

demonstrated a well-orchestrated national campaign organized by multiple
organizations. Opponents of monuments primarily supported rescinding or modifying the
existing monuments to protect traditional multiple use, and those most concerned were often
local residents associated with industries such as grazing, timber production, mining, hunting and
fishing, and motorized recreation. Opponents point 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 to sell their land encompassed by or adjacent to a
monument.

I. Introduction and Purpose

As described more fully below, Executive Order 13792, "Presidential Executive Order on the
Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act," dated April 26, 2017, (Order or EO 13792)
directed me to conduct a review of certain Presidential designations made under the Act, to
determine if the designations conform to the policies set forth in the Order. The Order further
instructed me to provide two reports summarizing this review:

a. an Interim Report under section 2(d), due within 45 days, addressing the Bears Ears
National Monument established by Proclamation No. 9558, dated December 28, 2016,
and "other such designations as the Secretary determines to be appropriate for inclusion";
and

b. a Final Report under section 2(e), due within 120 days, summarizing the findings of the
review for all other monument designations covered by the Order.

The Order also requested that I include in both reports recommendations for "Presidential
actions, legislative proposals, or other actions consistent with law" to conform designations to
the policy set forth in the Order.

This Memorandum constitutes the Final Report under section 2(e) of the Order and addresses the
findings of the review of certain Presidential designations made under the Act.

II. Background

A. The Antiquities Act

Passed in 1906, the Act, now codified at 54 U.S.C. 320301-320303, reflected a nearly
decade-long effort by Congress, the Department of the Interior, and members of the
archeological community to protect antiquities from looting and desecration. The Act authorizes
the President to "declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated on land owned or
controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments." 54 U.S.C. 320301(a). The
Act states that the President may reserve parcels of Federal land as part of such monument, but if
so the President shall limit those reservations to "the smallest area compatible with the proper
care and management of the objects to be protected." 54 U.S.C. 320301(b). (Emphasis added.)
 4

The Act also originally criminalized efforts to "appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any
historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or
controlled by the Government of the United States" without permission.

The Act has been used to designate or expand national monuments on Federal lands more than
150 times. It has also been used at least 18 times by Presidents to reduce the size of 16 national
monuments, including 3 reductions of the Mount Olympus National Monument by Presidents
Taft, Wilson, and Coolidge that cumulatively reduced the size of the 639,200-acre Monument by
a total of approximately 314,080 acres, and a reduction of the Navajo National Monument by
President Taft from its original 360 acres to 40 acres. President Franklin Roosevelt also
modified the reservation of the Katmai National Monument to change management of the
Monument.

B. Executive Order 13 79 2

You issued Executive Order 13 792 on April 26, 2017. Consistent with the concerns noted
above, section 1 of the Order states:
Designations of national monuments under the [Antiquities Act], have a substantial
impact on the management of Federal lands and the use and enjoyment of neighboring
lands. Such designations are a means of stewarding America's natural resources,
protecting America's natural beauty, and preserving America's historic
places. Monument designations that result from a lack of public outreach and proper
coordination with State, tribal, and local officials and other relevant stakeholders may
also create barriers to achieving energy independence, restrict public access to and use of
Federal lands, burden State, tribal, and local governments, and otherwise curtail
economic growth. Designations should be made in accordance with the requirements and
original objectives of the Act and appropriately balance the protection oflandmarks,
structures, and objects against the appropriate use of Federal lands and the effects on
surrounding lands and communities.

The Order required me to review all designations or expansions resulting in a designation

covering more than 100,000 acres or any other designations that he determines were "made
without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders" to determine
whether it conforms to the policy set forth in section 1. The Order listed several factors for me to
consider when making that determination:
(1) the requirements and original objectives of the Act, including 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";

(2) whether designated lands are appropriately classified under the Act as "historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, [or] other objects of historic or scientific
interest";

(3) the effects of a designation on the available uses of designated Federal lands, including
consideration of the multiple-use policy of section 102(a)(7) of the Federal Land Policy
 5

and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7)), as well as the effects on the
available uses of Federal lands beyond monument boundaries;

(4) the effects of a designation on the use and enjoyment of non-Federal lands within or
beyond monument boundaries;

(5) concerns of state, tribal, and local governments affected by a designation, including the
economic development and fiscal condition of affected states, tribes, and localities;

(6) the availability of Federal resources to properly manage designated areas; and

(7) such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.

