BREAKING NEWS: William Perry pendley’s nomination to lead bureau of land management is withdrawn!

William Perry Pendley is Unfit to Lead the Bureau of Land Management—Thank you for telling your representatives!

Remember this name: William Perry Pendley? A few weeks ago we asked climbers to write to their representatives to let them know that the outdoor community sees Pendley as unfit to lead the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Hundreds of you took action to write your senators in opposition, and your voices were heard. Over the weekend news broke that the Trump administration withdrew its nomination of Pendley, to lead the Bureau of Land Management.

In a letter to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Outdoor Alliance summed up our community’s beliefs surrounding the nomination stating:

“Pendley’s longstanding advocacy for the sell-off of public lands; history of disparaging comments directed against BIPOC, immigrant, and LGBTQ communities; his denial of the urgent threat of climate change; and his long history of advocacy against environmental protection and core conservation laws collectively make him manifestly unsuited to stewarding our country’s public lands.”

Photo by Julia Clark-Riddell of Anna Hazelnutt climbing the “Sad Boulders” of Payahuunadü

What now?

Unfortunately, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, intends to keep Pendley in his “acting director” role, even though he clearly would have been unable to move forward in the role if it came to a confirmation vote in the senate. We believe this is unacceptable and we believe Pendley should be forced to resign. There are several active lawsuits  opposing his role as acting director that claim the Trump administration has kept him installed as acting director of the BLM far longer than what's legal under federal law. As this story progresses we will keep you up-to-date.

Thank you—the fight continues!

It is clear that the climbing and outdoor community overwhelmingly believe that Pendley is not the right person for the job. We asked our representatives to oppose the Trump administration’s nomination of Pendley to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and our voices were heard. Now we must demand his resignation and push for a leader who embodies the mission of the BLM. Thank you for taking action! The AAC celebrates our community’s willingness to act under pressure and take the time to impact change when public lands, members of our communities, or climbing resources are under threat.

AAC is suing the Administration over change in NEPA, the peoples environmental law

When the government proposes a project that could impact the health of your community and environment, one federal law keeps you in the loop and allows your voice to be heard—but last week the Trump Administration pulled it apart. As a result, the AAC is joining forces with Winter Wildlands Alliance and 20 other conservation and environmental justice organizations to sue the Council on Environmental Quality and the Trump Administration.  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ensures federal decision making is transparent, scientifically informed and that the public has an opportunity to share their expertise and concerns. It’s a bedrock environmental law that requires Federal agencies to engage in a project review process to identify the environmental, cultural, economic, and health impacts of a project, as well as offering alternatives to the plan before a decision is made.

Sounds pretty reasonable right?

Well, after years of environmental deregulation under the guise of “efficiency” and “job creation,” the Trump Administration finalized its biggest rollback yet. On July 15, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality released the final text of their updates to the rules that implement NEPA. 

These rule changes raise major concerns not only for the protection of public lands and outdoor recreation, but for the health and well-being of communities across the country who rely on clean air, water and a healthy climate. The destruction of NEPA is not only an environmental issue, but a social justice issue as well.

“This rule change is a massive step backward not only for public lands and the climbing community but for all Americans. NEPA ensures meaningful community participation and representation, it considers public health data and other important scientific research to make informed decisions, and it considers the composition of the affected area to determine and address disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority communities. These changes fly in the face of every American’s right to a healthy environment - especially now in the midst of a public health crisis.”

— Taylor Luneau, AAC Policy Manager

WHAT IS CEQ

Essentially, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is the keeper of the nation’s environmental goals. Created by NEPA, the CEQ is meant to advise the Executive branch on how best to protect the quality of the nation’s environment. Importantly, it’s tasked with overseeing how NEPA is implemented by federal agencies such as the National Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. As you can imagine, the CEQ plays a major role in how our natural resources are managed, and that role can change dramatically from administration to administration. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The CEQ’s new regulations limit the scope of environmental review and remove meaningful science and data from decision making. Importantly, it no longer requires agencies to consider certain long-term effects of a project due to eliminating what are known as “cumulative and indirect impacts” from environmental analysis. These are the effects of a project that result from incremental actions, or impacts that are reasonably foreseeable in the future. These impacts may be minor individually, but collectively result in significant impacts over time. 

For example:

Say there’s a new logging proposal on Mt. Hood which will cut a road directly through the approach trail to your favorite climb! In the previous NEPA process, the Forest Service would need to create an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) where they consider the immediate impacts of the logging proposal on things like wildlife, recreation, and the watershed. In addition, the EIS would also analyze the indirect effects, such as the long-term decline of a species due to habitat fragmentation, as well the cumulative impacts, like the impact on the climate due to removing a carbon rich forest.

