Controversy Defines the Movement to Protect Dolores River Canyon. That's Why It Will Be Successful

What’s the case against the Dolores Canyons National Monument?

Photo: Sergey Malomuzh /Shutterstock

The proposed Dolores Canyons National Monument would protect approximately 400,000 acres of public lands in western Colorado, primarily in Mesa County with some land in Montrose County. This vast area encompasses a diverse range of public land featuring canyons, rivers, forests, and high-altitude meadows that have historically been largely left alone as is. The exception has historically been for uranium and vanadium mining. The national monument designation would allow for a wide range of recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, photography, and rock climbing – and would limit future mining permits and extractive development.

Hence the crux of the issue for some local residents. Western Colorado has a rich history of oil and gas development and mining. The proposed national monument site is part of the Uravan Mineral Belt, which was the biggest source of uranium, vanadium, and radium in the country from the end of World War II through the 1970s. Although periods of boom and bust still happen, these industries have been in decline in the region since the 1980s. Long-time residents, particularly those who have worked in the mines or who have family members who did, are hesitant to see hundreds of thousands of acres cut off from future mining development, just as the country works towards a massive decarbonization effort that will require ample mining to produce batteries and other technologies.

Public comment periods, statements from county commissioners, and op-eds in local publications have highlighted other concerns about the monument designation. For on, there’s access to public lands for hunters and anglers, though advocates for the monument have said these groups will see minimal impact. Some are concerned about grazing and property rights, and others simply don’t trust the federal government to manage land that in their view has done just fine without broader intervention. Mesa County Commissioners released a draft plan far smaller than what is proposed to become a national monument, seeking to protect that smaller area instead as a National Conservation Area. This would allow easier access for extractive industries to gain permits to the area, while also allowing for extensive recreation opportunities and leaving the bulk of the proposed 400,000-acre monument unaffected.

What’s the case for the Dolores Canyons National Monument?

Photo: Linda Armstrong/Shutterstock

At its core, the case for the Dolores Canyons National Monument centers on pillars commonly used in conservation circles. First, there’s all the land that would be protected from development and from extractive industries. This preserves extensive wildlife habitat and a river system that has been increasingly strained by climate change. The Dolores River is beloved by river runners, but flows only reach raftable levels about once every four or five years, on average. Tying these things together is the Road to 30 initiative to conserve 30 percent of the country’s land by 2030, which advocates believe is crucial for protecting wildlife habitat and reigning in unnecessary development.

From an economic standpoint, creating a national monument would increase tourism to the region and create jobs that aren’t dependent on the swings of oil and gas development or mining. This is happening across the Western United States as towns, states, and regions seek to stabilize their job markets and economies for the future.

Protect The Dolores, the advocacy group supporting the monument designation, says on its website, “A national monument designation would ensure that these public lands are managed in a manner that prioritizes the conservation of biodiversity, creates opportunities for local input, balances the needs of protecting nature and sustaining local economies, and preserves public access for recreation and traditional uses like hunting and grazing.”

Map of the proposed monument. Courtesy Protect The Dolores

Colorado’s two senators, John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet – both Democrats – have each visited the region to hold town halls on the monument. As of this writing, neither has stated whether they will vote for or against the monument. I suspect they will come out in favor, not simply based on party affiliation, but because the base of the anti-monument movement is so localized to a small area called West End, and primarily to one political side within that area. The West End is a largely conservative, agricultural region near the Utah border that until recently had missed out on the economic boom Colorado has seen from population and tourism growth over the past 30 years. This began to change following the 2020 opening of Camp V, a Burning Man-esque glamping resort, and a spate of new trail development for bikers and hikers near Norwood, Nucla, and Naturita. A marketing campaign focused on outdoor recreation in West End now highlight the draws of this more remote edge of Colorado

It’s critically important to consider the opinions of all residents in making decisions that affect the regions where they live. However, with this comes the need to decipher when these opinions stem largely from a fear of change, or a desire to preserve industry that is no longer relevant to the region’s long-term future. Outdoor recreation directly employs more than 130,000 Coloradans, and tens of thousands more (including this writer) indirectly. The great outdoors is what draws people to the state, and this will play a much larger role in Colorado’s future than oil and gas development or mining.

As a resident of western Colorado and someone who has lived in the state all my life, I waffled on support for the monument, despite being someone who largely supports conservation movements and regularly donates to environmental organizations. That’s because of the concerns expressed by opponents regarding the “selling out” of the area that could happen following a national monument designation. Infrastructure for mass tourism is absent in the West End. Many new residents are simply tourism industry workers priced out of nearby Telluride. One question is unavoidable in any conversation about the national monument designation: The river canyon has existed for millions of years as it is – does it really need the federal government to come in and assert control?

Why the movement to protect Dolores Canyons National Monument will succeed

Photo: Sergey Malomuzh /Shutterstock

What ultimately earned my support for the monument was the manner in which the Protect The Dolores movement addressed the key issues and pushback from local governments and opponents, and then incorporated some of those points into updated plans. The current proposal would not ban open grazing on public lands, for example — long a positive factor of ranching life in this region and an important step to utilizing cattle for habitat restoration and, ultimately, making beef more eco-friendly.

Additionally, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which manages hunting and fishing permitting and access throughout the state, would retain control of those processes and they would be allowed within the monument. Protect The Dolores states that though new mining claims would come to a halt, nearly 90 percent of current mining claims would not be impacted, and that activity would be honored as it currently is in those cases.

Perhaps most pertinent to me, current trail system plans and development would not be impeded. Mountain biking, hiking, and non-motorized transit would continue to be allowed in the monument and on trails within it. Motorized users would continue to enjoy access to popular routes. Rafting and on-water recreation can thrive when waterflow allows.

The monument will not have an entrance fee, and on a day-to-day basis, very little would change. While adamant opposition maintains their positions, it is the willingness of the Protect The Dolores movement to loudly and prominently address issues brought forth that will ultimately make the movement to recognize Dolores Canyons National Monument successful. Both Senators Hickenlooper and Bennet have taken their time to listen to concerns, rather than quickly voicing support or opposition to the project. While some feel the process has been hurried, sufficient time for public comment, town halls, and environmental assessments has happened, largely due to the senators and others not rushing their decisions.

To those who disagree, consider the recently failed effort to expand Grand Canyon National Park. In 2019, the National Park Service proposed expanding the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park to include additional lands that were considered to be of significant ecological and cultural value. The expansion would have protected important habitats for wildlife, such as the endangered California condor, as well as archaeological sites that are significant to Native American tribes.

However, the proposed expansion faced opposition from local communities, businesses, and landowners who were concerned about the potential impacts on their livelihoods and property rights. Some argued that the expansion would limit economic opportunities, such as mining and ranching, and restrict public access to certain areas. Efforts to address these concerns were insufficient, and the proposed expansion ultimately failed to gain sufficient support and was not approved. The Dolores Canyons National Monument can become a new face of conservation success in the United States – as long as it follows its promises.