ASHLAND, Oregon – The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, situated along the border between California and Oregon, will retain its full size following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to review two legal challenges against its enlargement.
Several Oregon counties and logging companies had urged the Supreme Court to invalidate a 2017 expansion of the monument, arguing that President Barack Obama had overstepped his bounds by designating land earmarked for logging by Congress as part of the monument, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The designation bestowed upon the area additional protections that include a ban on logging.
The legal disputes also broached a more general concern regarding the limits of presidential power to unilaterally declare national monuments under the Antiquities Act. Critics of this 1906 legislation argue that it excessively empowers the executive branch. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court chose not to tackle this broader issue.
Kristen Boyles, a lawyer with Earthjustice, which defended the monument’s expansion, stated, “The monument and its expansion, it’s now the law of the land.”
Established in 2000, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument aims to safeguard the ecologically rich meeting point of the ancient Siskiyou Mountains and the younger volcanic Cascades. The region is notable for its ecological diversity, home to a wide array of flora and fauna, from cacti and ancient fir forests to desert snakes and salamanders. The monument’s area was increased by approximately 48,000 acres (19,400 hectares) seven years ago, bringing its total to 114,000 acres (46,100 hectares).
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Covers 5,000 Acres
Although the monument, mostly located in Oregon with about 5,000 acres (2,000 hectares) in California, is remote and not as frequently visited as other federal lands, it is cherished for recreational activities like fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, and snowmobiling.
The challenge to the monument’s expansion was led by the American Forest Resource Council, a logging industry group, along with a coalition of Oregon counties and the Murphy Company, a timber business. They contended that the Antiquities Act does not override federal regulations aimed at preserving timber harvests on lands originally designated for a railroad project but later returned to the government with specific conditions.
The designation of the monument was a significant concern for logging companies due to the potential loss of millions of board feet of timber and the consequent revenue for counties from timber sales.
Travis Joseph, president of the American Forest Resource Council, expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court’s refusal to address what he described as the issue of growing executive overreach through the Antiquities Act and the need for legal clarity for forests, communities, and their stewards.
The appellate courts had previously dismissed the challenges against the monument’s expansion.
