Greater Canyonlands: a Contested Landscape in Southern Utah

Home , Frank Moss, Stewart Udall

Greater Canyonlands: A Contested Landscape in Southern Utah

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Natalie S. Mumich

August 2019

This thesis titled

Greater Canyonlands: A Contested Landscape in Southern Utah

NATALIE S. MUMICH

has been approved for

the Department of Geography

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Geoffrey L. Buckley

Professor of Geography

Joseph Shields

Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

ABSTRACT

MUMICH, NATALIE S., M.A., August 2019, Geography

Greater Canyonlands: A Contested Landscape in Southern Utah

Director of Thesis: Geoffrey L. Buckley

This project offers a comprehensive resource management history of Canyonlands

National Park in southeastern Utah, focusing on the 1980s to the present. Canyonlands

National Park and the surrounding area has experienced conflict and contention in the years since the park’s establishment in 1964. The protection and preservation of wilderness has been highly contested historically in the United States, usually pitting public land advocates against the fossil fuel industry, and Utah is no exception. Since the establishment of the park, there have been several attempts to both protect lands that surround the park, as well as open the lands for energy development and other extractive industries. To determine what forces came together to defeat the Greater Canyonlands

National Monument Proposal in 2013, I conducted archival research and content analysis on four groups of documents comprised mainly of newspaper articles. I found that conflict is deeply ingrained in the area and that the main conflicts and contentions are the same as they were 60 years ago. 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to offer my sincerest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Geoff Buckley, for his continued support, guidance, patience, and advice throughout this journey. I also owe my thanks to Dr. Harold Perkins and Dr. Tim Anderson for serving on my committee and providing support throughout my graduate career at Ohio University. Thank you to

Yolonda Youngs for her outside support and advice. Furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Department of Geography with whom I have worked or taken a class for their help and encouragement.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all of those who supported me throughout the research and writing process. Without them, this research would not have been possible. Thanks to my parents, fiancé, family, friends, and past educators for their unceasing support and encouragement throughout my academic career. I would also like to thank Tate for being a supportive and encouraging research partner. To my peers in the

Geography department, thank you for providing a warm and friendly environment in which to grow and learn.

Finally, I would like to thank the advocates and friends of Canyonlands National

Park: Bates Wilson, Frank Moss, Stewart Udall, Lin Ottinger, Joette Langianese, Friends of Arches and Canyonlands Parks, Bruce Hucko, Walt Dabney, the Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance, and Camille DenDooven. Thank you, Camille, for your enthusiasm and help to complete this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgments...... 4 List of Figures ...... 7 Timeline of Important Events ...... 8 Chapter 1 ...... 10 Introduction ...... 10 Settlement and Land History ...... 14 Industry ...... 17 Data and Methods ...... 18 Chapter 2 ...... 22 Public Lands ...... 22 History of America’s Public Lands ...... 22 Federal Land Management Agencies...... 26 National Parks ...... 29 National Park History: A Broad Look ...... 29 National Parks: Management ...... 31 Land Acquisition and Park Creation: The Controversies ...... 33 Threats to National Parks ...... 37 Antiquities Act ...... 39 Current Research ...... 41 Canyonlands Research ...... 41 Chapter 3 ...... 43 The Early Years ...... 43 Pushes for Expansion and Protection ...... 53 Chapter 4 ...... 60 Renewal of Protection ...... 60 New Era of Administration ...... 80 Increasing Protection ...... 85 Chapter 5 ...... 88

Page

Significance ...... 88 Conclusion ...... 89 References ...... 94

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Map of Utah National Parks ...... 13 Figure 2. Map of Canyonlands National Park Districts and Rivers ...... 14 Figure 3. Aerial view of the Maze District of CANY...... 46 Figure 4. Boundaries for Udall’s original proposed national park...... 48 Figure 5. Grand View Point ...... 49 Figure 6. Proposed boundaries for CANY in 1962 by Secretary Udall...... 50 Figure 7. Boundaries for 2013 proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument...... 65 Figure 8. Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Parcels near CANY...... 84

TIMELINE OF IMPORTANT EVENTS

1961: First introduced possibility of Needles area being added to the national park system 1961: Udall led a trip of lawmakers into the area he wanted added to the park system 1962: Utah Dems make a push for creation of Canyonlands National Park (CANY), aided in the fight by Udall 1963: Senator Moss introduced new CANY bill that cut acreage to around 270,000 1963: Senate voted in favor of the proposed CANY 1963: House approved CANY 1964: CANY signed into existence by LBJ 1964: Wilderness Act passed 1975: Park expansion 1976: FLPMA passed and extended the concept of wilderness to BLM lands 1985: Utah Wilderness Coalition formed and began to develop a citizens’ proposal for wilderness, or the America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (ARRWA) 1989: ARRWA introduced to Congress 1993: ARRWA reintroduced to Congress 1995: Utah Public Lands Management Act introduced to Congress 1997: Walt Dabney introduced proposal to expand Canyonlands 2008: Oil and gas leases and Tim DeChristopher protest 2009: University of Utah student report detailing attempted completion of CANY 2011: Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance petition to close miles of ATV trails in Greater Canyonlands area 2012: State of Utah passed Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) 2012: Greater Canyonlands Coalition formed 2012: Greater Canyonlands Coalition and Outdoor Industry Association sent letter to President Obama regarding the establishment of a national monument in the Greater Canyonlands region 2013: ARRWA reintroduced to Congress 2014: Utah Recreational Land Exchange 9

2014: Letter from 14 senators sent to President Obama to designate Greater Canyonlands National Monument 2014: Canyonlands celebrates 50th anniversary 2016: Moab Master Leasing Plan finalized and enacted 2016: Public Lands Initiative (PLI) introduced 2016: Bears Ears National Monument established 2016: ARRWA died 2017: Executive order focusing on energy independence issued 2017: ARRWA again reintroduced in the House 2017: SEUG superintendent sent response letter to BLM regarding upcoming oil and gas lease sale 2017: President Trump announced cuts to Bears Ears National Monument 2018: Lease sale of parcels near CANY 2018: 150,000 acres auctioned off near CANY and Arches 2019: Public Lands Package passed

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us." Although President Theodore Roosevelt stated this over 100 years ago, its underlying message is still applicable today.

Throughout its history, the National Park Service (NPS) has struggled to fulfill its dual mission, balancing preservation of park resources with access for public enjoyment.

Recently, however, there has been more contention regarding natural resource exploitation in or around natural parks. Under the current administration, there has been a resurgence in promotion of non-renewable energy sources, although there is significant evidence that using these non-renewable sources is contributing to the warming of the

Earth’s climate. If this use continues unabated there will be significant irreversible damage that future generations will have to fight. Moving into the future, it is important to recognize and promote responsible use of natural resources.

Conflicts between public lands advocates and fossil fuel industries are not uncommon in the American Southwest, particularly in the state of Utah. In December of

2017, President Trump greatly reduced in size two national monuments in Utah, Grand

Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears. According to Turkewitz (2017), the decision “set off a legal battle that could alter the course of American land conservation.” The NPS states that their mission is to preserve “unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and 11 future generations” (National Park Service 2018). As a result of these and other actions, the Trump administration is facing a backlash from environmental groups because it is not protecting public lands in accordance with the National Park Service mission.

Several national parks contain lands with significant oil and gas deposits. These parks face constant pressure from energy companies seeking to exploit resources both inside and outside park boundaries. However, if these drilling and mining activities are permitted, they would “carve up th[e] wild landscape, harming air and water quality, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and degrading spectacular scenery” (Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance 2018). One park currently under threat from the oil and gas industry is Canyonlands National Park (CANY).

Created in 1964, Canyonlands National Park and the surrounding area in southern

Utah has long been a battleground between commercial and recreational interests. Talk of protection for the Greater Canyonlands area in southeastern Utah began during the New

Deal Era, with Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes proposing the Escalante National

Monument in 1936. This monument would have protected approximately 7,000 square miles in the Greater Canyonlands area, but resistance from commercial industries and the coming of World War II defeated the plan (Smith 2005). Although the original proposal was never passed, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall (1960-1968) still saw value in this remote and arid wilderness. Udall wanted to expand the park system and protect as much wilderness as possible, so he proposed a national park of 640,000 to 768,000 acres.

The idea again met stiff resistance, this time from both mining companies and Utah senators, who claimed that Utah could not afford to lock up valuable resources. 12

Numerous revisions finally produced a park totaling some 238,000 acres, much smaller than the original proposal by Udall (Smith 2005). Due to the reduced size of the park, many resources are left unprotected beyond the park’s borders. Since the creation of the park, there have been several attempts to expand its boundaries in order to protect the physical and cultural resources that remain unprotected. These attempts have persisted to the present, but no compromises have been made.

The Canyonlands region lies in the middle of the Colorado Plateau in southeastern

Utah, and includes Canyonlands National Park, Arches National Park, and several other parcels of land managed by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service (Figure 1). Greater Canyonlands is a biologically and culturally diverse area. From its position in the Colorado Plateau, Greater Canyonlands includes several distinctive landforms and geologic features, including brightly colored canyons, rivers, arches, spires, buttes, and mesas (“Canyonlands National Park”). In addition to being geologically diverse, the Greater Canyonlands area also boasts a high level of biodiversity, due in part to elevation changes in the region. Some of the ecotypes that can be found in this region include “salt desert shrub, lush grasslands, and alpine conifer forests” (Jones 2011, 1). According to Jones (2011) the Greater Canyonlands area

“possesses greater plant diversity than almost any other floristic region in Utah” with about 960 different species of plants. Furthermore, Greater Canyonlands also provides a home to hundreds of species of wildlife, including 27 species on Utah’s sensitive species list and seven on the national endangered species list (Jones 2011). Inside CANY, two rivers, the Green and Colorado, divide the park into four distinctive districts: Island in the 13

Sky, the Needles, the Maze, and also the rivers themselves (Figure 2) (“Canyonlands

National Park”).

Figure 1. Map of Utah National Parks and Monuments. Retrieved from: https://www.sporcle.com/games/darkgreen_orange/ut-national-parks-pc. 14

Figure 2. Map of Canyonlands National Park Districts and Rivers, National Park Service.

