Nearly doubling Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument sets up battle
Eagle Point, Ore. — To rancher Lee Bradshaw, the presidential order nearly doubling the size of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was both shocking and predictable.
Ever since the original 53,000 acres of public land were designated as a monument in 2000, there had been whispers about enlarging it.
Even so, the announcement during the final days of President Barack Obama’s administration in early 2017 appeared rushed to Bradshaw, particularly since a handful of meetings held about the expansion were more about creating hype than seeking public input, he said.
“I knew it was coming our way, but it was unexpected about the way they did it,” Bradshaw said.
With the federal government adding 47,000 acres to the monument, the ranching and timber industries in Southern Oregon are bracing for the worst.
Critics of the monument say they’ve seen the economic damage caused by the original designation, leading them to expect similar restrictions on grazing and logging within the expanded boundary.
“Through no fault of their own, their operations are in jeopardy,” said John O’Keeffe, president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.
Meanwhile, supporters have cheered the expansion of the monument, which they believe was shortchanged in the initial designation.
“We knew the footprint wasn’t as large as the scientists had hoped for,” said Terry Dickey, board chairman of the Friends of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which promotes and advocates for the monument.
This time, though, the timber industry and county governments are spearheading a legal battle against the monument expansion, arguing the federal government lacks the authority to restrict logging on much of the newly included property.
If the litigation proves successful in scaling back the monument’s size, it would also effectively thwart potential restrictions on cattle grazing.
Although inclusion in the monument doesn’t automatically prohibit grazing — as it does most commercial logging — critics say ranchers will inevitably face increased scrutiny and curtailments.
“Even though the language of the proclamation says grazing can continue, they just regulate you out of business,” said Karen Budd-Falen, an attorney specializing in public land disputes.
Under the original Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument proclamation issued by President Bill Clinton, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had to analyze whether grazing interferes with “protecting the objects of biological interest.”
If necessary, the agency was ordered to retire allotments.
In 2008, the study found “negative interactions between livestock and individual biological objects of interest,” meaning that grazing was “not compatible” with their protection in some locations.
This determination convinced Mike Dauenhauer and several other ranchers to sell their grazing rights to environmental groups for an undisclosed amount.
“The bottom line was we saw the writing on the wall. The end was near,” Dauenhauer said. “We figured anything was better than nothing, and the BLM was going to give us nothing.”
Dauenhauer said he’s skeptical of the study’s objectivity and believes the outcome was largely predetermined.
In his view, the biological diversity of the area was retained through more than 100 years of grazing by cattle, which have an impact on the land similar to that of deer and elk.
“I think the cows are part of the biological diversity. I don’t think they hurt it in any respect as long as they’re managed correctly,” Dauenhauer said.
When the monument was first established, Bradshaw felt as though he’d largely dodged a bullet — fewer than 30 acres of his BLM grazing allotment were included.
Now, roughly half of Bradshaw’s 10,000-acre BLM allotment is encompassed by the monument.
If grazing is eventually restricted on that allotment, he could still graze cattle on private land and a national forest allotment.
However, losing the BLM acreage would disrupt the continual availability of forage through the seasons, potentially rendering his cattle operation economically unsustainable.
“We won’t be able to use our rotational grazing system,” Bradshaw said. “We would lose half our grazing season.”
For the Murphy Co., which owns forestland and plywood mills, the impacts of the monument’s growth are two-fold.
Up to half the company’s timber volume comes from federal land during some seasons, so the expansion equates to a loss of raw material in the long term, said Jake Groves, its operations director.
“It’s wood out of the wood basket,” Groves said. “It’s just been a constant erosion of the available land base, from our perspective.”
Mills are geographically limited in sourcing timber, as some logs are too distant to transport economically, he said.
Logs from the Southern Oregon region are peeled at the firm’s facility in White City, Ore., for raw veneer, which is used in plywood and engineered wood at its other plants.
In all, the company employs nearly 800 people and invests in state-of-the art technology to process logs efficiently, but none of that equipment can operate without wood, Groves said. “This stuff can’t make veneer out of air.”
Aside from the timber supply, the monument expansion affects Murphy’s private forests in the region, he said.
Of the nearly 50,000 acres owned by the company in Southern Oregon, roughly 4,000 acres are surrounded by the monument or are adjacent to it.