As noted above, section 2 of the Order directs me to provide, within 120 days of the date of the
Order, a Final Report including the results of the review and any resulting recommendations on
monuments.
C. Monuments Under Review

Monument Location Year Federal

Acreage (Est.)
Basin and Range Nevada 2015 703 ,585
Bears Ears Utah 2016 1,353,000
Berryessa Snow Mountain California 2015 330,780
Canyons of the Ancients Colorado 2000 176,370
Carrizo Plain California 2001 211,045
Cascade Siskiyou Oregon 2000/2017 113,431
Craters of the Moon Idaho 1924/2000 738,420
Giant Sequoia California 2000 328,315
Gold Butte Nevada 2016 296,937
Grand Canyon-Parashant Arizona 2000 1,021,030
Grand Staircase-Escalante Utah 1996 1,866,331
Hanford Reach Washington 2000 194,450
Ironwood Forest Arizona 2000 129,055
Katahdin Woods and Waters Maine 2016 87,564
Mojave Trails California 2016 1,600,000
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks New Mexico 2014 496,529
Rio Grande de! Norte New Mexico 2013 242,710
Sand to Snow California 2016 154,000
 6

San Gabriel Mountains California 2014 346,177

Sonoran Desert Arizona 2001 486,400
Upper Missouri River Breaks Montana 2001 377,346
Vermilion Cliffs Arizona 2000 279,566

D. Marine Monuments Under Review

The Department of Commerce (DOC) is undertaking a concurrent review process, under both
Executive Order 13792 and Executive Order 13795, "Implementing an America-First Offshore
Energy Strategy", signed April 28, 2017. The DOC review includes both National Marine
Sanctuaries and the five Marine Monuments under the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
review. The five marine monuments jointly reviewed are below.

Monument Location Year Federal

Acrea!!e (Est.)
Marianas Trench CNMI/Pacific Ocean 2009 61,077,668
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Atlantic Ocean 2016 3,144,320
Pacific Remote Islands Pacific Ocean 2009 313,941,851
Papahanumokuakea Hawaii 2006/2016 372,848,597
Rose Atoll American Samoa 2009 8,609,045

E. Review Process
In an effort to make the review process transparent and give people a voice in that process, DOI
announced on May 5, 2017, a formal comment period for the review. This was the first time
regulations.gov has been used for a formal comment period associated with the Act. The review
period closed on July 10, 2017. The DOI received approximately 2.8 million comments both
electronically and by mail.

Since May, I personally visited eight national monument sites in six states. I held dozens of
meetings with individuals and organizations, including tribal, local, and state government
officials; local stakeholders; and advocates from conservation, agriculture, tourism, and historic
preservation organizations.

III. Results
A. Broadly and Arbitrarily Defined "Objects"

While there are many instances when the Act has been used for the proper stewardship of
objects, I have concerns that modem uses of the Act do not clearly and consistently define the
objects. Lending further to this concern is that there are other areas, not a part of a monument,
which contain virtually identical objects. The West was inhabited by ancient cultures, the
 7

remnants of which are well-preserved due to the West's arid climate, and can be found
throughout the land. There is a legitimate question as to why only some of these resources were
chosen as objects to protect under the Act, while others were not.

Throughout the review, I have seen examples of objects not clearly defined in the proclamations.
Examples of such objects are geographic areas including viewsheds and ecosystems. Proper use
of the Act should specifically identify the "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures,
and other objects of historic or scientific interest," and the quantity of land necessary to protect
each object, if any.

However, prior Administrations appear, in some instances, to have designated monuments only
after congressional efforts to develop broader land-management legislation stalled. As a result,
some monument boundaries mirror the previously proposed legislative boundaries that were
developed as part of proposed comprehensive land-management legislation, not pursuant to the
Act. Congress has plenary discretion to further protect areas of public lands and make other
areas available for economically productive uses. Given that these same considerations and
balancing processes are not available under the Act, the use of these legislative boundaries as
monuments boundaries appears to have circumvented the legislative process.

