Top Line: Legislation has been introduced to conserve and restore one of the most colorful natural landscapes in Oregon for the benefit of this and future generations.
Figure 1. The greater Sutton Mountain area, among the most chromatically diverse natural landscapes in Oregon. Source: Pete Alport.
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has introduced legislation to protect a block of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings in Wheeler County as a 65,207-acre national “monument.” Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is cosponsoring the bill (S.3144, 117th Congress). The proposed national monument is dominated by Sutton Mountain but also includes other public lands with extremely high biological, hydrological, geological, historic, cultural, archaeological, paleontological, wildlife, riparian, scenic, and recreation values.
In my book Oregon Desert Guide: 70 Hikes (Mountaineers Books, 2000), I noted:
Sutton Mountain has an abrupt and colorful 2,000-foot precipice on the west and a gently sloping plateau to the east. [It is an] uplifted basalt formation on top of the same ash layer as the Painted Hills unit of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. Numerous high points offer outstanding views. Cascades and waterfalls (including one 60 feet high) are present when water is running in the spring.
A new BLM-administered Sutton Mountain National Monument (SMNM) would surround the existing 3,132-acre Painted Hills Unit of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument (JDFBNM), which is administered by the National Park Service (NPS). The JDFBNM—the basis of which was the transfer of three Oregon state parks (Painted Hills, Thomas Condon–John Day Fossil Beds, and Clarno) to the NPS—was established by Act of Congress in 1975. The NPS has prepared a fascinating (at least to me) administrative history of the JDFBNM.
The legislation is supported by local governments, communities, and stakeholders, including the City of Mitchell, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, the Conservation Alliance, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Conservation Angler, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Oregon Outfitters and Guides Association, and Portland Audubon.
The bill has its good points and its bad points, which I will outline, and I will also argue that the area could be given a more appropriate moniker that would better reflect the intended administration of the area.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Proposed Legislation
The proposed “Sutton Mountain and Painted Hills Area Wildfire Resiliency, Preservation, and Economic Enhancement Act” provides that the SMNM be administered in two “units” (Map 1), which control the kinds of restoration activities allowed.
Map 1. For a larger version of the official map referred to in the legislation, click here. Source: Senator Merkley.
The 38,023-acre Upper Unit, which generally contains the most ecologically and hydrologically intact lands, would be subject to “passive habitat management,” defined as
those actions that are proposed or implemented to address degraded or non-functioning resource conditions that are expected to improve the ecological health of the area without additional on-the-ground actions, such that resource objectives and desired outcomes are anticipated to be reached without additional human intervention.
The 27,184-acre Lower Unit, which is generally the least ecologically and hydrologically intact due to more than a century of cow bombing (relentless livestock grazing), would be subject to “active habitat restoration” meant “to restore and enhance the ecological health of the area through the use of management tools consistent with this Act.”
The statutory purposes and objectives of the SMNM would apply to both the Upper and Lower Units.
Figure 2. Rocks and soils of the greater Sutton Mountain area. Some, not shown, are as green as these are red. Source: Mark Darnell.
The Good
There is a lot of good in this bill, including but not limited to
• withdrawal of the federal public lands from potential sale and any form of mining except for quarrying at an existing gravel pit to support the maintenance of current roads;
• a strong conservation purpose (“to conserve, protect, and enhance the long-term ecological health of Sutton Mountain and the surrounding area for present and future generations” [emphasis added]);
• a strong definition of ecological health (“the ability of the ecological processes of a native ecosystem to function in a manner that maintains the structure, composition, activity, and resilience of the ecosystem over time, including an ecologically appropriate diversity of plant and animal communities, habitats, and conditions that are sustainable through successional processes”);
• a voluntary federal grazing permit and lease facilitation provision;
• three modest land exchanges that are in the public interest;
• a provision to facilitate the acquisition of State of Oregon lands and mineral interests; and
• two mandated unqualified good objectives—“(2) to promote the scientific and educational values of the Monument” and “(5) to ensure the conservation, protection, restoration, and improved management of the ecological, social, and economic environment of the Monument, including geological, paleontological, biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic resources.”
There are two mandated qualified good objectives in the bill: “(4) to promote recreation, historical, cultural, and other uses that are sustainable, in accordance with applicable Federal law” and “(6) to reduce the risk of wildfire within the Monument and the surrounding area, including through juniper removal and habitat restoration, as appropriate.”
Qualified good objectives because: (1) recreation and other uses in the area would be limited to that which is “sustainable” (of course, the devil, as always, will be in the details); and (2) “wildfire” can either be good and natural or bad and unnatural (in any case, wildfire is inevitable); and while unnaturally encroaching upon grassland and sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, western juniper is nonetheless a native species and is found in the form of old growth that predates the human disturbances that caused massive expansion of the species in the Oregon Desert. Ideally, “as appropriate” means that BLM will not target any native annual grasses or old-growth western juniper.
Figure 3. Black Canyon, on the north side of Sutton Mountain. Source: Mark Darnell.
The Bad
There are two mandated bad purposes: “(1) to support and promote the growth of local communities and economies,” and “(3) to maintain sustainable grazing on the Federal land within the Upper Unit and Lower Unit, in accordance with applicable Federal law.”
