This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest. The President is to reserve "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." The act was designed to protect federal lands and resources quickly, and. Presidents have proclaimed a total of 152157 monuments. Congress has modified many of these proclamations and has abolished some monuments. Congress also has created monuments under its own authority.
Presidential establishment of monuments sometimes has been contentious—for example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's creation of the Jackson Hole National Monument in Wyoming (1943) and President Clinton's establishment of 19 monuments and expansion of 3 others (1996-2001). President Obama's designation of 24 new monuments (29 in total) and enlargement of 3 others have renewed controversy over the Antiquities Act. However, the President cited support for his designations, many of which had been proposed for protective designations by legislation.
(5 in total) renewed debate over the Antiquities Act. Issues have included the size of the areas and types of resources protected; the effects of monument designation on land uses; the level and types of threats to the areas; the inclusion of nonfederal lands within monument boundaries; the lack of public participation, congressional and state approval, and environmental review requirements in the act; and selection of the managing agency.
On occasion, presidential monument designations have prompted changes in law to restrict the President's authority to proclaim monuments, particularly in individual states. Critics of the existing authority continue to seek to limit or revoke the President's authority. The 114115th Congress is considering proposals to limit the President's authority to proclaim monuments. Among their other provisions, some of these bills seek to
Presidential establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. §§320301-320303) Monument advocates favor the Antiquities Act in its present form. They believe that the act serves an important purpose in preserving resources for future generations and that the President needs continued authority to act promptly to protect valuable resources on federal lands from potential threats. They assert that the public has supported and courts have upheld designations by the President and that many past presidential designations that initially were controversial have come to be supported. 1 has protected valuable sites, but also has sites with historic and scientific values, but it has also been contentious. 1 Various issues regarding presidentially created monuments have generated controversy, lawsuits, statutory changes, and legislative proposals to limit the President's authority. Concerns have centered on the size of the areas and types of protected resources, the level and types of threats to the areas, the inclusion of nonfederal lands within monument boundaries, restrictions on land uses that may result, the manner in which the monuments were created, and the selection of the managing agency.
3 in Alaska larger than 5,000 acres.43 President Clinton's proclamation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996 triggered several lawsuits, a law authorizing land exchanges,54 and proposals to amend or revoke presidential authority under the Antiquities Act.65 President George W. Bush's designation of a marine national monument led to a legal challenge claiming that fishing rights had been lost.76 To date, no court challenges have succeeded in undoing a presidential designation.
Additionally, initialInitial opposition to some monument designations has turned to support over time. Some controversial monuments later were enlarged and redesignated as national parks by Congress and today are popular parks with substantial economic benefit to the surrounding communities. For instance, the Grand Canyon National Monument, proclaimed in 1908 and the subject of a legal challenge, is now a world-famous national park.
Various issues regarding presidentially created monuments have generated controversy, lawsuits, enacted changes, and legislative proposals to limit the President's authority. Issues include the size of the areas and types of protected resources, the level and types of threats to the areas, the inclusion of nonfederal lands within monument boundaries, restrictions on land uses that may result, the manner in which the monuments were created, and the selection of the managing agency. Recent Congresses have considered but not enacted bills to restrict the President's authority to create monuments and to establish a process for input into monument decisions. Monument supporters assert that changes to the Antiquities Act are neither warranted nor desirable. They believe that the act serves an important purpose in preserving resources for future generations. The Obama Administration's exploration of areas for national monument designation, including designation of 24 new monuments and enlargement of 3 others, have renewed interest in, and legislative efforts to restrict,Recent Congresses have considered but not enacted bills to restrict the President's authority to create monuments and to establish a process for input into monument decisions. President Obama's use of national monument authority 34 times, including designation of 29 new monuments and enlargement of 5 others, has fostered debate about the President's authority to proclaim national monuments.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest." The President is to reserve "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."87 Congress subsequently limited the President's authority by requiring congressional authorization for extensions or establishment of monuments in Wyoming,98 and by making withdrawals in Alaska exceeding 5,000 acres subject to congressional approval.109
The Antiquities Act was a response to concerns over theft from and destruction of archaeological sites and was designed to provide an expeditious means to protect federal lands and resources. President Theodore Roosevelt used the authority in 1906 to establish Devil's Tower in Wyoming as the first national monument. Sixteen of the 19 Presidents11 since 1906 created 152157 monuments, including the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Zion, Olympic, the Statue of Liberty, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.1210 President Franklin D. Roosevelt used his authority the most often (36 times), while11 and President Obama has proclaimed the most monument acreage (about 552554 million, primarily in two expanded marine monuments).1312 For a comparison of President Obama's and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of the monument authority, see Appendix A. For information on the use of the authority by all Presidents since 1906, see Appendix B.
Monuments vary widely in size. While roughly half of the presidential monument proclamations involved fewer than 5,000 acres, they have ranged from less than 1 acre to about 283 million acres.14
Through the authority in the Antiquities Act, Presidents have modified national monuments established by earlier presidential proclamation. Such modifications included enlargement or diminishment of monument boundaries. For instance, four Presidents enlarged the Muir Woods National Monument following its establishment in 1908, and three Presidents diminished Mount Olympus National Monument following its establishment in 1909.1514 The Antiquities Act does not expressly authorize a President to abolish a national monument established by an earlier presidential proclamation, and no President has done so. There have been no court cases deciding the issue of the authority of the President to abolish a national monument.16
Congress has created national monuments on federal lands on numerous occasions under its constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding federal lands.1716 This authority is not defined or limited by the provisions of the Antiquities Act. For instance, Congress could enact legislation providing more land uses than are typical for national monuments created by the President, such as allowing new commercial development, or could choose to provide additional protections. Some believe that such legislation (as opposed to presidential action) is more likely to involve the input of local and other citizens.
Congress also has modified monuments (including those created by the President), for instance, by changing their boundaries. Congress has abolished some monuments outright and converted others into different protective designations, such as national parks.1817 Approximately half of the current national parks were first designated as national monuments.