Settlement and Land History

For thousands of years prior to Euro-American settlement, Native American peoples populated and utilized the desert area of southeastern Utah. Hunter gatherers first visited the Canyonlands area around 10,000 years ago, living off the land and using the plants and animals for survival. These groups did not stay in one area very long or leave a lasting imprint, although they left a record of their presence in the form of rock art

(“American Indians”). More recently, around 2,000 years ago, the hunter-gatherer peoples changed their lifestyles to be more sedentary and rely on domesticated animals and plants; these early groups are known today as Puebloans and Fremonts (“American 15

Indians”). Eventually, the ancient people who resided in the Greater Canyonlands region disappeared, driven out by hostiles and changing weather patterns that made growing crops to sustain life difficult (Aikens 1967). Objects and artifacts left behind include woven baskets, tools, pottery, and rock art; although the two cultures overlapped, the differences in these remains have allowed historians to distinguish between the Puebloan and Fremont peoples (Aikens 1967).

Hundreds of years after indigenous groups moved into the area, Euro-American groups discovered the vast arid land. Conflict over ownership of large areas of land in the

Greater Canyonlands area of Utah can be traced back to the period of early land disposal in America. Federal management policies during the 1800s focused on the settlement of the West, with legislation such as the Homestead Act of 1862 and the General Mining

Law of 1872 promoting settlement. These acts were passed with little concern or thought of the consequences for nature or the native people who already populated the land. The

Homestead Act of 1862 allowed U.S. citizens to claim 160 acres of government land if they promised to make improvements within the first five years. After five years, the claimant would then own the property (National Archives 2016).

Like the Homestead Act, the General Mining Law was intended to be an incentive to push settlers west. The Law emerged as a product of the California Gold Rush and other western land booms of the mid-19th century. Most of the mineral deposits found in the West were on federally owned land, but no laws were in place to oversee the transfer of mineral rights to miners (Gerard 1997). The law allowed citizens and private firms to explore for minerals and claim the rights to the federal lands without any authorization 16 from governmental agencies (Gerard 1997). It further established the exclusive right to mine the area. During this time, there was an abundant amount of land available to be settled and explored, which the government and citizens took advantage of.

The settlement of Utah by Euro-Americans began in the early-19th century, as

Spanish priests explored the area for the purpose of bringing Christianity to the Native groups. They were followed closely by trappers and traders. In 1847, members of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, settled Salt Lake City and established settlements throughout the sparsely populated region (Yaworsky and Codding

2018). Mormons followed their leader, Brigham Young, to Utah in the mid-19th century.

Founded in New York in 1830 by Joseph Smith, members of the Mormon Church believe themselves to be the “latter-day Christian community restored as at the time of Christ”

(Jackson 1992, 42). They established several different settlements in an attempt to find their Utopia (Jackson 1992).

After fleeing persecution in Missouri, Mormon pioneers settled in the Great Basin of Utah. For the Mormons, improving upon the land did not just ensure good harvests, it created the Kingdom of God from the latter-days; their role on the landscape was as a steward of the divine land (Kay and Brown 1985). Mormons settled in the dry and barren land and believed that humans were to love and enjoy the land. They also employed a land ethic that favored resource conservation over wilderness protection, but it still discouraged ruining the land (Kay and Brown 1985). Mormons allowed individuals to extract surface water, graze their animals, and cut timber, but promised to better the land 17 for the community and did not permit outright private ownership of land (Kay and Brown

1985).

Members of the church quickly changed their perception of Native Americans from potential converts to antagonistic hostiles (Yaworsky and Codding 2018). Settlers throughout the west had usually had one of two reactions to the desert: either that the arid lands were useless, as stated in the Bible, or that the lands were a place of solitude and purification (Dilsaver 2016). Others only saw the desert as a place for mining and ranching, and that the land would be useless for any other purpose. Today, the lands are still sparsely populated, with rural communities scattered throughout the region, made up largely of ranchers, miners, cowboys, and recreation seekers (Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance 2018).

Industry

Oil exploration and extraction has a long and storied history in Utah. It began in

1850 when Captain Howard Stanbury discovered evidence of oil on the shore of Salt

Lake. Over the next 40 years, many others discovered evidence of oil, or “petroleum,” in other parts of the state. Starting in 1890, oil and gas prospectors established mines throughout Utah in hopes of striking paydirt. However, it was not until 1907 when a miner found oil sands near Virgin City that the effort paid off. Throughout 1907-1912, oil firms drilled more than 80 wells across the state, before the industry slowed and then picked up again after 1922. After World War II, oilmen accelerated production. Many large oil companies moved in and started drilling oil for commercial use, at which point it became an important commercial industry in Utah, especially in the southeastern corner 18 of the state. Even though the oil industry in Utah is small in comparison to other states, it has consistently ranked in the top 15 nationally and has become an important livelihood for some rural citizens.

Livestock grazing is another important activity in Utah. It began in 1847 with the first Mormon settlers that came to the area. By the end of the 19th century, lands throughout the West were damaged by heavy grazing— ranges were depleted and watersheds damaged. Many of the first animals to graze on the rangeland were sheep, but cattle are now the dominant livestock. Currently in Utah, 45 million acres of land are dedicated to grazing, with most of the land being federally owned (73 percent federally owned, 9 percent state owned, and 18 percent privately owned) (Troy Forest 2018).

Permits to graze on federal land are allotted in Animal Unit Months (AUMs), which is the amount of forage required to feed a mature cow for a month.

Data and Methods

The overarching purpose of this research is to better understand the forces that shape the contested landscape of the Canyonlands region of southeastern Utah. I focus on two main research questions. First, what socioeconomic, cultural, legal, and political forces came together to defeat the Greater Canyonlands National Monument Proposal in

2013? And second, are these forces similar to the ones that limited the size of the park at its establishment in 1964?

I employed a constructivist framework for this project, relying primarily on qualitative data and methods to cast light on the contested history of the Greater

Canyonlands region of southeastern Utah (Winchester and Rofe 2010). To represent the 19 full history of the area, it was necessary to examine a variety of archival data sets (Harris

2001). However, archival research presented some challenges. For example, records and surviving files were created by politicians and officials and reflected the outlooks and views of the dominant groups at the time they were created; some archival sources did not provide a complete picture, and it was difficult to access local data (Harris 2001;

SAMHSA 2017).

I examined data from several sources, including newspaper collections at the

University of Utah and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, as well as High Country

News. In addition to these newspaper sources, I reviewed archival data from the holdings of the National Park Service. These archives were accessed at the headquarters of the

South Eastern Utah Group headquarters, outside of Moab, Utah. Within the holdings, I reviewed a wide range of documents, including newspaper clippings, bills, and economic studies. Much of the data I used came from newspaper clippings, op-eds, and letters to the editor. Other key documents that illuminated the contested history of the Greater

Canyonlands area included Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act, America’s Red Rock

Wilderness Act, the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument and

Canyonlands National Park Expansion, and the Eastern Utah Public Lands Initiative.

Exploring these archives and documents allowed me to understand the economic, cultural, political, and legal forces that created this contested landscape (Roche 2010).

After I obtained the archival documents necessary for my study, I performed content analysis on four separate groups of documents (Bowen 2009). My first group of documents was dated prior to 1965, the second from 1966-1999, the third from 2000- 20

2016, and the fourth from 2017-present. I then determined the main themes running through the articles and produced a set of words and phrases to codify throughout all sets of documents (Bengtsson 2016). This allowed me to delve deeper into the history of the area while showing me which documents would prove more relevant to my research

(Stemler 2001). The word set I assembled included pictographs/archaeology, preservation, conservation, recreation, economy, pollution, Antiquities Act, national monument, management, boundaries, tourism, oil, gas, uranium, potash, fossil fuels, public land, private land, multiple use, drilling/mining, mineral exploration, mineral leasing, national significance, science, development, climate change, grazing/grazing allotment, jeep/four wheel drive vehicle, Mormon, and wilderness. I produced a frequency count for each word in each set of documents. Furthermore, I explored different relationships between codes, noting which were frequently used together

(Stemler 2001). I also coded for individuals and groups that appeared to have conflicting viewpoints.

After manually coding all included documents, I started to prepare my chronological study of the resource management history of the Greater Canyonlands area.

I broke out my discussion into four parts corresponding with the four sets of archival documents that I previously coded. The first section corresponds to the formation and establishment of Canyonlands National Park. The second section, from 1966-1999, was an era of attempted expansion to complete the original vision for CANY. In the third interval, from 2000-2016, there were several more attempts at expansion. The fourth section corresponds to the recent change in administration in Washington, D.C. 21

Highlighted in each section of the management history are the different events, political actions, bills/laws, and proposals that contributed to the creation of this contested landscape. Although not all apply specifically to Canyonlands National Park, they had effects or repercussions on the Greater Canyonlands region. Content Analysis was performed on each of the four sections.

The remainder of this thesis is organized in the following manner. Chapter 2 surveys the literature that serves as the context for this study. More specifically, I review books and articles pertaining to the history of public lands in America, the National Park

System, and Canyonlands National Park. The next chapter provides more in-depth historical context for the Greater Canyonlands region. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the primary data I collected from SEUG and from my newspaper search. The final chapter summarizes and synthesizes my results and underscores the significance of the research.

CHAPTER 2

According to geographer Lary Dilsaver (2009, 268), there are six different types of units in the national park system: those that are created to “protect natural resources, to preserve historic sites, and to provide recreation,” and those “parks [that are] political constructions, economic entities, and social places.” Although our large national parks today provide a snapshot of scenic wilderness and American culture, many were once considered “worthless” lands at the time of their creation. Much of the land originally set aside as national parks was deemed to have no economic value, or it was assumed that commercial resources would “be excluded from the parks at the outset,” or could be exploited at a later date (Runte 2010, 28). Throughout the course of the development of the national park idea, the commercial value of resources like minerals and timber has determined not only what lands were protected, but also how they were protected.

Public Lands

History of America’s Public Lands

The availability of land has shaped American settlement history since the colonial era. Indeed, the prospect of owning land in America served as an important pull for many

European migrants. In order to control the westward flow of the colonists- and to minimize conflicts with Native Americans- the British government imposed the

Proclamation Line of 1763. This boundary was established after the British acquired a large amount of land west of the Appalachians and east of the Mississippi River at the close of the French and Indian War (U.S. History 2018). British resources were already stretched thin and allowing colonists into this new territory would strain their 23 administrative capacities. Furthermore, there were already French settlers and colonists inhabiting this land who would not give up their claims easily, and the British feared another conflict with them (U.S. History 2018).

This law, however, did not sit well with colonists. They had already anticipated westward expansion into these new lands and objected to the new law. It ignited a major new conflict between the crown and colonists, which only added to the feelings of resentment that helped spark the American Revolution (Sowards 2017). Reflecting on the early history of land tenure in America, this episode clearly reveals themes that would persist down to the present. These include land being used to secure an individual’s well- being, as a way for one group to control another, and as a source of conflict (Sowards

2017).

