Order Code RL30528
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act:
Recent Designations and Issues
Updated January 15, 2001
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela Baldwin
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

ABSTRACT
This report addresses the authority of the President to create national monuments on
federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906. It discusses the benefits of the Act and those
aspects of the Act that have been controversial, including the size and types of resources
protected; the level of and types of threat to designated areas; effects of proclamations on land
uses; consistency of the Act with the withdrawal, public participation, and environmental
review aspects of other laws; monument management by agencies other than the National Park
Service (NPS); and the constitutionality of the Act. It also provides background on the 13
monuments President Clinton created or enlarged by proclamation to date, and discusses the
land uses permitted within these monuments. The report discusses possible future monument
designations and issues and legislative activity related to presidential designation of
monuments. This report will be updated as events may require.

For additional information on national monuments, see: CRS Report RS20647,
Authority of a President to Modify or Eliminate a National Monument: CRS Report 98-993
ENR, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; CRS Report RS20602, Presidential
Authority to Create a National Monument on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge; RS20625, Provisions on National Monuments and the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Project in the FY2001 Department of the Interior
Appropriations Bill; and CRS General Distribution Memorandum, Legal Issues Raised by
the Designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

---

National Monuments and the Antiquities Act:
Recent Designations and Issues
Summary
To date, President Clinton has used The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C.
§§431-433) to create 11 new national monuments and enlarge two others. Most
designations were made during 2000, except the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument (UT), which was proclaimed on September 18, 1996. The new
monuments range in size from two acres to nearly 1.9 million acres. The 13
monuments created or enlarged by President Clinton total approximately 4.8 million
acres, the second largest of all Presidents and a larger amount than any other
President’s total acreage in the contiguous 48 states.
The Antiquities Act authorizes the President to create 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 quickly protect federal lands and resources, and presidents
have proclaimed more than 100 monuments totaling about 70 million acres. Congress
has modified many of these, has created monuments itself, and about a dozen times
has abolished presidentially-created monuments.
Presidential establishment of monuments sometimes has been contentious, e.g.,
President Carter’s massive Alaskan withdrawals in 1978. Recent monuments created
by President Clinton also have generated criticisms of the Act that have centered on
the size and types of resources protected; the level and type of threats to areas; effects
on land uses; the agency that manages the monuments; the constitutionality of the
Act; and consistencies of the Act with the withdrawal, public participation, and
environmental review aspects of other laws (e.g., Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, and National Environmental Policy Act). Supporters favor
the Act in its present form, as applied by Presidents for nearly a century, and note that
many past designations that initially were controversial have come to be supported
over time. They contend that the President needs continued authority to promptly
protect valuable resources on federal lands that may be threatened, e.g., by looting or
commercial development, and to avoid speculation in lands to be protected.
President Clinton selected the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to manage
several of the monuments, but other agencies were assigned to manage monuments
as well. Monuments typically are established or enlarged subject to valid existing
rights; generally, land uses may continue if they are not barred by the proclamations,
and do not conflict with monument purposes. Usually the proclamations and
supporting documents address land uses. In many of the new monuments new mining
claims and mineral and energy leases are barred and grazing is allowed. In some
cases, water rights have been reserved for the federal government.
The Clinton Administration has expressed interest in creating additional
monuments, especially “national landscape monuments,” to protect complete
landscapes and ecosystems that are “distinct and significant.” President-elect Bush
reportedly may take a different approach.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Antiquities Act of 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Monument Issues and Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Monument Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Objects Protected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Level and Type of Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Inclusion of Non-Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Effects on Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
“Consistency” of Antiquities Act with NEPA and FLPMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Monument Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Other Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Land Uses in Recently Designated Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mineral Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Withdrawals Preserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Off-Road Vehicle Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Future Monument Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix: Chronology of Monuments Established or Enlarged During the Clinton
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
September 18, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
January 11, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
April 15, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
June 9, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
July 7, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
November 9, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

---

National Monuments and the Antiquities Act:
Recent Designations and Issues
Introduction
Presidential establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of
1906 (16 U.S.C. §§431 et seq.) has protected valuable sites, but also sometimes has
been controversial. Displeasure with President Franklin Roosevelt’s proclaiming the
Jackson Hole National Monument in Wyoming (1943) prompted litigation on the
extent of presidential authority under the Antiquities Act, as well as a 1950 law to
prohibit future establishment of national monuments in Wyoming except as authorized
by Congress. President Carter’s Alaska withdrawals (1978) also were challenged in
the courts and led to a statutory requirement of congressional approval for
withdrawals in Alaska larger than 5,000 acres.1 President Clinton’s proclamation of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (1996) triggered several lawsuits,
a law authorizing land exchanges, and proposals to amend or revoke presidential
authority under the Antiquities Act.2 Yet, initial opposition to some monument
designations turned to support over time. Some of the most controversial monuments
later were enlarged and redesignated as national parks that today are among the most
popular parks and are of substantial economic benefit to the surrounding
communities. For instance, the Jackson Hole National Monument was expanded and
redesignated as the Grand Teton National Park.
To date, President Clinton has created 11 new monuments and enlarged two
others.3 Most of the monuments were created (or enlarged) during 2000, except that
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (Utah) was proclaimed on
September 18, 1996. On January 11, 2000, President Clinton issued proclamations
creating three new monuments and expanding one existing monument. The new
monuments are the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument (Arizona), the Agua
Fria National Monument (Arizona), and the California Coastal National Monument
(California). The enlarged monument is the Pinnacles National Monument
(California). On April 15, 2000, President Clinton created another new monument,
1 These provisions were enacted as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act of 1980 (ANILCA), P.L. 96-487; see 16 U.S.C. §3213.
2 Proc. 6920, September 18, 1996; 61 Fed. Reg. 50,223 (September 24, 1996). This
monument initially was reported at 1.7 million acres, but was recalculated by BLM and also
modified acts of Congress (P.L. 105-335 and P.L. 105-355). Its current acreage is estimated
at 1,870,800 federal acres.
3 This report focuses on monuments created by President Clinton under the Antiquities Act.
Another national monument–the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument–was created by law during the Clinton Administration (P.L. 106-351). It is
mentioned in the final section of this report entitled “Legislative Activity.”

---

CRS-2
the Giant Sequoia National Monument (California). On June 9, 2000, he established
four monuments: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (Colorado), Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument (Oregon), Hanford Reach National Monument
(Washington), and Ironwood Forest National Monument (Arizona). On July 7, 2000,
President Clinton created the President Lincoln and Soldier’s Home National
Monument (Washington, D.C.). On November 9, 2000, he created the Vermilion
Cliffs National Monument (Arizona) and significantly expanded the Craters of the
Moon National Monument (Idaho).4
The Clinton Administration has expressed interest in creating additional
monuments, especially “national landscape monuments.” These monuments evidently
would protect complete landscapes and whole ecosystems that are “distinct and
significant.” Indications are that they probably would be created on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands and be managed by BLM.
The recent proclamations and the possibility of additional proclamations have
generated criticisms of presidential authority to create monuments. Recent criticisms
and controversies in Congress have challenged the size of the areas and types of
resources protected, and the authority and procedures for monument designation.
Significant criticism has been expressed by those who fear and oppose restrictions on
land uses, both extractive (e.g., mining) and recreational, as a result of monument
proclamations. Critics also perceive a 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, 43 U.S.C. § 1701
et seq.),5 the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), and the public participation requirements of
NEPA and major land management laws. Among the measures considered in the
106th Congress were bills to encourage public participation in the monument
designation process, to require congressional approval of some or all monument
designations, and to promote presidential creation of monuments in accordance with
certain federal land management and environmental laws.
Supporters of the Antiquities Act assert that changes to the Act are neither
warranted nor desirable. They assert that previous Congresses that focused on this
issue were correct in not repealing the Antiquities Act, and that the courts have been
generally supportive of presidential actions under the Act. They further claim that
Presidents of both parties have used their authority for nearly a century to
expeditiously protect valuable federal lands and resources, 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 perceived dangers. In
providing instant protection to areas, supporters assert that the Antiquities Act
thereby avoids possibly speculative establishment of rights that could be costly for the
government to buy out following slower designation processes. While the Secretary
4 For details on each monument, including its location, size, resources, and management
agency, see Appendix 1 of this report.
5 This law applies primarily to the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
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.

