Two new natl monuments: how to give planning input?

[profdant139]

Pres. Obama has just established Bears Ears NM in Utah (near Blanding) and Gold Butte NM in Nevada (near Lake Mead). Let's assume that the declarations are not rescinded under Pres. Trump, although that is possible. (If that happens, then never mind.) I'm not asking whether Obama should have done what he did, nor am I asking what Trump should do. Those are broad political questions beyond the scope of my thread, I hope.

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. The tribes in the area have complained (rightfully) that ancestral sites are being vandalized; I am not sure how that can be prevented, since criminals will be criminals.

I would appreciate any specific info on how to contribute my two cents to the planning process -- thanks in advance!

[clikrf8]

Utah sold some state land near Bears Ears to a private party who then installed a gate to prevent access on one of the roads leading into the monument. I believe this has since been rectified. Also, when the western states were added to the union, they received 2 sections of each section to generate funds for schools. Sections 13 and 36 iirc. This is what was sold to a private interest.

[Heisenberg]

Thank God for the designations.

[dewey02]

clikrf8 wrote:
I am a bit late to the discussion but no federal lands were added. They were already under federal jurisdiction with one agency or another, primarily USFS and BLM. Much of the federal land in Nevada is military.

A little difficult to designate federal parks in the east as there is less percentage of fed land as opposed to state, county or mostly private. Why do people from the east come out west? Duh, open spaces instead of congested megalopolises. I am glad that we do have public lands.

From the Presidential Proclamation on Bears Ears:
To further the protective purposes of the monument, the Secretary of the Interior shall explore entering into a memorandum of understanding with the State that would set forth terms, pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, for an exchange of land currently owned by the State of Utah and administered by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration within the boundary of the monument for land of approximately equal value managed by the BLM outside the boundary of the monument. Reference Link

[clikrf8]

agesilaus wrote:
President Trump will not be able to block these NM. The law provides no way that can be done. Congress would have to pass a law and then Trump would most likely sign it.

Utah is already over 75 percent Federal land and Nevada is 88 percent before these additions. You can see why the locals are upset. Obama should have created huge new NM in New York and Pennsylvania and see how those folks like it. They really need more federal parkland in the east.

I am a bit late to the discussion but no federal lands were added. They were already under federal jurisdiction with one agency or another, primarily USFS and BLM. Much of the federal land in Nevada is military.

A little difficult to designate federal parks in the east as there is less percentage of fed land as opposed to state, county or mostly private. Why do people from the east come out west? Duh, open spaces instead of congested megalopolises. I am glad that we do have public lands.

[Naio]

I dunno, from what I have read the 'grand compromise' specifically did not include local tribes, and that was part of why it failed. Local people didn't like it.

[Searching_Ut]

Back to the original question asked by the OP. It will take time to see how and through what means you may try to have a voice. First you have to wait for the Board, or commission to be formed. Having been to 30 or 40 public meetings or hearings in similar situations, to include being asked to show older maps and testify as to approximate dates etc. to where I've utilized those roads. When you watch how the process works you quickly learn it's money that does all the talking, and the only way you might be heard is through getting one of the larger organizations that dominate these processes to hear you. I've attended many meetings on this area over the years, with the initial push being for what they called the greater Canyonlands National monument. You might find it interesting to research how that process evolved to becoming the Bears Ears National Monument.

From what I've seen to date, organizations that you might get your voice heard through are SUWA or the Sierra club which are closely linked on this. They are by far the most well funded group involved, and are pretty much driving the bus. As a RV user the group involved most likely to take any input regarding boondocking etc is the Blue Ribbon Coalition. For the most part their voice is barely a squeak however as they don't have the mulita million dollar budgets, or political clout.

Finally, for those that do boondock, please clean up after yourself as much as possible, and remember minimal impact. For a couple of years now there have been folks taking pictures, and documenting the damage done by RVers to include the damage from driving off road, trash, dumping of grey, and even sometimes black tanks etc. It's pretty hard to argue against closing an area to protect it when folks are indeed tearing up the land.

