Two new natl monuments: how to give planning input?

RPreeb wrote:
I really don't understand this. The NPS is supposed to be the agency that oversees the National Parks, Monuments and Historical Parks/Military Battlefields. Those places are held in trust as places of natural wonder or historic interest and are preserved and managed essentially for tourism.

The USFS and BLM manage public lands for multiple use, including tourism, but also encompassing many commercial uses.

The two agencies really have different missions and the official designation or natural character of the lands has always dictated who has control. National monuments have always come under the umbrella of the NPS and Department of the Interior, not USFS or BLM and Department of Agriculture. If what is being reported here is accurate, this is a disturbing departure from the norm.

Exactly and I would still contact the NPS for information. I am sure they would know more than folks on a forum.

Took me a bit of searching to find a map of Gold Butte NM, so here's the link for anyone who wants it:1
http://www.friendsofgoldbutte.org/gbnm-map/

Looking at it on google maps, it seems the entryway requires going through Bundy territory. I think that might be your biggest impediment to boondocking, not the BLM.

Edit: Yeehaw! New Gold Butte Road has google street view! For the beginning part, anyway. Pretty country, and the satellite view shows fascinating, colorful geology. There's an area called Juanita springs that looks really nice, tho somewhat overrun with ORV trails. I love desert springs.

I'd be afraid to go there alone, though.

profdant139 wrote:
So my narrow question is this -- does anyone know how we (the RVing public) can get involved in the planning stage of these new monuments? I am hoping that parts of these areas will be open to boondocking, and perhaps off-roading, while still maintaining the wild and natural feel of the desert southwest.

Trying to get this thread back on topic. I don't know about how to get involved in the planning process, but I do know that many of the boondocking locations around the NFS part of the Bears Ears area have been closed and vegetated over the last 10 years or so. Seems unlikely they would reverse those changes. That's not to say there's not other boondocking locales still available in that area. Just that ones we went to 15 or 20 years ago are no longer available.

RPreeb wrote:
I really don't understand this. The NPS is supposed to be the agency that oversees the National Parks (True), Monuments (Not true, as other agencies also currently manage national monuments) and Historical Parks/Military Battlefields (True). Those places are held in trust as places of natural wonder or historic interest and are preserved and managed essentially for tourism.

The USFS and BLM manage public lands for multiple use, including tourism, but also encompassing many commercial uses.

The two agencies really have different missions and the official designation or natural character of the lands has always dictated who has control. (Definitely not true) National monuments have always come under the umbrella of the NPS and Department of the Interior, not USFS or BLM and Department of Agriculture. (Not true - where did you get this information?) If what is being reported here is accurate, this is a disturbing departure from the norm.(Again, untrue. Not a departure from existing situation)

I have no idea where you are getting your information, but it is not accurate. The USFS, BLM, and F&WS also manage national monuments and have for many years. In fact, even the Department of Energy and NOAA manage national monuments. There is nothing unusual and certainly nothing "disturbing" about other agencies managing national monuments.

Here is an exact quote from the White House designation of Bears Ears National Monument:
The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (Secretaries) shall manage the monument through the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pursuant to their respective applicable legal authorities, to implement the purposes of this proclamation. The USFS shall manage that portion of the monument within the boundaries of the National Forest System (NFS), and the BLM shall manage the remainder of the monument. The lands administered by the USFS shall be managed as part of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The lands administered by the BLM shall be managed as a unit of the National Landscape Conservation System, pursuant to applicable legal authorities.

Here is the designation for Gold Butte National Monument:
After issuance of this proclamation, the Secretary shall, consistent with applicable legal authorities, transfer administrative jurisdiction of the BOR lands within the boundaries of the monument to the BLM. The Secretary, through the BLM, shall manage lands within the monument that are subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the BLM as a unit of the National Landscape Conservation System.

For purposes of protecting and restoring the objects identified above, the Secretary, through the BLM, shall prepare and maintain a management plan for the monument and shall provide for maximum public involvement in the development of that plan including, but not limited to, consultation with State, tribal, and local governments.

And yes, the missions of these various agencies are different - as they should be. However, the BLM, F&WS, and USFS manage many protected areas, including far more acreage of Wilderness than the NPS manages, and often have a more "protective" approach in their management of Wilderness than does the NPS.

Also, please check the mission of the National Park Service, it isn't just for tourism.

Again, I am just trying to report facts here, so people can get the story straight, rather than the misinformation that is so common in these threads.

Now I will provide my own opinion, which I've previously stated. I am NOT in favor of outgoing Presidents (and Obama hasn't been the only one) designated millions of acres on a whim as they leave office, and thereby prohibiting legitimate uses that have been in place for years. Perhaps these places need additional protection, perhaps not. But it should be done in an open, honest, and systematical way, not with a single stroke of the pen at the 11th hour of an outgoing President.