---

CRS-3
of the Interior can make temporary emergency withdrawals of BLM lands,6 there is
no comparable authority with respect to national forest lands or other federal lands.
Defenders also note that some past designations that initially were contentious have
come to be supported over time. They contend that large segments of the public
support land protection, such as through monument designations, for the recreational
and economic benefits that such designations often bring.
The Antiquities Act of 1906
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” (16 U.S.C.§431). Congress subsequently limited the
President’s authority by requiring congressional authorization for extensions or
establishment of monuments in Wyoming (16 U.S.C. §431a), and by making all
withdrawals in Alaska exceeding 5,000 acres subject to congressional approval (16
U.S.C. §3213).
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. Fourteen of
the 17 Presidents since 1906 have created more than 100 monuments in total,
including Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Zion, Olympic, Statue of Liberty, and
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.7 Many areas initially designated as national monuments
were later made into national parks. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used his
authority to create or modify monuments on 28 occasions–more than any other
President. Several Presidents since 1906 have used their authority to create or modify
monuments more often than President Clinton. In terms of acreage, President Jimmy
Carter included significantly more land in monuments than any other President. He
withdrew 56 million acres of land in Alaska to establish 15 new monuments and
enlarge 2 others.8 The 13 monuments created or enlarged by President Clinton total
approximately 4.8 million acres, the second largest of all Presidents and a larger
amount than any other President’s total acreage in the contiguous 48 states.
6 43 U.S.C. § 1714.
7 A chronological list of monuments created by Presidents from 1906 through 1999 is
contained in H.R. 1487, The National Monument NEPA Compliance Act, Hearing before the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the House Committee on Resources,
106th Cong., 1st Sess., June 17, 1999 at 24-44. A list of presidentially-proclaimed monuments,
organized by President, is contained in the 146 Cong. Rec., (daily edition, July 17, 2000), at
S7,030-S7,032. Information on monuments created by both the President and Congress is
contained in the notes following 16 U.S.C. §431.
8 Congress rescinded these withdrawals and reestablished most of the lands as national
monuments or other protective designations (such as national parks) in §1322 of ANILCA.

---

CRS-4
Congress, too, may create national monuments on federal lands (completely
apart from the Antiquities Act). Congress has done so and also has modified
monuments (including those created by the President), for instance, by changing their
boundaries. Congress has rescinded about a dozen presidential withdrawals that
created national monuments (e.g., those in Alaska that were not converted into other
conservation units); abolished some monuments outright; and converted national
monuments into other protective designations, such as national parks. In fact, of the
55 current national parks, 28 were first designated as national monuments.


Monuments vary widely in size. While more than half of the presidentially-
proclaimed monuments initially involved less than 5,000 acres, they have ranged from
less than 1 acre to nearly 11 million acres. The largest monument (the Wrangell-St.
Elias National Monument, now a national park and national preserve) was created as
part of President Carter’s 1978 Alaska withdrawals. About 10% of all federal
land–approximately 70 million acres–has at one time been protected under the
Antiquities Act.9
Monument Issues and Controversies
Monument Size
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” (16 U.S.C. §431). Several Presidents have established
large monuments. Examples of large monuments include Katmai, established in 1918
with 1,088,000 acres; Glacier Bay, created in 1925 with 1,379,316 acres; most of the
Alaska monuments proclaimed in 1978, the largest being Wrangell-St. Elias with
10,950,000 acres; and Grand Staircase-Escalante, established in 1996 with
approximately 1,900,000 acres.
The proclamations for all 13 of the monuments created or enlarged by President
Clinton repeat the language of the Antiquities Act, that the acreage reserved is the
“smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be
protected.” The monuments range in size from 2 acres to 1,870,800 acres.
Supporting documents for some of the larger recent monuments assert that the lands
surrounding the identified objects are included to maintain the relationships among the
objects and the remoteness that allows them to exist. Also mentioned are that
biological objects need the preservation of an entire ecosystem, and that management
of a series of discrete sites is more difficult than managing a larger, contiguous area.
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 the Act was intended 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, where proposals to limit a withdrawal to 320
9 Most of this acreage is no longer in monument status because it has been included by
Congress in other protective designations, primarily through enactment of ANILCA.

---

CRS-5
or 640 acres were mentioned. They contend that some of the monument designations
were greater than needed to protect particular objects of value.
Defenders argue that 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 deliberately 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 generally have deferred to the President’s judgment as to proper size.
However, the case law on this subject is not extensive, and it is uncertain what
conclusion a court might reach in any particular case in the future.10
Objects Protected
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.” Some proclamations have identified particular
objects needing protection, while others have referred more generally to scenic,
scientific, or educational features of interest.
Some critics assert that the original purpose of the Act was to protect specific
objects, particularly objects of antiquity such as cliff dwellings, pueblos, and other
archeological ruins in the Southwest (hence the name “Antiquities Act”). They claim
that Presidents have used the Act for impermissibly broad purposes, such as general
conservation, recreation, scenic protection, or protection of living organisms–
purposes more appropriate for a national park 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 that grants considerable discretion to
the President.
A review of legal challenges on this issue shows a general deference to
presidential determinations of objects appropriate for protection. The Supreme Court
upheld the creation of the Grand Canyon National Monument in apparent agreement
with the President’s assertion that the Grand Canyon “is an object of unusual scientific
10 For more information on cases on monument size and other legal issues, see CRS General
Distribution Memorandum, Legal Issues Raised by the Designation of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, by Pamela Baldwin, December 13, 1996. The memorandum
addresses the types of objects protected, designation procedures, BLM as monument manager,
and whether non-NPS management may constitute a reorganization requiring congressional
approval.

---

CRS-6
interest.”11 However, in another case a lower court did note in dicta (that is, not as
part of the holding) that there might be circumstances in which a President might be
held to have exceeded his authority.12 Thus, the outcome of any future legal challenge
in this area is not certain.
Level and Type of Threat
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 Administration. In other cases, threats were reported by the press. One press
report stated that the National Trust for Historic Preservation designated the (now)
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 endangered or threatened. They charge that Presidents have established
monuments to support environmental causes, limit development, and score political
gains, among other reasons. Those who contest these 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 as
sufficient grounds for contemporary presidential action.
Inclusion of Non-Federal Lands
In some cases, non-federal lands are physically contained within the outer
boundaries of a monument, regardless of whether they are technically, or even
expressly, excluded from it. The inclusion of state or private lands among federal
lands within a monument’s borders has been a source of controversy. The Clinton
Administration has indicated that the monument designation does not apply to non-
federal lands, because the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to proclaim
monuments only on federal lands. As Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, in
1999 John D. Leshy asserted this view in testimony before Congress, stating that the
Antiquities Act applies only to federal lands and that monument designations cannot
11 Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 455-456 (1920).
12 Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 895 (D. Wy. 1945). In this case, the court indicated that
if there were an instance where there was no evidence of a substantial character that an area
contained objects of historic or scientific interest, the creation of a monument by a President
could be found to be “arbitrary and capricious and clearly outside the scope and purpose of
the Monument Act.” However, the court noted that evidence from experts and others
introduced at trial was sufficient to support a finding that there were objects of historic and
scientific interest in the Jackson Hole National Monument.

---

CRS-7
bring state or private lands into federal ownership.13 Nearly all of President Clinton’s
monument proclamations have stated that non-federal lands will become part of the
monument if the federal government acquires title to the lands from the current
owners. Whether lands could be condemned for monument purposes is not clear.
Others, 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 such development might be incompatible with the purposes for which the
monument was created. A BLM interim monument management policy provides that
activities on non-monument lands that damage the monument be reported “to the
responsible management official for appropriate action.”14 There is no elaboration on
what might constitute appropriate action.
Monument supporters also note that if state or private land owners within a
monument fear or experience difficulties, they can pursue land exchanges with the
federal government. President Clinton’s monument proclamations typically have
authorized land exchanges to further the protective purposes of the monument. For
the BLM-managed monuments, the agency is to consider not only land exchanges but
land or easement acquisitions to enhance the purposes of the monuments, according
to the interim management policy.
Effects on Land Use
Monument designation applies to federal lands, but in some cases designation
may have implications for uses on non-federal lands. Designation can affect pre-
designation land uses on federal lands by limiting or prohibiting existing or potential
development or recreational uses. A common concern is that monument designation
potentially could result in new constraints on development of existing mineral and
energy leases, claims, and permits, as well as barring new leases, claims, and permits.
Mineral activities may have to adhere to a higher standard of environmental review,
and probably will have a higher cost of mitigation, to ensure compatibility with
monument designation. The recent proclamations have protections for valid existing
rights for land uses, but the extent to which designations may affect those rights is not
yet clear. (See the discussion of mineral rights below.)
Another concern is actual or potential restriction on commercial timber cutting
as a result of designation. For instance, future timber production is expressly
precluded in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, although certain current logging
contracts can be implemented. 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.
13 See infra note 7, at 53 and 55.
14 See U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interim Management
Policy for Newly Created National Monuments, January 11, 2000, on BLM’s website at
[http://www.az.blm.gov/interimgt.htm]. The interim management policy was issued to provide
guidance on managing BLM monuments pending completion of the planning process to
develop particular management guidance for each monument.