There are four distinct periods of public land history in the United States: acquisition, disposal, retention, and management (Huffman 1994). During the period of expansion and acquisition in America from 1781 to 1867, the United States gained control of large swaths of land, totaling about 1.8 billion acres. This large expanse of land stretched from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Coast and came into the hands of the

American government through the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession, the

Gadsden purchase from Mexico, and the Alaska purchase (Public Lands Foundation

2014). When the Constitution was being ratified, many states had land claims that extended west beyond the Mississippi, while other states did not have any claims. To come to an agreement on the structure of the new government, states that had western land claims ceded them to the federal government. This led to the federal government 24 controlling lands totaling more than the original thirteen colonies combined (Huffman

1994). However, the federal government did not want to become a land manager, and therefore turned to the disposal of its public land holdings. During the 1780s, newly independent states ceded their western claims to the central government, thus creating the public domain. The first claim return occurred in 1781 when New York relinquished its claim on lands west of the Mississippi River. Many more states followed this example, and all lands from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River became public land owned by the federal government by 1802 (Public Lands Foundation 2014).

Disposal of public lands to private owners started as the government decided that a policy of retention was not feasible. Much of the 1.8 billion acres was then distributed to individuals, corporations, and states (Public Lands Foundation 2014). Some of the ways in which land was distributed included the Land Ordinance of 1785, which established how the government would distribute the lands and how the territories would be settled. As land was ceded to the government from states and Native Americans, surveyors went to the territories and divided them into individual, square townships

(Ohio History Central 2018). Land was then sold to the public at a rate of $1 per acre, which provided revenue for the government to pay debts. Following the Land Ordinance of 1785, Congress passed several other laws and acts that facilitated settlement in western lands, including military bounties, land grants to states, land grants to other federal agencies, and land grants to railroads. Other means of disposal included “the Homestead

Act, the Desert Land Act, mineral location laws, the Timber Culture Act, the Timber and 25

Stone Act, the Kincaid Homestead Act, [and] the forest Homestead Act” (Huffman 1994,

249).

Of these laws, the Homestead Act may have been the best known, and responsible for settlement of much of the West. However, much of the land that was intended to go to homesteaders instead went to railroads, speculators, cattlemen, and miners (National

Archives 2016). The Homestead Act, enacted during the Civil War in 1862, allowed for a claim of 160 acres of land, given with the proviso that a claimant would have to improve the lands within five years (National Archives 2016).

Following the era of disposal, reservation of federal land began. The first of the major reservations, or withdrawals, of land from the public domain began with

Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and continued with other areas being set aside for other national parks, national monuments, national forests, and federal reservations for

Native Americans (Huffman 1994; Public Lands Foundation 2014). These lands were referred to as “reserves” or “withdrawn,” as the underlying policy and thought was still one of disposal of the public domain. This system reflected the belief that public lands in the federal domain were useful for a singular purpose, but not for multiple uses (Huffman

1994).

Over the course of American history, there have been two main ways to convey and control public lands. In the 19th century, disposal of public lands to states and private owners was the norm. As the 20th century began, however, the federal government started putting more effort into managing previously acquired lands and stopping the disposal of 26 public lands (Nelson 1994). This change in federal land management policy coincided with the Progressive Era, a period of social and government reform.

Federal Land Management Agencies

In the United States, there are several different government agencies that manage public land. National parks, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, national forests, and national conservation areas are managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. There are also designated wilderness areas, which can be included in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, or public lands managed by the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (U.S. Department of Interior 2016). The agencies that mange these lands include the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service, (USFS), and the BLM.

While the first national park, Yellowstone, was created in 1872, the National Park

Service was not established until 1916. The purpose of national parks was to serve as an antidote for an increasingly industrial society, and to offer urbanites the chance to escape into the solitude of wilderness. The growing number of national parks also represented the “contemporary intellectual, social, and economic changes that [led] to a growing appreciation for wilderness and wildlife…and the popularization of the automobile”

(Library of Congress 2018). With this increased awareness and appreciation of nature,

Americans expressed a desire to preserve the most spectacular landscapes and historical sites for future generations.

Before the establishment of the NPS, three different agencies supervised the parks and monuments: the departments of War, Agriculture, and the Interior (Library of 27

Congress 2018). On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic

Act, unifying the management of the parks and monuments under one agency (National

Park Service 2018a). The first superintendent of the NPS, Stephen Mather, worked tirelessly to promote the parks, and he lobbied successfully to ensure the creation of future parks. In 1933, an executive order by President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred the management of 56 national monuments and military sites from the War Department and Forest Service to the NPS, allowing the NPS to diversify its holdings to include historical and culturally important sites as well as those of scenic importance. At present, there are over 400 units under the management of the NPS. New additions to the system are usually made through acts of Congress, although national monuments are made through Presidential Proclamations (National Park Service 2018c).

Although the Bureau of Land Management was only established in 1946, the organization has roots that date back to the origins of the country. The agency’s main focus is to administer lands that remain in America’s “public domain” (Bureau of Land

Management 2016). Two precursors of the BLM were the General Land Office (est.

1812), which was responsible for public land sales, patents, and entries, and the U.S.

Grazing Service. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management

Law, which repealed homestead laws and required that the land that remained in federal ownership be “managed for multiple uses and sustained yield through land-use planning”

(Bureau of Land Management 2016). Now considered a multi-use agency, the BLM currently manages about 245 million acres of land for multiple purposes, such as energy 28 development, livestock grazing, timber, mining, and recreation along with conserving natural, historical, and cultural resources (Bureau of Land Management 2016).

In 1891, President Harrison signed into law the Forest Reserve Act. This act allowed presidents to withdraw wooded areas from the public domain to create forest reserves and put to rest “two decades of debate about public land policy and concern about exploitive logging” (The Wilderness Society 2018). Six years later Congress passed the Organic Act which outlined the purpose of the forest reserves. Nearly a decade would pass before President Theodore Roosevelt placed the forest reserves under the management of the U.S. Forest Service and its newly appointed chief Gifford Pinchot.

Today, the USFS manages over 191 million acres, including 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands.

The mission of the Forest Service has evolved over time. During the Great

Depression, the Roosevelt Administration employed citizens to complete improvement projects at national parks and forests across the country (Williams 2005). After WWII, the national forests started to provide an increasing amount of timber products, which led to conflicts over the multiple use of the forests. New environmental laws were enacted beginning in the 1960s that required the Forest Service to develop new management plans and involve the public in the decision-making process. Today, ecological forestry, national fire planning, and collaborative stewardship have emerged as management priorities for the Forest Service (Williams 2005).

The Fish and Wildlife Service traces its conception and lineage back to 1871. In

1940, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was created when the Bureau of 29

Fisheries and the Bureau of Biological Survey were combined into one agency within the

Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018). The main responsibility of the FWS is to manage fish and wildlife and to provide recreation opportunities for

Americans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018). Currently, the FWS manages more than 560 National Wildlife Refuges as well as wetlands and other special management areas. In addition, the USFWS is responsible for 70 Natural Fish Hatcheries. Although the FWS manages public lands, voluntary habitat protection and restoration projects offer habitat conservation benefits on private lands as well (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2018).

Each of these federal agencies plays a part in managing America’s public lands, and sometimes they must compromise on how a particular parcel of land is managed. The availability of land and access to resources has shaped the history of America since the colonial era and will continue to do so for the years to come. Striking a balance between preservation and use remains an ongoing challenge for resource managers who must weigh the economic needs of the country with the recreational demands of its citizens.

National Parks

National Park History: A Broad Look

During the first half of the nineteenth century, Americans confronted an “identity crisis.” Lacking the cultural antiquities of Europe, they turned to nature for inspiration.

Although natural scenery in the East was impressive it did not capture the imaginations of

European critics. Westward expansion and the discovery of rugged western landscapes, however, forever changed the view of natural wonders in America, proving that the 30 young country had landscapes deserving of admiration by a global audience (Runte

2010).

Although the NPS was created in 1916, Congress approved several parks before then. Yellowstone, for example, the first national park, was created in 1872 from 2 million acres of public land in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (National Park Service n.d.). The creation of Yellowstone set a precedent for preservation for all future national parks. The establishment of Yellowstone also sparked a subtle but noticeable shift in the public’s opinions about national parks, and about conservation in general (Smith 2004,

4). Prior to 1916, Yellowstone and the parks and monuments created in subsequent years were administered by several different agencies, none of which provided unified management, thus the creation of a park service was deemed necessary. By the time the

National Park Service was established, the Department of the Interior was responsible for maintaining 14 national parks and 21 national monuments, all of which were vulnerable to competing interests, including the mining and timber industries. Bringing all the parks together under one agency was the result of an Organic Act, which “established the basis for the fundamental mission, philosophy, and policies of the National Park Service”

(National Park Service n.d.).

National parks are among the best known and most visited types of federal lands in the United States today, as they include beautiful scenery and places of great historical significance. Although the parks attract many visitors for recreational purposes, they serve another important function as well: preservation (Wilson 2014, 64). This “dual mission” means that the NPS must protect natural and cultural resources while still 31 providing recreation and enjoyment for the American public (Youngs 2018, 118).

Striking a balance between use and protection has proved controversial over the years and presents the NPS with management challenges today.

National Parks: Management

Although commercial tourism influenced the original management plans of national parks, so too did a passion for wilderness protection. Writings by John Muir,

Henry David Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson exemplified these emerging ideals, although ecological concern within the park system was not yet prominent. These conflicting ideals came to a head in 1913 over the proposed damming of the Hetch

Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park (Sellars 1997). Muir vehemently opposed the damming because he wanted to preserve the backcountry as much as possible, but the act was passed to provide water to San Francisco.

During the early years of the NPS, from 1916-1932, the agency still relied heavily on tourism, such as that facilitated by railroad companies, to promote the parks (Wyckoff and Dilsaver 1997). When the NPS was established, it inherited a preexisting set of policies and management decisions designed to enhance the enjoyment of the public and bolster the popularity of the fledgling agency. Initially, management focused heavily on tourism and resort-style development, which persisted into the twentieth century (Sellars

1997). It was also during this time that the NPS was struggling to balance recreational use and preservation, while establishing itself as a separate entity from the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS) (Tweed and Dilsaver 2016). Leaders such as Stephen T. Mather, who 32 first directed the NPS, and Horace M. Albright, the second director of the national parks, however, tended to favor the tourism side of the mission.

