On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported the Interior Department is reviewing the boundaries of six national monuments, including the Ironwood Forest monument near Tucson, to determine if they should be downsized to allow for more energy and mineral development.
On Friday at a public gathering, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum confirmed the review is ongoing, saying, “We have Western states that are being choked because they have so much public land.” But while he told the World Economy Summit in Washington, D.C., “we’ll go through a thorough review,” he acknowledged, “This is not a top priority for the administration,” The Hill news site reported.
Comments like that from Burgum are one of many reasons that the mood among public lands activists Friday night at a conference in Tempe was not the gloom and doom one might expect given the Trump administration’s clear leanings toward exploiting and possibly selling off public lands for development of oil and natural gas, minerals and housing.
Instead, Aaron Weiss of the Center for Western Priorities cited Burgum’s comments as one of several recent instances he thinks indicate some of the administration’s well-publicized public lands initiatives face an uncertain future if they have a future at all. He and several other conservationists spoke at a dinner at a conference of the National Society of Environmental Journalists.
With the Trump administration, it’s important to realize it operates on three levels, Weiss said:
— “What we think and what they think they’ll do.”
— “What they tell us of what they’re doing.”
— “What they’re actually doing.”
Here are some examples of why the environmentalists are not completely pessimistic about the outlook for public lands.
Monuments
Tucsonan Mike Quigley of the Wilderness Society recalled that 8 years ago, the first Trump administration was seriously considering shrinking Ironwood Monument in size along with three others in Arizona and 27 total nationwide. But huge protests erupted against monument downsizings, including in the Tucson area for Ironwood.
In the end, Interior shrunk two monuments — Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah, although they were downsized by well over 50% each. President Joe Biden restored them in size shortly after taking office in 2021.
“If the past is prologue, which it usually is,” opposition to shrinking Ironwood will arise again, due to its history of having broad public support, Quigley said.
“People are more aware of the threat,” said Quigley, the Wilderness Society’s Arizona state director. “I think it was a little bit of a shock to Tucsonans back then. Now, people are more alert, and more aware that they have to be eternally vigilant, even about the places we thought were safe.”
Ironwood Forest National Monument near Tucson is one of six national monuments whose boundaries the Interior Department is reviewing to determine if they should be downsized to allow for more energy and mineral development, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.
In Burgum’s talk Friday in D.C., he said “government overreach” and the overlap between state and federal agencies had led to “suboptimal” protection and use of the monument lands, the website Semafor reported. Besides Ironwood, Interior is also considering downsizing the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon and four monuments in California, New Mexico and Utah.
“We have an executive order from President Trump to review these, to say, ‘Are they the appropriate size?’” Burgum was quoted as saying.
But given the strong public support shown in opinion polls for national monuments, Burgum’s comment that this review isn’t a top priority may mean “they don’t want to step into this pile of political crap right now,” Weiss said Friday night.
Strategic plan
This past week, the website Public Domain published a leaked draft of a five-year, Interior Department Strategic Plan that placed much heavier emphasis on production and extraction of resources from Interior’s lands than on conservation. The goal is to release a public draft by late May and finalize and publish the plan by Oct. 1.
Among many other things, the plan calls for increasing “clean coal,” oil and natural gas production on public lands under Interior’s jurisdiction through faster and easier permitting, streamlining public processes and “strategic land exchanges.” Deregulation and streamlining of the National Environmental Policy Act and simplifying leasing are also goals of the plan.
It also calls for the federal government to reduce its land holdings to state and local governments so they can lower housing costs and to “return heritage lands and sites to the states.”
It calls for increasing federal revenues from grazing, timber, critical minerals and gravels while at the same time reducing costs, which it doesn’t identify, and regulations. It also supports policies to “open new lands for use.”
It also wants state and federal lands to be restored, cleaned up, and “put to use,” and favors reclamation and closure of abandoned mine sites. It also calls for opening more federal lands to fishing, hunting, camping, ATVs and snowmobiles.