[kohai]

profdant139 wrote:
Pres. Obama has just established Bears Ears NM in Utah (near Blanding) and Gold Butte NM in Nevada (near Lake Mead). Let's assume that the declarations are not rescinded under Pres. Trump, although that is possible. (If that happens, then never mind.) I'm not asking whether Obama should have done what he did, nor am I asking what Trump should do. Those are broad political questions beyond the scope of my thread, I hope.

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. The tribes in the area have complained (rightfully) that ancestral sites are being vandalized; I am not sure how that can be prevented, since criminals will be criminals.

I would appreciate any specific info on how to contribute my two cents to the planning process -- thanks in advance!

I think the premise is nice, that we the people can influence the management of the land, but that is not how things have happened so far.

Utah's Representative Rob Bishop has spent years putting together a grand compromise to manage this area but also allow mixed use. Years of getting input from locals and buy-in were swept aside by Obama in designating this new Utah NM.

Simply, they aren't looking for your input or anybody's input unless Trump changes how these agencies function.

[dewey02]

dahkota wrote:

Roy&Lynne wrote:

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.

The BLM is overseen by the Department of the Interior.

The reason that USFS is overseeing some of Bears Ears is because they already oversee that area - it is part of a national forest.

There are 126 National Monuments; 85 are managed by NPS, 41 by other departments. It is not a "disturbing departure from the norm." Giant Sequoia (USFS), Coastal California (BLM), Canyon of the ancients (BLM), Grand Staircase-Escalante (BLM), Mount St. Helens (USFS), etc.

National Monuments are designated for preservation. The resulting tourism is a by product. National Monument designation ensures the land will be better protected and better funded, not necessarily better visited.

Thank you. It is good to see that there are at least a few other folks here that understand the situation and may have read the actual designation orders and understand the situation. In spite of your post and mine (quoting the actual designation orders), some here continue to think only NPS manages national monuments and will be managing these two new ones, (when in reality the USFS and BLM will be) and that anyone else managing a national monument is somehow sabotage.

But then, we are "just folks on a forum" what do we know? I've only worked for the USFS and NPS for 33 years and been involved with resource planning, Wilderness, and other special designations for much of my career.

Yes, other agencies also manage national monuments:

[dahkota]

Roy&Lynne wrote:

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.

The BLM is overseen by the Department of the Interior.

The reason that USFS is overseeing some of Bears Ears is because they already oversee that area - it is part of a national forest.

There are 126 National Monuments; 85 are managed by NPS, 41 by other departments. It is not a "disturbing departure from the norm." Giant Sequoia (USFS), Coastal California (BLM), Canyon of the ancients (BLM), Grand Staircase-Escalante (BLM), Mount St. Helens (USFS), etc.

National Monuments are designated for preservation. The resulting tourism is a by product. National Monument designation ensures the land will be better protected and better funded, not necessarily better visited.

[dahkota]

We are heading to Gold Butte next month. It has been in our plans for a while, even before the new designation and the whole Bundy thing. There is quite a bit of boondocking at Whitney Pockets. There are a lot of 4X4 roads in the area, most open. Sometimes they close because of erosion or tortoise breeding, etc., but this has been going on for a while. The area, having been Federal land since Nevada's statehood, is not a new gov't takeover; it is a change in how the land is managed. For about 15 years, citizens of Clark County, NV have been fighting for greater protection for the area, some even wanting the entire area declared wilderness. This is a great compromise in that recreation will still be allowed but greater oversight (and greater funds) will be given Hereis a good link for more information.

Bears Ears also has some great boondocking. It includes Valley of the Gods, Muley Point and Cedar Mesa. We will also be spending time here this spring.

The NPS, BLM, and NFS announce planning and public input on their websites and via twitter. My suggestion would be to monitor their pages or follow their twitter feed (BLM Utah has their own feed). NPS has the best set up: PEPC. I haven't found anything comparable for the BLM.

[Roy_Lynne]

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.

[Naio]

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.

[4runnerguy]

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.

[dewey02]

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.