In the updated NEPA process, the Forest Service is now only responsible for considering immediate and direct effects of the proposal and can ignore those indirect and cumulative impacts, of which there are many.

Removing the requirement to consider long-term project effects opens the door for extractive industries looking for fewer environmental constraints. This favors the interests of industry over the health of our communities and impedes our important work to address climate change.

PUBLIC PROCESS

Discussions surrounding NEPA cannot be had without acknowledging the systems of environmental racism that have been in place in this country since its inception. Disruptive federal projects like the interstate system or power plants, have historically landed in the communities of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. The history of racial injustice caused by these federal projects was part of the impetus behind NEPA’s creation. The law provided the chance for community members and allies to have a say in projects being proposed in their own backyards. Trump’s rollback sidelines the public and gives corporate polluters the ability to cut corners and complete their own analysis without listening to opinions of constituents. Industry does not deserve to have the final say on the future of our communities and public lands. 

“The elimination of public comment periods silences citizens while giving a megaphone to corporations who profit from the destruction of public lands and pollute neighborhoods across the country.”

— Amelia Howe, AAC National Campaign Coordinator

HOW CAN WE INTERVENE?

Congress must take action to hold the Administration accountable and defend the National Environmental Policy Act, an act that once was celebrated for its overwhelming bi-partisan support. Our elected officials must understand that public process and the need for thorough environmental analysis are not partisan issues. We must elect officials who will stand up for laws that aim to protect our environment and vulnerable communities. 

The AAC is committed to fighting for the National Environmental Policy Act at all costs which is why we are suing the Trump Administration. There is a long fight ahead, but together we can protect our climbing landscapes and communities.

Anti-public lands advocate nominated to lead BLM —Tell Congress you disapprove

Trump nominates anti-public lands advocate to lead blm

On Tuesday, William Perry Pendley was officially nominated by Donald Trump to be the first permanent director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) during Trump’s presidency. Yes, you read that correctly. For the last four years, the Trump administration has skirted the political system of checks and balances by allowing “acting directors” to run several public land agencies. Pendley, one of those acting directors selected by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, was tasked with managing 245 million acres of public lands. This official nomination from the White House is three and a half years too late and is still the wrong candidate.  

What should have happened?

When Trump was elected president, he had the responsibility of nominating people to  leadership roles across all government agencies. Once someone is nominated for a role, the Senate is tasked to assess whether or not the individual is the right fit for leading an agency by voting to confirm the individual. Two-thirds, or 67 members of the Senate must agree to confirm Pendley to the role of BLM Director.

Who is Pendley?

Like many other public land officials involved in this administration, Pendley has a long history of staunchly supporting the sale of public lands. In addition to this, he’s also considered by many to be more of a fringe voice in the public lands conversation, emphasizing the need for less government control of land and claiming that “The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold,” (National Review, 2016). 

What can we do to stop this?

Many senators in key re-election races throughout the west, and across the country, rely on public lands voters. This puts those senators in a tricky position knowing that they will let those voters down if they confirm Pendley right before the November election. We can act now to put pressure on our senators, and let them know that we see Pendley as unfit to lead the BLM.

The Impact of Trade Wars and Tariffs on the Outdoor Recreation Economy

The words “tariff” and “trade wars” are plastering the newscycle this month. With 25% tariffs in effect and more drama brewing between the U.S. and China, we wanted to unpack what tariffs are, the impact they have on the outdoor recreation economy, and what we can do to support outdoor retailers and the towns impacted by the economic blows during this time.

In short, tariffs are taxes on global imported goods received at the ports of entry. Governments utilize tariffs as a tool to keep American spending within our country to increase the national economy. By raising prices on imported products, retailers then have to sell these items for more money creating an incentive for consumers to purchase lower-cost American goods. 

The current administration has announced that it is committed to “American Protectionism,” which puts American businesses and manufacturing first in order to tax our global competitors. What complicates this notion is our modern day global economy. Many finished products purchased in the U.S. either contain material parts imported from other countries or were assembled in different countries around the world. Applying tariffs aren’t so cut and dry. 

Zooming out a bit, it is important to remember the impact that the outdoor recreation economy has on the greater U.S. economy. According to the Outdoor Industry Association’s (OIA) latest report on The Outdoor Recreation Economy, released in 2017, outdoor recreation raised over $880 billion in consumer spending and generated 7.6 million jobs, and these numbers continue to grow annually. Outdoor recreation is a powerful force in the U.S. economy and outdoor industry leaders need a spot at the table when discussing taxes that impact their industry. 