Presidential authority to create monuments—and the recent application of that authority by President Obama—has generated concern among some Members of Congress, state and local officials, user groups, and others. Controversies in Congress are focused on a perceived lack of consistency between the Antiquities Act and the policies established in other laws, especially the land withdrawal provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),1918 the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),2019 and the public participation requirements of NEPA, FLPMA, and other laws. Another focus is the lack of a requirement for state or congressional approval prior to presidential monument proclamations. Criticism also has been expressed by those who oppose restrictions on land uses, both extractive (e.g., mining) and recreational (e.g., off-road vehicle use), as a result of monument proclamations. CriticsStill others also have challenged the size of the areas and types of resources that would be protected.
Among the monument measures considered during recent Congresses were bills to impose restrictions on presidential authority, such as those to limit the size or duration of withdrawals; to prohibit or restrict withdrawals in particular states; to encourage public participation in the monument designation process; to revoke the President's authority to designate monuments or require congressional and/or state approval of some or all monument designations; or to promote presidential creation of monuments in accordance with certain federal land management and environmental laws. Measures also were introduced to change land uses within monuments and to alter monument boundaries.
Supporters of the Antiquities Act assert that changes to the act are neither warranted nor desirable. They contend that previous Congresses that focused on this issue were correct in not repealing the Antiquities Act. They note that Presidents of both parties have used the authority for over a century to protect valuable federal lands and resources expeditiously, and they defend the President's ability to take prompt action to protect areas that may be vulnerable to looting, vandalism, commercial development, and other permanent changes. However, the Secretary of the Interior has authority to make emergency withdrawals of federal lands, which are effective when made but expire at the end of three years.2120 Defenders also note that some past designations that initially were contentious have come to be widely supported over time. They contend that large segments of the public support monument designations, for the protections they afford and the recreational, preservation, and economic benefits that such designations sometimes bring. They also note that courts have supported presidential actions.
note that courts have supported presidential actions.
A primary objection to national monuments is that the declaration changes the property from being federal land available for multiple uses to being a national monument with possible restricted uses. A 1945 legal challenge to the Jackson Hole National Monument was premised on the state's loss of revenue from taxes and grazing fees.22 Courts have found that, for monuments established under the Antiquities Act, agencies are afforded broad rights to protect the resources of the site, and that the loss of income is not a legal basis to reject a monument designation.23 The broad authority to protect natural resources by creating national monuments includes establishing water rights for those protected resources.24
In establishing a national monument, the President is required by the Antiquities Act to reserve "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."2521 Many monuments have been quite small, but several Presidents have established large monuments, especially in Alaska and in marine areas. Examples of large monuments include Katmai, established in 1918 with 1.1 million acres; Glacier Bay, created in 1925 with 1.4 million acres; many of the Alaska monuments proclaimed in 1978,2622 the largest being Wrangell-St. Elias, with nearly 11 million acres; and Grand Staircase-Escalante, established in 1996 with 1.7 million acres. President George W. Bush established large marine monuments, namely the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (which includes the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands), with approximately 89.5 million acres; the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, with 60.9 million acres; the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, with 55.6 million acres; and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, with 8.6 million acres. At the time, the Bush Administration claimed that the latter three areas formed the largest protected ocean area in the world.2723 More recently, President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by about 261 million acres.28in 2014 by 261.3 million acres and the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in 2016 by 283.4 million acres.24
Critics assert that large monuments violate the Antiquities Act, in that the President's authority regarding size was intended to be narrow and limited. They charge that Congress intended the act to protect specific items of interest, especially archaeological sites and the small areas surrounding them. They support this view with the legislative history of the act, in which proposals to limit a withdrawal to 320 or 640 acres were mentioned although not enacted. They contend that some of the monument designations were greater than needed to protect particular objects of value, and that the law was not intended to protect large swaths of land or ocean.
Defenders observe that by not specifically capping the size of monument designations, the Antiquities Act gives the President discretion to determine the acreage necessary to ensure protection of the resources in question, which can be a particular archaeological site or larger features or resources. The Grand Canyon, for example, originally was a national monument measuring 0.8 million acres; President Theodore Roosevelt determined that this large size was necessary to protect the "object" in question—the canyon. Defenders also note that after considering the issue in the early 1900s, Congress rejected proposals to restrict the President's authority to set the size of the withdrawal. Further, they assert that preserving objects of interest may require withdrawal of sizeable tracts of surrounding land to preserve the integrity of the objects and the interactions and relationships among them.
The courts have deferred to the President's judgment as to the proper size for a monument. For example, a lawsuit challenging the Giant Sequoia National Monument was based in part on the monument's size (327,769 acres) not being "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management," as required by the act.2925 The court found no factual basis for the argument that the size did not meet the standards of the act.
Under the Antiquities Act, the President can establish monuments on federal land containing "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest."3026 Some proclamations have identified particular objects needing protection, while others have referred more generally to scenic, scientific, or educational features of interest.
Presidents sometimes have cited threats to resources (e.g., natural and cultural) to support establishing monuments, although imminent threat is not expressly required by the Antiquities Act. In his remarks designating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, for instance, President Clinton expressed concern about work underway for a large coal mining operation that, he asserted, could damage resources in the area. Sometimes the noted threats appear less immediate, as for the lands included in the Grand Canyon-Parashant Monument (proclaimed January 11, 2000) which "could be increasingly threatened by potential mineral development," according to the Clinton Administration.3127 In other cases, threats were reported by the press or private organizations. For instance, the National Trust for Historic Preservation had identified the (subsequently proclaimed) President Lincoln and Soldiers' Home National Monument as one of the country's most endangered historic properties.
Presidential creation of monuments in the absence of immediate threats to resources troubles those who believe that the law is intended to protect objects that are in immediate peril of permanent harm. They contend that Presidents have established monuments to support environmental causes, limit development, and score political gains, among other reasons. Those who contest those charges note that the Antiquities Act lacks a requirement that objects be immediately threatened or endangered. Others cite the pervasive dangers of development and growth, looting, and vandalism as sufficient grounds for contemporary presidential action.