B. Landscape Area Designations

In the case of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), designating
geographic landscape areas as objects of historic or scientific interest is especially problematic
given that the determination of land uses is normally done under the vigorous public balancing
processes pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). When landscape
areas are designated and reserved as part of a monument, objects and large tracts of land are
overlain by a more restrictive management regime, which mandates protection of the objects
identified. This has the effect of narrowing the range of uses and limiting BLM's multiple-use
mission. As a result, absent specific assurances, traditional uses of the land such as grazing,
timber production, mining, fishing, hunting, recreation, and other cultural uses are unnecessarily
restricted. Such action especially harms rural communities in western states given that these
towns have historically benefited and been economically sustained by grazing, mining, and
timber production on nearby public lands.

The land management and planning challenges associated with monument designations can
particularly be seen where monuments are designated over special management regimes already
in place. For example, many of these monuments include WSAs. Pursuant to section 603 of
FLPMA, WSAs are already managed so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for
preservation as wilderness and, in some cases, can have stricter management requirements than
those outlined in a proclamation of a monument. As WSAs may provide a higher level of
protection, this raises a question as to whether a designation under the Act is even necessary.

C. Traditional Uses Limited

It appears that certain monuments may have been designated to prevent economic activity such
as grazing, mining, and timber production rather than to protect specific objects. With regard to
grazing, while it is uncommon for proclamations to prohibit grazing outright, restrictions
 8

resulting from monument designations on activities such as vegetative management directly

hinder livestock-grazing uses.

Restrictions on vegetative management or other maintenance activities have also led to poorly
maintained roads, and even road closures. There are also cases where roads have intentionally
been closed as part of management plans in order to protect objects, as it is often the case that
monument designations can result in an increased threat of damage or looting of objects due to
higher visitation. As a result, when developing transportation plans, Federal land managers have
found the most efficient way to protect objects in monuments is to limit motorized vehicle
access.

Therefore, public access is of great concern related to monument designations. Hunters, anglers,
and recreationalists are at times prevented from visiting these lands. Disabled and elderly
visitors who particularly rely on motorized transportation also have limited access. Further,
some tribal members have raised concerns that their cultural practices such as wood and herb
gathering are constrained by lack of access.

While the use of public land is of continuing concern, there is a perception by private inholders
that their land is also encumbered by monument designations. The Act states that the President
may only designate as monuments objects that "are situated on land owned or controlled by the
Federal Government." However, there is concern among private landowners that monument
designations around their land have the potential to limit access to their land and economic
activity outside of their lands.

Many stakeholders reported a perception that the goal of monument designations surrounding
private land is for the eventual acquisition of these lands by the Federal Government to be made
part of the monument. This process is often facilitated by third parties that purchase private land
and then sell that land to the Federal Government

D. Concerns ofState, Tribal, and Local Governments

Given that a significant portion of land in western states is owned by the Federal Government,
the multiple-use approach to land management is essential for economic development. The DOI
has certainly heard that monument designations bring increased tourism, and therefore revenue,
to some local businesses, as well as jobs. Some of these monuments under review have resulted
in this activity. However, in other instances these jobs, many of which are seasonal, and the
revenues resulting from tourism, do not necessarily offset the lost or forgone employment and
revenue resulting from the limitations placed on land development.

Local governments raised issues relating to lost jobs and revenue, especially when there has been
a lack of meaningful consultation and public process before monuments are designated. Some of
the reviewed monument designations were undertaken after public meetings. However, these
meetings were not always adequately noticed to all stakeholders and instead were filled with
advocates organized by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to promote monument
designations. (It is worth noting that this dynamic is similarly reflected in the public comment
process for this review. The DOI received approximately 2.6 million form comments associated
with NGO-organized campaigns, which far outnumbered individual comments.)
 9

Too often, it is the local stakeholders who lack the organization, funding, and institutional
support to compete with well-funded national NGOs. As a result, the public consultation
processes that have occurred prior to monument designations have often not adequately
accounted for local voices. This is concerning, as these are the communities and stakeholders
affected the most by the land-use restrictions associated with these designations. Indeed, state
legislatures in both Utah and Arizona have considered or passed resolutions or legislation asking
for modifications either to existing monuments or to the Antiquities Act itself, often citing a lack
of proper public process.

Like state governments, tribes are also concerned about consultation, and many are interested in
exploring a more meaningful role in managing designations that encompass sacred or culturally
significant tribal lands. In the case of the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM), the Inter-
Tribal Coalition had asked for true co-management ofBENM. However, such authority is not
available to the President; it must be granted by Congress. The BENM proclamation established
an advisory commission for the Tribal Coalition to make non-binding recommendations. I
recommended in the Interim Report of June 10, 2017, that you request congressional authority to
enable tribal co-management of designated areas within the revised BENM boundaries.

