Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Council approves support for Mountain Pact letter

Letter seeks to stop Interior Dept. review of 1906 Antiquities Act

Posted

At the June 13 study session, the council discussed a request from the Mountain Pact to provide a letter to the U.S. Department of Interior asking the department stop the review of how the 1906 Antiquities Act has been used to select and preserve national monuments. It strongly urges the DOI to maintain and protect the current boundaries of all existing national monuments. 

The Mountain Pact is coalition of western tourism based cities, empowering the mountain communities to build resilience in the face of economic and environmental stresses through federal climate and conservation policy. 

After a spirited discussion at the study session, it appeared the request would go by the wayside. Both Mayor Cheri Kelley Farivar and Councilman Elmer Larsen argued against supporting the letter. Councilwoman Mia Bretz argued to support the letter. 

At the June 27 city council meeting, the topic came up again, this time as a action item on the city council agenda. 

“After our last discussion, Ms. Bretz came and talked to me about the way I had presented the Mountain Pact letter. I suggested we bring it forward again so others could respond. I’m going to ask Ms. Bretz to present her thinking on the Mountain Pact letter,” Farivar said. 

Bretz asked City Administrator Joel Walinski to introduce the topic. 

“Basically, President Trump has asked the secretary (of Interior) to look at how past presidents have gone about selecting national monuments. The issue, from the staff’s perspective, we do see that in some cases what the law has done, in terms of having a review of how a law is used, is not necessarily a bad thing,” Walinski said. “What we’ve seen, like the Apple maggot, or some of the rules the WSDOE has looked at, overstepping, taking the authority farther and farther from a process point of view. Somebody reviewing how authority is used is not necessarily a bad thing.”

On the flip side, Walinski said there is a lot of good that goes into proclaiming and identifying national monuments. 

“Those are very beneficial to a lot of communities. That is probably where the Mountain Pact weighs in the most. They recognize the importance of these national monuments to these mountain towns,” Walinski said. “That is the important part for them once they’ve been selected to keep those in place. They would hate to see the clock turn backwards.”

Bretz said there was a lot of confusion at the study session discussion on this issue. She said, since the Antiquities Act came about, eight democratic and eight republican presidents have utilized it to create national monuments. 

The monuments were created on publicly owned land, she said, as a way of highlighting cultural, scientific or historical significance. 

“An important thing about the reason why the Antiquities Act was created, in my mind, I see it in two ways. One it was initially created because of looting of the southwest lands to try and protect national land. Also the cultural and ecological preservation. The looting usually comes from industry, organizations and groups that have significant ability to advocate for themselves. They have money,” Bretz said. 

A president can set a national monument, Bretz, but it is not clear if the president can take away a national monument. Congress can create and take away national monuments, she said. 

“They have created 40 national monuments themselves. They’ve never taken away one, but they have reduced the size,” Bretz said. “The other thing Congress has done is take national monuments and turn them into national parks. A lot of those national parks are huge tourist destinations. Of course, the Grand Canyon started out as a national monument.”

Bretz said this is a wonderful conversation to have. In Washington, there are three national monuments, Hanford Reach, San Juan and Mount Saint Helens. Hanford Reach is the only one under review currently. 

“Here in Leavenworth, having so many public lands around and a recreation industry which is growing. Our tourism industry is wonderful. I think it is enhanced by having arts and culture, recreation. Our public lands enhance that,” Bretz said. “There’s a lot of reason why the Antiquities Act is important to us and the nation as a whole.”

The point of this letter is not to revoke or repeal the Antiquities Act, but to protest that President Trump has asked for a review of those monuments created in the last 20 years that are over 100,000 acres, Farivar said. 

“The benefits of the Antiquities Act are many and I totally agree with that, but I just want to say this is a protest against the review that we would be signing onto,” Farivar said. 

Bretz said that is not quite accurate. 

“The review opens up public comment about the Antiquities Act so it’s not saying, we oppose your review, it’s saying we support the Antiquities Act,” Bretz said. 

Councilman Elmer Larsen said this is an area not to get involved in too quickly. He said the Antiquities Act has overstepped in years past, particularly in Alaska and Wyoming. 

“I think it is one area we should remain silent on for the time being. I talked to a fellow who had been to the Alpine Lakes and received a $200 fine for going outside the boundary. I look at those kinds of impacts that regulation of a monument would bring,” Larsen said. “It just gets cumbersome. I talked to the chamber to ask if they had a position. They did not want to get involved. Their main fear is the over-regulation that comes with it, like the wetlands. We have so much public land in the immediate area, the last thing we need is for it to be further restricted and controlled.”