During President Franklin Roosevelt’s first term in office, the NPS experienced a major reorganization and shift in management. In particular, two executive orders in 1933 changed the fortunes of the NPS. The first transferred the War Department’s parks and monuments, as well as all of the monuments held by the USFS, to the NPS (National

Park Service n.d.). The NPS also was given the authority to create national monuments.

Thanks to this reorganization, the NPS greatly expanded its holdings. In addition, historic preservation and interpretation were added to the mission of the park service.

During the 1930s, park service officials explored the American Southwest in search of tracts of land to protect four desert species: the saguaro cactus, the organ pipe cactus, the California fan palm, and the Joshua Tree (Dilsaver 2016). Although their ecological value was increasingly evident, deserts were perceived as wastelands and their suitability for parks questioned. For example, Joshua Tree National Park was given national monument status in 1936 but did not become a national park until 1994 after passage of the California Desert Protection Act (NPS 2016). Throughout its history,

Joshua Tree has faced legal challenges, suggesting the ever-present negative perceptions of the desert. However, the public ultimately accepted the desert and found it to be worthy of protection and appreciation (Dilsaver 2016).

As the twentieth century progressed, science and ecology played an increasingly important role for the NPS when it came to making management decisions (Alagona

2013). Although biological research was temporarily halted during World War II, it 33 started again in the late 1950s. Spurred by outside ecologists and preservationist groups, the NPS and Department of the Interior produced several important studies in the post- war years, the most important being the Leopold Report (Tweed and Dilsaver 2016). The

Leopold Report steered park management away from “strict protection of scenic objects

[desirable to] the public,” to a new “aggressive attempt to re-establish past ecosystems and unhindered natural processes” (Tweed and Dilsaver 2016, 234). Additionally,

Congress had neglected the parks, resulting in a decline of infrastructure and facilities. To address the decline, the NPS launched Mission 66, a 10-year plan designed to upgrade facilities and modernize resource management (Carr 2007).

The new Master Plan for the parks was completed in 1971. This plan identified many problems, including congestion in developed areas, inadequate and aging facilities, inadequate staffing in resource management, research, and interpretation programs, and not enough broad planning within and around the parks (Tweed and Dilsaver 2016). In addition to the Master Plan, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Passage of these two legislative acts reflected the public’s growing concern for environmental protection and science-based management (Dilsaver 2016).

Land Acquisition and Park Creation: The Controversies

For decades, land acquisition by the government has been a highly debated topic.

Most of this debate is centered around the issue of just compensation, which is usually a prerequisite for the expropriation of lands. Typically, the main reason and justification for the claiming of public lands is that it is for the common good (Holtslag-Broekhof et al. 34

2015). If land is claimed and taken over by the government, then it will be put to use for all the American people to use and enjoy. Although sometimes considered America’s

“best idea,” the creation of national parks meant removing indigenous people and others from their homelands while claiming to do a better job of preserving the lands (Dilsaver and Wyckoff 2005; Jacoby 2001; Spence 1999). It does not help that early conservation practices sometimes did more harm than good, especially when it came to managing wildlife.

Creating a new national park is a legislative process that includes viewpoints from different groups, including those who may have differing opinions about how the land should be used (Espinosa, Vaske, and Donnelly 2017). To determine if lands are worthy of NPS protection, candidate sites must meet the following criteria: national significance, feasibility, and suitability (Dilsaver and Wyckoff 2009, 8). Many early park proposals were rejected because they did not meet these criteria. Additionally, nearly all parks displaced indigenous peoples or settlers, contradicting “the notion of public lands as unpeopled, eternal and pristine” (Wilson 2014, 65). Politics plays a role as well.

According to Espinosa, Vaske and, Donnelly (2017) control of the House and Senate, electoral competition, and the occurrence of a political election year all influence how many new national parks are created in a given year.

Several different types of protected areas are administered by the National Park

Service. Some of these include national parks, national monuments, and national recreation areas. National parks include lands that are “primitive” or have wilderness characteristics that contain scenery or other natural wonders. Preservation of these lands 35 can only be established by an act of Congress. National monuments, on the other hand, are lands set aside for the protection of historic, prehistoric, or scientific objects or features found on them. To establish a national monument, a Presidential Proclamation must be issued or an act of Congress passed. Lastly, national recreation areas are federal reserves established to “conserve and develop for public enjoyment recreation resources of national significance, including areas of a scenic, natural or historic interest and their wildlife” (Definitions 1961). The system of management in recreation areas is designed to permit other resource uses, so long as they are not incompatible with the protection and enjoyment for the public of the recreational resources.

Differing levels of preexisting development within proposed national parks have created challenges when determining the boundaries of the new parks. Three boundary types are recognized when creating a new park, and more than one is typically utilized during the process. These boundary types are antecedent, subsequent, and superimposed.

Antecedent boundaries are applied in unsettled areas without preexisting land uses.

Subsequent boundaries are manipulated in an area that was previously settled to exclude as many properties and incompatible uses as possible. Superimposed boundaries are those that are put in place without regard to previously existing settlement or land uses

(Dilsaver and Wyckoff 2005). Over the past century, most boundaries have been superimposed over already developed lands, leading to conflicts and management problems (Dilsaver and Wyckoff 2005). Furthermore, it has become apparent that although boundaries are important political constructs that can control human activity within the park, they have their limitations: animals cross over park boundaries, and air, 36 water, sound, and light pollution do not stop at park borders (Dilsaver and Wyckoff

2005). As a result, it is imperative that the NPS work in cooperation with local organizations to manage park resources.

Although political and economic issues can prove contentious when creating a new national park, nearby land uses can also cause problems for resource managers. In the western U.S., most parks were created from public lands and are surrounded by lands belonging to the BLM or the USFS (Dilsaver and Wyckoff 2005). These agencies allow activities such as grazing, mining, timber extraction, and industrial development, which can conflict with the NPS mission (Wilson 2014). National park creation in the East was motivated more by public demand for recreation than scenic preservation, which some preservationists did not see as a “pure” reason to protect lands (Runte 2010). However, equity of access to national parks was a pressing issue, as many western national parks were far removed from population centers. Modern preservationists realized their movement had to change and acknowledged that more national parks would have to be created in accessible areas of the country (Runte 2010).

Over the past 100 years, the population of the Earth has increased dramatically; in the United States, the population has more than tripled (Mockrin et al. 2018). With an increase in population comes an increase in demand for natural resources, as well as space and land to live. Recently, low density sprawl has been infringing upon borders of public lands, and although these populations benefit from the ecosystem services provided by the public lands, local communities may have issues with the government 37 enforcing regulations or promulgating new ones (Mockrin et al. 2018). As the population continues to grow and change, so will the resource management challenges.

Threats to National Parks

National parks face multiple threats both internal and external. For example, the current administration recently ordered a review of 27 national monuments designated since 1996, many of which were protected using the Antiquities Act. The purpose of the review is to look for ways to reduce the size of larger monuments (100,000 acres or more), many of which had bipartisan support in Congress when they were created (The

Wilderness Society 2018). Reversing or revising the national monument designations could dramatically reduce the amount of protected land in the United States. One example of a national monument redesignation is Bears Ears in eastern Utah. Bears Ears, an Obama-era designation, was decreased by about 1.5 million acres (to about 200,000 acres) and divided into two separate sections (Thompson 2017). Critics speculate that oil and gas reserves were found in the area and that this provided a central motive for redisignation. Many culturally sensitive areas were left unprotected after the cut went into effect. In addition to reducing the amount of protected land, national parks are also threatened by budget cuts. The current budget for the parks in 2018 is $2.6 billion, about

$296.6 million less than the 2017 total budget (NPS Funding). Due to this decrease in funding, the NPS will have 1,242 fewer full-time employees serving at park and regional offices than in 2017 (FY 2018 Budget Justifications). Employing fewer full-time employees will put a strain on those who are continuing on with the NPS, and may provide a less enjoyable and educational experience for visitors. 38

Additionally, national parks are facing threats from off-road vehicle (ORV) use, energy development, weakened protections for national monuments, and climate change

(“America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act” 2018). For example, off-road vehicle use is pervasive across the country, in particular the canyon country of Utah. The use of off- road vehicles degrades wildlife habitats and increases pollution in desert streams by sending mud and other particulates into the water systems that are crucial to wildlife survival. In addition, many sensitive cultural archaeological sites are more likely to be destroyed if a trail for ORVs is located close to the site (“America’s Red Rock

Wilderness Act” 2018). Dust and debris are disturbed when an ORV passes on a trail, which in turn leads to wind erosion and air pollution in and around the park’s sensitive landscapes.

Lands near several national parks are at risk for fossil fuel extraction. If lands adjacent to national parks are exploited for their resources, surrounding areas may be greatly affected. Negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction include air, water, light, and sound pollution. Air pollution is already a great concern in several national parks. If drilling is permitted, construction activities associated with these activities will increase air pollution. This pollution stems from the construction vehicles that utilize gasoline and diesel, and the diesel engines that are needed to power the drilling equipment (Geltman

2016). In addition to air pollution, surface and ground water pollution is a concern. A problem associated with drilling activities is that “brine water, hazardous substances, and leaked oil and gas could spill and drain from the wellhead outside the park and into the land and waters in the park” (Geltman 2016,174). Depending on the location of the wells, 39 even drill sites located outside of national parks could affect the water in the parks themselves. Drilling in or outside of parks can also impact visitor enjoyment of the parks due to light pollution and visual impairment of scenic landscapes from the drill site equipment.

Traditionally, the NPS has managed its natural areas as if they were separate entities from the rest of the world. As the world moves forward into a new era of climate change awareness, the NPS has realized its role in educating and teaching about climate change and sustainability. Units under the protection of the NPS are not exempt from the effects of climate change, whether it’s disappearing glaciers, altered migration of birds, or coastal erosion of historic landmarks (National Park Service 2018d). In the American

Southwest, more intense rains are contributing to faster degradation of adobe structures, while droughts are becoming more frequent, threatening buildings and landscapes

(National Park Service 2018b). The literature outlines several other threats that will become the norm in coming years. Climate change will not only alter the natural, cultural, and historic resources protected by the NPS, but it will affect the management and mission fulfillment. On a more positive note, park personnel disseminate information about behavior change and sustainability to large numbers of visitors from around the world (Smith, Karosic and Smith 2015).