Several tribes also expressed concern about access to and protection of sacred sites. Access is
particularly important to continue traditional cultural practices on these sites. For example, as
mentioned above, closed roads prevent wood gathering to be undertaken with motorized
vehicles. Further, tribes have expressed concern that publicity and attention to sacred sites
attracts more visitors and imperils the integrity and safety of these sites.

E. Enforcement and Protection Concerns

Monuments that are hundreds of thousands of acres and above bring significant management
challenges. The requirement that an area be designated as "the smallest area compatible with the
proper care and management of the objects to be protected" is a limitation as much about
practicality of protection as it is about preventing reservations that are too large and that might
unnecessarily prohibit or restrict other land uses. As noted above, there is concern that
monument designations can draw attention to special areas and that increased visitation can
threaten the objects. In simple terms, monuments that span up to a million acres or more are
difficult to protect and therefore undermine the intent of the Act.

The agencies charged with enforcement rarely receive increased funding following a
proclamation. Therefore, these designations may fail to provide more protection for the objects
than applicable land-management authorities already in place.

IV. Recommendations

A. Monument Modifications

I recommend that you exercise your discretion to modify certain existing proclamations and
boundaries. In doing so, each proclamation would continue to identify particular objects or sites
of historic or scientific interest and recite grounds for the designation thereby comporting with
 10

the Act's policies and requirements. However, this can be done in a manner that prioritizes
public access, infrastructure, traditional use, tribal cultural use, and hunting and fishing rights.
These recommendations have been submitted to you with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce. These recommended modifications are intended to
ensure that the monuments meet the purposes of the Act, including that the area reserved be
limited to the smallest area compatible with protection of the relevant objects.

Bears Ears

The BENM was established by Presidential Proclamation No. 9558, dated December 28,
2016. It consists of 1,353,000 acres of Federal land in San Juan County, Utah, and is
jointly managed by BLM (1.063 million acres) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
(290,000 acres).
The BENM contains cultural and archeological sites, unique geologic features, and areas
important to the practicing of tribal cultural traditions and ceremonies. It also contains
many objects that are common or otherwise not of particular scientific of historic interest.
In the 114th Congress, legislation was introduced that designates specified Federal lands
as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The
total boundary encompassing these land actions largely tracks with the boundaries
ofBENM.
Portions of the area are also home to significant recreational opportunities, including
hiking, backpacking, canyoneering, mountain biking, and rock climbing.
Within and adjacent to the BENM boundaries, numerous management authorities and
plans govern the patchwork of Federal, State of Utah, and private lands. This includes
11 BLM WSAs aggregating approximately 381,000 acres, as well as a 46,353-acre
Wilderness on USFS lands.
When accounting for State land and private land within the boundaries of BENM, the
total area encompassed is close to 1,500,000 acres.
Recommendations:
The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing public access; infrastructure
upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and
fishing rights.
The boundary should be revised through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to continue to protect objects and
ensure the size of the monument reservation is limited to the smallest area compatible
with the protection of the objects identified.
You should request congressional authority to enable tribal co-management of designated
cultural areas within the revised BENM boundaries.
Congress should make more appropriate conservation designations, such as national
recreation areas or national conservation areas, within the current BENM.
 11

The management plan should be developed to continue to protect objects and prioritize
public access; infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal
cultural use; and hunting and fishing rights.
The DOI should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and
management needed to protect objects effectively.
Cascade-Siskiyou

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM) was established by Presidential