I’m not against progress, but I am against “growth.” As the late great author and environmentalist Edward Abbey said, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Additionally, “sustainable grazing” on any federal public land and in any area where the metric is acres per cow rather than cows per acre is an oxymoron.
Figure 4. Just when you thought you’d seen all there is to see in the greater Sutton Mountain area . . . Source: Tyler Roemer.
The Ugly
It is refreshing that this piece of legislation has no ugly, but I wanted to maintain the good-bad-ugly flow.
A Brief Digression on Western Juniper
The management plan for the SMNM will have to, among many other things,
• identify science-based, short-term and long-term, active habitat restoration and passive habitat management actions;
• reduce wildfire risk and improve the resilience of native plant communities; and
• restore historical native vegetation communities, including the prioritization of the removal of invasive annual grasses and juniper trees in the Lower Unit. [emphasis added]
Not all western juniper trees are “invasive.” While most annual grasses are exotic and invasive, juniper trees are native to the landscape and invasive only in certain areas and under certain conditions. Old-growth specimens are found throughout the proposed SMNM (Figure 5). While I am hawkish on removing western juniper invading the Sagebrush Sea, I believe such removal should be done only for ecological restoration (not the provision of forage for domestic livestock) and should never result in killing old-growth western junipers.
Figure 5. A very-old-growth western juniper in the Sutton Mountain area. Source: Tyson Fisher.
In 2007, Mark Salvo—now with the Oregon Natural Desert Association—and I authored a report entitled “Managing Western Juniper to Restore Sagebrush Steppe and Quaking Aspen Stands.” Here’s the abstract:
Since 1870, concurrent with the introduction of domestic livestock and the resultant exclusion of periodic fire, the occurrence of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) in the sagebrush steppe has increased approximately ten-fold. Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitat is being converted to western juniper woodland at a geometric rate. Western juniper is also invading and replacing quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands. Action is needed to reverse these trends and restore sagebrush steppe and quaking aspen stands to an ecologically intact landscape maintained by periodic fire. Western juniper control must spare all old-growth western juniper trees. Restoration planning and implementation must carefully consider the effects of invasive non-native species—particularly cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)—and livestock grazing on treated sites. The conservation community should advocate for appropriate, ecologically based western juniper management and oppose inappropriate actions and strategies.
I think the piece has held up rather well (pardon my immodesty; I tried modesty but it didn’t look good on me) and am pleased to see the concepts being legislated into law.
Figure 6. A hedgehog cactus in the Sutton Mountain area. One does not usually envision cacti in the Oregon Desert, but at least five species can be found in far-flung locations throughout the area. Source: Lace Thornberg.
A Longer Digression on National “Monuments” and National Monuments
First, let me concede that the property clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) authorizes Congress to do anything it wants in regard to the nation’s public lands (see the Public Lands Blog post “The Constitutionality of Federal Public Lands”), even watering down the meaning of “national monument.” Still, I submit that with the legislative language as it is, calling the Sutton Mountain area a national monument degrades the iconic term. The area should be called the Sutton Mountain National Conservation Area instead. This is both to acknowledge the area’s purposes and to protect it from drawing too many people. Plus it will help with the visuals: to the public it will look like government waste to have two immediately adjacent “national monuments” administered by different federal agencies, the BLM and the National Park Service (NPS).
Most of the country’s national monuments are managed by the NPS and have a clear mandate. Let’s consider the existing NPS-administered John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Painted Hills Unit, which the proposed Sutton Mountain National Monument would surround. The 1974 Act of Congress that authorized the JDFBNM merely stated it would be part of the National Park System. The basic “organic act” for the National Park System, the National Park System Organic Act of 1916, as amended, says:
The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, shall promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units, which purpose is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. [emphasis added]
The mandate for National Park System units is clear: unimpaired preservation forever. This is the mandate for most national monuments, which have been established by presidential proclamation under authority granted to the president by Congress in the Antiquities Act of 1906. On many of the (at least twenty-one) occasions when Congress has legislated national monuments, Congress has established the national monument and directed that it be managed by the NPS under its organic act. But in a few recent cases, Congress has established national monuments on BLM and Forest Service lands, and specified particular management direction in the enabling legislation. This is because there is no standard statutory language as to what constitutes a national monument on federal public lands not administered by the NPS.
The proposed legislative mandate for a Sutton Mountain National Monument is “for conservation, economic, and community development purposes, and for other purposes.” While I don’t dispute additional purposes for the Sutton Mountain area, I do object to a national “monument” being created expressly for economic, community development, and other purposes. National monuments should be created solely for the highest and best purpose of the protection of nature, history, and culture, even though they may also contribute to economic and community development purposes.
The proposed SMNM would not merely suffer livestock grazing but actually encourage it (albeit “sustainably” [sic]). What “national monument” means in the Bridge Creek watershed in the lower John Day River basin will vary greatly according to whether the land is administered by the BLM or the NPS. Calling the BLM-administered land the Sutton Mountain National Conservation Area would better reflect the intended administration of the area.