Antiquities Act

In 1906, Congress passed the Antiquities Act to allow the president to create new national monuments. The Act specifies three criteria for new declarations: “the monument must be historic or scientific, situated on lands owned or controlled by the 40 government, and confined to the smallest area compatible for proper management,” although it does not include any definitions for the criteria (Hartman 2011, 156).

Throughout the first half of the 19th century, exploratory expeditions recorded evidence of Native American settlements and cultures. In the latter half of the 19th century, after the Civil War, the federal government enticed settlers from the eastern United States to settle the West through mechanisms such as the Homestead Act, leading to plundering and looting of artifacts from sensitive cultural sites (McManamon 2014, 326). Loss of

Native American archaeological sites caused the government to act. The solution

Congress came up with was to withdraw land from the public domain.

Originally, the Act was intended for small parcels of land limited geographically to the American Southwest, but no limitations were established, paving the way for it to be used widely across the country (Righter 1989). Passage of the Antiquities Act coincided with the preservation and conservation movements sweeping through the

United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (McManamon 2014). Theodore

Roosevelt was the first president to exercise the new executive power granted under the

Antiquities Act. The creation of Devils Tower National Monument set the precedent of use for subsequent presidents. All told Roosevelt used the Act to protect about 1.2 million acres during his presidency (Squillace 2003). In addition to protecting “antiquities,” several national monuments were established on the basis of scientific interest, although the Antiquities Act does not clearly define what “scientific” means. Over the years, national monuments have been established to protect animals, plants, and other ecological concerns (Defenders of Wildlife 2017). 41

Although a liberal interpretation of the Antiquities Act has been well established, conflicts have arisen over its use. Under the Act, the president has the authority to proclaim a national monument, but judicial review can always be requested to ensure that the designations comply with the original criteria stated in the Act (Squillace 2003).

Congress has the power to alter or abolish national monuments; however, the president is not permitted to amend or abolish any previous national monument designations

(Margherita 2016). Many of the problems and conflicts with the Antiquities Act are related to the liberal presidential use of the Act, such as with the proclamations made by

Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Vague language in the Act allowed Carter to declare a monument in Alaska totaling some 56,000,000 acres. Critics contested the move, arguing it was not what the original writers of the Act had intended (Righter

1989). There is typically no public input and congressional approval is not needed, which often leads to conflict with local land owners who do not have a say in the process.

Current Research

Canyonlands Research

Much of the literature on the NPS is general in nature; very little research focuses on the Greater Canyonlands region or on Canyonlands National Park. The literature that is available deals mainly with the ecologic and geomorphic features of the park, and not the controversies and conflicts that currently swirl around the park. Some of this research includes papers on water management plans, soil makeup, and archaeological sites. The research in this paper will illuminate the contested history of the Canyonlands region and problems confronting Canyonlands National Park in the future. 42

Research that currently exists on Canyonlands National Park and the surrounding area includes the Administrative History of Canyonlands National Park by Samuel

Schmieding, published in 2008. This comprehensive historical project provides an in- depth overview of Canyonlands National Park from the first exploration of the

Canyonlands region up through 2006 when present South Eastern Utah Group (SEUG)

Superintendent Kate Cannon took over the job. Although this research is very comprehensive, there is no other source that examines the more recent problems surrounding Canyonlands National Park and southeastern Utah.

Several books and articles offer general treatments of the National Park System itself. One book by Richard Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, documents the clash between recreationists and preservationists from the creation of the first national park through 1997. Another book, National Parks: The American Experiment by Alfred

Runte, describes the development and creation of the national park idea in the United

States. Many other parks have been the subject of more recent comprehensive histories, such as Lary Dilsaver’s Preserving the Desert: A History of Joshua Tree National Parl.

Dilsaver’s book outlines the complete history of Joshua Tree National Park. Additionally,

Dilsaver also wrote America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, which contains a full description of all of the documents associated with the creation, management, and development of the NPS.

The Greater Canyonlands region of southeastern Utah and Canyonlands National

Park has a complex management history, filled with compromise and conflict. This thesis will help fill a gap in our understanding of this complex landscape. 43

CHAPTER 3

The Early Years

Throughout the early 1960s, there was a protracted struggle to designate the

Canyonlands region of Utah as a national park. The area offered sweeping scenic vistas with rugged canyon landscapes found nowhere else in the United States. Some saw the potential to create a park that would draw in tourists, while others fought the idea in order to protect access to mineral deposits such as oil and natural gas. Opponents also sought to protect livestock grazing as a land use activity. Many of these landowners had ranches that could be traced back for generations, with some going back to the Mormon settlers who entered Utah in the mid-nineteenth century.

Prior to any discussion about the Canyonlands region becoming a national park,

Dead Horse Point, a scenic overlook in the region, was established as a state park. Other features in the region, including Grandview Point, Upheaval Dome, Needles, and Land of the Standing Rocks, were also proposed as state parks (Allen 1960). However, officials stated that they did not feel as though the state could provide the unified management needed to protect the area, and therefore the National Park Service should be the agency to manage these lands. The NPS would have primary responsibility for the protection of the park and would uphold the recreational values of the area (Allen 1961). Although the

NPS would manage the land, it was originally thought the area would be designated as a

National Recreation Area or Reserve National Park, allowing for continued multiple-use and development of natural resources (Allen 1961). Due to the long history of distrust of the federal government in Utah, the NPS director realized that the creation of a larger 44 national park or national monument would cause conflict in the area, but it would be just as hard to push through a single district, the Needles, as a national monument (NPS

Director 1961).

Three Democrats from Utah —Sen. Frank E. Moss, Rep. David King and Rep. M.

Blaine Peterson— first introduced the possibility of adding the Needles district of what is now Canyonlands National Park to the national park system in March 1961. The three men sent a joint letter to Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall to ask that the area be considered but set no boundaries on what was to be included. According to a park service report, many examples of prehistoric Indian ruins and writings were discovered in the

750,000-acre area. Additionally, the report stated that the area was nationally significant due to its geologic and scenic features, specifically its sandstone arches and canyon vistas. Although the three men stressed the scenic value and importance of the area in their letter, they also suggested that if the area were protected, it should remain open to multiple use. They stated that multiple use of public lands in the form of mineral exploration and grazing was of great importance to the Utah economy (“Utah Proposal:

Needles Park,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 1961).

Shortly after the Democrats’ letter, Republican Senator Wallace Bennet from

Utah introduced a bill in Congress that would establish a national recreation area in the

Needles region. The bill would have allowed for multiple-use in the recreation area, including mining, grazing, and oil development, as well as exploration for other natural resources. Although the idea proposed by the Utah Democrats would have created a national park or recreation area, Bennet stated he had been in correspondence with state 45 officials who opposed the idea of park development. Development of a park would have excluded and banned any oil, mining, or grazing interests, and Bennet claimed the entire area was under lease for oil exploration (“Sen. Bennet Proposes Utah Recreation Area,”

Deseret News and Telegram, 1961).

Three men were particularly instrumental in the creation of CANY. These included first Superintendent Bates Wilson, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, and

Kent frost. Wilson, nicknamed the father of Canyonlands, started as the Superintendent of Arches and Natural Bridges National Monument in 1949. He enjoyed exploring the land that is now Canyonlands, often taking reporters, scouts, and film crews to the area

(Prettyman 2014). Wilson advocated for a new national park within the community, and with his urging, the NPS first surveyed the area in 1959. After Canyonlands was officially established, Wilson became the first superintendent.

In 1961, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall joined Bates Wilson in the fight for a new national park in the Canyonlands region. Udall first saw the park from the air and immediately thought that the area was worthy of national park designation

(Prettyman 2014). To bring more attention to the area, Udall arranged a trip for thirty-two government and media personnel to explore the park, allowing for more people to see first hand the impressive and unique landscape. One of Udall’s main ideas was to create a

“Golden Circle” of parks. This would connect all of the major National Parks in southern

Utah, Arizona, and the Four Corners region (“Udall Defends Park Plans” 1961).

A local outfitter, Kent Frost, spent his entire life exploring the canyons that eventually became Canyonlands National Park. He eventually became a guide, and he 46 and his wife Fran led numerous trips to showcase the unique landscape and build support for preserving the area. Frost first introduced and guided Wilson through the region in the

1950s, and also led many reporters through the park, as well (Prettyman 2014). Although he did not have as much influence as the other two men, he was instrumental in the preservation of Canyonlands.

In July 1961, Udall led a trip of lawmakers into the area he wanted to add to the national park system. They first went by boat down the Colorado River, then camped in the bottom of the canyon before being flown by helicopter to view the Island in the Sky area. From there, they viewed Grand View point, Upheaval Dome, and Dead Horse Point.

Those who decided to camp in the Needles hiked through the rugged wilderness to Druid

Arch, then took a jeep caravan to Monticello to end the trip. About 100 people joined

Udall on the trip, including Utah congressmen, western lawmakers, conservation group leaders, and civic and government officials (“Udall to Lead Trek Through,” Deseret

News, 1961). Udall hoped that the large, diverse group would be able to reach an agreement.

Figure 3. Aerial view of the Maze District of CANY, Photograph by author.

After Udall’s tour of the area, Utah Governor Clyde met with him to discuss the park. Clyde remained convinced that the area being proposed (Figure 4) was too large and did not guarantee that natural resources other than the area’s scenic values would be able to be utilized. Udall argued that the proposal permitted the resource extraction already occurring in the area, such as oil and natural gas, to continue for the remainder of their lifetime, or the lifetime of those using them. He believed this would be about 30 to

50 more years, although he was not completely sure of the timeline (“Belated Attention to Magnificent Area,” The Salt Lake City Tribune, 1961). Furthermore, Udall claimed that the expansion of federal landownership in the area would not be substantial, as much of the area proposed for a national park was already under the control of the BLM. The only expense that would be somewhat costly would be the building of roads, as well as providing water and building facilities.

Despite Udall’s assurances, there was still great concern over oil development.

Although some locals expressed concern over livestock grazing, more opposed the park on grounds that untapped resources might be discovered at any time. The idea of national parks was under fire due to the limits on timbering, mining, grazing, water development, and hunting that park designation would bring. If a new park were to be created in the area, opponents wanted a clause that would allow for future development of natural resources if they were found to be beneficial (“Belated Attention to Magnificent Area,”

The Salt Lake City Tribune, 1961). Governor Clyde had a great deal of support from local citizens, including bankers, farmers, mining company officials, and local government officials. Clyde opposed the large area proposed by Udall because he wanted to ensure 48 the continued development of natural resources. The governor felt that although Udall offered to compromise on his park plan, these concessions were not enough; those who lived in the area needed to protect their right to develop natural resources.