Proclamation No. 7318 on June 9, 2000, originally consisting of approximately 52,000
acres. It was expanded by almost 48,000 acres through Presidential Proclamation No.
9564 on January 12, 2017.
The CSNM is located in Jackson and Klamath Counties, Oregon, and Siskiyou County,
California, and is managed by the BLM.
The original 2000 designation was the first monument to protect biodiversity. The
expansion purported to create a necessary "buffer" to support the biodiversity objects
outlined in the original CSNM.
In 2015, legislation was introduced that would have protected most of the areas in the
monument expansion through conservation and recreation designations.
The CSNM contains within its borders a 24,707-acre Wilderness Area designated by
Congress in the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.
The Wilderness Area was expanded to its current size in 2010 with the acquisition of two
privately owned inholdings.
Encompassed within the exterior boundary of the original CSNM is 19,818 acres of
private land (23.2%), and within the boundary of the expansion is 32,677 private acres
(38.3%), for a total of approximately 52,485 acres of privately owned lands. This is 30%
of the total area within the external boundaries of the CSNM.
A substantial number of acres within both the original monument and the expansion area
are designated as Oregon and California Revested (O&C) Railroad Lands, which are
lands statutorily set aside for permanent forest production under the Oregon and
California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937 (O&C Act).
In light of the direction in the O&C Act, commenters raised concerns about the legal
authority to establish a national monument on O&C lands.
The 2000 CSNM monument designation required a study to assess the compatibility of
grazing with the biodiversity of the area and the subsequent study found threats to
riparian objects. As a result, grazing has largely diminished in the original CSNM area.
Many allotments were bought out as a result of a larger land package deal in the 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.
Motorized transportation off of roads was prohibited in the original CSNM designation.
The expansion area only allows for motorized transportation off of roads in limited
circumstances and only after a transportation-management plan is completed. To date,
the plan has not been initiated. Due to poor maintenance, remaining usable roads in
CSNM are often unsuitable for use.
 12

Recommendations:

The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing public access; infrastructure
upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and
fishing rights.
The boundary should be revised through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, in order to address impacts on
private lands and to address issues concerning the designation and reservation of O&C
Lands as part of the monument and the impacts on commercial timber production.
The monument management plan should be revised to continue to protect objects and
prioritize public access; infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use;
tribal cultural use; and hunting and fishing rights.
The DOI should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and
management needs to protect objects effectively.
Gold Butte

The Gold Butte National Monument (GBNM) was established by Presidential

Proclamation No. 9559 on December 28, 2016, and consists of 296,937 acres managed
by BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation in Clark County, Nevada.
The resources identified in the Proclamation include the biologic, archaeologic, and areas
of spiritual significance to American Indian tribes.
There have been multiple legislative attempts to designate this area under protective land
designations, beginning in 2008 and concluding in 2015, which were unsuccessful.
Lands within GBNM are managed with some level of a protective designation, either
under the existing land-use plan or as designated Wilderness (28,787 acres) or
Wilderness Study Areas (28,454 acres). The GBNM is also overlapped by Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern designated by BLM.
The local water district has historic water rights for six springs and provides water for the
City of Mesquite. Five of the six water district springs are located within the boundaries
ofGBNM.
The GBNM Proclamation inaccurately states that livestock has not been permitted in the
GBNM area since 1998 and therefore prevents issuing any new grazing permits or leases.
In fact, there are four active grazing allotments administered by the Arizona Strip
District, either fully or partially contained within GBNM, which have been authorized
since 1998.
Recommendations:
The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
 13

provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing public access; infrastructure
upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and
fishing rights. The proclamation should also be amended to address inaccuracies related
to active grazing allotments.
The boundary should be revised through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure that the monument
reservation is limited to the smallest area compatible with the protection of the objects
identified and protect historic water rights.
You should request congressional authority to enable tribal co-management of designated
cultural areas within the revised GBNM boundaries.
The management plan should be developed to protect objects and prioritize public access;
infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and
hunting and fishing rights.
The DOI should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and
management needs to protect objects effectively.
Grand Staircase-Escalante

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) was established by Presidential

Proclamation No. 6920 on September 18, 1996, and was BLM's first national monument.
It is located in Kane and Garfield Counties, Utah, and continues to be managed by BLM.
It encompasses 1,866,331 acres.
The resources identified in the Proclamation include geologic, paleontological,
archaeological, and biological resources. It also contains many objects that are common
or otherwise not of particular scientific of historic interest
Almost 4 7 percent of GSENM lands (881,997 acres) are included in WSAs.
While overall permitted livestock grazing within GSENM is at roughly the same level
now as it was at the time of designation, the actual number of cattle runs has decreased
due to restrictions on activities that facilitate grazing, including moving water lines,
vegetative management, erosion control measures, and maintenance of infrastructure
such as fences and roads.
Motorized vehicle use is limited both by the GSENM Proclamation and the Monument
Plan. This has created conflict with Kane and Garfield Counties' transportation network
and affected access for recreational activities.
Areas encompassed within GSENM contain an estimated several billion tons of coal.
Each monument designation DOI reviewed under EO 13792 had some form of public
outreach before designation, with the exception of GSENM.
Recommendations:
The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing public access; infrastructure
upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and
fishing rights.
 14

The boundary should be revised through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act to ensure that the monument
reservation is limited to the smallest area compatible with the protection of the objects
identified.
The management plan should be revised to protect objects as well as prioritize public
access; infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural
use; and hunting and fishing rights.
The DOI should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and
management needs to protect objects effectively.