---

CRS-8
Other concerns have included the possible effects of monument designation on
grazing, hunting, and off-road vehicle use. Proclamations have restricted such
activities to protect monument resources, and the monument management plans may
result in additional restrictions. Some private citizens who use public lands, for
instance for grazing cattle or extracting minerals, have expressed fear of economic
losses as a result of possible restrictions to those activities.
States and counties frequently have viewed restrictions on federal lands in their
jurisdictions as threats to economic development. They argue that local communities
are hurt by the loss of jobs and tax revenues that result from prohibiting/restricting
future mineral exploration, timber development, or other activities. Some argue that
energy development limitations could leave the United States more dependent on
foreign oil.
Advocates of creating monuments claim there are positive economic impacts
resulting from designation, including increased tourism, recreation, and the relocation
of businesses and people which may exceed the benefits of traditional economic
development. Others allege that the public interest value of environmental protection
outweighs any economic benefit that could have resulted from development. Some
maintain that development is insufficiently limited by monument designation, through
the preservation of valid existing rights for particular uses, such as grazing and
mining, and that the restrictions on future use should be tighter. Areas need to be left
intact for future generations, they argue.

“Consistency” of Antiquities Act with NEPA and FLPMA
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to make certain land withdrawals under specified procedures.
It requires congressional approval for withdrawals that exceed 5,000 acres, but in a
manner that is likely to be an unconstitutional “legislative veto” provision under the
ruling in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha.15 FLPMA also contains
notice and hearing procedures for withdrawals by the Secretary of less than 5,000
acres. In enacting FLPMA, Congress not only imposed limits on the ability of the
Interior Secretary to make withdrawals, but repealed much of the express and implied
withdrawal authority previously granted to the President by several earlier laws.
Critics argue that the Antiquities Act is inconsistent with the intent of FLPMA
to restore control of public land withdrawal policy 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. Challengers to this view note that Congress, in
enacting FLPMA, did not repeal or amend the Antiquities Act despite extensive
consideration of all executive withdrawal authorities. They believe it was the clear
intent of Congress to retain presidential withdrawal authority under the Antiquities
Act.
15 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

---

CRS-9
Similarly, critics note that recent establishments of monuments were
accomplished by President Clinton without the environmental studies required of
agencies for “major federal actions” under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), or the opportunities for public participation that NEPA, FLPMA, and other
land management laws provide. Here, too, it can be noted that the statutes in
question do not pertain to the actions of a President under the Antiquities Act (as
opposed to an action of an agency) and that the Antiquities Act is silent as to the
procedures a President must follow to proclaim a new monument. Some urge that
procedures for environmental review and public participation should be added to the
monument designation process so that significant withdrawals (with resulting effects
on existing uses) would not be made without scientific, economic, and public input.
Others counter that such changes would impair the ability of the President to
take action quickly to protect objects and lands, thereby avoiding possible damage to
the resources and the possible speculative establishment of rights.16 They assert that
participation requirements are not needed in law because Presidents typically consult
with government officials and the public before establishing monuments. Further,
they charge that NEPA applies to proposed actions that might harm the environment,
not to protective actions such as monument designation. Some believe that NEPA
requirements are unnecessary for monument designation because once monuments are
created, detailed management plans are developed in accordance with NEPA.17
Monument Management
Although most monuments are managed by the National Park Service (NPS),
Congress has created some monuments that are managed by other agencies. In 1996,
President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and
assigned its management to BLM, the first such area administered by BLM. President
Clinton subsequently selected BLM as exclusive manager of six of the monuments
created in 2000. In one case, a state agency is managing the monument on behalf of
BLM. President Clinton chose BLM and NPS to jointly manage two other
monuments, and selected the NPS alone to manage yet another. He gave the Forest
Service management responsibility for another of the new monuments. He charged
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior) with managing lands within
another monument, in accordance with existing arrangements with the Department
of Energy (DOE), except that the DOE will manage lands not covered in the
agreements. Finally, he assigned one monument to the Armed Forces Retirement
Home, through the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home, and in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior.
In creating new monuments, President Clinton retained as monument manager
the agency that was administering the lands before the monument designation. In the
16 The status quo of BLM-managed lands could be maintained because §204(e) of FLPMA
(43 U.S.C. 1714(e)), authorizes the Secretary to temporarily withdraw BLM lands for a
period of up to two years. Comparable authority does not exist with respect to lands managed
by other agencies.
17 Proposals to address the issues raised in this section, primarily those considered during the
106th Congress, are covered below under “Legislative Activity.”

---

CRS-10
two proclamations that expanded monuments, President Clinton made management
changes. The Pinnacles expansion lands were transferred from the BLM to the NPS,
because the existing Pinnacles Monument was being managed by the NPS. Also, for
the Craters of the Moon National Monument expansion, President Clinton chose the
NPS as primary manager of some of the lands that had been under BLM jurisdiction.

The Clinton Administration had expressed interest in having BLM manage
monuments created on its lands, and in increasing the emphasis of the agency on land
protection. The BLM also may have been chosen to manage several of the new
monuments because the lands were intended to be both protected and managed for
multiple uses. Multiple uses include recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed;
fish and wildlife; and protecting scenic, scientific, and historical values. Mineral
development, timber, and hunting are the principal uses that would be legally
compatible with BLM management but not with NPS management. All the BLM-
managed monuments protect valid existing rights, which would allow development
of existing mineral rights. Except for Canyons of the Ancients, they also preclude
establishment of new mineral and energy rights, and hence are similar to NPS units in
that respect. The Canyons of the Ancients Monument allows new oil and gas leasing
and development under certain circumstances. Grazing is another land use typically
allowed on BLM lands, but often precluded on NPS lands even though it is allowed
under statute.18
It could be argued that having BLM manage monuments, rather than NPS,
generally allows for more flexible management. That is, under the BLM interim
management policy, uses generally would be permitted unless shown to be detrimental
to the monuments. In NPS units, uses are more likely to be prohibited unless shown
to be beneficial. Some critics have expressed concern that the BLM lacks sufficient
expertise or dedication to land conservation to be charged with monument
management.
The President’s authority to choose a management agency other than NPS has
been questioned. Before 1933, monuments were managed by different agencies,
including the War Department and the Department of Agriculture. In 1933, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, by Executive Order 6166, consolidated management of
national monuments in the NPS. Most, and possibly all, existing monuments were
transferred to the NPS, and no monuments presidentially-created between 1933 and
1978 were managed outside the NPS. Two of the Alaska monuments created by
President Carter in 1978 were managed by the Forest Service (which is in the
Department of Agriculture), and two were managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Management by FWS does not appear to have been contentious. However,
assigning management of the two Alaska monuments to the Forest Service was
controversial, and the NPS and the Department of Agriculture agreed to enter into a
memorandum of understanding on managing the monuments. The two monuments
18 As a general matter, grazing may be allowed in NPS units under 16 U.S.C. §3, unless it is
prohibited by the statute creating the unit or the Secretary of the Interior finds grazing would
be detrimental. In practice, grazing often is not allowed. However, some statutes authorizing
park units specifically allow for grazing in these units.