Figure 4. Boundaries for Udall’s original proposed national park.

Udall continued to defend the park plan, stressing the beauty of the unique desert landscape. The preservation program would have not only recognized the importance of land uses such as oil exploration, but also allowed for public enjoyment of the scenic 49 views. After visiting the Canyonlands region several times, Udall was convinced that the scenic values (Figure 5) of the area would become a great source of economic revenue, as tourism was one of the nation’s fastest growing industries (“Udall Defends Park Plans,”

Deseret News, 1961).

Figure 5. Grand View Point, Canyonlands National Park. Photograph by author.

At the beginning of 1962, the three Utah Democrats wanted to make a push for the creation of Canyonlands National Park. They were now aided in the fight by Stewart

Udall. The establishment of Canyonlands was seen as not only a new revenue source from tourism, but also as a political asset (“3 Demos Push Canyonland Project,” Deseret

News, 1961). However, Udall’s proposed park of 333,000 acres—less than 1 percent of 50 total land in Utah—was still deemed too large by many local landowners and industry officials. The bill introduced in Congress proposed a park (Figure 6) that would have contained two major areas of development, including lodges and motels, picnic areas, campgrounds, exhibit shelters, and a headquarters and sub-headquarters for the park

(White 1962). Passage of the bill was complicated when Senator Bennet pushed through a competing bill, with the approval of Governor Clyde, to create three separate, smaller parks in the area of the previously submitted bill “(Park Plot Thickens,” The Times

Independent, 1962). This bill included protection of the main attractions but excluded the river-bottom of the canyons and some lands that surrounded the attractions; the total amount of land in this bill was a fraction of the 330,000 acres Udall wanted. Governor

Clyde opposed a large park and urged officials to take another look at the land they were asked to conserve. He also felt that local people needed to be consulted in the decision

(Pusey 1962).

Figure 6. Proposed boundaries for CANY in 1962 by Secretary Udall. 51

Throughout the next few months of 1962, there was a clear fight between liberals and conservatives over the proposed Canyonlands National Park. Conservative locals sought to protect mineral development, arguing that there may yet be minerals discovered that would benefit the Utah economy in the coming years (National Parks or Recreation

Areas?). Meanwhile, conservationists and progressives reminded Utahns that most of the land in question was federal land managed by the BLM. Furthermore, Senators Moss and

Bennet were on opposite sides of both Canyonlands bills. Senator Moss maintained that the park would be an economic asset to the Utah economy, while Senator Bennet felt the original bill was flawed because it contained no provision for multiple use (“Bennet,

Moss Disagree on Canyonlands Bill,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 1962).

To combat the original bill, Governor Clyde named a special committee to study the park plan as proposed by Udall. The committee decided that instead of a single park totaling 330,000 acres, no more than 102,000 acres should be zoned as a park, with the rest of the 208,000 acres zoned as a national recreation area. These would combine to form a 310,000 acre Canyonlands National Park and Recreation Area. The park zone would have a single purpose, preservation, and the recreation area would allow for multiple-use (Fitzpatrick 1962). Senator Bennet then sponsored a bill recommending the changes advised by the Governor’s committee. Although Udall felt that some progress was made with the compromise bill, Senator Moss refused to sign on to the proposal

(“Bennet Will Implement Comm. Recommendations,” The Times Independent, 1962). 52

After several more fruitless hearings, Senator Moss introduced a new

Canyonlands National Park bill in 1963 that cut the total acreage to around 270,000. Most of the area cut was from the south and west sides of the park, which contained prime grazing area and rough terrain. Secretary of the Interior Udall felt, however, that until all sides of the Utah delegation came together, the formation of the park would have to be shelved (Hewlett 1963). In the meantime, Governor Clyde and Senator Moss agreed to work on a nonpartisan design of Canyonlands in February 1963, with Governor Clyde stressing the importance of backing a park design with the support of all the Utah delegates (Clyde, Moss to Seek Utah Park Accord). An agreement on the basic framework for a Canyonlands park was reached in April 1963. This agreement included

253,000 acres, encompassing the most important attractions in the area while excluding some mineral rich lands that were included in the original proposal (“Canyonlands Pact,”

The Salt Lake Tribune, 1963). However, Utah Republicans called for a postponement of the scheduled hearing, claiming that Senator Moss was moving too fast.

Debate continued throughout the summer, but the Senate officially voted in favor of the proposed Canyonlands National Park on August 2, 1963. Much of the opposition to

Canyonlands had dissipated by that time, although the House had not yet scheduled hearings for action on the proposed park (Hewlett 1963a.). Hearings on the proposed park were scheduled by the National Parks sub-committee for June of 1964, after visits from several Congressmen to the area. Both Republican Congressmen from Utah supported the creation of a Canyonlands National Park (“Lloyd, Bennet Support Canyonlands,” The

Salt Lake Tribune, 1964). After the hearing, final line-by-line editing of a Canyonlands 53

National Park bill was started, with drastic amendments from the original bill passed in the Senate (“House Body Takes Up Park Plans,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 1964). On

August 13, after four years of effort, the House unanimously approved a Canyonlands

National Park of 257,640 acres. The bill then passed joint approval in Congress, and was signed into existence by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 12, 1964 (“President

Signs Utah Park Bill,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 1964).

Pushes for Expansion and Protection

When Congress established Canyonlands National Park in 1964, the area protected was just a fraction of the original amount of land Secretary Udall proposed.

Originally, Udall proposed to have the area include over 500,000 acres. Another bill in

1962 by Democratic Senator Frank Moss from Utah proposed including around 330,000 acres, but the final version signed by President Johnson contained just 257,400 acres

(Prettyman 2014). This smaller park did not encompass the total ecological and natural area of the Canyonlands region. The fight to expand the park to its originally envisioned boundaries continued, and in 1971 the Horseshoe Canyon annex was added to the park.

The boundary of the Maze district was also revised. The Horseshoe Canyon district of the park is not in the main body of the park, but preservation of this area was recommended, citing its scenic value and archaeological significance (The Canyonlands Workshop

1968). The boundary of the Maze district was also adjusted. In the Master Plan of

Canyonlands, officials recommended the western boundary be extended to include the natural boundary of the park. In addition, it was also recommended that no new roads or developments would be made in the area, keeping the land in a primitive state. This 54 addition brought the total protected lands to 337,598 acres, but debate over how large the park should be continued.

Although some conflict existed between the NPS and ranchers at the time of

Canyonland’s establishment, relationships between the park service and ranchers remained steady. A phase out of nineteen allotments needed to occur, and the 1974

“Environmental Assessment of Proposed Grazing Phase-out” focused on combining politics, science, and philosophy to provide evidence of why the phase out was necessary.

In contrast to the grazing industry, the extractive industry remained a problem throughout the expansion period. In the 1970s, thirteen oil and gas leases existed in Canyonlands, along with two uranium leases. Some roads were illegally built from BLM lands into

Lockhart Canyon, and some uranium mining was found, as well. However, enforcement of legal deterrents discouraged much of the illegal activity.

To complete the park expansion required an exchange of land between the federal government and the state of Utah. The Utah Land Board changed the total amount of land that it was willing to offer for the expansion, instead proposing in 1973 to offer a larger tract of land in Castle Valley. Residents in Castle Valley protested, and a land transfer was not approved by the Utah governor until 1975 following rounds of hearings and negotiations. Additionally, the lone inholding of private land included in the expanded park also proved troublesome. The NPS appraised the land and made an offer to the owners, who refused the offer and countered with one of their own. They claimed the scenic views of the land on which their ranch stood increased the value, and they would make the ranch into a horse tour facility. Negotiations continued, mainly due to the anti- 55 federal sentiments of the area, until a hearing between the owners and the NPS led to a buyout of the ranch at a much higher price than originally appraised.

Throughout the 1970s, environmentalists experienced a rise in cultural and political power (Schmieding 2008). It was during this time that a struggle took place between Utah’s economic and political leaders and environmentalists, as the former tried to develop the park in ways they had been promised during its establishment. Inside the park, there was constant pressure from advocates for development, public access, and wilderness. Preservation interests were thought to be favored in the new General

Management Plan, angering local Utahns and contributing to political conflict.

One of the most important pieces of legislation passed in the 1960s and 1970s was the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness has always been culturally and legally controversial in the United States. Debates continue today over whether wilderness offers a much-needed release from the pressures of urban living, or if it is a foolish venture to lock up potential economic resources. The act established a system of federal wilderness areas, known as the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) (Brill 2012). In the act, wilderness itself is defined as “an area where the earth and its community of life remain untrampled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (16

U.S.C. 1131-1136, 1964). These landscapes do not exist independently from the lands surrounding them, therefore wilderness designations are usually used as conservation tools to protect parts of the landscape, but not the whole.

In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA). This act extended the concept of wilderness to BLM lands, and required the 56

BLM to develop management plans for its holdings. More specifically, it required a review of all roadless areas larger than 5,000 acres in size that had wilderness characteristics (Brill 2012). In Utah the inventory of lands that the BLM produced resembled an industrial and commercial zoning plan (“The Story of America’s Red Rock

Wilderness Act” 2019). The BLM inventoried the lands by helicopter, concluding that

14.5 million acres out of the possible 23 million clearly did not display any wilderness characteristics. In the end, only 2.5 million of the possible 23 million were designated as wilderness. Unhappy conservation groups filed a complaint with the Interior Board of

Land Appeals (IBLA), who ruled that there was error on 90% of the lands under appeal and that the BLM did not apply its standards correctly, or failed to apply them at all

(“The Story of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act” 2019; Brill 2012). Because of this decision, lands under wilderness study area designation were eventually increased to 3.2 million acres and are still awaiting final designation from Congress.

In response to this conflict, conservationists from over 40 different citizen groups across Utah gathered together in 1985 to form the Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC)

(“The Story of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act” 2019). The Utah Wilderness

Coalition then began to develop an alternative to the BLM proposal, which became known as America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (ARRWA). This act was essentially a citizens’ wilderness proposal, emerging from hours of volunteer work to document wilderness characteristics and map the boundaries of proposed wilderness areas. Upon completion of their fieldwork, the UWC presented the results in a 400-page proposal that demanded protection of 5.7 million acres of land they deemed wilderness quality. The 57 citizens’ proposal was introduced in Congress in 1989 by Representative Wayne Owens

(D-UT).