Larsen said this is a review process. If they come with a specific proposal, the maybe the council could review and move on that. 

“To simply look at prior decision to see if they are valid, that is the normal process,” Larsen said. “We should have thought more about the Spotted Owl. It’s changed the whole economic system here. We probably lost more owl habitat to fire than we ever did to logging. This is one of those areas where I would really walk softly.”

Councilwoman Gretchen Wearne said her opinion has not changed since the study session discussion. She feels it is a good organization for the city to align itself with because they advocate for communities like Leavenworth. 

Councilwoman Margaret Neighbors said she wanted the council to sign onto the letter. 

“I did go out and do a little bit of study. I went to all my environmental groups. What I’m seeing out there, the Interior Department is trying to change the process. They are cutting it down to 45 days of review, which really limits the input,” Neighbors said. “It’s really focused on this Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. The designation of that national monument was a seven year process by Native American tribes. The land is sacred, the 1.3 million acres.”

The point is, Neighbors said, they are trying to expedite the process. This is one thing where we need to stand together, she said. 

“I am not naive enough to believe us signing onto this will mean that much difference, but I think we need to stand together on the people trying to push on these things,” Neighbors said. 

Councilman Rich Brinkman said he crossed through several national monuments and national parks when he hiked the Pacific Crest Trail. 

“Those are very dear not just to me, but poll numbers indicate significant others,” Brinkman said. “I think the bigger issue is for me, if we don’t stand up and take a stand here. My question is what is possibly next. I intend to support the letter.”

Councilwoman Sharon Waters said she did some research, calling various chambers of commerce in the Tri-Cities, where the Hanford Reach is located. None wanted to take a formal position on the issue. 

For Waters, this issue is a lot like the creation of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. 

“The environmental groups came to this area. They bussed college kids to the hearing when the delegates came to Wenatchee. The loggers were not able to speak,” Waters said. “For me, I’m not comfortable going into another area and moving all these things around. These people in the area (Bears Ears) are not supporting it. I’m with Elmer. We should watch this and see how it goes. From what I see, I’m not in support.”

Farivar said she went back and read the Antiquities Act and several of the alterations of the act, which limited national monuments to 100,000 acres. She said the Bears Ears at 1.3 million acres is an overreach. 

“That is about the size of Chelan County. This week, I heard a report on NPR on this issue. They interviewed public officials and environmental groups and ranchers, miners and tribes,” Farivar said. “One of the things that came to light, some of those tribes that petitioned Bears Ears becoming a national monument they were unaware, they would be prevented from access to the their tribal ceremonial use because it is pretty much locked up.”

The reason the Antiquities Act was first enacted, Farivar said, was not because of corporate looting, but because of individuals looting tribal burial sites. She said she has talked to several people involved in the Alpine Lakes decision. 

“One of the comments was, what if a president wanted to make the Alpine Lakes Wilderness a national monument or make it bigger or take all the forest lands in Chelan County and make it a national monument, then there were be no more logging or use of public lands, except for specific recreational purposes,” Farivar said. 

The Antiquities Act is important, Farivar said, making monuments like Mount Rushmore. 

“It feels inappropriate to me for the city of Leavenworth to take a stand on a review. What is wrong with a review?,” Farivar said. “I don’t have a vote on this issue, but I would strongly ask you to vote no on signing onto this letter.”

Bretz said she listened to the same NPR report and came away thinking there were a lot of groups advocating for it. Farivar said it is certainly taking away from ranching. Larsen said this is certainly taking away hunting and fishing. 

“We have so much federal land here. It just continues to expand. I’m afraid one day we won’t be able to go hiking in our back country,” Larsen said. 

Farivar said they’ve used Bears Ears as an example, but this is not about Bears Ears. 

“What we’re doing by signing on is saying we want the administration not to review existing monuments or the process for creating monuments. That is what we’re doing,” Farivar said. “Not in protest of the Antiquities Act. I think everyone in this room would support the Antiquities Act. There’s no question.”

At that point, Neighbors called for a vote. Bretz, Wearne and Neighbors voted for, Larsen and Waters voted against. Brinkman abstained, saying he wanted more information on the impact to the native people in Bears Ears. Councilwoman Carolyn Wilson was absent. 

The motion passed 3-2. 

Ian Dunn can be reached at 548-5286 or editor@leavenworthecho.com.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here