Photo Source: Tariffs Hurt American Outdoor Businesses, and How (OIA)

Currently, there are 25% tariffs on imported steel from select countries and 10% on imported aluminum. As an example of potential tariff impacts on the climbing community, camalots are made from steel (piece on Black Diamond cams here). Meaning it could potentially cost 25% more to manufacture cams abroad, which most companies do, including major players like Black Diamond and Metolius. The total cost of the steel tariff alone is $15.5 billion. While these numbers are jarring, according to research and reporting done by OIA, the hardest part of the ongoing tariff wars aren’t the tariffs themselves, but the “unpredictability of the Trump administration’s trade policies.” 

Companies often release pricing for next years’ product line in advance, so any modifications may present a challenge. Once tariffs are in place, companies are forced to either raise prices significantly for the consumer or to simply absorb the cost internally. Companies are then required to be reactive rather than proactive in their planning, negatively impacting innovation, design, customer service, and internal human resources.

When it comes to getting outdoors, The American Alpine Club doesn’t want to see tariffs creating additional barriers. According to an article recently published by OIA, Patricia Rojas-Ungar, OIA’s Vice President of Government Affairs, stated that all sorts of gear from “jackets to backpacks to hiking boots will see increases in tariffs of up to 30%.” She goes on to warn that due to these dramatic increases, businesses in the outdoor industry will be forced to make “drastic decisions” like hiring fewer employees. Or for smaller businesses, potentially closing their doors all together. She concludes by stating that the trade wars “have to stop, and real trade negotiations need to begin in earnest. . . . [k]nee-jerk reactions have long term devastating impacts on Americans, and we need Congress to stand up for its constituents.”  

OIA has created an Action Alert - tell your representatives that the tariff wars are negatively impacting you and your greater outdoor recreation industry.

Bears Ears Opened to Mining and Energy Claims

Photo: BLM

On December 4th, President Donald Trump announced his intention to reduce the size of Bears Ears National Monument by more than 80% and Grand Staircase-Escalante by half. Prior to Obama’s designation of the Bears Ears Monument, climbers have been advocating for protection of this landscape-- for its cultural significance and for its incredible splitter cracks and breathtaking desert sunsets. Since Trump’s move to reduce the monument, climbers have been active in speaking out against this drastic and possibly illegal action through protests, letters and petitions. Now, several months after Trump’s proclamation, we are seeing the implications.

On February 2nd, 2018, a small provision in the proclamation to reduce Bears Ears went into effect that opened the lands outside the monument boundaries to new mining claims and energy development. This move threatens the roughly 40% of climbing areas and the Bears Ears landscape as a whole. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management is beginning its management planning process for the new, smaller monuments. This is all despite the ongoing lawsuits and legislative debates over the reductions of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, which we hope will restore the original national monument boundaries.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is moving forward prematurely with these monument management plans, and the American Alpine Club, along with its partners, has asked the agency to wait until the dust settles from the legal and legislative battles before planning and permitting the staking of mining claims. If the lawsuits succeed and the reductions are overturned, the BLM will have wasted time and resources on a costly management planning process.

Multiple bills regarding these national monuments have also been introduced in the House of Representatives, and are currently being debated in the House Committee on Natural Resources. The outcome of these lawsuits and legislation will likely alter the final boundaries of and management directives for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.

Join us in asking the BLM to wait until the legal and legislative debates are over before beginning any monument management planning and permitting new mining claims and energy development in the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante areas. Visit the BLM comment page to share your thoughts about the future of these landscapes. For example:

I am a rock climber and a member of the American Alpine Club. The Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante regions hold great value to our community. I am concerned by the possibility of new mining and energy development in these special places. As climbers, we ask that the Bureau of Land Management keep these areas closed to new claims, and wait to begin the management planning process until the lawsuits and legislative debates over these monuments are resolved. These areas deserve protection and a management plan that prioritizes sustainable recreation. Thank you for your consideration.

Stay tuned for more updates on Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.

Executive Power over National Monuments: An AAC Member and natural resource law Scholar weighs in on the future of Bears Ears

Photo by Taylor Luneau

Taylor Luneau, AAC member & Natural Resource Law Scholar 

As happens to many climbers on their first trip to Indian Creek, I got spanked! The splitter sandstone was relentless and the grades fleeting. With the absence of face features, it was a whole new ball game for a climber born and raised on northeast schist and granite. However, within a matter of days, the climbing style grew on me and by the end of my first week I was floating up Incredible and Generic Hand Crack, stuffing in a #2 cam every ten feet or so. The trip was a formative one and I was hooked.

Leaving our slice of Heaven was made easier only with the knowledge that the Creek would always be there, waiting for me, nestled there in the canyons with desert washes and endless red rock walls. And, as many did on December 28th, 2016, I celebrated after President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation establishing Bears Ears National Monument—a 1.35 million acre area area in San Juan County, Utah that encompasses Indian Creek, as well as the Valley of the Gods and Arch Canyon. This Presidential Proclamation is the first to recognize rock climbing as a valued activity and to ensure it as a priority in the management plan. It conserves these climbing meccas for future generations and for my chance of reunion. Or so I thought.