Some critics charge that, because the original purpose of the act was to protect specific objects, particularly objects of antiquity such as cliff dwellings, pueblos, and other archeological ruins (hence the name "Antiquities Act"), Presidents have used the act for excessively broad purposes. Among the broad purposes they cite are general conservation, recreation, scenic protection, or protection of living organisms. These purposes, they contend, are more appropriate for a national parkpark or other designation established by Congress. Supporters of current presidential authority counter that the act does not limit the President to protecting ancient relics, and maintain that "other objects of historic or scientific interest" is broad wording thatbroadly grants considerable discretion to the President.
Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have upheld under the Antiquities Act both the designation of particular monuments and the President's authority to create monuments. In a decision addressing one of the first national monuments proclaimed—the Grand Canyon—the Supreme Court upheld the President's authority under the Antiquities Act.3228 The Court found that the act gave the President the authority to preserve lands with cultural or scientific interest.3329 Since then, courts have given deference to this presidential authority, holding that courts have only a limited review of a presidential proclamation provided that it states the natural or historic interest and that the area is the minimum amount needed to protect those interests.3430 The courts also have ruled that the act may protect natural wonders and wilderness values.35
It is an unresolved issue whether the Antiquities Act allows the President to declare a national monument on lands not owned by the federal government. To date, no presidential declaration of a monument has converted private property to federal property. However, some private inholdings occur within national monuments.
31
Inclusion of Nonfederal Lands
The Antiquities Act initially states that it applies to lands owned or controlled by the federal government. However, it also states that, where the objects to be preserved are on privately owned lands, the property "may be relinquished to the Federal Government."3632 Private and other nonfederal landowners have donated land under this provision, and the President subsequently designated national monuments that included the donated lands. Typically the monument designation occurs quickly following the land donation. Land donation has occurred for both early and more recent presidential proclamations. As an early example, Secretary of the Interior James R. Garfield accepted the private donation of a redwood forest in California on December 31, 1907, and on January 9, 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the area the Muir Woods National Monument. More recently, former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar accepted donations leading to the establishment of some monuments by President Obama, including the César E. Chávez National Monument in California.
It is not clear whether relinquishmentremains untested whether relinquishment of nonfederal lands must be voluntary (via donation, purchase, or exchange) or may include condemnationwhether the President can convert private property to federal property through condemnation when establishing a national monument. To date, no presidential declaration of a monument has converted private property to federal property. Courts have only discussed the issue as a side matter to the dispute they were resolving. In two such cases, the courts have indicated that relinquishment should be interpreted as a voluntary surrender of property. The more recent decision, in 2008, stated that the Antiquities Act "does not authorize government officials forcibly to take private property to provide such care or to enter private land."3733 In 1978, the Supreme Court described the Antiquities Act as applying solely to federal property: "A reservation under the Antiquities Act thus means no more than that the land is shifted from one federal use, and perhaps from one federal managing agency, to another."3834
In some cases,addition, in some cases, private or other nonfederal lands are contained within the outer boundaries of a proclaimed monument, although the ownership does not change by the monument designation. This inclusion isSuch inclusions are a source of controversy. The Clinton Administration indicated that the monument designation does not apply to nonfederal lands. The ; the then-Solicitor of the Department of the Interior (DOI) asserted this view in 1999 testimony before Congress, stating. His testimony stated that the Antiquities Act applies only to federal lands and that monument designations cannot bring state or private lands into federal ownership.3935 Some monument proclamations have stated that nonfederal lands will become part of the monument if the federal government acquires title to the lands from the current owners.40
Some, however, note that while private or state-owned lands are technically not part of the monument, development of such land located within monuments is difficult because suchcertain types of development might be incompatible with the purposes for which the monument was created or constrained by management of the surrounding federal lands.4137 Monument supporters note that if state or private landowners within a monument fear or experience difficulties, they can pursue land exchanges with the federal government. Some monument proclamations have authorized land exchanges to further the protective purposes of the monument.4238
In general, existing uses of the land that are not precluded by the proclamations and do not conflict with the purposes of the monument may continue. The overriding management goal for all monuments is protection of the objects described in the proclamations. Monument designation can limit or prohibit land uses, such as development or recreational uses. Limitations or prohibitions may be included in the proclamations themselves, accompanying Administration statements, management plans developed by the agencies to govern monument lands, agency policies, or other sources. Some use issues may not arise for particular monuments given their distinctive characteristics, for instance, their small size or water-based nature. In general, existing uses of the land that are not precluded by the proclamations and do not conflict with the purposes of the monument may continue.
A primary objection to national monuments is that the declaration changes the property from being federal land available for multiple uses to being a national monument with possible restricted uses. A 1945 legal challenge to the Jackson Hole National Monument was premised on the state's loss of revenue from taxes and grazing fees.39 Courts have found that, for monuments established under the Antiquities Act, agencies are afforded broad rights to protect the resources of the site and the loss of income is not a legal basis to reject a monument designation.40At least since 1996,43
44 for land uses,42 but the extent to which designations may affect existing rights is not always clear. A common concern is that monument designation potentially could result in new constraints on development of existing mineral and energy leases, claims, and permits. Some fear that mineral exploration and extraction activities may have to adhere to a higher standard of environmental review, and willmay have a higher cost of mitigation, to ensure compatibility with the monument designation.
Most of these recent monument proclamations have barred new mineral leases, mining claims, prospecting or exploration activities, and oil, gas, and geothermal leases, subject to valid existing rights. This has been accomplished by language to withdraw the lands within the monuments from entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, mining laws, and mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
Another concern is whether commercial timber cutting will be restricted as a result of designation. For instance, future timber production was expressly precluded in the Giant Sequoia National Monument proclaimed by President Clinton in 2000President Clinton's proclamation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument (in 2000) expressly precluded future timber production, although certain then-current logging contracts could be completed. In many other cases, the proclamations have implied, through a general prohibition against removing any "feature" of the monuments, that timber cutting is precluded.4543 Some assert that restrictions are needed to protect the environmental, scenic, and recreational attributes of forests preserved under the Antiquities Act. Logging supporters assert that forests can be used sustainably and that concerns raised by environmentalists as grounds for limiting commercial timber operations do not reflect modern forestry practices.
