National Monuments Undone??

[RedRoxx44]

According to the local Tucson news 3 republican reps have signed off on having the designation removed from Grand Canyon Parashant, Ironwood National Monument, Vermillion Cliffs and the Sonoran Desert Monument. These are up for review by the current administration. Besides the cost of managing wonder if the rancher/ miner interests are at play here.

[Tough_Boots]

Three out of nine Arizona congressional seats signed a letter asking the administration to remove the national monument designations. No legislation has happened. When you see Paul Gosar's name mentioned, you know some stupid ideas are about to come around the corner.

[flagscott]

Here's what's going to happen: Legislation to undo monuments won't make it through the Senate because of the filibuster. So it's going to be an an executive action. Zinke is going to issue a report saying that certain monuments or portions thereof do not meet the criteria for the Antiquities Act, and drumpf is going to sign a proclamation shrinking or canceling those monuments.

Of course, there is nothing in the Antiquties Act or any other law letting the president undo monument creation (and thank goodness or we might not have a Grand Canyon or a bunch of other national parks). So, the whole mess will end up in federal court for years and will probably not end until drumpf is out of office or the Supreme Court rules on it.

[amy1300]

Isn't Paria Canyon in Vermillion Cliffs NM?

[sidhayes]

Some seem to find it necessary to use insulting names.

[hikeaz]

Isn't Paria Canyon in Vermillion Cliffs NM?

Appears that the Az. portion likely is.
https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/styl ... ffs_NM.pdf

[amy1300]

@kurt
Thanks for map -- looks like the part down to the Confluence is in Grand Staircase-Escalante, which is also on the Administration's "review" list. So all of Paria-Buckskin is up for grabs, I guess.

[hikeaz]

@kurt
Thanks for map -- looks like the part down to the Confluence is in Grand Staircase-Escalante, which is also on the Administration's "review" list. So all of Paria-Buckskin is up for grabs, I guess.

I explore up there all the time, going back 30 years. I am unable to see any material differences before/after the NM designation (maybe a few kiosk signs). Most of the Az./Utah sites on the list are very remote - likely not even visited by some who may be the most vocally opposed - and, I would conjecture, likely not visited by the president that established them.
Actually, before the BLM started permitting the area (which was years before the NM) you almost NEVER saw anyone in the area, including the wave.



From DOI-
Comments regarding reconsidering the NM details may be submitted online after May 12 at http://www.regulations.gov by entering “DOI-2017-0002” in the Search bar and clicking “Search,” or by mail to Monument Review, MS-1530, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
The Department of the Interior seeks public comments related to: (1) Whether national monuments in addition to those listed above should be reviewed because they were designated or expanded after January 1, 1996 “without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders;” and (2) the application of factors (i) through (vii) set forth above to the listed national monuments or to other Presidential designations or expansions of designations meeting the criteria of the Executive Order. With respect to factor (vii), comments should address other factors the Secretary might consider for this review.

[RedRoxx44]

The Parashant area was part of I think the Lake Meade Rec corridor before monument status and I believe admin by BLM which has not changed much except blocking off some TH's and calling them "viewpoints". And requiring permits for overnight below the rim. Road maintenance is still mostly by county I believe, maybe subcontracted out, and that seems to not have changed much. Dry- good, Wet - a slippery mess and likely to get stuck.
My fear would be something like the Ironwood so near an urban center would likely be encroached upon by developers. It apparently happened before. Some significant rock art out there.

[flagscott]

I explore up there all the time, going back 30 years. I am unable to see any material differences before/after the NM designation (maybe a few kiosk signs). Most of the Az./Utah sites on the list are very remote - likely not even visited by some who may be the most vocally opposed - and, I would conjecture, likely not visited by the president that established them.
Actually, before the BLM started permitting the area (which was years before the NM) you almost NEVER saw anyone in the area, including the wave.

You've got this mostly wrong.