Today, the future of the Bears Ears is uncertain. Utah’s political leadership has formally requested that the President rescind Bears Ears National Monument through a joint resolution. As a legal scholar, I began to investigate if President Trump could actually lawfully abolish the designation of Bears Ears’ national monument status.

The short answer is NO!

But that answer is riddled with caveats and requires an understanding of The Antiquities Act, the law that enables the President to designate National Monuments.

The Antiquities Act of 1906

The Antiquities Act has been used to create more than 100 national monuments and protect 80 million acres of federal land since it was passed in 1906 (1). While the Antiquities Act gives the President authority to declare national monuments, it’s silent about the abolishment of a national monument. The core provisions of the Antiquities Act:

1) Give the President the authority to declare historic landmarks, prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be National Monuments.

2) Allow that the amount of land reserved must not exceed the smallest area necessary for its proper management. (2)

The Antiquities Act is clear about the President’s authority to create national monuments, but does the President have the authority to reverse a national monument designation?

In 1938, President Roosevelt considered abolishing the Castle Pickney National Monument in South Carolina. However, his Attorney General, Homer Cummings, said the President had no such authority because the law did not authorize the President to abolish national monuments (3). As a result, President Roosevelt did not change the status of the monument. While Roosevelt could not undo Pickney National Monument, it was eventually abolished by Congress in 1956 (4). Although Cummings advice was not a judicial ruling, his statement was the only legal authority to provide a statutory interpretation (5). Cumming's legal analysis was challenged for the first time ever this past week by conservative legal scholars at the American Enterprise Institute but their argument raises constitutional issues and overreach by the Executive Office. 

Although Presidents do not have the authority to abolish national monuments, they have altered monument sizes in order to meet the smallest area compatible criteria. (6) For example, Woodrow Wilson reduced the size of Mount Olympus National Monument in 1915. (7)

If President Trump attempts a full revocation of Bears Ears National Monument, litigation will follow. While courts would likely deny an Executive Order to fully repeal Bears Ears, the President may attempt to alter the size of the monument to meet the smallest area compatible to protect the cultural resources. Such an attempt would require the President to establish that the Monument was designated unnecessarily large for the protection of the scientific, historic or archeological objects of interest-- a fact that would likely be challenged by the Native American Tribes who claim ancestral ties to the landscape. Another consideration here is that The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) bars the Secretary of the Interior from altering the boundaries of monuments on BLM land so any Executive Order that attempts to direct the Secretary to make adjustments would not be legal (8). 

Congressional Discretion & Implications for Bears Ears National Monument

While the President does not have legal authority to undo a national monument, Congress does. Congress has broad discretion over national monuments primarily because of the Constitution’s Property Clause, which provides Congress the power to make decisions about public lands in the United States. Therefore, Congress does have the constitutional authority to create, modify, and abolish national monuments and it has exercised each of these powers in the past. (9)

What now?

The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, in cooperation with the Bears Ears Commission, will continue to work together to create and implement a management plan for the new national monument. Recreation, conservation and tribal groups will be watching closely as the Trump administration and Congress sets its public lands priorities.

In the meantime, as climbers, we must continue to speak up together about why public lands matter and why we value the Bears Ears area in particular. Let’s push back against efforts to weaken federal land protections and undermine conservation designations. We need to vigilantly remind our legislators that we want to keep our public lands in public hands.

Finally, I encourage you all to continue to support groups like the American Alpine Club and Access Fund that persistently look out for the preservation of our climbing landscapes. I’ll be there with you, because the indigenous peoples, the land, water, and wildlife of the Bears Ears region deserve this monument designation. And … I want a second chance at sending Anunnaki in the Creek.

---

Taylor Luneau, American Alpine Club Member

Dual Masters Candidate, 2018: Master of Environmental Law and Policy, Vermont Law School and Master of Science in Natural Resources, University of Vermont

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Coggins, Wilkinson, Leshy, Fischman, Federal Public Land and Resources Law, p. 394, 7th Ed., Foundation Press, 2014.

[2] Id.

[3] 39 Op. Att’y Gen. 185, 187 (1938).

[4] Vincent, Carol Hardy, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act, Congressional Research Service, p. 2, 2017.

[5] Id.

[6] Antiquities Act 1906-2006, National Parks Service Archeology Program, https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/MonumentsList.htm (Last updated Dec. 28, 2016).

[7] Id.

[8] Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, https://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/FLPMA.pdf

[9] U.S. Const. art. IV, §3, cl. 2.