Establishment of the Agua Fria National Monument

President Clinton used the Antiquities Act to establish the Agua Fria National Monument, reserving approximately 71,100 acres of federal land in Arizona to protect prehistoric archaeological sites, petroglyphs, and biological resources. The proclamation bans off-road motorized vehicle use, withdraws lands from mining and mineral leasing, reserves water rights, and assigns management to the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management.

Federal Register Open PDF 65 FR 2817

Impact dates

Jan 11, 2000
Proclamation effective; monument established; water rights reserved; land withdrawals take effect

Key directives

Establish Agua Fria National Monument on approximately 71,100 acres
Prohibit all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off-road except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes
Withdraw federal lands from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under public land laws
Withdraw lands from mining laws and mineral/geothermal leasing except exchanges furthering protective purposes
Reserve water sufficient to fulfill monument purposes
Direct Secretary of the Interior to manage monument through Bureau of Land Management
Continue application of BLM grazing lease laws and regulations

Who is ordered

Secretary of the Interior · Department of the Interior

Timeline

Immediate

National monument designation takes effect
Lands withdrawn from entry, location, sale, leasing under public land laws
Water rights reserved
Off-road motorized vehicle use prohibited

Near term (90d)

Bureau of Land Management assumes management responsibilities
Implementation of protective management planning begins

Long term

Ongoing archaeological research and preservation
Long-term habitat and species protection
Potential land acquisition for non-federal inholdings
Grazing lease administration continues under existing BLM policies

Risks & tensions

Tension between conservation and extractive industry access due to mining/mineral withdrawal
Potential conflict with state jurisdiction over fish and wildlife management (text attempts to clarify no enlargement or diminution)
Valid existing rights clause preserves some pre-existing uses, creating implementation complexity
Grazing continuation may create tension with ecological protection goals
'Smallest area compatible' language invites future legal challenge on scope