Rethinking monuments wins some favor in state
As President Trump considers eliminating or downsizing several of the country’s most famous national monuments, California has emerged as a staunch opponent. Residents are protesting, state lawmakers have passed resolutions and the attorney general has vowed to fight the effort in court.
But in a slice of the southern Sierra foothills, some local leaders are taking a different tack, lining up support for the administration’s review of the protected sites.
Many in the rural region between Fresno and Bakersfield don’t like the rules that have come with designation of the area’s Giant Sequoia National Monument, where 328,000 acres of preserved forest are home to some of the world’s biggest and oldest trees. They say monument regulations ham-
string their ability to reduce wildfire danger and expand recreational opportunities, and they want the burdens lifted.
With the Trump administration pledging to give special consideration to those living near the monuments, the boards of supervisors in both Kern and Tulare counties have scheduled votes Tuesday on whether to formally request changes to Giant Sequoia.
“Communities here are concerned that there are too many restrictions,” said Kern County Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt, who is bringing a proposal before her board asking that supervisors write to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke about scaling back the monument by more than two-thirds — to 90,000 acres.
Tulare County supervisors are also discussing whether to draft a letter. But their request wouldn’t go quite as far, calling for no size adjustment to the monument but looser regulations, so that more trees can be removed to address fire hazards.
At the president’s order, the Department of the Interior is reviewing 27 monuments nationwide, including seven in California, to see if federal protections are needed. Monument status limits what can be done on the properties, from barring logging to preserving historical structures.
The Interior Department says its review will consider whether monuments were properly designated under the 1906 Antiquities Act, whether the federal government has the resources to continue protecting the sites and whether people want the regulations.
While disfavor in the southern Sierra hardly stacks up against the state’s overwhelming support for monuments, critics of Trump say local dissent may be all it takes to tip the hand of an administration intent on eliminating environmental protections.
“In California, the monuments under review are not ones that have met much opposition,” said Daniel Rossman, acting California director for the Wilderness Society, a national conservation group. “But it’s unclear whether this process will rely on the strong support we’ve seen or whether the administration is looking for excuses to remove protections.”
The Interior Department has already recommended shrinking Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. The recommendation came after Zinke heard complaints from local residents and politicians about the site’s size — even though some surveys showed the statewide preference was to keep the site as is.
The Interior Department has not made a decision regarding any of California’s sites, said agency spokeswoman Heather Swift. A verdict is not likely until after a formal comment period ends July 10.
“The secretary is interested in hearing everyone’s opinion,” Swift told The Chronicle in an email. “Local input is absolutely vital in the process, which is why the secretary is visiting monuments and meeting with stakeholders.”
Beyond Giant Sequoia, other California monuments under review are Berryessa Snow Mountain in the North Bay, Carrizo Plain in the southern San Joaquin Valley, Cascade-Siskiyou on the Oregon-California line, San Gabriel Mountains northeast of Los Angeles, and Sand to Snow and Mojave Trails in the Southern California desert.
Nowhere, though, has the issue been as charged as at Giant Sequoia.
The monument, which consists of two unconnected swaths of land within the sprawling Sierra National Forest, was created by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and adds to the groves of towering trees protected at Sequoia, Kings Canyon and Yosemite national parks.
Since its inception, the monument has drawn scorn and even legal challenges from logging companies forced to curtail operations and off-road-vehicle groups
barred from using trails. More recently, local leaders have complained that restrictions prevent removal of trees that died during the drought, raising the threat of catastrophic forest fires.
“This is a health and safety issue for us,” said Eric Coyne, deputy county administrator for Tulare County. “We need the flexibility to do responsible tree mitigation.”
Monument managers said they weren’t at liberty to discuss the site’s designation, but U.S. Forest Service officials said trees can be — and are being — removed for fire safety. Still, monument rules that prohibit regular commercial harvesting can make it more difficult for the government to get logging companies to do occasional and less profitable work.
Reflecting the tension around the debate, several county supervisors in both Tulare and Kern counties declined to speak with The Chronicle before Tuesday’s votes.
While some have been openly critical of the regulations at Giant Sequoia, support for downsizing the site is no sure thing. This month, City Council members in Porterville (Tulare County) rejected a bid by one of their members to formally ask the Trump administration to shrink the monument after opposition surfaced.
That same opposition is vowing to continue the fight this week.
Supporters of the monument say the designation has been critical for conservation of the giant sequoias, a species limited to a narrow 250mile belt on the western flanks of the Sierra Nevada. They say calls for lifting regulations for fire safety are thinly veiled attempts to open the forest to logging and other potentially damaging activities.
“It’s very important that these letters don’t get sent,” said Alison Sheehey, programs director for the group Sequoia Forest Keeper. “We’re talking about the antiquities of old-growth forest. Some of these sequoias are 12 times older than the United States as a nation.”