Motorized and mechanized vehicles off-road are prohibited (except for emergency or authorized purposes) under the proclamations for many newer monuments. Otherwise, the agency's management plans for monumentsplan for a monument typically addressaddresses whether to allow vehicular travel on designated routes or in designated areas, or to close routes or areas to vehicular use in those monuments where such use is not expressly prohibited. In some areas that have become monuments, off-road vehicles have been allowed, at least in some places.
Other concerns have included the possible effects of monument designation on hunting, fishing, and grazing. Some proclamations have restricted such activities to protect monument resources, and monument management plans may impose additional restrictions. For instance, proclamations for some marine monuments established by President George W. Bush have restricted or prohibited commercial and recreational fishing. President Obama's June 17, 2014, announcement that he would use his authority to protect marine areas, and his subsequent expansion and establishment of marine national monuments,46 appear appears to have enhanced focus on the potential effect of monument designations on fishing.44 In addition, monument designation provisions on grazing have been controversial in some cases, with some asserting that grazing has been unnecessarily curtailed whileand others claimclaiming that grazing has not been sufficiently limited to prevent ecological damage.
States and counties frequently have viewed restrictions on federal lands in their jurisdictions as threats to economic development. They maintain that local communities are hurt by the loss of jobs and tax revenues that results from prohibiting or restricting future mineral exploration, timber development, or other activities. Some contend that limitations on energy exploration could leave the United States more dependent on foreign oil.
Advocates of creating monuments claim that economic benefits resulting from designation, including increased tourism, recreation, and attracting new businesses and residents, may exceed the benefits of traditional economic development.4745 Others allege that the public interest value of continued environmental and resource protection outweighs any temporary economic benefit that could result from development. Some wantmonument advocates support more restrictions on development.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizesauthorized the Secretary of the Interior to make certain land withdrawals under specified procedures.46 In enacting FLPMA, Congress not only limited the ability of the Interior Secretary to make withdrawals, butalso repealed much of the express and implied withdrawal authority previously granted to the President by several earlier laws.
Critics of the Antiquities Act maintain that the act is inconsistent with FLPMA's intent of restoring control of public land withdrawals to Congress. They assert that Congress is the appropriate body to make and implement land withdrawal policy and that Congress intended to review and retain veto control over all executive withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres. On the other hand, in enacting FLPMA, the 94th Congress did not explicitly repeal or amend the Antiquities Act, despite extensive consideration of executive withdrawal authorities. Supporters of the act assert that it was the clear intent of CongressAntiquities Act assert that Congress intended to retain presidential withdrawal authority under the Antiquities Act.
Similarly, critics note that monuments have been proclaimed without the environmental studies required of agencies for "major federal actions" under NEPA, or the review of a public purpose and opportunity for public participation that FLPMA provides.4847 However, neither NEPA49 nor FLPMA applies to the actions of a President (as opposed to an action of an agency),48 and the Antiquities Act is silent as to the procedures a President must follow to proclaim a new monument. Some want to add procedures for environmental review and public participation to the monument designation process so that significant withdrawals (with resulting effects on existing uses) would not be made without scientific evaluation, economic information, and public input.
Others counter that such changes would impair the ability of the President to take actionact quickly to protect objects and lands, thereby avoiding possible damage to the resources. They assert that participation requirements are not needed in law because Presidents typically consult with government officials and the public before establishing monuments. Some believe that NEPA requirements are unnecessary for monument designation because once monuments are created, detailed management plans are developed in accordance with NEPA.
Although most monuments are managed by the National Park Service (NPS), both Congress and the President have created monuments managed by other agencies. For example, in 1996 President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and assigned its management to BLM,(UT) and assigned the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) its management. It was the first such area administered by BLM. Also, President George W. Bush selected the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, and other agencies to manage marine monuments. OnAs another example, on September 21, 2012, President Obama established the Chimney Rock National Monument (CO) with the Forest Service as the managing agency. In most cases, the monuments were assigned to be managed by the agency that had responsibilityresponsible for the area before the monument designation, although that was not always the case. For example, although the area within(in ID) proclaimed as the Minidoka Internment National Monument was managed by the Bureau of Reclamation before designation, the proclamation designating the monument changed the management authoritymanagement to the NPS.
The President's authority to choose a management agency other than NPS has been questioned. Before 1933, monuments were managed by different agencies, but in that year President Franklin D. Roosevelt consolidated management of national monuments in the NPS.50 Following the 1933 consolidation, it was not until 1978 that a presidentially created monument was managed by an agency other than the NPS. In 1978, two of the Alaska monuments created by President Carter were directed to be managed by the Forest Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and two were managed by FWS. Assigning management to the Forest Service was controversial, and the two monuments were ultimately given statutory direction for Forest Service management.5051
The Supreme Court has suggested that it is proper to switch management of federal lands among federal agencies. As noted earlier, inIn its decision regarding the Channel Islands National Monument, the Court said that the Antiquities Act could mean that the "land is shifted from one federal use, and perhaps from one federal managing agency, to another."5152 A 1980 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (Department of Justice) appears to indicate that the President may have some flexibility in choosing the managers of post-1933 monuments.5253 Others also assert that the authority of the President under the Antiquities Act carries with it discretion to choose the managing agency.
Some critics contend that management by an agency other than the NPS is an illegal transfer of the current functions of the NPS. Others counter that establishing a new monument under another agency would not constitute a reorganization because management of current NPS units, and the general authority of the NPS to manage monuments, would be unaffected. Even if placing management authority under a department other than the DOI might constitute a reorganization, the President nevertheless might be able to move a function of the NPS to other DOI agencies under congressionally approved authority allowing transfers of functions within DOI.53
Most Presidents since 1906 have used the authority in the Antiquities Act to establish or expand national monuments. President Obama has designated 24 new national monuments in 14 states, the District of Columbia, and the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New England. They range in size from 0.12 acres to 1.6 million acres. The President also enlarged three monuments, one in California (by 1,665 acres) and two marine monuments (by 261.3 million acres and 283.4 million acres). Brief information on each monument is listed below.54
The Obama Administration usually cited support for the establishment of the monuments—for instance, from government officials, businesses and local communities, or other stakeholders. Most of the areas that President Obama designated as monuments were first proposed for some sort of protective designation in legislation. In addition, some Members and segments of the public have advocated for additional monument designations in their states.55
However, some federal and other governmental officials, communities, and stakeholders have expressed opposition to monuments established by the President.56 Concerns center on the process used to create monuments, particularly whether there was sufficient consultation with, and support from, Congress, local and state governments, residents of the affected areas, and the general public. Other concerns relate to restrictions on land uses in new monuments, the frequency with which the President used his monument authority, and the size of some of the larger monuments, among other issues.