---

CRS-11
subsequently were given statutory approval (in ANILCA) for Forest Service
management.
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.19 However, other legal considerations cast doubt
on the issue, notably whether management by other agencies may constitute a
reorganization which would require congressional approval.
Some assert that the authority of the President under the Antiquities Act carries
with it discretion to choose the managing agency. They contend that there is no
exclusive authority for the NPS to manage monuments. Others argue that
management by an agency other than NPS is a transfer of part of the current functions
of the NPS. They assert that the transfer of an agency function, especially to another
department, constitutes a reorganization of government, and that the President
currently lacks such reorganization authority. Others allege 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 Department of the Interior might constitute a
reorganization, the President nevertheless might be able to move a function of the
NPS to the BLM under congressionally approved authority allowing transfers of
functions within the Department of the Interior (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950).
The designation of monuments, with management by other agencies and departments,
may raise this issue anew.
Other Legal Issues
The “Property Clause” of the Constitution (Article IV, sec. 3, cl. 2) gives
Congress the authority to dispose of and make needful rules and regulations regarding
property belonging to the United States. Some have asserted that the Antiquities Act
is an unconstitutionally broad delegation of Congress’ power, because the President’s
authority to create monuments is essentially limitless since all federal land has some
historic or scientific value. Others believe the Act would be upheld if challenged on
this basis because it has been in effect for so long and because courts have upheld
other broad delegations of property authority; for example, the Mining Law of 1872,
which allows state and local laws and customs to supplement federal law.
Several cases were filed challenging the 1996 designation of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument on various grounds. The Utah Association of Counties
(UAC) filed suit asking the court to set aside the presidential proclamation on the
grounds that: 1) President Clinton violated the Antiquities Act and the separation of
powers doctrine by withdrawing public lands from the application of the mining laws
and mineral leasing laws when Congress reserved this power to the Secretary of the
Interior; 2) President Clinton exceeded his constitutionally delegated authority under
the Act to achieve wilderness preservation of lands when Congress reserved that
authority to itself; 3) President Clinton exceeded his authority under the Act to
19 4B Op. Off. Legal Counsel 396 (February 8, 1980).

---

CRS-12
reserve only the “smallest area” compatible with protection of specific objects; 4) the
chair of the Council on Environmental Quality failed to implement and enforce NEPA
and worked with defendants Secretary Babbitt and the Department of the Interior to
avoid complying with NEPA; and 5) Secretary Babbitt and the Interior Department
violated federal law by recommending the creation of the monument without
complying with procedures imposed by federal law.
A second suit was filed by the Utah Schools and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA). It alleged that President Clinton exceeded his authority
under the Act and the Constitution when he created the monument; that the Interior
Department violated FLPMA and NEPA during the course of designation; and that
the withdrawal violated the Utah Enabling Act of 1894 and the “Equal Footing”
doctrine.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation also filed suit alleging that the creation
of the monument violated the Antiquities Act because 1) President Clinton did not
confine the withdrawal to the smallest area compatible with the purpose; 2) President
Clinton did not confine it to objects of scientific and historic interest; and 3) his
actions were arbitrary and capricious in that he exceeded his authority under the
Constitution. This suit also alleges that all defendants violated FLPMA, the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, and the Constitution.
The cases were consolidated, but the SITLA case was settled and has been
dismissed. The others are being heard in the U.S. District Court for Utah, but have
not moved very far toward decision. The United States asked the court to rule first
on the question of whether Congress could be said to have ratified the creation of the
monument through several enactments since its creation, e.g., those related to
boundary adjustments and land exchanges. In the procedural context in which the
issue was before the court, the court found Congress’s actions insufficient to
constitute ratification and declined to dismiss the case on that ground. The United
States attempted to appeal on this issue before completion of the trial in the District
Court, but the 10th Circuit denied this interlocutory appeal. There is no indication of
when the lower court might rule on the other issues. An environmental group that
was denied intervenor status has appealed that ruling.
A suit also was filed in the United States District Court for Arizona challenging
the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. It raised questions related to
whether the monument might threaten to limit land use; prevent legislators from
representing their constituents; reduce the accountability of governmental officials;
and violate the 14th Amendment. Plaintiffs sought to have the Antiquities Act
declared unconstitutional and to require the President to follow constitutional disposal
processes. The suit was dismissed on November 20, 2000, for lack of standing and
for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
A suit also was filed challenging the designations of Canyons of the Ancients,
Cascade-Siskiyou, Hanford Reach, and Ironwood Forest, claiming, without
elaboration, that by creating these monuments and specifying certain management
restrictions, President Clinton took actions with respect to federal lands that are
reserved to Congress under the Constitution.

---

CRS-13
A challenge20 to the designation of Giant Sequoia asserts, among other counts,
that the creation of the Giant Sequoia monument to protect “ecosystems” and
“landscapes” was so lacking in specificity as to the objects protected that it either
does not comport with the standards in the Antiquities Act, or the Act itself represents
an unconstitutional delegation of the Art. IV authority of Congress to manage the
property of the United States. Furthermore, the suit asserts, the land management
restrictions in the Giant Sequoia Proclamation and related administrative documents
violate the planning requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
and NEPA, as well as § 9 of the NFMA, which requires an act of Congress to return
national forest lands to the public domain, which plaintiffs maintain is what the new
management restrictions accomplish.21 In addition, the suit claims that the
Proclamation could not override a 1990 Agreement between the Forest Service and
outside parties regarding the management of the Sequoia groves.
Land Uses in Recently Designated Monuments
This section provides a summary of selected land uses within the monuments
created (or expanded) by President Clinton, focusing on the effect of monument
designation on existing or potential development or recreational land uses. The
presidential proclamations and accompanying Clinton Administration statements
address land uses within the monuments. An interim management policy for all newly-
created BLM monuments, issued January 11, 2000, provides additional guidance for
BLM monuments pending approval of a management plan for each monument under
BLM’s planning process.22 The final management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante,
effective in February 2000, describes the objectives and actions for managing the
monument.23 Management plans for other monuments are underway. For example,
BLM’s state office in Colorado issued interim management guidance for Canyons of
the Ancients; the guidance will be in effect until a management plan specific to the
monument is finalized (by December 2003). The overriding management goal for all
monuments is protection of the objects described in the proclamations.
The amount of detail on land uses varies among the monuments. For instance,
the proclamations for the California Coastal and President Lincoln and Soldiers’
Home Monuments generally do not address as many issues as the proclamations for
other monuments. Some issues may not arise for these two monuments given their
distinctive characteristics—the off-shore nature of the California Coastal Monument
and the small size of the house and grounds of the President Lincoln and Soldiers’
Home Monument. Most of the other monuments protect large parcels of on-shore
land with diverse features.
20 Tulare County, et al, v. Clinton, 1:00CV02560, (D.D.C.).
21 16 U.S.C. § 1609.
22 See infra note 14.
23 For more information on Grand Staircase-Escalante, see 1) U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument:
Management Plan (Cedar City, Utah: 2000); and 2) CRS Report 98-993, Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument.

---

CRS-14
Except for the proclamation for the President Lincoln and Soldiers’ Home
National Monument, the proclamations establish or enlarge the monuments subject
to valid existing rights. Existing uses of the land that are not precluded by the
proclamations, and do not conflict with the purposes of the monuments, generally may
continue. Supporting documents for the BLM monuments state that the exercise of
such rights could be regulated where necessary to protect a monument under BLM
administration.
Mineral Development
The 13 proclamations issued by President Clinton withdrew monument lands
from new mineral development. The proclamations state that such withdrawals are
subject to valid existing rights, except that the proclamation for the President Lincoln
and Soldier’s Home does not address valid existing rights. Subject to valid existing
rights, most of the proclamations bar new mineral leases, mining claims, prospecting
or exploration activities, and oil, gas, and geothermal leases, by withdrawing 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.
For Canyons of the Ancients, the prohibition is similar except that the
proclamation allows new oil and gas leasing (including carbon dioxide) under
specified circumstances. In addition to continuing existing oil and gas leases, the
Secretary may issue new leases only to promote conservation of oil and gas resources
in any common reservoir being produced under existing leases, or to protect oil and
gas resources against drainage.24 Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of the
Interior is to manage oil and gas development so as not to create any new impacts that
interfere with the care and management of the monument.
These oil and gas leasing provisions were included because, at the time Canyons
of the Ancients was created, about 85% of the monument lands had been leased for
oil and gas development and development was underway. Production primarily occurs
on the McElmo Dome field, which contains carbon dioxide reserves, and the overlying
Island Butte II, Cutthroat, and Canyon units, which produce natural gas, condensate,
and oil. Supporting agency materials state that as production is completed, the area
will be reclaimed, and there will be no new development thereafter. Production from
current leases is estimated to last for 30 to 40 years.25
Withdrawals Preserved
The 13 proclamations state that existing withdrawals, reservations, and
appropriations continue, but the monument becomes the dominant reservation. This
24 New leases could promote conservation of the oil resources by more efficiently emptying
an oil reserve and may be necessary to prevent drainage of the federal portion of a common
reserve by nonfederal drilling.
25 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Background Materials on
the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, June 9, 2000, on BLM’s website at: [http:
//www.co.blm.gov/canm/canmback.htm].

