 |
|
|
|||||
Americas public lands, from its majestic national parks to its vast national forests, are at the heart of the countrys identity. They cover more than a quarter of the nation and large parts of the West. Some are crisscrossed by hiking trails and used by hunters and fishermen. Ranchers graze cattle on others. In many areas, the government earns money through oil, gas, timber and mining leases. These federally managed public lands have long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as have moves to turn them into protected national parks and monuments. Research consistently shows that a majority of Americans want their congressional representatives to protect public access to these lands for recreation. One avenue for protection is the creation of national monuments. But the status of national monuments can change. Many of the United States national monuments, and much of its public land, are in the Western U.S. [Image: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024] Presidents have expanded and contracted national monuments, as the U.S. saw with Bears Ears National Monument in Utah over the course of the past three presidencies. The rules for the use and maintenance of various public lands can also change, and that can affect surrounding communities and their economies. The U.S. is likely to see changes to public lands again under the second Trump administration. One of the new administrations early orders was for the Department of Interior to review all national monuments for potential oil and gas drilling and mining. At least two national monuments that President Joe Biden created in California are among the new administrations targets. The avenue for many of these changes is rooted in one century-old law. The power and vagary of the Antiquities Act The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, gave Congress or the president the authority to establish national monuments on federal land as a means of protecting areas for ecological, cultural, historical or scientific purposes. From Theodore Roosevelt on, 18 of the 21 presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create, expand or contract national monuments through a presidential proclamation. By using the Antiquities Act to create, expand or reduce national monuments, presidents can avoid an environmental impact statement, normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, which also allows for public input. Supporters argue that forgoing the environmental impact statement helps expedite monument creation and expansion. Critics say bypassing the review means potential impacts of the monument designations can be overlooked. The Antiquities Act also offers no clarity on whether a president can reduce the amount of area protected by prior presidents. The act simply states that a president designates the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. This has led to the shifting of national monument boundaries based on the priorities of each administration. The Citadel Ruins are the remains of Anasazi cliff dwellings at Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. [Photo: Bob Wick/Bureau of Land Management/Flickr] An example is Bears Ears, an area of Utah that is considered significant to several tribes but also has uranium, gas and oil resources. In 2016, President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears a national monument. In 2017, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation reducing Bears Ears by 80% of its total designated size. The monuments size and scope shifted a third time when President Joe Biden reestablished Bears Ears to the boundaries designated by Obama. In the span of just over five years, the monument was created, reduced, then restored to the original monument designation. The uncertainty about the long-term reliability of a designation makes it challenging for federal agencies to manage the land or assure Indigenous communities that the government will protect cultural, historical and ecological heritag. Public lands can be economic engines National parks and monuments can help fuel local economies. A 2017 study by Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group, found that Western rural counties with more public land have had greater economic growth, including in jobs and personal income, than those with little public land. National monuments can also benefit neighboring counties by increasing population, income and employment opportunities. Even small national monuments provide economic benefits for their surrounding communities. Visitors to Fort Stanwix National Monument in Rome, N.Y., spent $5.3 million in nearby communities in 2023, according to a National Park Service report. [Photo: National Park Service via Wikimedia Commons] While many counties adjacent to public lands may be dependent on natural resource extraction, the establishment of a national monument can open up new opportunities by expanding tourism and recreation. For example, four national parks and monuments in southeastern Utah, including Natural Bridges, drew about 2.4 million visitors who spent nearly US$400 million in surrounding communities. However, when there is uncertainty over whether public lands will remain protected, communities may be hesitant to invest in that future, not knowing whether it will soon change. What Congress and the courts could do There are a few ways to increase the certainty around the future of national monuments. First, lawsuits could push the courts to determine whether the president has the authority to reduce national monuments. Since the Antiquities Act doesnt directly address presidential authority to reduce monument size, thats an open question. Advocacy groups sued the government over Trumps authority to shrink Bears Ears National Monument, but their cases were put on hold after Biden expanded the monument again. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear other cases in 2024 that argued that a presidents authority to declare and expand national monuments should be far more limited under the law. Second, Congress could permanently protect designated national monuments through legislation. That would require presidential approval, and the process would likely be slow and cumbersome. Creating White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho, for example, took decades and a public campaign to have it designated a national monument before Congress approved its wilderness designation. Third, Congress could take new steps to protect public lands. For example, a bipartisan bill titled Public Lands in Public Hands Act could block privatization of public lands and increase and maintain access for recreation. One of the bills lead sponsors is U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana who served as Interior secretary during the first Trump administration. Whether the bill will pass and gain the presidents approval remains to be seen. Public lands have widespread support The Antiquities Act has led to the creation of 163 terrestrial and marine monuments and subsequently the protection of land and waters that hold cultural, scientific or historic significance. These monuments tend to have broad support. During the first Trump administration, there were over 650,000 public comments on Trumps review of national monument creation. An analysis found that 98% of the comments expressed broad support for both the creation and expansion of national monuments. Gold Butte National Monument covers nearly 300,000 acres of remote and rugged desert landscape in southeastern Nevada and is popular with hikers. [Photo: Bureau of Land Management] Public lands are more than just physical places. They are spaces where our ideals and values around public land unify us as Americans. They are quintessentially American and in many ways define and shape the American identity. Monica Hubbard is an associate professor of public policy and administration at Boise State University. Erika Allen Wolters is an assistant professor of political science at Oregon State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
More than 10,000 cans of Original Coca-Cola distributed in two states have been voluntarily recalled. Manufacturer Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling initiated the recall on March 6 after reports of foreign plastic found inside cans. On March 24, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designated the recall as Class II, per the FDA enforcement report. According to the FDA’s recall classification page, a Class II recall means “a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.”The report indicated that 864 12-count packs of the product distributed in Illinois and Wisconsin are included in the recall. The products have a single-can UPC of 0 49000-00634 6 and 12-pack UPC of 0 49000-02890 4. The recall number is F-0664-2025.A spokesperson with Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling confirmed the recall to ABC News. “The cases are being withdrawn because they did not meet our high-quality standards,” the spokesperson said. “We are taking this voluntary action because nothing is more important to us than providing high-quality products to the people who drink our beverages.”The latest recall is definitely not the first recall over foreign plastic or other foreign materials being found inside of a product’s packaging lately. Last month, Trader Joe’s issued a recall of its Frozen Acai Bowls over plastic contamination, and just last week, Nestlé USA recalled a number of Stouffer’s and Lean Cuisine meals over wood-like foreign material in the meals.If it seems like recalls have been happening more frequently lately, there’s truth to that suspicion. A February 2025 report, published by the Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit consumer protection group, found that last year, there were about 300 food recalls which led to nearly 1,400 illnesses and 19 deaths.“Nearly 1,400 people became ill from food they ate in 2024 98% of them from just 13 outbreaks, a stunning fact that shows the consequences of companies producing or selling contaminated food,” the report explained.Stunningly, the number of hospitalizations and deaths in 2024 were about twice that of the previous year. According to that report, the most concerning contaminants were Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli.
Category:
E-Commerce
Despite swirling economic uncertaintyand tariffs that could hit the auto parts industry particularly hardone large auto parts retailer is gearing up for expansion. Advance Auto Parts is going to open 30 new locations across the United States by the end of 2025, and aims to open at least an additional 100 new locations through 2027, according to a company announcement released on Tuesday. That includes opening new stores in larger market hubs. Fast Company reached out to Advance Auto Parts to get a complete list of new store locations, but the company declined to provide additional information. The announcement may come as a surprise, as Advance Auto Parts said several months ago that it was closing more than 700 stores. The company operated nearly 4,800 stores across the U.S. and Canada as of the end of 2024. According to the company, the closure of those stores, and subsequent expansion plans, are a part of a plan to optimize Advances retail footprint. Per the companys release, now, more than 75% of the Companys stores are in markets where the company has the No. 1 or No. 2 position based on store density, strengthening its presence in strategic communities. Advance Auto Parts is on the path to accelerate store growth and focused on the fundamentals of selling auto parts, said Shane OKelly, president and chief executive officer, in comments included with the companys release. We are excited about whats to come for Advance. Our team members are committed to providing the right parts and the right service for our PRO and DIY customers in their communities. Advance Auto Parts is battling it out in the competitive auto parts retail industry, and in terms of foot traffic, is tied with OReilly Auto Parts in securing around 18% of overall visits. According to industry data, AutoZone, the market leader, gobbled up more than 32%. The news of the expansion was met with a tepid response from the markets. Advance Auto Parts stock was trading at $37.50 per share when markets opened on Wednesday morning, and by midday, was up only around 1% or so. Shares are down more than 21% year to date, and down 55% over the past calendar year. Meanwhile, OReilly Automotives stock is up 16% year to date, and 21.5% over the past year. AutoZone shares are up 13.2% year to date and 15.3% over the past year.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||