Legislative ActivityGiven the recurring controversies over presidential establishment of national monuments, recent Congresses have evaluated whether to abolish, limit, or retain unchanged the President's authority to establish monuments under the Antiquities Act. Among the monument measures considered during recent Congresses were bills to impose restrictions on presidential authority, such as those to limit the size or duration of withdrawals; to prohibit or restrict withdrawals in particular states; to encourage public participation in the monument designation process; to revoke the President's authority to designate monuments or require congressional and/or state approval of some or all monument designations; or to promote presidential creation of monuments in accordance with certain federal land management and environmental laws. Measures also were introduced to change land uses within monuments and to alter monument boundaries.
In the 115th Congress, Members have introduced bills to restrict the President's authority to proclaim national monuments. For instance, some bills would prohibit the President from establishing or expanding national monuments in particular states. One bill would make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to approval of Congress, the pertinent state legislature, and NEPA; restrict monument proclamations in the exclusive economic zone; and impose conditions on agency implementation of restrictions on monument use. Yet another measure seeks to clarify that the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation Act takes precedence in any conflicts with the Antiquities Act. As previously noted, other Members and segments of the public have opposed legislation in recent Congresses that would restrict the President's authority to establish national monuments. (See the section above on "Monument Issues and Controversies.")
Table 1, below, identifies selected provisions of pending bills and lists bills with the indicated provisions. Table 1. 115th Congress Bills to Restrict the President's Authority to Proclaim National Monuments: Selected Provisions(As of January 27, 2017)
Provisions
Bills
Prohibit the President from establishing or expanding national monuments in particular states or counties
Make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to congressional approval
Require the pertinent state legislature's consent for a presidentially proposed national monument
Make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to NEPA
Clarify that in conflicts between the Antiquities Act and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the latter law would take precedence
Source: Created by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS), 115th Congress, as of January 27, 2017.
Notes: This table briefly describes selected provisions of bills. For the complete provisions of the referenced bills, see the bill text at Congress.gov.a. S. 33 prohibits monument designation unless certain conditions are met.
b. S. 33 applies to monuments designated in the exclusive economic zone and also to the Secretary of Commerce.
Appendix A. Use of Monument Authority in the Antiquities Act: Comparison of Two Presidents Table A-1. Number and Type of Presidential Proclamations: President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Barack Obama(number of uses and acreage)
President
Monument Established
Monument Enlarged
Monument Diminished
Monument Restrictions Modified
Total Monument Proclamations
No.
Millions of Acres
No.
Millions of Acres
No.
Millions of Acres
No.
Millions of Acres
No.
Millions of Acres
Franklin D. Roosevelt
11
1.5
20
4
1
N/A
36
3.1
Barack Obama
29
8.8
5
0
0
0
0
34
553.6
Notes: This table reflects the number of times each of the two Presidents used the authority in the Antiquities Act to issue monument proclamations, the primary purpose of the proclamations (e.g., to establish a monument), and the acreage of the proclamations. Each proclamation pertained to one monument.
The table does not reflect a 1941 proclamation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, under his authority in the Antiquities Act, to expand the Ocmulgee National Monument. The President had established the monument in 1936, under specific authority provided in a 1934 law.
N/A = not available.
Some figures do not sum to totals provided due to rounding.
a. The NPS source on which data in this table are based did not include the acreage of an expansion of the Katmai National Monument. Instead, an estimated 3,000 acres for this monument, included in this total, was derived from the NPS website at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/katm/adhi/chap3.htm. b. This figure reflects a total of 71,906 acres for two of the four diminished monuments. The other two diminishments pertained to rights-of-way, for which no acreage estimate was included in the primary NPS source. c. Two expanded marine national monuments (Pacific Remote Islands, with 261. 3 million acres, and Papahanaumokuakea Marine, with 283.4 million acres) account for nearly all this acreage. The other three expansions total 55,895 acres. Marine monument acreage was converted from square miles to acres by CRS. Appendix B. Historical Use of Monument Authority in the Antiquities Act Table B-1. Number and Type of Presidential Proclamations: From 1906 Enactment Through President ObamaPresident
Monument Established
Monument Enlarged
Monument Diminished
Monument Enlarged and Diminished
Other
Total Monument Proclamations
T. Roosevelt
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Taft
10 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2a
16 |
Wilson
13 |
3b
1 |
0 |
1c
18 |
Harding
8 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
Coolidge
13 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
Hoover
9 |
10d
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
F.D. Roosevelt
11 |
20 |
4 |
0 |
1e
36 |
Truman
1 |
9f
1 |
0 |
1g
12 |
Eisenhower
2 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
15 |
Kennedy
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1h
8 |
Johnson
1 |
4i
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
Nixon
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Ford
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1j
3 |
Carter
15 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
Reagan
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
G.H.W. Bush
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Clinton
19 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
G.W. Bush
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2k
8 |
Obama
29 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
Total
157 |
76 |
12 |
6 |
9 |
260 |
The column entitled "Monument Enlarged and Diminished" reflects proclamations that added acreage to a monument and removed other acreage from the monument.