OK. I'm off my soapbox.

They have had several meetings over the years, most of them you have to travel to the area to attend. It's been almost a year since I attended one, and don't know which of the proposed boundaries got approved yet.

As for the reasons they were looking to get national monument protection, they were primarily trying get around the requirements for public input, and the rules governing access and use of national forest and BLM land. From my understanding, the land will now be governed by National park service, but managed by the BLM and Forest service, more or less as subcontractors, with a board to be selected to govern so to speak. The lands currently owned and managed by the state of Utah will be confiscated, with ownership of "equal" amounts of land somewhere else turned over to the state in a land swap. As for how it all shakes out organization wise, they still haven't sorted all the details out regarding Grand Staircase, so expect it to take years. I try to attend as many land use meetings as I can, and could try and get the word out on when they are being held. It almost seems like they try and keep them secret.

From the meetings I did attend, the primary purpose of getting National monument designation was so that they could bypass current right of ways, and rules for public input, to restrict access much more so than they do now. By closing roads and trails it was hoped that people could be kept out of archeological sites, thus reducing vandalism and theft. The primary bad guys were made out to be ATV/4X4 users and sadly RV'ers. I confess to be one of the folks that spend a lot of time in this area doing both. Currently you hear the media talking about controlling mining/drilling which is somewhat misleading. Most of the land was already federal property albeit managed under somewhat different rules than they will now be. People tend to be more supportive though when you throw that into the mix.

We'll just have to see how things shake out for access. Southern Utah is an area I've loved since I was a little kid when we lived in that area for a couple years, and I developed my love of the outdoors as my dad took me out exploring virtually every weekend. With so many people visiting now, I really don't know what the answer is. From what I have seen though, the general consensus seems to be to do away with off pavement travel, to include RV's.

I really don't understand this. The NPS is supposed to be the agency that oversees the National Parks, Monuments and Historical Parks/Military Battlefields. Those places are held in trust as places of natural wonder or historic interest and are preserved and managed essentially for tourism.

The USFS and BLM manage public lands for multiple use, including tourism, but also encompassing many commercial uses.

The two agencies really have different missions and the official designation or natural character of the lands has always dictated who has control. National monuments have always come under the umbrella of the NPS and Department of the Interior, not USFS or BLM and Department of Agriculture. If what is being reported here is accurate, this is a disturbing departure from the norm.

Dewey, that's exactly why I asked my initial question -- there is a whole alphabet soup of agencies involved, and I was hoping that someone would be able to say which alphabet went with which soup! Thanks.

Roy&Lynne wrote:
I would assume that the National Park Service would be managing that area so I would contact them directly and see if they have any plans and how you can get involved. Check with the Moab or Brice people and see if they have any contacts. I volunteer for a National Wildlife Refuge in our area and they are under the US Fish and Game so that would be my second place to call.

I understand that the State of Utah wasn't to happy with the arrangement but the tribes are pleased, as there are cliff dwellings and Anasazi ruins all over the place. Pictures of the area are amazing.

Nope. Take a look at the designation proclamations.
USFS and BLM for one of them.
BLM and BOR for the other.
NPS and USF&WL have nothing to do with either of them.

I would assume that the National Park Service would be managing that area so I would contact them directly and see if they have any plans and how you can get involved. Check with the Moab or Brice people and see if they have any contacts. I volunteer for a National Wildlife Refuge in our area and they are under the US Fish and Game so that would be my second place to call.

I understand that the State of Utah wasn't to happy with the arrangement but the tribes are pleased, as there are cliff dwellings and Anasazi ruins all over the place. Pictures of the area are amazing.

dewey02 wrote:
...

Having said that, I will go on to say that I am most definitely NOT a fan of Presidents (not just Obama) making these designations as they walk out of the oval office. These are already mostly federally owned lands and being managed under whatever agency is responsible. The designations are just preventing uses that have been deemed acceptable for decades and also they are a last-ditch effort by whatever President is leaving to try to build a conservation legacy for themselves. It is a foolish way to manage federal resources. If these areas truly needed protection, that protection should have come with careful thought and planning and should have been done sometime during the previous 8 years of the President's terms of office.

Agree. The federal government should not designate any new national monuments, Wilderness, or National Parks over local opposition. If local government approves (not just the state legislature) then I am all for it. My understanding both the state and the local counties are emphatically opposed to the Bears Ears designation. Have not heard how the locals feel about Gold Butte.
The Snow Mountain Monument in California had local support, as well as a several others in the state. So I have no problem with those designations. Another proposed monument is the Modoc Plateau, which in the opinion of everyone knowledgeable of the area agrees would be a really bad idea, including both counties Board of Supervisors, local city councils, Chambers of Commerce, the local BLM Area Manager and Forest Supervisor, the two county Fish and Game Advisory Councils, BLM Advisory Board, and National Forest Resource Advisory Committee.