The Trump administration faces a fresh legal battle from environmental groups after the interior department recommended that 10 national monuments be resized or opened up to mining, logging and other industrial purposes.
In a leaked memo, the interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, wrote that the boundaries of some national monuments were “arbitrary or likely politically motivated or boundaries could not be supported by science or reasons of resource management”.
Zinke, who was tasked by Trump in April to review 27 land and ocean monuments created since 1996, wrote that 10 protected areas from Maine to the southern Pacific Ocean must be either shrunk or modified so more mining and other “traditional uses” be allowed.
Conservationists immediately vowed to fight any move to refashion monuments declared by presidents over the last century. The Antiquities Act of 1906 allows presidents to unilaterally protect certain areas of federal land without the need for congressional approval.
“If President Trump accepts Zinke’s advice and moves to eviscerate monument protections, he’d be ignoring the law and the will of the American people,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Her group would fight any changes “in court if necessary”, Suh said.
Zinke’s memo states that there is “no doubt” that Trump has the authority to reshape monuments and cites the example of the Mount Olympus national monument in Washington state that was altered by three presidents up until the 1920s.
Environmentalists argue that legislation passed in the 1970s gives Congress a role in deciding changes to existing monuments.
“We will 100% challenge this in court because presidents don’t have the authority to change monuments,” said Kristen Brengel, vice-president of government affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association.
“It would be horrific to change these areas of beautiful rivers, canyons and architectural sites. Trees are meant to be vertical in conservation, not horizontal. That’s not how you manage a national park unit.
“We hope the president won’t act on these recommendations but if he does, we will be ready.”
Existing grazing and mining are already allowed in many of the national monuments reviewed by Zinke, although new development is largely curtailed. Such restrictions have proved controversial in places such as Bears Ears national monument in Utah, which was designated by Barack Obama in December and has been forcefully opposed by Utah Republicans in Congress.
Zinke’s review states that the Bears Ears boundary should be “revised” and that hunting, fishing and “traditional use” should be emphasized.
The Cascade-Siskiyou national monument in Oregon, the Gold Butte national monument in Nevada and the Grand Staircase-Escalante national monument in Utah should also have their boundaries changed, Zinke’s memo says, although there is no suggestion as to what extent.
Katahdin Woods and Waters national monument in Maine, formed from land donated to the federal government last year by the Burt’s Bees co-founder Roxanne Quimby, should be opened up to timber harvesting, the memo states.
Zinke recommends that commercial fishing be allowed in the Pacific Remote Islands and Rose Atoll national monuments, both in the Pacific Ocean, and the North-east Canyons and Seamounts, in the Atlantic Ocean. The Organ Mountains and Rio Grande Del Norte should also have their proclamations altered, Zinke writes.
“It appears that certain monuments were designated to prevent economic activity such as grazing, mining and timber production rather than to protect specific objects,” the memo states.
The pro-development approach of Zinke, who has declared himself an admirer of former president and conservationist Teddy Roosevelt, has chimed well with Trump and senior Republicans in Congress who have stressed the economic imperative of allowing more revenue-generating activities on federal land.
Opponents of the rollbacks argue that tourism generated by a national monument declaration far outweighs any revenue from mining and point to polls showing strong public support for untrammeled federal lands.