This table does not reflect a 1941 proclamation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, under his authority in the Antiquities Act, to expand the Ocmulgee National Monument. The President had established the monument in 1936, under specific authority provided in a 1934 law. It is unclear as to the extent to which Presidents have used authority in the Antiquities Act under similar circumstances involving initial monument authorization by Congress. Such instances do not appear to be contained in the primary NPS source on which this table is based.
a. Reflects the transfer of acreage from one monument to the then General Land Office and the confirmation of the boundaries of another monument. b. Includes the enlargement and renaming of one monument. c. Reflects confirmation of the boundaries of a monument. d. Includes the enlargement of one monument and designation of NPS as monument manager. e. Reflects modification of restrictions. f. Includes the resurvey and enlargement of one monument. g. Reflects the resurvey and modification of one monument. h. Reflects confirmation of the boundaries of one monument. i. Includes the enlargement and renaming of one monument. j. Reflects amendment of the description of one monument. k. Reflects the reaffirmation of one monument and the renaming of another monument. Appendix C. Summary of President Obama's Monument ProclamationsThis appendix provides a chronological list of President Obama's 34 monument proclamations under the Antiquities Act. For additional information on a particular monument, see the pertinent proclamation identified in the footnotes.
The Administration usually cited support for the establishment of the monuments—for instance, from government officials, businesses and local communities, and/or other stakeholders. Most of the monuments first had been proposed for some sort of protective designation in legislation. In addition, some Members and segments of the public have advocated for additional monument designations in their states.82
However, other government officials, communities, and stakeholders have expressed opposition to monuments established by the President and/or concerns about additional monument designations.83 Concerns center on the process used to create monuments, particularly whether there is sufficient consultation with Congress, local and state governments, residents of the affected areas, and the general public.84 Other concerns relate to the costs of managing monuments, restrictions on land uses in new monuments, and other issues.
Given the recurring controversies over presidential establishment of national monuments, recent Congresses have evaluated whether to abolish, limit, or retain unchanged the President's authority to establish monuments under the Antiquities Act. Currently, in the context of President Obama's use of the authority, bills to restrict the President's authority to proclaim national monuments have been introduced in the 114th Congress. Some of the bills would prohibit the President from establishing or expanding national monuments in particular states, counties, or other locations. Other bills focus on the authority for monument designation. Among others, some provisions of these bills would make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to approval of Congress or the pertinent state legislature, governor, or local governing bodies. Other bills would make the President's authority subject to NEPA or impose requirements for consultation, comment, and public hearings. Still others would limit the size of monument proclamations or impose conditions on agency implementation of restrictions on monument use.
The Obama Administration, as well as some Members and segments of the public, opposes restrictions on the President's authority to establish national monuments. For instance, in a written statement on several legislative proposals in the 112th Congress, the Administration asserted that the authority has contributed significantly to the protection of special qualities on federal lands and that the proposals "would undermine this vital authority." The Administration further observed that the Antiquities Act "provided much of the legal foundation for cultural preservation and natural resource conservation in the nation" and serves as the basis for current federal protection of archeological sites from looting and vandalism.86
Table 1, below, identifies selected provisions of pending bills and lists bills with the indicated provisions. Three of the measures have had legislative action following introduction. H.R. 1335 was passed by the House and referred in the Senate to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on H.R. 3668. H.R. 5538 was passed by the House and placed on the Senate calendar.
Table 1. Bills to Restrict the President's Authority to Proclaim National Monuments: Selected Provisions
(114th Congress as of September 19, 2016)
Provisions |
Bills |
Prohibit the President from establishing or expanding national monuments in particular states or counties |
|
| |
Make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to congressional approval |
|
Require the pertinent state legislature's consent for a presidentially proposed national monument |
|
Make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to congressional and state approval within three years following monument designation |
|
Require the pertinent governor's consent for a presidentially proposed national monument |
|
Require approval of local governing bodies and land and wildlife management authorities |
|
Make the President's authority to designate monuments subject to NEPA |
|
Require advance notice before proclamation and public hearings, comment, and report on monument impact following proclamation |
|
Limit proclamations to 5,000 acres or less |
|
Prohibit private property inclusion in monument without owner's written consent |
|
Restrict the impact of a monument designation on the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area in Colorado |
|
Prohibit the President from reserving water rights in monument proclamations and specify that acquisition of water rights must be in accordance with state law |
|
| |
Clarify that in conflicts between the Antiquities Act and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the latter law would take precedence |
Source: Created by CRS from the Legislative Information System (LIS), 114th Congress, as of September 19, 2016.
Notes: This table briefly describes selected provisions of bills, typically at the latest stage of congressional action. For the complete provisions of the referenced bills, see the bill text at Congress.gov.
a. H.R. 5781 applies to monument designations and expansions.
b. H.R. 330 and S. 437 prohibit monument designation unless certain conditions are met. H.R. 5538 Section 499 bars funds in the FY2017 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill from being used for monument designation.
c. H.R. 3389 would require congressional approval of a monument proclamation within two years; otherwise the proclamation would be ineffective, barring the President from issuing a monument proclamation that was "substantially similar" to it.
d. H.R. 330 and S. 437 apply to monuments designated in the exclusive economic zone and also to the Secretary of Commerce.
Author Contact Information
1. |
The text of the law had been codified at 16 U.S.C. §§431-433. It was recodified |
||||||||||||||
2. |
54 U.S.C. §320301(d). |
||||||||||||||
3. |
A withdrawal is an action that restricts the use or disposition of public lands. | ||||||||||||||
4. | This provision was enacted as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), P.L. 96-487; see 16 U.S.C. §3213. |
||||||||||||||
For instance, legislative proposals in the 104th Congress (1995-1996) included H.R. 4118, H.R. 4214, H.R. 4242, and S. 2150. |
|||||||||||||||
Dettling v. United States, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Haw. 2013). The case pertained to the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which was established in 2006 as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument then redesignated in 2007 as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. |
|||||||||||||||
54 U.S.C. §320301. |
|||||||||||||||
54 U.S.C. §320301(d). |
|||||||||||||||
16 U.S.C. §3213. |
|||||||||||||||
Since 1906, the Presidents who have not used this authority are Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. | |||||||||||||||
12. |
|
||||||||||||||
|
12.