---

CRS-15
generally requires that uses of monument lands be managed to protect monument
values and, if there is a conflict with uses otherwise authorized, protection of the
monument governs. Prior to the creation of a monument, for instance, lands in the
area may have been removed or withdrawn from the operation of some or all of the
public land laws, or from being subject to some particular use, either by statute or
secretarial order. Such withdrawals generally remain in effect until they expire or are
specifically modified or revoked.
Grazing
Grazing expressly may continue in several of the monuments created (or
enlarged) by President Clinton, according to the proclamations. For Agua Fria,
Canyons of the Ancients, Craters of the Moon, Giant Sequoia, Grand Canyon-
Parashant, Grand Staircase-Escalante, Ironwood Forest, and Vermilion Cliffs, grazing
would continue to be governed by laws and regulations other than the proclamations.
BLM is to continue to issue and administer grazing leases within the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area of the Grand Canyon-Parashant Monument, in accordance
with the law establishing that area.26 Grazing may continue to be permitted in the
expanded Pinnacles area, under the proclamation, although it is not allowed elsewhere
in the monument.
The proclamation for Cascade-Siskiyou states that existing grazing permits or
leases may continue, with “appropriate” terms and conditions. In addition, the
Secretary of the Interior is to study the impacts of grazing on objects of biological
interest within the monument. The Secretary is instructed to retire allotments if
grazing is determined to be incompatible with protecting monument objects of
biological interest. If permits or leases are relinquished by existing holders before the
study is completed, the Secretary may reallocate forage for grazing only if reallocation
furthers the protection of the monument.
For Hanford Reach, the proclamation requires the Secretary of the Interior to
prohibit grazing to protect monument objects. The proclamations for California
Coastal and President Lincoln and Soldier’s Home do not directly address grazing,
apparently because grazing is not an issue for these monuments.

For BLM monuments, the agency’s interim monument management policy
generally allows livestock grazing in accordance with existing permits and leases.
Under existing laws, policies, and procedures, BLM generally is allowed to make
adjustments to grazing permits and leases. This authority is reflected in the interim
policy. For instance, adjustments could be made to ensure that proper stocking levels
are not exceeded, which the interim policy characterizes as of “paramount
importance.”
26 16 U.S.C. §460n-3. The NPS and the BLM share management authority for Grand Canyon-
Parashant, but, under the proclamation the NPS has primary management authority over the
land within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

---

CRS-16
Timber
The 13 proclamations imply that timber cutting is precluded, through a general
prohibition against removing any “feature” of the monuments. In addition, two of the
proclamations contain specific provisions on timber. Commercial timber harvesting
is specifically prohibited in Cascade-Siskiyou, except when part of an authorized
ecological restoration project. The area currently is under a timber harvesting
moratorium, and the proclamation makes this moratorium permanent, according to
a White House press release (dated June 9, 2000). New timber production is
precluded in Giant Sequoia, but timber sales under existing contracts and those with
a decision notice signed between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 1999, may be
completed under the terms of the decision notice or contract. This provision provides
a transition period of approximately two and a half years during which timber sales
are phased out.
For both Cascade-Siskiyou and Giant Sequoia, some trees may be removed as
needed for ecological restoration, maintenance, or public safety, and also for personal
fuelwood in the case of Giant Sequoia. Ecological restoration activities may be
needed to counteract the effects of previous fire suppression and logging, according
to the Giant Sequoia proclamation.
The final management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante prohibits commercial
timber harvesting within the monument. Other provisions of the plan address
collecting forestry products. For instance, the plan allows fuelwood harvesting, post
cutting, and Christmas tree cutting by permit, within designated areas.
Water Rights
Federal reserved water rights often have been controversial, but frequently have
been asserted and upheld with respect to management of national monuments and
parks. Subject to other valid existing water rights, water rights necessary to protect
monument objectives are expressly reserved for the federal government in several of
the monuments: Agua Fria, Cascade-Siskiyou, Giant Sequoia, Hanford Reach, and
Pinnacles. These proclamations do not relinquish or reduce any federal water use or
rights that existed prior to the establishment of the monuments.
The proclamations for Canyons of the Ancients, Craters of the Moon, Grand
Canyon-Parashant, Ironwood Forest, and Vermilion Cliffs expressly do not reserve
federal water rights, but also do not relinquish any existing federal water rights.
Federal land management agencies are to work with state authorities to ensure that
sufficient water is available for the monuments. The proclamation for Grand
Staircase-Escalante also states that water rights are not reserved. It directed the
Secretary of the Interior, in preparing the monument management plan, to evaluate
the necessity of water for the care and management of the objects and resources
protected by the monument, and the extent to which further action is needed under
federal or state law to assure availability of water. The final monument management
plan does contain provisions on water, including several that seek to assure water
availability and quality. One such provision states that BLM may seek appropriative

---

CRS-17
water rights under Utah State law for the limited visitor facilities within the monument
that need water.
The proclamations for two monuments—the California Coastal and President
Lincoln and Soldier’s Home Monuments—do not address water rights, apparently
because water rights is not an issue for these monuments, given their unusual nature.

Fish and Wildlife
For most of the monuments, the existing authority of the state (in which the
monument is located) for fish and wildlife management on federal lands would
continue. This means that the state can regulate fish and wildlife on federal lands,
notably fishing and hunting, except as overridden or modified by the Secretary.
Hunting is banned in the expanded Pinnacles Monument area, as is typically the case
on NPS lands under general NPS authorities. Hunting had been allowed when the
land was managed by BLM. Hunting also is banned on lands added to the Craters of
the Moon National Monument that will be managed by the NPS, according to a BLM
fact sheet.
The California Coastal and President Lincoln and Soldier’s Home Monuments
do not address fish and wildlife management. While not explicitly stated, existing fish
and wildlife authority is generally not affected by the proclamation for the California
Coastal Monument. According to the Clinton Administration, the proclamation does
not affect federal or state authority over fishing, oil and gas development, or other
uses of adjacent water. However, the proclamation protects federally-owned features
in the “near-shore ocean zone” for 12 miles from shore, in part to provide for feeding
and nesting habitat. This may raise questions as to authority to regulate fisheries
between the state, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior.

Although the proclamations do not change state authority for fish and wildlife
management, it is likely that the federal monument managers will work in conjunction
with state authorities in managing fish and wildlife. Federal managers have authority
to modify or override state regulation in some instances. BLM’s management plan
for Grand Staircase-Escalante, for instance, contains five objectives and numerous
actions for managing fish and wildlife. One objective is to manage land uses within
the monument so as to prevent damage to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Another
objective is to work cooperatively with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to
reestablish populations of native species and to protect and enhance the habitat of
native species.
Off-Road Vehicle Use
Using motorized and mechanized vehicles off-road, except for emergency or
authorized purposes, is prohibited under the proclamations for several
monuments—Agua Fria, Canyons of the Ancients, Cascade-Sisikiyou, Craters of the
Moon, Grand Canyon-Parashant, Hanford Reach, Ironwood Forest, and Vermilion
Cliffs. The ban is designed to protect objects within the monuments. Similarly, the
interim policy governing BLM monuments generally bars motorized and mechanized
vehicles off-road, and states that management discretion should be used where

---

CRS-18
necessary to protect monument resources, such as through emergency closures.
Whether to allow vehicular travel on designated routes, or to close routes to vehicular
use in those monuments where such use is not expressly prohibited, likely will be
addressed when drafting the management plan for each monument. For example,
although the proclamation creating Grand Staircase-Escalante is silent as to off-road
vehicles, the final management plan for the monument prohibits motorized and
mechanized travel off-road. Motorized and mechanized vehicles are allowed on
designated routes, which, according to the plan, primarily provide access to particular
destinations and do not present a significant threat to monument resources.
In some of the areas, a prohibition on off-road vehicle use had been in existence
before the monument designations, but the prohibitions may not have been fully
implemented. In other areas that became monuments, off-road vehicles had been
banned only in some places. For instance, for Canyons of the Ancients, the existing
management plan prohibited travel off-road in approximately 25% of the monument
area.
For Giant Sequoia, motorized vehicle use is permitted only on designated roads.
No new roads or trails are to be authorized, except to further the protective purposes
of the monument, and roads and trails may be closed or altered before the
management plan is issued to protect monument objects. Motorized vehicles are
permitted on trails until the end of the year 2000. The management plan is to contain
a transportation plan that provides for visitor enjoyment and education.
The proclamations for California Coastal, Pinnacles, and President Lincoln and
Soldier’s Home do not address off-road vehicles. Off-road vehicle use does not
appear to be an issue in the California Coastal and President Lincoln and Soldier’s
Home Monuments because of the nature of the monuments. Recreational vehicle use
off road is not allowed in the Pinnacles expansion area, according to the NPS, as is
typical for NPS lands.
Some of the proclamations address other transportation issues. For instance, the
proclamation for Cascade-Siskiyou states that the Secretary of the Interior shall close
a particular road to motorized and mechanized vehicular use. Other routes or parts
of routes have been closed under the interim management policy for Cascade-
Siskiyou. The proclamations for Canyons of the Ancients, Cascade-Siskiyou, Craters
of the Moon, Ironwood Forest, and Vermilion Cliffs state that the Secretary of the
Interior is to prepare a transportation management plan that addresses road closures,
travel restrictions, or other actions necessary to protect objects within the monument.