From the writing of the plan, the policies appear to affect all Interior-owned lands, including those of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
A number of environmental groups blasted the plan. American Hunters and Anglers called it “a road map for selling off public lands.” Referring specifically to the plan’s calling for lands to be sold to reduce costs, American Hunters and Anglers co-chair Land Tawney said, “You know what that’s code for? It’s code for sell it off — to the highest bidders, to corporations and billionaires.”
But Weiss, of the Center for Western Priorities, took some satisfaction from Interior’s angry reaction to the release of the leaked plan, which he saw as a sign the department is not truly standing behind it.
“It is beyond unacceptable that an internal document in the draft/deliberative process is being shared with the media before a decision point has been made,” an Interior Department spokesperson said in a written statement.
“Not only is this unacceptable behavior, it is irresponsible for a media outlet to publish a draft document. We will take this leak of an internal, per-decisional document very seriously and find out who is responsible,” the spokesperson added. “The internal document is marked draft/deliberative for a reason — it’s not final nor ready for release.”
Permit streamlining blueprint
On Wednesday, responding to President Donald Trump’s earlier declaration of a national energy emergency, Interior released a plan to dramatically speed federal permitting timetables for a host of energy products such as oil, coal and natural gas, as well as federally designated critical minerals.
It drew swift opposition from environmentalists, who expressed confidence it can be stopped in the courts.
“These measures are designed to expedite the review and approval, if appropriate, of projects related to the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, or generation of energy within the United States,” Interior said in a news release announcing the plan.
The plan specifically targets reviews done under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires detailed environmental analyses of all federal projects and private projects that require federal permits. Today, a project that requires only a more routine environmental assessment can wait up to a year for its completion, while a full-fledged Environmental Impact Statement often takes two years. The new program shaves those permitting timelines to 14 and 28 days, respectively.
The U.S. Geological Survey has designated zinc and manganese as critical minerals, which enabled the Hermosa Mine on Forest Service land near Patagonia to qualify for a fast-track review, although not quite this fast. Copper, mined all over this state, isn’t designated as critical by USGS, but a bill that would designate it has passed the U.S. House.
“The United States cannot afford to wait,” said Burgum in a news release announcing the streamlined permitting program. “We are cutting through unnecessary delays to fast-track the development of American energy and critical minerals —resources that are essential to our economy, our military readiness, and our global competitiveness.
“By reducing a multi-year permitting process down to just 28 days, the Department will lead with urgency, resolve, and a clear focus on strengthening the nation’s energy independence.”
The environmentalist National Wildlife Federation, however, said this program will make it harder for the U.S. to compete globally because of its tilt toward fossil fuels.
“This ‘emergency’ move by the Interior Department will do little to address the immense and interconnected challenges facing people and wildlife. If anything, fast-tracking the development of mines and last century’s energy sources will only exacerbate the climate, wildlife, and environmental justice crises of the 21st century and make us less competitive on the global stage,” said Abby Tinsley, the federation’s vice president for conservation policy.
“A good faith effort to improve energy and mine permitting requires a fully funded and staffed Department of Interior that can carefully consider the environmental impacts and ensure enough time for public comment,” Tinsley said.
But the National Mining Association said the current, prolonged permit process has enabled China to dominate global mineral production.
“The U.S. has the second longest timeline in the world to bring mines online — 29 years — which has not only undercut American mining competitiveness but driven our alarming mineral import reliance. With this streamlined process, we can better compete with China, advance responsible projects, feed our supply chains with responsibly sourced materials, and reliably meet the material and energy demands of modern life,” said Rich Nolan, the association’s president and CEO.
But Weiss and Kate Groesinger of the Center for Western Priorities said this program will be stopped in court before it goes anywhere.
“You can’t do a review under the National Environmental Policy Act in 28 days,” said Weiss, the group’s deputy director.
Groesinger, the center’s communications director, added, “The only way to speed permitting is to hire more permit reviewers.”