The 36 monument proclamations included the establishment of 11 monuments, enlargement of 20 monuments, diminishment of 4 monuments, and modification of restrictions in 1 monument. |
In 2014, President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by approximately 261.3 million acres. In 2016, President Obama expanded the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument by approximately 283.4 million acres. Thus, the two areas contain about 545 million acres of the |
|||||||||||||
The Stonewall National Monument, established by President Obama in New York, is 0.12 acres. The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument was established by President George W. Bush in 2006 with 89.5 million acres; President Obama's 2016 expansion of the monument adding approximately 283.4 million acres made the monument roughly 372.9 million acres. The largest national monument proclaimed on land was the Wrangell-St. Elias National Monument in Alaska, with 10.95 million acres. It was redesignated as a national park and national preserve in 1980, two years after it was proclaimed. |
|||||||||||||||
Mount Olympus National Monument was later redesignated by law as Olympic National Park. |
|||||||||||||||
For additional information on the authority of the President to modify or abolish monuments, see |
|||||||||||||||
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.... " |
|||||||||||||||
For example, the Fossil Cycad National Monument in South Dakota was abolished by an act of August 1, 1956, and the area was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management to be administered under the public land laws. As another example, the Papago Saguaro National Monument in Arizona was abolished by an act of April 7, 1930, and the area was conveyed to the state of Arizona for park, recreational, and other public purposes. |
|||||||||||||||
43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. This law applies primarily to the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and actions taken by the Secretary of the Interior, although some provisions also apply to the lands managed by the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture. |
|||||||||||||||
42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq. |
|||||||||||||||
Relatedly, under 43 U.S.C. §1714(e), the Secretary of the Interior has authority to make emergency withdrawals of federal lands, which are effective when made but expire at the end of three years |
|||||||||||||||
22. |
Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). |
||||||||||||||
23. |
Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). |
||||||||||||||
24. |
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (regarding Death Valley National Monument); High Country Citizens' Alliance v. Norton, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (D. Colo. 2006) (referring to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument). |
||||||||||||||
54 U.S.C. §320301(b). |
|||||||||||||||
In 1978, President Carter proclaimed 15 new monuments and |
|||||||||||||||
For background information on protection of ocean areas, see CRS Report RL32154, Marine Protected Areas: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed]. |
|||||||||||||||
All marine monument sizes listed are approximate. The sizes of marine monuments typically have been identified in square miles, although the proclamation expanding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was expressed in square nautical miles. Monuments on land have been expressed in acres. A square mile is equal to 640 acres, while a square nautical mile is equal to 847.5 acres. |
|||||||||||||||
Tulare County v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1138, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 2002). |
|||||||||||||||
54 U.S.C. §320301(a). |
|||||||||||||||
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, January 11, 2000. |
|||||||||||||||
Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920). |
|||||||||||||||
Ibid., at 455. |
|||||||||||||||
Tulare County v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1138, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (regarding Giant Sequoia National Monument). |
|||||||||||||||
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1132, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (regarding six monuments in four states). |
|||||||||||||||
54 U.S.C. §320301(c). |
|||||||||||||||
Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2008). |
|||||||||||||||
California v. United States, 436 U.S. 32, 40 (1978) (regarding Channel Islands National Monument). |
|||||||||||||||
Testimony of John D. Leshy, at House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, hearings on H.R. 1487, The National Monument NEPA Compliance Act, 106th Cong., 1st sess., June 17, 1999, p. 53 and p. 55. |
|||||||||||||||
For instance, nearly all of President Clinton's monument proclamations had such a provision, including the monument proclamations for the Agua Fria, Canyons of the Ancients, Sonoran Desert, and Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monuments. These monument proclamations are on the BLM website under the respective monument listings, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS/monuments.html. |
|||||||||||||||
See, e.g., Wilkenson v. Department of the Interior, 634 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Col. 1986) (federal government could not completely restrict travel on a preexisting right of way through a national monument). |
|||||||||||||||
For instance, President Clinton's monument proclamations typically contained |
|||||||||||||||
|
Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). 40.
|
|
Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). |
No comprehensive examination was made of earlier monument proclamations. |
|||||||||||
The term valid has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the context of a mine within a national monument as meaning there were valuable, workable deposits of ore present. Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920). |
|||||||||||||||
For instance, President Clinton's monument proclamations typically contained such a provision, including the monument proclamations for the Agua Fria, Canyons of the Ancients, Sonoran Desert, and Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monuments. These monument proclamations are on the BLM website under the respective monument listings, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS/monuments.html. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
The potential economic benefits to local communities of national monument designation were discussed at a House subcommittee hearing on September 13, 2011. For testimony asserting beneficial economic impacts, see Ray Rasker, Executive Director, Headwaters Economics, at http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/raskertestimony09.13.11.pdf. For testimony asserting adverse impacts on communities, see Jerry Taylor, Mayor, Escalante City, Utah, at http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/taylortestimony09.13.11.pdf. |
|||||||||||||||
|
47.
FLPMA defined "withdrawal" as "withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than ''property'' governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency." 43 USC 1702(j). |
For an overview and background on NEPA, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation, by [author name scrubbed]. |
|||||||||||||
See Alaska v. Carter, 462 F. Supp. 1155 (D. Alaska 1978) (NEPA does not apply to presidential proclamation under the Antiquities Act). |
|||||||||||||||
|
As an example, the following article notes the views of monument supporters regarding public participation and NEPA. See Mathew J. Sanders, "Are National Monuments the Right Way to Manage Federal Public Lands?," Natural Resources & Environment, Summer 2016, 31(1), pp. 3-7. 50.
|
|
The consolidation of management of national monuments occurred under Executive Order 6166 of June 10, 1933. See Executive Order 6166, "Organization of Executive Agencies," June 10, 1933, at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/06166.html. |
The two monuments were given statutory approval as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), P.L. 96-487. |
|||||||||||
California v. United States, 436 U.S. 32, 40 (1978). |
|||||||||||||||
4B Op. Off. Legal Counsel 396 (February 8, 1980). |
|||||||||||||||
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950. |
|||||||||||||||
For | |||||||||||||||
56.