Katahdin Woods and Waters

Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument (KWWNW) was established by

Presidential Proclamation No. 9476 on August 24, 2016. The KWWNM consists of just
over 87,500 acres in Maine that were donated to the Federal Government for the purpose
of inclusion in the National Park System.
Thirteen parcels were donated and conveyed under separate deeds to the United States
and recorded on August 23, the day before KWWNM was designated by the President.
In the 113th Congress, a draft legislative proposal was circulated to create a national park
within the same boundary that encompasses KWWNM. Ultimately, Members of the
Maine congressional delegation declined to introduce legislation.
Timbering has historically occurred on these lands. After purchase from private
landowners some traditional uses such as hunting and snowmobiling were permitted as
part of the custom of the local area.
While the land is now public and open for use, there are still concerns that timber harvest
and snowmobiling access will not be permitted in all parts of KWWNM.
Use restrictions imposed by the designation ofKWWNM are the result of generally
applicable National Park Service (NPS) regulations.
Commercial timbering is not typically allowed in units of the National Park System,
however 54 U.S.C. 100753 provides limited authority for cutting of timber to "conserve
... historic objects."
There is a strong historical role of timbering in the region, and the KWWNM
Proclamation gives extensive attention to this as part of the narrative for the designation.

Recommendation:
The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing promote a healthy forest through
active timber management.
The management plan should be developed to protect objects and prioritize public access;
infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and
hunting and fishing rights.
 15

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument (NCSMNM) was
established by Presidential Proclamation No. 9496 on September 15, 2016.
The NCSMNM spans 3,144,320 acres and is located approximately 130 miles southeast
of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
The NCSMNM is managed through the DOI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wildlife Refuge System and the DOC National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
The Proclamation stated that NCSNM was established to protect geologic features,
natural resources, and species.
While in some cases specific objects are identified by name, in other instances the
Proclamation simply identifies a class of objects contained within the Monument.
One such class of object are the marine canyons. However, the Proclamation recognizes
that marine canyons are common along the East Coast.
Fishing commercially is prohibited within the Monument, with the exception of red crab
and American lobster fisheries; these fisheries can continue for up to 7 years.
There is no explanation in the Proclamation as to why the objects are threatened by
well-regulated commercial fishing.
Commercial fisheries operate in and around the NCSMNM, predominantly around the
landward edges of the canyons. These areas support fisheries for a variety of species of
fish and shellfish, providing income and employment throughout the Northeastern United
States. In its public comments, the New England Fishery Management Council stated
that 1) management in NCSMNM should remain under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act; and 2) the designation of NCSMNM disrupts the
Council's ability to manage species to balance protection with commercial fishing.
The Council further noted that the pre-designation process was not consistent with the
full public consultation process usually conducted under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Recommendation:

The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also allowing the regional fishery management
council to make fishery-management decisions as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument (OMDPNM) was established by
Presidential Proclamation No. 9131 on May 21, 2014. It is a BLM-managed monument
consisting of 496,529 acres in Dofia Ana County, New Mexico.
The resources identified in the Proclamation are visual, cultural, geologic,
paleontological, and ecological.
 16

The OMDPNM consists of 4 unconnected areas and contains 176,310 acres ofWSAs.
The OMDPNM is in proximity to strategic national security installations, and one part of
OMDPNM, the Potrillos Mountain Complex, is in close proximity to the U.S.-Mexico
border.
Border security is a concern resulting from the designation, as the Proclamation restricts
motorized transportation close to the border.
The remoteness and topography of the Potrillos Mountain Complex lends itself to a drug
smuggling route and needs to be monitored.
The Potrillos Mountain Complex also encompasses the Mesilla groundwater basin. The
basin has an unknown potential to address future water needs, recharge, salinity control,
and storage.
Legislation introduced in the 115th Congress would designate parts of the current
boundaries of OMDPNM as wilderness and release other areas from WSA management.
The legislation largely utilizes the boundaries of the current OMDPNM.
A robust ranching community has operated in the area for decades and heavily
contributes to the local economy.
The designation could prevent access to parts of allotments. Further, vegetative
management and other maintenance work could be restricted and further degrade the
ability for ranchers to run cattle.