---

CRS-19
Future Monument Issues
The Clinton Administration has expressed interest in creating additional
monuments, citing population growth and increasing urbanization in the West, and
commercial development as threats to the land and its resources. In particular, on
December 22, 2000, Interior Secretary Babbitt announced his recommendation that
President Clinton create four new national monuments and expand an existing one.
The proposed four new monuments, and their estimated federal acreages, are the:
Upper Missouri River Breaks, on 377,346 acres of federal land in Montana; Pompeys
Pillar, on 51 acres of federal land in Montana; Carrizo Plain, on 204,107 acres of
federal land in California; and U.S. Virgin Island Coral Reef, with 12,708 acres of
federal submerged lands off of St. John. The Buck Island Reef National Monument
off St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands would be expanded by 18,135 marine acres of
federal submerged lands. In addition, on January 8, 2001, Secretary Babbitt
recommended that the President create two additional monuments: the Sonoran
Desert National Monument, on approximately 486,000 acres of federal land in
Arizona, and the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, on an estimated
4,100 acres in New Mexico.
In addition, there has been discussion in recent months over a possible monument
designation involving the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) in Alaska. President Clinton reportedly has decided against creating a
monument in ANWR on the grounds that a monument would not provide land
protection beyond that contained in current law.27
Secretary of the Interior Babbitt has expressed particular interest in creating
“national landscape monuments.”28 National landscape monuments evidently would
protect integrated landscapes and ecosystems that are “distinct and significant,” in
contrast with existing monuments, which Secretary Babbitt called “curiosities” that
stand out from the landscape because of their beauty or geographic or historical value.
Whether the President has authority to accomplish these management goals through
the creation of national landscape monuments under the Antiquities Act is not clear.
According to Secretary Babbitt, national landscape monuments would be created
on BLM lands and would be administered by BLM. Secretary Babbitt has sought to
develop the BLM’s role in land protection, broadening the agency’s traditional focus
on mining and grazing and other extractive land uses. To this end, on June 19, 2000,
the BLM announced the creation of a national landscape conservation system,
comprised of the agency’s national monuments, conservation areas, wilderness areas,
wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, scenic trails, historic trails, and other
27 For more information on this issue, see CRS Report RS20602, Presidential Authority to
Create a National Monument on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
28 Much of the description in this section is derived from remarks of Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt at the University of Denver Law School on February 17, 2000, available on the
website of the Department of the Interior at [http://www.doi.gov/news/000222b.html].

---

CRS-20
areas.29 Approximately 39,000,000 acres are in the system, which is approximately
15% of all land BLM administers. According to BLM statements, incorporating these
units into a system will give them greater recognition, management attention, and
resources.
Secretary Babbitt contrasted national landscape monuments with national park
system units administered by the NPS. The landscape monuments apparently would
serve outdoor recreationists but would not accommodate large numbers of visitors;
they typically would lack visitor centers, guides, overnight accommodations, and fees,
so that they would present “an adventure” for visitors. Land uses would not be as
restricted as in units of the national park system, although Secretary Babbitt has stated
that “destructive and incompatible uses” would be barred. New mining activities
likely would be prohibited, but hunting and/or grazing may be allowed if compatible
with the protection of a large landscape. BLM lands that are not given particular
protective designations, such as national monument, typically are open to mining and
other commercial activities.
President-elect Bush reportedly may take a different approach. Some may
encourage the President-elect to proceed slowly in the planning processes of the
newly-created monuments. Others have expressed hope that the incoming President
will modify or overturn some of the recently-created monuments. While it appears
that a President can modify a previous presidentially-created monument, we have
found no court cases deciding the issue of the authority of a President (as distinct
from Congress) to revoke a national monument. While in FLPMA Congress
expressly limited the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to revoke monument
withdrawals and reservations, that language arguably does not affect the President’s
authority under the Antiquities Act, which FLPMA neither amended nor repealed.
However, there is no language in the Antiquities Act that expressly authorizes
presidential revocation; there is no instance of past practice in that regard; and an
attorney general opinion from 1938 concluded that the President lacks this authority.30
Legislative Activity
Congress has considered the issues and policies surrounding the Antiquities Act
and whether and how to possibly amend it. Supporters of the President’s authority
assert that changes to the Antiquities Act are neither necessary nor desirable because
there is broad public support for monument designation, and all Presidents need
authority to expeditiously protect valuable federal lands and resources. Critics
however, contend that the Antiquities Act permits land actions otherwise reserved to
Congress and that they may be taken without congressional input, public participation,
or environmental reviews. Some state and local government officials have expressed
29 See U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, BLM Creates National
Landscape Conservation System, Fry Announces, June 19, 2000, on BLM’s website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2000/pr000619_NCLS.htm].
30 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 185 (1938) (Opinion). For more information on whether a President (as
opposed to Congress) can eliminate a national monument, see CRS Report RS20647,
Authority of a President to Modify or Eliminate a National Monument.

---

CRS-21
concern with presidential actions in their states, while others denounce presidential
action as political or creating undesirable restrictions on land use. Of particular
concern have been the economic effects of actual and potential restrictions on mining,
grazing, logging, and recreational uses.
The 106th Congress considered proposals to address some of these criticisms.
One measure to amend the Antiquities Act, H.R. 1487, stated that to the “extent
consistent with the protection of” the sites being designated, the President was
required to: 1) solicit public participation and comment in the development of a
monument declaration, and 2) “to the extent practicable,” consult with the Governor
and congressional delegation of the state or territory in which lands considered for
designation were located, at least 60 days before a monument designation. The
measure also specified that NEPA was to apply to monument planning. The bill
passed the House and was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, but there was no further action. 31 The Clinton Administration had
pledged to veto the bill.

Another 106th Congress measure, S. 729, was reported by the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, but no further action was taken.32 The Clinton
Administration also threatened to veto this measure. It would have established a
procedure for the Interior and Agriculture Secretaries to make recommendations to
the President as to monument creation and for the President in turn to make
recommendations and submit maps to Congress. Presidential recommendations
would be effective only if approved by Act of Congress. The bill also would have
required the Secretaries to establish processes for public comment, and studies and
recommendations to be conducted in accordance with NEPA.
The 106th Congress also considered legislation to limit funds for administering
the new national monuments and to take away the President’s authority to create
national monuments. For instance, the House rejected an amendment to prohibit
funds under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), H.R. 701, from being
used for national monuments created after 1995. Both chambers considered, but
Congress did not enact, monument-related language as part of the FY2001 Interior
Department appropriations (P.L. 106-291). The House efforts sought to limit funds
for monuments created after 1999.33 The Senate narrowly defeated a floor
amendment (49-50) designed to prohibit the President from creating or expanding
31 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Public Participation in the Declaration
and Subsequent Management of National Monuments, report to accompany H.R. 1487, 106th
Cong., 1st Sess., H. Rept. 106-252 (Washington: GPO, 1999). Also, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Antiquities Act of 1906, report to accompany
H.R. 1487, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., S. Rept. 106-250 (Washington: GPO, 2000).
32 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Monument
Public Participation Act of 1999, report to accompany S. 729, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., S. Rept.
106-372 (Washington: GPO, 2000).
33 For more on House action, see CRS Report RS20625, Provisions on National Monuments
and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project in the FY2001 Department
of the Interior Appropriations Bill.

---

CRS-22
national monuments after a particular date. The language would have allowed only
Congress to create national monuments.
Critics in recent Congresses have put forth other alternatives to amend the
Antiquities Act directly, including: (1) Congress may repeal the Antiquities Act
outright, so that Congress alone can create monuments; (2) Congress could enact
legislation to impose a range of restrictions on presidential authority under the
Antiquities Act, such as limiting the size or duration of withdrawals; or (3) Congress
could prohibit or restrict withdrawals in particular states, as has been done for
Wyoming and Alaska.
Rather than amend the Antiquities Act itself, opponents also have suggested that
Congress overturn or amend a particular presidentially-created monument through
subsequent legislation, as Congress has done occasionally in the past. They point out
that Congress also can control implementation of the Antiquities Act through its
authority over programs (in addition to funds to administer monuments). Some also
may encourage the incoming President to proceed slowly in the planning efforts of the
newly-created monuments.
Additionally, critics have proposed that Antiquities Act designations might be
prevented by congressional establishment of protected areas, such as conservation
areas, wilderness areas, heritage areas, or other conservation units. Congress, too,
can enact legislation to create national monuments. Supporters of congressional,
rather than presidential, action note that Congress is unlimited in its authority to
custom-craft legislation to suit a particular area. For instance, Congress could allow
more land uses than is typical for national monuments created by the President, for
instance by allowing new commercial development, or it can afford additional
protection. Some advocate legislation (as opposed to presidential action) as more
likely to involve the input of local citizens and the larger public.
The 106th Congress also considered a variety of measures to establish protected
areas. Some of these measures reportedly were pursued as alternatives to
presidentially-created monuments. A few such measures, recently enacted, include:
(1) the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-351), (2) the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of
2000 (P.L 106-399), and (3) the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-353).
By contrast, monument defenders generally have not introduced or supported
legislation to change the Antiquities Act. They claim that the Act has been used
throughout the century by Presidents of both parties to protect important federal lands
and resources. They assert that, in the past, even controversial presidential
designations usually have been accepted, supported, and occasionally expanded over
time. They further note that previous Congresses that focused on the authority of the
President to withdraw lands did not repeal the Antiquities Act, and that the courts
thus far have supported past presidential actions under the Act.
Monument designation advocates contend that currently there is widespread
public support for such land protection initiatives. Environmental and conservation
groups generally have favored additional monuments as necessary to quickly protect

---

CRS-23
valuable lands and resources. They assert that merely being in federal ownership
sometimes does not offer enough protection, and that monument designation is
needed to protect for future generations resources that they view as extraordinary,
such as those of supreme scientific, natural, cultural, biological, and historic value.
Further, in some Western communities there is considerable public support for
conservation and protection of open spaces for both “quality of life” and economic
reasons. Some communities see the increased tourism and recreation that may result
from monument designation as exceeding the benefits of traditional commercial
development.
The Clinton Administration cited frustration with the slow pace of legislated land
protection as justification for the President to create national monuments. Secretary
Babbitt stated that President Clinton used his authority under the Antiquities Act to
designate additional monuments where areas of interest to the Clinton Administration
are not being protected through the legislative process. The Clinton Administration
and other supporters of the Antiquities Act charge that expeditious action is needed
to protect valuable federal lands and resources that may be threatened imminently or
in the future. Monument supporters have cited threats including looting, vandalism,
increased recreation, population growth, and commercial development.

---

CRS-24
Appendix: Chronology of Monuments Established or
Enlarged During the Clinton Administration
September 18, 1996
To date, President Clinton has created 11 new monuments, and enlarged two
other monuments, using the authority contained in the Antiquities Act. All but one
of the monuments were created (or enlarged) during 2000. President Clinton created
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah on September 18, 1996.34
The proclamation for this monument notes that it contains geological,
paleontological, archaeological, biological, natural, and historical resources. While
covering a broad and diverse area, the monument contains three primary
physiographic regions: the Grand Staircase, the Kaiparowits Plateau, and the
Escalante Canyons. It currently contains approximately 1,870,800 acres of federal
land, and an additional 15,000 acres of private land are within the borders of the
monument. These figures reflect land exchanges and boundary adjustments since the
monument was proclaimed.
Under the proclamation, the monument is being managed by the BLM; the BLM
was managing the lands before the monument designation, and the Clinton
Administration sought to enhance the conservation role of BLM. The proclamation
gave BLM three years to develop a plan for managing the monument, and in February
2000, the final plan became effective.35 The management plan calls for the
establishment of a Monument Advisory Committee, comprised primarily of scientists,
to advise monument managers on science issues and on implementing the management
plan. It emphasizes maintaining the primitive and remote state of the land, while
providing for the study of scientific and historic resources within the monument.
Developed recreation is limited to small areas of the monument and major visitor
facilities will be located outside the monument; motorized access is limited; and the
lands are withdrawn from new mineral development, subject to valid existing rights.
The heart of the management plan is a zone system, whereby visitor use and activities
are organized according to four geographic areas: the frontcountry zone, passage
zone, outback zone, and primitive zone.
January 11, 2000
On January 11, 2000, President Clinton proclaimed 3 new national monuments
and enlarged a fourth. The new monuments are the Grand Canyon-Parashant
National Monument, the Agua Fria National Monument, and the California Coastal
34 Proc. 6290, September 18, 1996; 61 Fed. Reg. 50,223 (September 24, 1996).
35 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument: Management Plan (Cedar City, Utah: 2000.)

---

CRS-25
National Monument. The enlarged monument is the Pinnacles National Monument.36
The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument was established in
Northwestern Arizona. The proclamation states that the monument includes canyons,
mountains, and buttes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon, and contains geological,
biological, historic, paleontological, and archaeological resources. It encompasses the
lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau, a watershed of the Colorado River and Grand
Canyon. The monument contains approximately 1,023,785 acres of federal land,
although an additional 21,979 acres of state land and 8,500 acres of private land are
included within its borders.
Before the Grand Canyon-Parashant Monument was created, the land within its
boundaries was managed by the NPS (the Lake Mead National Recreation Area) and
BLM (the other lands). The two agencies also are to manage the new monument
jointly, and prepare an agreement for sharing related resources. The NPS will
continue to have primary management authority over the land within the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area (216,544 acres), and the BLM will have primary authority
over the rest (807,241 acres).
The Agua Fria National Monument was created in Arizona, about 40 miles north
of Phoenix. The monument includes two mesas and the canyon of the Agua Fria
River. The proclamation states that the land contains prehistoric ruins including
petroglyphs, agricultural areas, and rock pueblos; historic sites; and biological and
scientific resources. The monument contains approximately 71,100 acres of federal
land, although another 1,444 acres of private land are within its borders. The
proclamation assigns BLM responsibility for managing the monument; the BLM was
managing the lands before the monument designation, and the Clinton Administration
sought to enhance the conservation role of BLM.

The third new monument, the California Coastal National Monument, is
comprised of thousands of federally-owned islands, rocks, reefs, and pinnacles above
mean high tide within 12 miles of the California shoreline. The proclamation states
that the lands, which extend the length of the California coast, contain biological
resources and geological formations and provide feeding and nesting grounds for sea
mammals and birds. The monument contains approximately 7,000 acres of federal
land. The proclamation assigns BLM responsibility for managing the monument.
While the lands were under BLM’s jurisdiction before monument designation, the
California State Department of Fish and Game had been managing the lands within
California Coastal on behalf of BLM, under a memorandum of understanding.
Management by the state agency is expected to continue (with any necessary revisions
to the memorandum of understanding).

36 The relevant presidential proclamations are as follows: for the Grand Canyon-Parashant
National Monument, Proc. No. 7265; for the Agua Fria National Monument, Proc. No. 7263;
for the California Coastal National Monument, Proc. No. 7264; and for the Pinnacles
National Monument, Proc. No. 7266. They are all published at 65 Fed. Reg. 2821-2834
(January 18, 2000).

---

CRS-26
The Pinnacles National Monument, located south of San Jose, California, was
originally proclaimed in 1908 to preserve rock formations and a series of caves
underlying them, and has been expanded several times. The proclamation states that
the current expansion includes additional pieces of the faults that created the
geological formations throughout the monument, the headwaters that drain into the
basin of the monument, and a biological system of plant and animal communities. The
expansion consisted of approximately 7,900 acres of federal land, and an additional
2,850 acres of private land are within the borders of the monument. The expanded
monument now consists of approximately 24,165 acres. Pinnacles was being
managed by the NPS before the current expansion, and the NPS also will manage the
additional 7,900 acres. The expansion lands were being managed by the BLM before
the proclamation.
April 15, 2000
On April 15, 2000, President Clinton proclaimed the Giant Sequoia National
Monument in California.37 The proclamation states that it seeks to protect groves of
giant sequoias, geological formations, limestone caverns, paleontological resources,
archaeological sites, historic remnants, and diverse ecological components, among
other features. The monument contains approximately 327,769 acres of federal land,
although an additional 5,127 acres of state land and 22,399 acres of private land are
included within its borders.
The monument is managed by the Secretary of Agriculture, together with the
underlying Sequoia National Forest, acting through the Forest Service. Prior to the
monument designation, the lands were under the authority of the Forest Service. The
Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, is to
develop a management plan within three years and may develop special management
rules and regulations governing the monument. The Secretary, in consultation with
the National Academy of Sciences, is to appoint a scientific advisory board to assist
in developing the initial management plan for the monument.
June 9, 2000
On June 9, 2000, President Clinton proclaimed 4 new national monuments. The
monuments are the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, the Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument, the Hanford Reach National Monument, and the
Ironwood Forest National Monument.38
The Canyons of the Ancients National Monument was established in Southwest
Colorado, in the Four Corners region. The proclamation states that the area contains
the highest known density of archaeological sites in the United States–more than
37 Proc. 7295, April 15, 2000; 65 Fed. Reg. 24,095 (April 25, 2000).
38 The relevant presidential proclamations are as follows: for the Canyons of the Ancients
National Monument, Proc. No. 7317; for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Proc.
No. 7318; for the Hanford Reach National Monument, Proc. No. 7319; and for the Ironwood
Forest National Monument, Proc. No. 7320. They are all published at 65 Fed. Reg. 37,243-
37,262 (June 13, 2000).

---

CRS-27
5,000 recorded archaeological sites, and possibly thousands more unrecorded. These
cultural resources include ancient villages, sacred springs, and cliff dwellings. The
monument also encompasses natural resources and a wide variety of wildlife species.
It contains approximately 163,852 acres of federal land, and an additional18,570 acres
of private land are included within its borders. The proclamation assigns BLM
responsibility for managing the monument; the BLM was managing the lands before
the monument designation, and the Clinton Administration sought to enhance the
conservation role of BLM. Four units of the Hovenweep National Monument,
comprising about 400 acres, are within the boundaries of the monument but are not
part of the monument itself. These areas will continue to be managed by the NPS.
The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is located in Southwestern Oregon,
and includes Soda Mountain. The proclamation states that the monument includes
a variety of plants and animals from each of three ecoregions that converge: the
Cascade, Klamath, and Sisikiyou ecoregions. It includes geological features, such as
Pilot Rock, a volcanic plug that provides an example of the inside of a volcano. It
also has archaeological and historic attributes. The monument contains
approximately 52,790 acres of federal land, although an additional 32,383 acres of
private land are included within its borders. The proclamation makes BLM
responsible for managing the monument; the BLM was managing the lands before the
monument designation, and the Clinton Administration sought to enhance the
conservation role of BLM. The proclamation gives the Secretary of the Interior three
years (by June 9, 2003) to prepare a monument management plan, and the Secretary
is to promulgate appropriate regulations.
The Hanford Reach National Monument, located in Southcentral Washington
along the Columbia River, has been a buffer area in a federal reservation conducting
nuclear weapons development. It includes the 51 mile Hanford Reach, the only free-
flowing, non-tidal portion of the Columbia River, where approximately 80% of the
Columbia’s fall chinook salmon spawn. The proclamation states that the monument
contains archaeological deposits; biological resources including riparian, aquatic, and
shrub-steppe habitats with a high diversity of plant and animal species; and geological
and paleontological attributes such as the cliffs known as the White Bluffs. The
monument contains approximately 195,843 acres of federal land.
Although within the borders of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford
Reservation, much of the land within the monument was being managed by the FWS
prior to the monument’s designation. Under the proclamation, much of the
monument will continue to be managed by the FWS under existing agreements with
the Department of Energy; the DOE will manage areas not covered by agreements
with the FWS. The proclamation also states that upon determination by the FWS and
DOE, the FWS will assume management of monument lands being managed by the
DOE. For monument lands under DOE management, the Secretary of Energy is to
consult with the Secretary of the Interior in developing any management plan, rules,
and regulations. The monument boundaries exclude the nuclear facilities.
The Ironwood Forest National Monument, situated in Southern Arizona near
Tucson, is a desert landscape. The proclamation states that its features include
ironwood trees that can live for 800 years, a high diversity of birds and animals,
geological and topographical resources, and archaeological objects such as rock art
sites. The monument contains approximately 129,022 acres of federal land, although

---

CRS-28
an additional 54,697 acres of state land and 6,012 acres of private land are included
within its borders. The proclamation charges BLM with managing the monument; the
BLM was managing the lands before the monument designation, and the Clinton
Administration sought to enhance the conservation role of BLM.
July 7, 2000
On July 7, 2000, President Clinton created the President Lincoln and Soldier’s
Home National Monument in Washington, D.C.39 Known as Anderson Cottage, the
home is where President Lincoln spent about one-quarter of his presidency and
completed the Emancipation Proclamation to abolish slavery. In support of making
the home a monument, President Clinton noted the historic role it played in our
nation’s history and the need to preserve it. The monument is different from those
created earlier during the Clinton Administration, in that it consists primarily of a
historic site rather than a relatively large parcel of land. The monument contains
approximately two acres of federal land.
Prior to the proclamation, the monument was part of the U.S. Soldiers’ and
Airmen’s Home, which was administered by the Armed Forces Retirement Home, an
independent executive branch agency. The proclamation essentially continues this
arrangement; the Armed Forces Retirement Home will manage the monument,
through the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home. The proclamation also states that the
Armed Forces Retirement Home is to prepare a monument management plan within
three years (by July 7, 2003), and promulgate regulations for the care and
management of the monument (to the extent authorized). Managing the monument,
drafting the plan, and promulgating regulations are to be undertaken in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior, through the NPS.
November 9, 2000
On November 9, 2000, President Clinton created the Vermilion Cliffs National
Monument in Arizona40 and significantly expanded the Craters of the Moon National
Monument in Idaho.41 The proclamation for Vermilion Cliffs, located on the
Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona, states that the monument was established to
protect geologic resources including the Paria Plateau, referred to as a “grand
terrace,” and the Vermilion Cliffs, which consist of multicolored layers of shale and
sandstone. The proclamation also mentions historic, archaeological, biological, and
other resources. The monument contains approximately 293,000 acres of federal
land, and approximately 13,000 acres of state land and 450 acres of private land are
within the monument’s borders. The proclamation accords BLM management of the
monument; the BLM was managing the lands before the monument designation, and
the Clinton Administration sought to enhance the conservation role of BLM.
39 Proc. 7329, July 7, 2000; 65 Fed. Reg. 43,673 (July 13, 2000).
40 Proc. 7374, November 9, 2000; 65 Fed. Reg. 69,227 (November 15, 2000).
41 Proc. 7373, November 9, 2000; 65 Fed. Reg. 69,221 (November 15, 2000).

---

CRS-29
The Craters of the Moon National Monument, in Southern Idaho, originally was
proclaimed in 1924 to protect craters and lava flows thought to resemble a lunar
landscape. The current expansion encompasses the whole lava field, which contains
preserved volcanic features such as craters, cones, lava flows, caves, and fissures of
the Great Rift–which is 65 miles long. The proclamation asserts that the area is of
significant scientific interest, and contains some of the last “nearly pristine” vegetation
in the Snake River Plain. The proclamation added approximately 661,287 acres of
federal land to the existing monument of approximately 54,000 acres. The expansion
area also contains approximately 7,000 acres of state land and an additional 7,000
acres of private land.
The existing Craters of the Moon National Monument was being managed by the
NPS before the current expansion. The expansion lands were being managed by the
BLM before the recent proclamation, but under the proclamation the monument will
be managed “cooperatively” by the BLM and the NPS. The proclamation states that
the NPS will have primary management authority for monument lands containing the
exposed lava flows, and that BLM will have primary authority for the remaining
monument lands. A BLM fact sheet specifies that 410,512 acres of the expansion
lands are transferred from the BLM to the NPS to be managed in the same manner as
the existing monument. The remaining portion of the expansion, 250,775 acres,
contains lands historically used for grazing, and these lands will continue to be
managed by the BLM.

---