|
|
For instance, in a letter of June 13, 2013, several Senators expressed to the President opposition to "unilateral" designation of national monuments. The letter is on the website of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/6/post-43def03b-eb2d-28a3-e162-0da18ed75af1. In addition, on April 16, 2013, a witness representing the Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Utah Cattlemen's association testified in favor of limiting the President's authority to proclaim monuments. See testimony of David Eliason, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, hearings, 113th Cong., 1st sess., April 16, 2013, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80524/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg80524.pdf. |
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Fort Monroe National Monument, November 1, 2011, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/01/presidential-proclamation-establishment-fort-monroe-national-monument. |
||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Fort Ord National Monument, April 20, 2012, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/20/presidential-proclamation-establishment-fort-ord-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Chimney Rock National Monument, September 21, 2012, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/21/presidential-proclamation-establishment-chimney-rock-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the César E. Chávez National Monument, October 8, 2012, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/10/08/presidential-proclamation-establishment-cesar-e-chavez-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the First State National Monument, March 25, 2013, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/25/presidential-proclamation-first-state-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument, March 25, 2013, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/25/presidential-proclamation-charles-young-buffalo-soldiers-national-monume. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Río Grande del Norte National Monument, March 25, 2013, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/25/presidential-proclamation-r-o-grande-del-norte-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the San Juan Islands National Monument, March 25, 2013, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/25/presidential-proclamation-san-juan-islands-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Harriet Tubman–Underground Railroad National Monument, March 25, 2013, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/25/presidential-proclamation-harriet-tubman-underground-railroad-national-m. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Boundary Enlargement of the California Coastal National Monument, March 11, 2014, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/11/presidential-proclamation-boundary-enlargement-california-coastal-nation. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, May 21, 2014, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/21/presidential-proclamation-organ-mountains-desert-peaks-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion, September 25, 2014, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/25/presidential-proclamation-pacific-remote-islands-marine-national-monumen. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, October 10, 2014, on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/10/presidential-proclamation-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Browns Canyon National Monument, February 19, 2015, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/19/presidential-proclamation-browns-canyon-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Pullman National Monument, February 19, 2015, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/19/presidential-proclamation-pullman-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Honouliuli National Monument, February 24, 2015, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/24/presidential-proclamation-establishment-honouliuli-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Basin and Range National Monument, July 10, 2015, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/10/presidential-proclamation-establishment-basin-and-range-national. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument, July 10, 2015, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/10/presidential-proclamation-establishment-berryessa-snow-mountain-national. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Waco Mammoth National Monument, July 10, 2015, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/10/presidential-proclamation-establishment-waco-mammoth-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Mojave Trails National Monument, February 12, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/12/presidential-proclamation-establishment-mojave-trails-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Sand to Snow National Monument, February 12, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/12/presidential-proclamation-establishment-sand-snow-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Castle Mountains National Monument, February 12, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/12/presidential-proclamation-establishment-castle-mountains-national. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, April 12, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/12/presidential-proclamation-establishment-belmont-paul-womens-equality. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Stonewall National Monument, June 24, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/24/presidential-proclamation-establishment-stonewall-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, August 24, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/24/presidential-proclamation-establishment-katahdin-woods-and-waters. |
|||||||||||||||
See Presidential Proclamation—Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Expansion, August 26, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/26/presidential-proclamation-papahanaumokuakea-marine-national-monument. |
|||||||||||||||
This monument is located off the coast of New England. See Presidential Proclamation—Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, September 15, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/15/presidential-proclamation-northeast-canyons-and-seamounts-marine. |
|||||||||||||||
82. |
For instance, in a letter of January 24, 2014, some Members of Congress expressed support to the Secretary of the Interior for additional monument designations under the Antiquities Act. The letter is available on the website of Democratic Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources at http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/2014.1.14.Antiquities%20Act.%20Jewell_1.pdf. In addition, on December 12, 2013, a coalition of groups asked the President to designate additional monuments that "conserve our diverse culture and heritage." The letter is available through the Environment and Energy News PM website at http://www.eenews.net/assets/2013/12/12/document_pm_02.pdf. |
||||||||||||||
83. |
For instance, in a letter of June 13, 2013, several Senators expressed to the President opposition to "unilateral" designation of national monuments. The letter is on the website of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/6/post-43def03b-eb2d-28a3-e162-0da18ed75af1. In addition, on April 16, 2013, a witness representing the Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Utah Cattlemen's association testified in favor of limiting the President's authority to proclaim monuments. See testimony of David Eliason before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80524/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg80524.pdf. |
||||||||||||||
84. |
These concerns developed in part from an earlier Obama Administration evaluation of whether to designate or expand national monuments. In February 2010, an Administration internal draft document regarding possible national monuments was obtained by some Members of Congress. The internal draft document identified 13 sites for possible new monument designations and one monument for possible expansion. See Prospective Conservation Designation: National Monument Designations Under the Antiquities Act (undated), internal draft, at http://robbishop.house.gov/UploadedFiles/states_for_designation.pdf. At the time, some noted that the Administration's intent to collaborate had been expressed on the internal draft itself, and the Administration subsequently expressed intent to use a collaborative process in evaluating areas for monument status. See E&E News PM, Obama Admin Has 'No Secret Agenda' on Monuments—Salazar, February 22, 2010. |
||||||||||||||
85. |
In addition to the bills discussed in this section, amendments pertaining to the President's authority have been considered in the 114th Congress. |
||||||||||||||
86. | See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument, December 28, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/proclamation-establishment-bears-ears-national-monument. See Presidential Proclamation—Establishment of the Gold Butte National Monument, December 28, 2016, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/presidential-proclamation-establishment-gold-butte-national-monument. Acreage figures are taken from the Fast Facts and Q&A on the BLM website at https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-conservation-lands/national-monuments/oregon-washington. See Presidential Proclamation—Boundary Enlargement of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, January 12, 2017, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamation-boundary-enlargement-cascade-siskiyou-national. See Presidential Proclamations—Establishment of the Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument, January 12, 2017, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamations-establishment-birmingham-civil-rights. See Presidential Proclamations—Establishment of the Freedom Riders National Monument, January 12, 2017, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamations-establishment-freedom-riders-national. See Presidential Proclamations—Establishment of the Reconstruction Era National Monument, January 12, 2017, on the White House website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamations-establishment-reconstruction-era-national. |