As for differences before and after monument designation, you've missed the point: these areas have not changed over time because they are protected. BLM was planning a gigantic coal mine for the Kaiparowits Plateau in the 1990s. It would've meant building a bunch of roads and destroying a beautiful, remote, roadless area. The establish of the Grand-Staircase monument put an end to that. It also resulted in ending cattle grazing on some sensitive areas (http://azdailysun.com/plan-to-retire-ut ... deb48.html). The other monuments may be too new to have made a big difference, but over time, I'm sure that these designations will matter. Under Trump, BLM is looking to expedite mining and drilling--setting aside some areas is a good thing. There are still a zillion acres open to exploitation.

BTW, I've read the Antiquties Act, and it does not require the President to visit the areas designated as monuments. The President makes a lot of decisions without ever leaving Washington (or the golf course in the case of the current president). Interior Secretary Jewell visited Bears Ears and the other monuments Obama designated, and there was a lengthy research process involved: http://www.sltrib.com/home/5216776-155/ ... nt-process

I'm not sure what you're saying about the permits--that the permits caused the crowds at the Wave or surrounding areas? That's pretty silly. The internet/social media and fast-growing populations are the reasons why these places are seeming more crowded now.

[RedRoxx44]

There are actually quite a few roads on the Kaparowits, depending on your vehicle you can drive most of them. However the giant coal mine would certainly have upgraded and made more, and restricted access to most of the Burning Hills and the East of the Navajo near where it would have been centered. But Wild Horse Mesa is huge, as it is also called, and has plenty of no road, trails; plenty to explore.
Cows- they do make a mess, and are destructive on certain landscapes, but they also make some great trails through some nasty areas. They are very good climbers thru some of the sandstone ledges. I have been amazed where I have seen their "evidence".

[Hansenaz]

My fear would be something like the Ironwood so near an urban center would likely be encroached upon by developers. It apparently happened before. Some significant rock art out there.

Me too...link shows the nasty things some developer's can get up to. Same guy recently indicted for bribing APS.

http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarep ... ement.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... ry-charges

[amy1300]

Ironwood and Saguaro both need protection from urban sprawl pressure, people who shoot guns at desert plants, etc, etc. Imo, Saguaro West was actually more enjoyable for hiking before they turned it into a National Park and added "trail signs" to the washes. (Don't know about the other section of Saguaro - I spent my time in the Western one.) I liked it better when it was a National Monument.

[amy1300]

According to PHX New Times, Biggs, Franks, and Gosar signed a letter requesting complete rescission of all 4 Arizona NMs.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/con ... ar-9490537

[rcorfman]

@amy1300
There're a lot more than four national monuments in Arizona. Of all the national monuments in Arizona, only four are being reviewed and those are the four that were requested to be rescinded.

[flagscott]

@amy1300
There're a lot more than four national monuments in Arizona. Of all the national monuments in Arizona, only four are being reviewed and those are the four that were requested to be rescinded.

That's kind of misleading. Yeah, there are 18 (per Wikipedia) national monuments in AZ, and only 4 are due for whatever extralegal sort of cancellation Zinke and Trump have planned. But the area of the 4 monuments being targed is well over 2/3 of the total area of all National Monuments in Arizona (4 monuments = a bit over 2 million acres; remaining 14 = well under 1 million--if someone wants to add up all those areas, go for it).

So, in terms of the total area of protected land in Arizona, this is a pretty big deal.

[LindaAnn]

I'm actually very okay with the National Monument designation being rescinded for all four of these places. I can think of a few more that should be removed too. National Monuments across the country have become bloated, and have strayed too far from their original intent.

[trekkin_gecko]

here's a list: http://www.americansouthwest.net/arizon ... parks.html

[chumley]

I'm in favor of the land preservation but I can also see how some might question hundreds of thousands of acres of the "Sonoran desert" and "ironwood forest" being preserved under the original intent of the Antiquities Act.

But there has yet to be any action taken, and even if something happens, it'll be a long time before the courts hammer out any lasting rulings.

[rcorfman]

But the area of the 4 monuments being targed is well over 2/3 of the total area of all National Monuments in Arizona (4 monuments = a bit over 2 million acres; remaining 14 = well under 1 million--if someone wants to add up all those areas, go for it).

Which in and of itself signifies that those four monuments are probably bloated and should be reviewed.