In 1993 Democratic Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York sponsored the bill and reintroduced it to Congress. The BLM then reevaluated its inventory of lands in

Utah in 1996 and concluded that the conservationists were correct (Take it or Leave It).

They concluded that 5.8 million acres of land contained wilderness characteristics. A second inventory of lands in Utah by the UWC occurred in 1996 and found that an additional 3.4 million-acres of land should be added to the proposal (“The Story of

America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act” 2019). Although ARRWA did not directly affect

Canyonlands National Park, the lands it would have protected would have allowed for a buffer around the park. This buffer would have prevented encroachment from exploitive industries in the area and provided the area with the highest protection.

In 1995, the Utah Public Lands Management Act was introduced to Congress, soon after the citizens’ proposal for wilderness (“America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act,”

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance¸2018). The management act would have opened up the lands to the extractive industry for development. Only 1.8 of the 22 million acres that were managed by the BLM at the time would have been designated as wilderness, while

1.4 million acres would have been opened for oil and gas exploration, coal and uranium mining, and off-road vehicles (Williams 1996). Many of the lands included in the bill, nearly 40%, were located adjacent to national park boundaries. This would impair the scenic vistas from the parks, as well as interrupt wildlife passage corridors. Specifically, the Act would have allowed continued grazing on the lands and stated that wilderness 58 designation would not be used as a criterion for managing grazing allotments.

Furthermore, passage of the Act would have directed the BLM to manage all lands not designated as wilderness, which would have effectively eliminated any chance for future protection. This legislation was never passed, saving millions of acres of land from development and resource extraction.

In addition to the citizens’ proposal for wilderness, another attempt to protect the

Canyonlands area was in motion during the late 1990s. Walt Dabney, the superintendent of both Arches and Canyonlands National Park, planned for a large expansion of

Canyonlands National Park. Dabney’s 1997 proposal recommended expanding

Canyonlands from 330,000 acres to 852,000 acres. This new boundary designation would have been a rim-to-rim protection of the area that would follow natural lines rather than political ones, which would “redefine the park by its erosional basin ecosystem”

(Hanscom 1997; Keiter 2000; Van Eyck 1999). Furthermore, Dabney’s proposal included no private lands (Davidson and Spangler 1999). Several of the proposed acres already were included in Glen Canyon National Recreation area, while the rest of the land

Dabney wanted to include was included in other wilderness proposals, such as the BLM

Wilderness Study Areas or the America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. Dabney took seven years to refine his proposal, talking with members of local environmental groups, members of Congress, local business owners, and off-road vehicle groups.

Environmentalists saw a need to act quickly to protect the area, as they feared it would always remain the same size, leaving critical areas unprotected if the boundaries were not corrected. However, opposition remained among locals in the area. A group of 59 local citizens voiced their disapproval, citing their wish to continue what they had been doing in the area for generations: mineral extraction and livestock grazing. Those opposed to the expansion also feared that a larger park would limit access; it would be more difficult for disabled, elderly and low-income people to access and enjoy the park.

Others opposed expansion claiming they did not want the increase in taxes, and that expansion of the park would limit access to natural resources. Local business owners and workers were split when it came to expansion of the park. Some thought that the expansion would attract more visitors and bring in more money to the local economy, while others believed that new restrictions on off-road vehicles would discourage visitors.

Also, back in 1964, more roads, visitor lodges, and other amenities had been promised but the federal government never delivered, engendering a deeper distrust of the federal government by local citizens. This distrust manifested itself in local opposition to park expansion.

CHAPTER 4

Renewal of Protection

Throughout the early part of the 21st century, efforts to “complete” the vision of an expanded Canyonlands National Park failed to gain traction. The push to complete

Canyonlands National Park by expanding its borders in accordance with natural boundaries instead of political ones never came to fruition. Utah is politically conservative, and many residents resent the federal government’s ownership of the land.

They believe that federal ownership of the land discourages economic development.

Therefore, attempts to enlarge Canyonlands National Park never garnered much local support (Repanshek 2010). Nevertheless, attempts to create a greater Canyonlands

National Park have persisted.

One month before George W. Bush’s final day in office in 2008, a land auction was held for oil and gas leases on 77 pieces of public land in southern Utah. Several groups attended the auction, including energy companies that hoped to obtain inexpensive land, as well as environmentalists. One attendee, bidder 70, bought $1.7 million worth of land totaling to 22,000 acres near Arches and Canyonlands National

Parks. This bidder was 22-year old Tim DeChristopher, an economics student and climate justice activist. DeChristopher’s spontaneous decision to bid on the parcels —although he lacked the money to pay for them— allowed the land to be kept in public hands until the new administration took office (Herndon 2012). There was a great degree of controversy surrounding DeChristopher’s direct action. Many viewed his act of civil disobedience as a protest that drew attention to the flawed system in which the BLM favors the fossil fuel 61 industries. Others viewed his actions as an irresponsible stunt that stopped responsible fossil fuel development that could have generated revenue for rural communities and local schools (Maffly 2018). Eventually, DeChristopher received a two-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine. DeChristopher felt that his actions were necessary to draw attention to climate change and to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for their actions.

In 2009, an honors class at the University of Utah compiled a report detailing the history of attempted completion of Canyonlands National Park. The report considered the current economic conditions while proposing a new model for creating a new

Canyonlands National Park (Repanshek 2010) The report noted several occasions when off-road vehicles deviated from BLM land and into the park. There was an unmarked boundary between Canyonlands and the BLM land that surrounds the park, which made it difficult to stop off-road vehicle riders from crossing the boundary. The students concluded that the best way to protect the area would be in the form of a Canyonlands

National Park and Preserve, which would have kept all stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. However, resource officials did not agree completely with the students on the proposed management of the park. Nevertheless, the report did bring talk of protecting Canyonlands to the forefront once again. Despite the efforts of Walt Dabney in the 1990s and the Utah students in 2009, there was no push by the NPS or any Utah

Congressional member to promote expansion and completion of Canyonlands National

Park. 62

In 2011, a petition by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) was promulgated. This petition would have closed 1,000 miles of all-terrain vehicle trails in the Greater Canyonlands area. The SUWA was the first group to define the “Greater

Canyonlands” area - it covers 2.4 million acres and includes the Glen Canyon National

Recreation Area, the Manti-La Sal National Forest, as well as all of Canyonlands

National Park (Fidel 2011). Closures would have affected a 1.4 million-acre area of land, while still leaving about 1,400 miles of ATV trails open. Several of the proposed closures were to protect critical waterways and ancient Puebloan archaeological sites, as well as to foster a more primitive experience during float trips in Labyrinth Canyon (Fidel 2011).

Although this petition was created mainly to protect vulnerable soil and water, it was one of the first attempts in the new era to protect Canyonlands National Park. In addition to this petition, another campaign was started to draw attention to the protection of the

Greater Canyonlands region. The SUWA started collecting postcards that called for the protection of Greater Canyonlands and sent them to President Obama (“This is how we do it” 2012). This grassroots campaign, in conjunction with the official petition, captured the attention of thousands of environmentalists and activists across the country.

To obtain federal public lands that Utah felt were promised to them, the state of

Utah passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) in 2012. This act would have required Congress to pass the ownership of 30 million acres of federally owned public lands in Utah to the state by the end of 2014 (Lawton 2014). The TPLA did not demand control of all public lands within Utah. Several different land types were excluded, most notably: state and private lands, school trust lands, all national parks, existing national 63 wilderness areas, military lands, tribal lands, and most of the national monuments

(Lawton 2014). One national monument the TPLA did require was Grand Staircase

Escalante, which contains lands with significant fossil fuel development potential.

Overall, the TPLA would have acquired lands managed by the BLM, Fish and Wildlife

Service, and Forest Service, totaling about 60% of the lands in Utah (Lawton 2014).

Many federal laws would no longer apply to these lands, giving the state free reign over their use. However, problems soon emerged with the TPLA. Some officials in both state and federal government viewed the TPLA as unconstitutional, as it seemed to violate the

Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Those in favor of the act made a case for the it to be passed, citing the broken promise that Congress made to the state of Utah at the time of statehood in the Utah Enabling Act (UEA). The UEA showed Utah’s agreement to withdraw claim to public lands within its boundaries with the promise that the federal government would convey these lands at a later date.

At the time Utah was applying for statehood, the United States was still in the disposal phase of public land management. There was an expectation that the federal government would continue to transfer public lands into private hands (Kochan 2013).

The claim that Utah was formed during the disposal era supports the interpretation that

Utah would either receive more lands or payments to the state at a later date (Kochan

2013). Shortly after the UAE, the federal government shifted to a policy of retention of public lands. The shift in policy was not well-received by Utah, and in 1915 the Utah

Legislature urged the federal government to revisit its decision (Enabling Act). The federal government remained committed to retention however, and Utah has harbored 64 resentment ever since. Today, the U.S. still owns about 64.5% of land in the state of

Utah.

Ultimately, the TPLA was defeated in Congress. It had only a single co-sponsor and no senate sponsor. Stiff opposition from conservation groups, the outdoor recreation community, and Native American tribes further doomed the bill. Although it was not passed, the TPLA illustrated the deep distrust that many rural Utahns have of the federal government. This distrust is deeply rooted in the history of the state, and the TPLA is an example of “another…chapter in federal-state tensions and battle for control of the public lands” (Kochan 2013, 7).

In 2012, the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, and the Southern

Utah Wilderness Alliance banded together as the Greater Canyonlands Coalition. The

Greater Canyonlands Coalition, along with the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) and in conjunction with more than 100 other outdoor recreation-related businesses, sent a letter to President Obama asking him to turn the Greater Canyonlands region into a national monument in response to Congress’s refusal to pass any land protection bills

(Figure 7). The new national monument they sought would have included 1.4 million acres of federal land, which was the largest roadless area in the lower 48 states.

Protection was sought for several different landmarks in the Greater Canyonlands region, including Indian Creek, Labyrinth Canyon, and White Canyon. Claims for protection were made, stating that these areas were directly under threat from proposed uranium and tar sand mining, as well as oil and gas development (“Outdoor Industry Proposes

Supersized Canyonlands,” Moab Sun News, 2012). 65

Figure 7. Boundaries for 2013 proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument.