Marking different purposes with different names has some precedent, as we can see from the “expansion” of the Oregon Caves National Monument in 2014. Senators Merkley and Wyden and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4th) were the champions. Because the champions didn’t want to restrict hunting in an expanded monument even though it is prohibited in the original national monument, the 2014 law established an Oregon Caves National Preserve that surrounds the still Oregon Caves National Monument. The only material difference between the national preserve and the national monument at Oregon Caves is that hunting is allowed in the former but not the latter. In this case, the sanctity of a national monument was maintained.
Marking different management mandates with different names also has some precedent. The Newberry (1990, Oregon) and Mount St. Helens (1982, Washington) National Volcanic Monuments were administered by the Forest Service. Congress at the time added “volcanic” and continued to reserve “national monument” for units administered by the National Park Service.
Then President Clinton proclaimed the first BLM-administered national monument in Utah in 1996. Since that time, several other BLM-administered national monuments have been proclaimed (generally a good thing). In 2000, Congress legislated a BLM- and Forest Service–administered national monument in California, and additional BLM-administered national monuments in 2009 and 2019. Because there is no “organic act” for legislated BLM-administered national monuments, Congress has made up the legislative language as it goes along.
One could argue that politically, the national monument sanctity ship has sailed, and one must move on. Believe it or not, Acts of Congress are not always only in one direction. Congress has reversed and can reverse its mistakes. It was a mistake to legislatively apply the sacred “national monument” name to BLM areas that are to be managed in an unconsecrated manner.
Finally, there is a tension between preserving and restoring nature and promoting outdoor recreation and tourism—and the economic development that accompanies it. Senator Merkley’s press release notes:
By creating a new national monument around Sutton Mountain and the Painted Hills, the legislation ensures their preservation for generations to come, and would put these incredible destinations more prominently on-the-map for outdoors lovers in Oregon and across America. The rocky ridges, high plateaus, rolling grasslands and riverine habitats at Sutton Mountain host herds of mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and California bighorn sheep; support myriad species of birds, including the iconic golden eagle; and feature expansive meadows of desert wildflowers. Bridge Creek and its tributaries, which flow through the area and have benefited from years of collaborative stream habitat restoration, are designated critical habitat for threatened steelhead trout. [emphasis added]
Oregon’s and the nation’s populations are increasing, putting more pressure on nature. A national conservation area on the map would draw fewer people than a national monument would, and that would be a good thing. There would still be enough new visitors to satiate the local economy.
Figure 7. A good omen for conserving the greater Sutton Mountain area for the benefit of this and future generations. Source: Tyson Fisher
Suggestions to Improve the Legislation
Here are some recommendations, in no particular order, that would significantly improve the legislation.
• Old-growth western juniper. Modify the language to ensure that restoration of grasslands doesn’t result in the killing of old junipers.
• Native annual grasses. Not all “annual grasses” in the area are “invasive.” Modify language to ensure that native annual grasses are not targeted for destruction.
• Bridge Creek Wild and Scenic River. The segment of Bridge Creek through the area should become part of the John Day Wild and Scenic River. Such is proposed in Senator Wyden’s pending River Democracy Act, of which Senator Merkley is a cosponsor.
• Wilderness study areas. The WSAs in the area should be converted to wilderness areas.
• Land exchanges. The legislation as drafted specifies that lands traded between the BLM and private landowners must be of precisely equal value. Cash payments should be allowed as a way to equalize values.
• More fitting name. With the legislative language as it is, the area should be called the Sutton Mountain National Conservation Area. Calling this area a “national monument” degrades the iconic term.
• Wildfire. As drafted, the legislation appears to suggest that all wildfire is bad. Actually, only uncharacteristic wildfire, caused by ecologically degraded vegetative conditions, is bad. In addition, the wildfire mitigation plan called for in the legislation would focus on activities within the monument with the goal of protecting infrastructure outside of the monument. The best way to prevent houses on private land from burning is to address issues at the houses rather than miles away on public lands.
• Land grants. The gifts of 1,327 acres to the City of Mitchell and 159 acres to the County of Wheeler are a bit excessive, especially since the bill would limit the city to using no more than 50 acres each for senior housing and economic development. It is also not a good idea to grant to local governments BLM land that would be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in a concurrent piece of legislation.
Figure 8. Native bunchgrass, indicative of an area that has not been cow bombed like other portions of the greater Sutton Mountain area. Source: Tyson Fisher.
Go Take a Hike
Summiting Sutton Mountain is easy and well worth it. Follow the directions from the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
Figure 9. The solitude of winter in the greater Sutton Mountain area. Source: Jim Davis.
Bottom Line: Senator Merkley and his staff are to be congratulated for the introduction of a very good piece of legislation that will generally conserve a colorful part of the Oregon Desert. With a few tweaks to the bill, perfection could be achieved.
Acknowledgments: My deep thanks to Mark Salvo, program director at the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA), for assistance in preparing this Public Lands Blog post. My even deeper thanks to Mark and others at ONDA for their steadfast advocacy on behalf of the greater Sutton Mountain area. See ONDA’s webpage on Sutton Mountain. ONDA deserves your support.