Recommendation:
The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing public access; infrastructure
upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and
fishing rights.
The DOI should work with the Department of Homeland Security to address
impediments to national security associated with the Potrillos Mountain Complex.
The DOI should work with the Department of Defense to assess risks to operational
readiness of nearby military installations.
You should request congressional authority to enable tribal co-management of designated
cultural areas.
The management plan should be developed to protect objects and prioritize public access;
infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and
hunting and fishing rights.
The DOI should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and
management needs to protect objects effectively.
Pacific Remote Islands

The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM) was established by
Presidential Proclamation No. 8336 on January 6, 2009, and expanded by Presidential
Proclamation No. 9173 on September 2014. It spans approximately 313,941,851 acres.
 17

PRIMNM is managed through the DOI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife
Refuge System and the DOC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The original PRIMNM boundary is comprised of rectangular areas that extend
approximately 50 nautical miles (nm) from the mean low water lines of Howland, Baker
and Jarvis Islands; Johnston, Wake and Palmyra Atolls; and Kingman Reef. The
expansion extends the boundary from the 50 nm boundary to the 200 mile seaward limit
of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around Jarvis Island and Johnston and Wake
Atolls.
The primary purpose of the designation was to protect the coral reef and associated
species surrounding these islands.
Commercial fishing is prohibited within PRIMNM.
Prior to monument designation, there were Hawaiian and American Samoan longliners
and purse seiners vessels operating. Indirect benefits of the purse seine fishery are
important to the economy of American Samoa, which is heavily dependent on these
vessels. American Samoa is under the jurisdiction of DOI.
Recommendation

Proclamation No. 9173 should be amended or the expanded boundary be revised, through
the use of appropriate authority, including lawful exercise of your discretion granted by
the Act, to ensure compliance with the provisions and intent of the Act while also
allowing the regional fishery management council to make fishery-management decisions
for fishing in the expansion area as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Rio Grande Del Norte

Rio Grande Del Norte National Monument (RGDNNM) was established by Presidential
Proclamation No. 8946 on March 25, 2013 and is located in Taos County, New Mexico.
It consists of 242,710 acres managed by BLM and contains 7,050 acres ofWSAs.
The resources identified in the Proclamation are cultural, historic, and ecological.
Several legislative proposals have been introduced in the past to establish a National
Conservation Area in the same footprint as RGDNNM, the most recent in 2010. All
legislative attempts were unsuccessful.
Grazing is a significant traditional use in RGDNNM. However, I heard from local
stakeholders that a lack of access to roads due to monument restrictions has left many
grazing permittees choosing not to renew permits.
Recommendations

The Proclamation should be amended, through the use of appropriate authority, including
lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to ensure compliance with the
provisions and intent of the Act while also prioritizing public access; infrastructure
upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and
fishing rights.
 18

You should request congressional authority to enable tribal co-management of designated

cultural areas.
The management plan should be developed to protect objects and also prioritize public
access; infrastructure upgrades, repair, and maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural
use; and hunting and fishing rights.
The DOI should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and
management needs to protect objects effectively.
Rose Atoll

Rose Atoll Marine National Monument (RAMNM) was established on January 6, 2009,
by Presidential Proclamation No. 8337.
The RAMNM extends out approximately 50 nm from the mean low water line of Rose
Atoll and encompasses 8,609,045 acres of emergent and submerged lands and waters of
and around Rose Atoll.
The RAMNM was established to protect the reef ecosystem, which is home to diverse
terrestrial and marine species.
Rose Atoll is also designated as a National Wildlife Refuge, established on July 5, 1973,
by cooperative agreement between the Government of American Samoa and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Commercial fishing is prohibited in RAMNM.
Fishing in American Samoa is a mixture of commercial, subsistence, traditional, and
sport fishing. American Samoa's economy is heavily dependent on can tuna fish
production, and many monument designations have contributed to ongoing threats to the
viability of the industry.
Prior to 2002, the waters that were included in RAMNM and adjoining areas closer to the
main islands were important commercial fishing areas.