Groves is concerned about overstocked federal forests fueling wildfires that will spread onto Murphy’s property, as well as the public outcry in reaction to logging near the monument.
Visitors often don’t realize that private inholdings are within its boundaries, he said.
“It changes the social license. The first time people see logging trucks rolling through the monument, questions get asked,” Groves said. “I don’t have unlimited hours in the day to explain our actions.”
Proponents of the monument say it’s economically beneficial, bringing in hunters, fishermen, snow-shoers, hikers and others.
“There’s a huge amount of tourism-related revenue coming into this area,” said Dickey of the Friends of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.
The monument is also valuable for university scientists and students who research its bountiful animal and plant life, he said. “It’s really great to be able to use the monument as a background for teaching environmental education.”
For the Murphy Co., though, the economic threat is big enough to justify filing a lawsuit that asks a federal judge to declare the expansion unlawful.
Other cases have been filed by the American Forest Resources Council, which represents timber interests, and the Association of O&C Counties, which represents counties that depend on revenue from federal timber sales.
The three complaints rely on the same basic theory: A majority of the new monument acreage consists of so-called O&C Lands, which the federal government has dedicated to sustained timber production.
By effectively banning most logging on those O&C Lands, the monument expansion was unlawful, the lawsuits claim.
Several environmental groups have intervened as defendants in the lawsuit filed by Murphy Lumber, arguing their interests “may not be adequately represented by the existing parties to the litigation.”
As reasons for their intervention, the environmentalists cite “the federal government’s frequent reluctance to adequately protect the O&C lands” and the governmental transition to a “president and federal agency leadership who did not participate in the review and expansion.”
Environmentalists are also seeking intervenor status in the case filed by the Association of O&C Counties.
Based on history, it’s not likely the Trump administration would overrule the environmental intervenors to reach a settlement scaling back the monument’s size, said Karen Budd-Falen, the natural resources attorney.
“They can do that, but it doesn’t happen very much,” she said. “It’s really rare.”
The U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the BLM and the national monument, is now headed by Ryan Zinke, a former Montana congressman who supports multiple use of public lands, Budd-Falen said.
However, it’s still too early to tell how much sway the Interior Department will have in these cases, compared to the influence of the U.S. Justice Department, she said.
“I just don’t know how the new administration will handle it,” Budd-Falen said.
The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is one of several designations made by the Obama administration that have stirred controversy, said Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council, which advocates for cattle grazing.
“It certainly has been on our radar,” he said.
Altogether, the Obama administration used the Antiquities Act to establish or expand more than 30 national monuments totaling 550 million acres of land and water, Lane said.
The massive scope of Obama’s designations has prompted calls for Trump to shrink monument boundaries, he said.
Theoretically, Trump could decrease the size of these monuments as swiftly as Obama increased them, Lane said. “There’s no red tape or analysis or box-checking required.”
However, the overly liberal use of the Antiquities Act — which allows a president to declare national monuments on public land and restrict its uses — has also compelled demands to reform the statute, he said.
“It’s been turned from a tool for protection into a large land-planning tool, and that’s just not what was intended,” said Lane.
For example, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced a bill that would require Congress to approve a national monument designation, in addition to the governor and legislature of the state it’s in.
That language, or similar provisions, could also be rolled into a broader package of legislation, Lane said. “There are a lot of resource issues that need attention.”
Environmental groups that support the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument see some of the hardships claimed by the ranching and timber industries as overstated.
The Soda Mountain Wilderness Council used private funds to purchase grazing leases in several allotments from willing ranchers, said Dave Willis, the organization’s chairman.
Ranchers who refused the buyouts have continued grazing cattle on some allotments — such as Dixie and Buck Mountain — that failed to meet several grazing standards set by BLM to improve rangeland health, he said in an email.
Forest management isn’t entirely banned within the monument, as the proclamation allows timber harvest that’s part of an “authorized science-based ecological restoration project,” Willis said, citing the monument proclamation.
Much of the O&C Lands within the expanded boundary are classified as “late-successional” and “riparian” reserves, or have reforestation problems, he said. “The ecological benefits of protecting these relatively very few acres exceed their commercial timber volume value.”
Science has also shown that wildfires are less severe in protected forests than those that are commercially logged, Willis maintained. “If anything, it is the fire hazard on private, logged-over land that endangers protected public forests.”