DOJ Issues Opinion on Presidential Authority To Revoke or Revise National Monuments

We have had recent devastating losses for access as a result of overreaching Presidential Overreach in the designation of National Monuments. President Trump and Secretary Burgum are well aware of this issue, and requested the Department of Justice to prepare a slip opinion on Presidential authority to revoke or revise a National Monument created by a Prior President.

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel published a 50 page opinion letter that reviews the text of the Antiquities Act and case law that confirms the President has authority to modify or revoke National Monument designations.

As a brief review, the final version of the adopted Antiquities Acts is very brief and reads:

The President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

Much of the opinion and relevant case law is focused on the highlighted sections. The first section specifies that historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest may be designated- It does not allow a parcel of land to be designated in and as of itself. Further the parcel of land must only the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

Recent National Monuments such as Grand Staircase, Bears Ears, Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah, Chuckwalla, Sattitla Highlands, and the enormous California Coastal and Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monuments off both are coasts are not to protect specific objects, so are likely targets for elimination by President Trump by Presidential Proclamation.

UPLA believes it is likely that Trump will consider taking action on some of these monuments which will be an enormous win for OHV and one we should rejoice.

This could likely just be a temporary fix, however, we still need to push for a Congressional solution to prevent this overstepping in the future. UPLA endorses passage of the Ending Presidential Overreach on Public Lands Act introduced by Representative Maloy, Senators Lee and Curtis. When this bill comes up for votes, we will ask you to contact your Congressional representative in the future.

The BLM has released it’s draft plan for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Southern Utah. BRC engaged its members in 2022 during the scoping period. Comments are accepted until November 9, 2023.

Due to President Biden expanding the boundaries of GSENM, the BLM is in the process of updating the management plan that will include the additional acreage. The 3 additional alternatives proposed are all blatant reductions in access for the public and are unacceptable options. Because BRC and the State of Utah are currently litigating the expansion of the monument, the BLM should not move forward with the planning process. However, until legislation is passed to defund this planning process the public needs to submit comments letting the BLM know that the options are not viable for users and local communities. Please send in a comment below and add your own personal experiences and thoughts into your comment.

Alternative D, is the most restrictive option given. All alternatives will greatly reduce recreation and access across the entire monument. The Little Desert Open OHV will be closed which has a long history of use by the public. Although the majority of specific route closures will be addressed in Travel Management Planning, this plan sets the stage for those closures as you can see in the map below. Wood gathering within the entire monument could be prohibited, target shooting, fires unless in a fire pan would also be prohibited. Group sizes will be limited to 25 people. Routes that provide OHV access, camping access and access for local ranchers could also be closed. In OHV-limited areas, road density would be minimized. There are already so few roads within the monument, the fact the BLM is considering limiting road density even more is egregious. The roads that are already within the monument have difficulty being maintained simply because the BLM will not allow the county to maintain these routes. It is quoted in the plan that OHV use could continue to result in damage to resources. The BLM should first prove the resource damage caused by OHV’s before they claim use will “continue” to cause damage.

This chart shows the current management Plan, Alt A in the first column and Alt D is the most devastating with an area the size of Delaware only having 7 roads.

This chart shows the impact on changes in grazing areas, which will have a direct impact on our food supplies and thus national security.

Many of these routes were created by local ranchers. However, through this planning process grazing will be greatly restricted and reduced. Allotments with no valid permit will be unavailable to grazing along with about half of the monument which is nearly one million acres closed to livestock grazing.

“No new structural range improvements would be permitted unless a current (within the last 10
years) land health assessment and determination are completed for the allotment, unless the improvement would exclude livestock from an area and/or provide protection of GSENM objects. Nonstructural range improvements with a primary purpose of increasing forage for livestock would be prohibited.”

There is also the potential that 559,600 acres will be managed as lands with wilderness characteristics. Multiple new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) will be designated and historically these designations close or restrict use to all users. Restrictive management is what the BLM and special interest groups are advocating for which will remove all users from this massive monument.

All of these restrictions and proposals pose a massive threat to the local economies. There has already been a decline in the communities since the monument was first designated and these proposals will only exacerbate the issue. The plan states, “Under all alternatives, GSENM would continue to stimulate the local and regional economy through increased jobs, wages, economic output, nonmarket values, and ecosystem services from its uses, such as recreational opportunities and grazing and ranching allotments.” This statement is laughable as all alternatives restrict users and cripple local economies.

You can comment in one of 2 ways, but only until November 9.

1) Submit comments directly on the project planning website
2) Submit comments through the BlueRibbon Coalition Action Alert

Thank you to BlueRibbon Coalition for the summary of this plan