Recommendation:

The Proclamation should be amended or the boundary be revised, through the use of
appropriate authority, including lawful exercise of your discretion granted by the Act, to
ensure compliance with the provisions and intent of the Act while also allowing the
regional fishery management council to make fishery-management decisions as
authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Specific monument modification measures will be submitted separately should you concur with
the monument modification recommendations in this Final Report.

B. Monument Additions
There are many instances of the use of the Act for the proper stewardship of objects of cultural,
historic, or scientific interest. Through stakeholder engagement, DOI identified new sites that
may merit protection and designation under the Act. This would provide an opportunity to work
with Congress to establish a standard process for public input and monument designations in the
future.
 19

This process should include clear criteria for designations and methodology for meeting
conservation and protection goals. Both should be fully transparent so that the public may
provide the exigency for designation and weigh the benefits of protection against economic harm
to the public. Options to establish this new monument-designation process needs to include
legislation, as well as regulations, or internal guidance within the Executive Branch, such as an
Executive Order or a Secretary's Order.

One such location that has come to DOI's attention is Camp Nelson, an 1863 Union Army
supply depot, training center, and hospital in Kentucky. It encompasses approximately 4,000
acres and served as the third largest recruitment and training center for African-American
regiments during the Civil War. I recommend that DOI begin a public process to weigh
designating this location as a national monument.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 included direction to NPS to conduct several
special resource studies for civil rights sites in Mississippi. While each location is of interest,
one location to highlight is the Medgar Evers Home in Jackson, Mississippi. Mr. Medgar Evers
was the first National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) field
secretary in Mississippi and organized protests and boycotts against segregation across
Mississippi. He was assassinated outside his home in 1963 by a white supremacist. The NPS in
2017 designated his house as a National Historic Landmark. I recommend these sites be
examined for possible monument designation.

Another location that may qualify for protection under the Act is the Badger-Two Medicine area,
which is approximately 130,000 acres within the Lewis and Clark National Forest in
northwestern Montana. It is bounded by Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshall Wilderness,
and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. This area of the Rocky Mountain Front was designated a
Traditional Cultural District in May 2014, and is considered sacred by the Blackfeet Nation. I
recommend this area be considered for designation as a national monument and as a candidate
for co-management with the Blackfeet tribe.

C. Other Monuments

In conducting the review pursuant to the Order, I was asked to consider monuments where the
designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with
relevant stakeholders. The review process uncovered inadequate coordination with the
sportsmen community, particularly where monument designations were assigned management by
the NPS, which are closed to hunting due to NPS regulations that implement its enabling
statutes.

One example is the Castle Mountains National Monument (CMNM), which was established by
Proclamation No. 9394 on February, 16, 2016. The CMNM consists of approximately 21,000
acres and is managed by the NPS . The CMNM was designated adjacent to the Mojave National
Preserve, which by statute permits hunting. However, the CMNM Proclamation is silent as to
hunting. As a result, hunting is prohibited within the 21,000-acre Monument, while it is
permitted in the adjacent Mojave National Preserve.
 20

I therefore recommend ongoing review of monuments to ensure that while continuing to protect
objects, the proclamations prioritize public access; infrastructure upgrades, repair, and
maintenance; traditional use; tribal cultural use; and hunting and fishing rights.

D. Management Plans

The DOI heard from many stakeholders that its management plans associated with monuments
are restrictive and difficult to navigate. When monuments are designated, the underlying land
ownership remains, typically including the applicable management authorities associated with
the land-managing agency. The overriding management framework then becomes the protection
of the objects of historic or scientific interest. However, there is discretion in this management
"overlay," and the DOI review reveals that this requirement has at times been too strictly
interpreted to impede allowable uses under management plans. The DOI plans to undertake a
review of existing monument management plans and update them with those considerations in
mind. The DOI believes this can be done in a manner that is consistent with public access,
infrastructure, traditional use, tribal cultural use, and hunting and fishing rights.

E. Congressional Requests

As noted above in the case ofBENM, GBNM, OMDPNM, and RGDNNM, I recommend that
you ask Congress to legislate tribal co-management authority and to examine more appropriate
public land-use designations. Further, as discussed above, a number of current national
monuments were created with inadequate consultation with the state, local, and tribal
governments and communities most affected. This has resulted, in many cases, in national
monuments that restrict the use of far too much land. I therefore recommend that your
Administration work with Congress to develop legislative reforms to prevent similar misuse of
the Act in the future.

cc: Director, Office of Management and Budget

Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality