Order Code RS20902
Updated December 19, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Monument Issues
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Presidential creation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 often
has been contentious. The most recent controversy has focused on President Clinton’s
creation of 19 new monuments and expansion of 3 others. Issues have related to the size
of the areas and types of resources protected, the inclusion of non-federal lands within
monument boundaries, restrictions on land uses, the manner in which the monuments
were created, the selection of the managing agency, and other legal issues. The Bush
Administration and Members of the 107th Congress are reviewing President Clinton’s
monument actions. This report will be updated to reflect changes.
Introduction
Presidential establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906
(16 U.S.C. §§431-433) has protected valuable sites, but also has been contentious.
President Clinton used his authority 22 times to proclaim 19 new monuments and to
enlarge 3 others (See Appendix 1). With one exception, the monuments were designated
during President Clinton’s last year in office, on the assertion that Congress had not acted
quickly enough to protect federal land.
The establishment of national monuments by President Clinton raised concerns
including the authority of the President to create large monuments; impact on development
within monuments and access to monuments for recreation; and lack of a requirement for
environmental studies and public input in the monument designation process. Lawsuits
challenged several of the monuments on various grounds, described below.1 The Bush
Administration and the 107th Congress are examining the monument actions of President
Clinton. Monument supporters assert that changes to the Antiquities Act are neither
warranted nor desirable, courts have supported presidential actions, and large segments
of the public support such protections.

1 For more information, see CRS Report RL30528, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act:
President Clinton’s Designations and Issues. Legal issues related to national monuments are
handled by Pamela Baldwin at ext. 7-8597.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
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 Act does not specify particular
procedures for creating monuments. It was a response to concerns over theft and
destruction of archaeological sites, and was designed to provide an expeditious means to
protect federal lands and resources. Congress later limited the President’s authority in
Wyoming (16 U.S.C. §431a) and Alaska (16 U.S.C. §3213).
Presidents have designated about 120 national monuments, totaling more than 70
million acres, although most of this acreage is no longer in monument status. Congress
has abolished some monuments outright, and converted many more into other
designations. For instance, Grand Canyon initially was proclaimed a national monument,
but was converted into a national park. Congress itself has created monuments on federal
lands, and has modified others. President Clinton’s 19 new and 3 enlarged monuments
comprise about 5.9 million federal acres. Only President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used
his authority more often–28 times–and only President Jimmy Carter created more
monument acreage–56 million acres in Alaska.
Monument Issues and Controversies
Various issues regarding presidentially-created monuments have generated both
controversy and lawsuits. Issues include the size of the areas and types of resources
protected, the inclusion of non-federal lands within monument boundaries, restrictions on
land uses that may result, the manner in which the monuments were created, the selection
of the managing agency, and other legal issues. Courts have upheld both particular
monuments and the President’s authority to create them. Most recently, a court dismissed
challenges to Clinton monuments based on improper delegation of authority by Congress;
size; lack of specificity; non-qualifying objects; increased likelihood of harm to resources;
and alleged violations of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA, 16 U.S.C.
§1601 et seq.), Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq.), and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.).2 Another case reportedly
found a President’s action in creating a monument to be unreviewable.3
Monument Size and Objects Protected. Critics assert that large monuments
violate the Antiquities Act, in that the President’s authority was intended to be narrow and
limited. The monuments designated by President Clinton range in size from 2 acres to
1,870,800 acres. Defenders argue that the Antiquities Act gives the President discretion
to determine the acreage necessary to ensure protection of the designated resources, while
reserving “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the
objects to be protected” (16 U.S.C. §431). Critics also contend that President Clinton
used the Antiquities Act for impermissibly broad purposes, such as general conservation
and scenic protection. Supporters counter that the Act’s wording – “other objects of
historic or scientific interest” – grants broad discretion to the President. Further, some
2 Tulare County v. Bush, Civ. No. 00-2560 (D.C. D.C., September, 2001).
3 Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Bush, Civ. No. 00-2072 (D.C. D.C., November 16, 2001).

---

CRS-3
claim that the Antiquities Act is designed to protect only objects that are immediately
endangered or threatened, but others note that the Antiquities Act lacks such a specific
requirement. To date, the courts have upheld the authority of the President in these areas.


Inclusion of Non-Federal Lands. In some cases, non-federal lands are
contained within the boundaries of a national monument. Some state and private
landowners have been concerned that development of such non-federal land is, or could
be, more difficult because it might be judged incompatible with monument purposes or
constrained by management of surrounding federal lands. The Clinton Administration
asserted in testimony that under the Antiquities Act, the monument designation applies
only to federal lands. Monument supporters note that concerned state and local
landowners can pursue land exchanges with the federal government.
Effects on Land Uses. State and local officials and other citizens have been
concerned that monument designation can limit or prohibit development on federal lands.
They argue that local communities are hurt by the loss of jobs and tax revenues that result
from prohibiting or restricting future mineral exploration, timber development, or other
activities. The potential effect of monument designation on energy development has been
particularly contentious, given the current emphasis on energy production. Subject to
valid existing rights, most of the recent 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. Further, mineral activities that would be allowed may have to adhere to a
higher standard of environmental regulation to ensure compatibility with the monument
designation and purposes. Others claim that monuments have positive economic impacts,
including increased tourism, recreation, and relocation of businesses in those areas. Some
maintain that development is insufficiently limited because recent monument proclamations
typically have preserved valid existing rights for particular uses, such as mineral
development, and continued certain activities, such as grazing.
Some recreation groups and other citizens have opposed restrictions on recreation,
such as hunting and off-road vehicle use. Proclamations typically have restricted some
such activities to protect monument resources, and management plans being developed
may contain additional restrictions.
Consistency of Antiquities Act with NEPA and FLPMA. Critics of the
Antiquities Act argue that its use is inconsistent with the intent of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.) to restore land
withdrawal policy to Congress. A withdrawal restricts the use or disposition of public
lands, e.g., for mineral leasing. In enacting FLPMA, Congress repealed much of the
President’s withdrawal authority and limited the ability of the Secretary of the Interior to
make land withdrawals. It required congressional review of secretarial withdrawals
exceeding 5,000 acres,4 and contains notice and hearing procedures for withdrawals.
4 The provision in FLPMA is likely to be an unconstitutional “legislative veto” under INS v.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), because it authorizes the termination of an executive action other
than by act of Congress. However, there have been no rulings on this particular provision.

---

CRS-4
Supporters of presidential authority note that in enacting FLPMA, Congress did not repeal
or amend the Antiquities Act and thus desired to retain presidential withdrawal authority.
Critics of the Antiquities Act also assert that there has been insufficient public input
and environmental studies on presidentially-created monuments, and favor amending the
Antiquities Act to require public and scientific input similar to that required under NEPA,
FLPMA, and other laws. Others counter that such changes would impair the ability of the
President to act quickly and could result in resource impairment or additional expense.
They assert that Presidents typically consult in practice, and that NEPA applies only to
proposed actions that might harm the environment and not to protective measures.
Monument Management. Whereas previously the National Park Service (NPS)
had managed most monuments, President Clinton selected the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and other agencies to manage many of the new monuments. Some
critics have expressed concern that the BLM lacks sufficient expertise or dedication to
land conservation to manage monuments. President Clinton chose BLM where its own
lands were involved, to increase the agency’s emphasis on land protection, and possibly
both to protect the lands and manage them for multiple uses. Mineral development,
timber harvesting, and hunting are the principal uses that would be legally compatible with
BLM management but not with management by the NPS. Grazing also typically is
allowed on BLM lands, but often precluded on NPS lands. Another concern has been that
non-NPS management is a transfer of an NPS function that may constitute an improper
reorganization of government. Others counter that there is no reorganization because
management of current NPS units, and the general management authority of the NPS, are
unaffected. Still others say that the President might be able to move an NPS function to
the BLM under congressionally-approved authority allowing transfers of functions within
the Interior Department.
Other Legal Issues. The “Property Clause” of the Constitution (Article IV, sec.
3, cl. 2) gives Congress the authority to dispose of and make needed 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. A court recently dismissed a suit raising this issue.5
The recent monument designations have renewed discussion of whether a President
can modify or eliminate a presidentially-created national monument. While it appears that
a President can modify a monument, it has not been established that the President, like
Congress, has the authority to revoke a presidential monument designation. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS20647.)
Administrative and Legislative Activity
Administrative Action. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has announced that the
Department is examining the monument actions of President Clinton. The Secretary is
reported to support a case-by-case assessment to determine where changes may be
desirable, rather than comprehensive reversal of monument designations. Further, the
5 See note 2.

---

CRS-5
agencies are developing management plans for several of the new monuments. In March
2001, Secretary Norton sent letters to federal, state, county, and tribal leaders in the states
where President Clinton designated monuments to seek local input on monument
management. Input was sought on desired boundary adjustments, land uses, resource
protection, access to inholdings, rights of way, water rights, and other issues. The
Department has not taken other action with respect to the Clinton monuments or
announced a schedule for doing so.
Legislative Action. While the past two Congresses considered a variety of
proposals to amend the Antiquities Act, none were enacted. Some sought to facilitate
public participation, require environmental reviews, and take away or limit the President’s
authority to create monuments.
In the 107th Congress, Republican leaders of the House Resources Committee sent
letters to Members with newly-designated monuments in their districts seeking input on
how their constituents and local officials view the monuments. They sought input to
assist in determining whether changes to any monuments should be made through
legislation. A bill (H.R. 601) to allow hunting to continue in the expansion lands of
Craters of the Moon National Monument, through creation of a National Preserve, has
passed the House and been the subject of hearings by a subcommittee of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resource Committee. Two measures have been introduced (H.R.
1334, and S. 689) to govern management of the Governors Island National Monument
and to transfer monument management, at no cost, from the Administrator of the General
Services Administration to the Interior Secretary.
Another 107th Congress bill, H.R. 2114, would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906
to make presidential designations of monuments exceeding 50,000 acres ineffective unless
approved by Congress within 2 years; to the “extent consistent with protection of” the
resources in question, would establish a process for public input in presidential monument
designations; and require monument management plans to be developed in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Bush Administration testified
in favor of this bill, and a subcommittee of the House Resources Committee has marked
up the measure and forwarded it to the full committee.
Appendix 1. Monuments Proclaimed by President Clinton 1
Date and
Name
State
Acreage
Managing
Proclamation
(Federal) 2
Agency
9/18/96
Grand Staircase-
Utah
1,870,800
BLM
Proc. No. 6290
Escalante
1/11/00
Agua Fria
Arizona
71,100
BLM
Proc. No. 7263
1/11/00
California Coastal
California
1,000
BLM 3
Proc. No. 7264
1/11/00
Grand Canyon-
Arizona
1,023,785
BLM & NPS
Proc. No. 7265
Parashant
1/11/00
Pinnacles
California
7,900 4
NPS
Proc. No. 7266
(expansion)
4/15/00
Giant Sequoia
California
327,769
Forest Service
Proc. No. 7295

---

CRS-6
6/9/00
Canyons of the Ancients
Colorado
163,852
BLM
Proc. No. 7317
6/9/00
Cascade-Siskiyou
Oregon
52,951
BLM
Proc. No. 7318
6/9/00
Hanford Reach
Washington
195,843
FWS &
Proc. No. 7319
DOE 5
6/9/00
Ironwood Forest
Arizona
129,022
BLM
Proc. No. 7320
7/7/00
President Lincoln &
District of
2
U.S. Soldiers’ &
Proc. No. 7329
Soldier’s Home
Columbia
Airmen’s Home 6
11/9/00
Craters of the Moon
Idaho
661,287 7
BLM & NPS
Proc. No. 7373
(expansion)
11/9/00
Vermilion Cliffs
Arizona
280,324
BLM
Proc. No. 7374
1/17/01
Buck Island Reef
Virgin Islands
18,135 8
NPS
Proc. No. 7392
(expansion)
1/17/01
Carrizo Plain
California
204,107
BLM
Proc. No. 7393
1/17/01
Kasha-Katuwe Tent
New Mexico
4,148
BLM 9
Proc. No. 7394
Rocks
1/17/01
Minidoka Internment
Idaho
73
NPS 10
Proc. No. 7395
1/17/01
Pompeys Pillar
Montana
51
BLM
Proc. No. 7396
1/17/01
Sonoran Desert
Arizona
486,603
BLM 11
Proc. No. 7397
1/17/01
Upper Missouri River
Montana
377,346
BLM
Proc. No. 7398
Breaks
1/17/01
Virgin Islands Coral
Virgin Islands
12,708
NPS
Proc. No. 7399
Reef
1/19/01
Governors Island
New York
20
NPS 12
Proc. No. 7402
Table sources: Presidential proclamations, agency documents, and agency staff.
1 The following abbreviations are used: BLM: Bureau of Land Management; NPS: National Park
Service; FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service; DOE: Department of Energy; and DOD: Department of
Defense.
2 Non-federal lands, such as state and private lands, are included within the boundaries of some of the
monuments but are not part of the monument and not reflected in this column.
3 The Monument is being managed cooperatively with the California State Department of Fish and Game
under a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM, according to agency documents.
4 The expanded monument now consists of 24,165 acres.
5 To be managed by the FWS under existing agreements with the DOE, except that the DOE manages
certain lands. The FWS is to assume management of DOE lands if the DOE and FWS determine that the
lands have become suitable for management by that agency.
6 The Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH), through the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home, is to
manage the monument. The AFRH is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior through the NPS.
7 The expanded monument now consists of 739,682 acres.
8 The expanded monument now consists of 19,015 acres.
9 To be managed “in close cooperation with the Pueblo de Cochiti.”
10 The Secretary of the Interior is to manage the monument and “transfer administration of the
monument” to the NPS.
11 On November 6, 2001, BLM resumed management of lands being managed by DOD pursuant to a
military withdrawal.
12 To be managed in consultation with the Administrator of General Services.

---