This group was comprised of people who know and love the Canyonlands area, and wanted to see the area preserved to protect its natural l heritage. Those in the group also make a living in the outdoor industry and saw that protection of lands in Greater

Canyonlands would benefit their businesses (“Outdoor Industry calls for Utah

Canyonlands Monument” 2012). Additionally, many knew that the idea might never fully come to fruition, but they wanted to focus attention on these sensitive lands. The OIA released a study shortly before the letter was sent stating that the outdoor recreation 66 industry generated $646 billion nationally, while providing 6.1 million jobs (“Outdoor industry urges federal government,” SNEWS, 2012). Despite the importance of the tourist economy, oil and gas companies threatened the integrity of the Canyonlands environment. Additionally, off-road vehicle use on BLM lands adjacent to the park caused damage to cultural sites, riparian areas, and cryptobiotic crust.

Several different groups voiced their support for the creation of a Greater

Canyonlands National Monument, claiming that public lands in Utah belong to all of

America, not just to those who live there. These groups believed that if the lands were transferred to the state, they would be sold to the highest bidder and their minerals exploited (Trenbeath 2014). One group that urged President Obama to designate the

Greater Canyonlands area as a national monument was made up of more than 200 health and well-being professionals, including doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, health educators, and dieticians. This group sent a letter to the President stating that in addition to protecting a beautiful landscape, the national monument designation would also provide numerous physical, psychological, and public health benefits (Martin 2014).

Although the creation of a Greater Canyonlands National Monument gained support from outdoor businesses and some local citizens, it was also met with opposition.

In response to the letter to President Obama sent by the OIA, the Grand County Council sent a letter to the President opposing the national monument. The letter was composed by council member Lynn Jackson, who stated that he was against the process that the president would use to designate the land as a national monument (Mills 2013). Jackson, who worked for the BLM for 32 years, stated that the use of the Antiquities Act 67 completely bypassed Congress and did not take into account all public views.

Furthermore, Jackson, along with the Utah Association of Counties and the Emery

County Commission, opposed the designation because they felt that it would remove the modest income generated from mineral development. Jackson felt the designation would move Grand County closer to a one industry economy, which could be detrimental to its economic health. However, the council did no polling or surveying of the citizens of

Grand County before opposing the proposed national monument. Ironically, some local citizens felt that a new national monument would increase visitation to the area, which would further hurt the delicate landscapes that the monument would be attempting to protect (Canyonland Controversy: A new national monument,” The Journal, 2015).

In addition to local representatives, there was also pushback against the national monument from Utah’s Congressional delegation, including Senators Orrin Hatch and

Mike Lee, as well as Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz (Holley 2012).

Petitions were started that claimed those who wrote the original letter only presented half of the story. Opponents stated that the same study that claimed outdoor recreation generated $646 billion in national sales in 2011 neglected to mention that $257 billion of that revenue came from motorized recreation. Motorized recreation is often shut out of national monuments, and opponents felt that this revenue would not be able to be recouped (Holley 2012).

Opposition to the proposal for a Greater Canyonlands National Monument continued into 2013. An interview with stakeholders on different sides of the monument proposal revealed interesting perspectives. One stakeholder, Brian Hawthorne, the public 68 policy director for the BlueRibbon Coalition, wanted to keep the motorized recreation trails that were still available. He believed that the resources already had protection, and that the motorized recreation industry in the area needed more trails added, as they had already lost 50% of their riding area. Furthermore, Lynn Jackson complained that small minority groups, such as conservation groups, had disproportionate access to power and took away large areas of land from use. Scott Groene, the executive director of the

SUWA, described support for the proposal in Salt Lake City and southeastern Utah, although it was not reflected in the political leadership of the state (Hanscom 2013). The arguments for and against the monument continued, with little change on either side.

America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, or the citizens’ proposal for wilderness, had been in the works since the 1980s. It was reintroduced into Congress again on April 18,

2013, “to designate as wilderness certain federal portions of the red rock canyons of the

Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future generations of people in the United States” (America’s Red Rock

Wilderness Act 2017-2018). The bill, introduced by Senator Durbin (D-IL) and

Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), would have preserved 9.1 million acres of Utah land as wilderness, including Desolation and Labyrinth Canyons, the Dirty Devil River, Bitter

Creek, White Canyon, and the San Rafael Swell. Passage of the bill would have prohibited drilling and motorized recreation, but it had no Utah senate or house co- sponsor. Sponsors of the bill claimed that the lands to be protected possessed significant archaeological resources and were popular with hikers, backpackers, and wildlife enthusiasts (McKibbin 2015). Proponents of the bill argued that because only 1.1 million 69 acres of the BLM managed lands are designated as wilderness, the BLM failed to include large areas of land when it performed its original land inventory. Those delegates who opposed the bill reached out to other senators and representatives to oppose the bill as well, noting that the federal government already owned 66% of the land in the state of

Utah. Although the bill attracted attention in Congress, it did not move forward due to its lack of local delegation support.

The Act attracted a lot of opposition, namely from online groups opposed to the federal government owning more of “their” land. One group, the Utahns Against Red

Rock Wilderness, wanted recreation —motorized and non— to continue and wilderness designation would have prohibited motorized recreation. Furthermore, SITLA, which has a strong power over Utah politics, also demonstrated strong wilderness opposition. If wilderness designation was extended to all of the lands being proposed, SITLA would have lost significant revenue. Supporters of the Act cited claims that off road vehicles and extractive industries create temporary and permanent roads, and to be considered wilderness a parcel must be roadless. Resource extraction and motorized recreation also scar the land and disrupt local ecological systems. Clearly, some sort of compromise was needed.

The bill died in 2016 when it was not passed before the session of Congress ended but was reintroduced in the House on April 6, 2017 by Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D-

CA) and then in the Senate on three weeks later. Although Utah has hundreds of thousands of untouched lands it possesses less designated wilderness than its neighboring states. That Representative Lowenthal’s bill had 30 sponsors from 17 states shows the 70 national importance of these lands (Congressman Lowenthal Introduces Bill to

Enshrine…). Some of the land in the proposal had gained protected status throughout the years, through the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and the Washington

County Growth and Conservation Act, which established some wilderness and National

Conservation Areas, and the Cedar Mountains Wilderness established in 2006.

Additionally, about 3 million acres of land that are contained within the ARRWA are protected as BLM Wilderness Study Areas (McKibbin 2015). Almost half of the area in the proposal has gained some protective status, but it does not yet have the designation of wilderness, which offers the highest level of protection.

In a June 2013 speech, Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, called for the establishment of a Greater Canyonlands National Monument. Brune and his family were on a road trip to view the places under consideration for protection in Utah,

Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. Referring to climate change issues, Brune described being able to see gas flares from Dead Horse State Park, as well as tar sands development. Although he talked to Representative Rob Bishop about other solutions to protect the ecologically sensitive area, he continued to promote the national monument

(“Speech pushes for nat’l monument,” Moab Sun News, 2013).

Although not county specific, a 2013 survey called the Conservation in the West poll examined the attitudes of voters in six western states. In Utah, the poll provided interesting statistics. Many Utah voters (60%), of all parties, identified as conservationists, with 74% believing that public lands in the state support the economy while providing recreation opportunities and increasing quality of life (The 2013 71

Conservation Poll in the West: Utah). Furthermore, Utah voters wanted to increase usage of renewable energy in the state, with 47% preferring wind power and 39% preferring solar power. Only 24% of voters encouraged the use of coal, and 62% of voters in Utah want sensitive areas on public lands to be permanently protected from drilling (The 2013

Conservation Poll in the West: Utah). Again, although not county specific, the results from this poll indicate that voters in Utah generally do not share the same views as their representatives, despite the claims of elected officials and extractive industry lobbyists.

Early the following year, an exchange of land took place on February 1, 2014, completing the Utah Recreational Land Exchange. This exchange proposed that 33,608 acres of federal land would be given to the State for 25,034 acres of land that the State owned as school trust land. The lands given to Utah by the federal government would be managed by the BLM. Consolidation of the land’s ownership patterns would in turn increase revenues for the state school fund (Conway 2014). Exchanging these lands allowed for conservation and recreational lands to be put into public ownership, and the transfer of these lands ultimately resulted in fewer impacts to natural resources. Lands that were more suitable for development and extraction were given to the state, thus facilitating energy development (Conway 2014).

When the state of Utah was admitted to the Union in 1896, the federal government granted the State four different sections of land in each township. This checkerboard pattern proved difficult to manage. The lands granted to the State are used and managed for development of oil, gas, and mineral leasing, as well as real estate sales and other money-making ventures. These activities help fund the state’s public 72 institutions, the largest of which is the public-school system. SITLA proposed the Utah

Transfer of Recreational Lands Act to help alleviate some of the management problems that arose from the checkerboard land pattern, as the State lands were not able to generate enough revenue. The State lands were surrounded by federal lands managed by the NPS, the BLM, the USFS, and the USFWS where development had been restricted to protect natural resources (Conway 2014). Throughout the land exchange process, there was a significant amount of public outreach and identification of all stakeholders to make them aware of the process and potential ramifications. Many of the problems that were identified were fixed through bi-partisan legislation. As a result, much of the criticism that had plagued past land exchanges did not materialize, leading to a legislative and administrative process that was widely supported.

Months before Canyonlands celebrated its 50th anniversary in September 2014, another letter was sent to President Obama in July to designate the area known as

“Greater Canyonlands” as a national monument, this time signed by 14 senators. The senators urged the President to use his authority under the Antiquities Act to protect the area. In the letter, the senators, none of whom were from Utah, cited several compelling reasons for protection. One reason was that the region was the ancestral home of several

Native American tribes and contained thousands of unexplored cultural and archaeological sites. Additionally, the senators stated that Greater Canyonlands was home to several endangered species, as well as the four different rivers that flow through the area. Protecting this important ecological district was critical as the West adapted and prepared for climate change. Furthermore, the senators included the economic value of 73 the land as an important reason for protection. They claimed that a recreation economy was a sustainable economy, and that public lands that receive protection in turn help increase economic growth (Greater Canyonlands Letter to President Obama 2014).

Only one month after Canyonlands celebrated its 50th anniversary, the Grand

County Council joined six other counties in Utah (Emery, Duchesne, Uintah, Dagget,

Carbon, and San Juan) to form the Seven Counties Coalition. The coalition was formed to promote collaborative infrastructure and regional planning, as well as to increase economic opportunities. Many of the projects the Coalition supports are to accelerate oil, gas, and coal extraction (Bartosh 2014). Almost all of the counties in the Coalition are mineral rich, thus the Coalition was formed to provide money for Utah’s Permanent

Community Impact Fund. This fund is a lump sum of federal mineral royalties set aside to assist rural areas with tax paying (Maffly 2017b). In Grand County, the Council did not put the issue of joining the Coalition to a public vote but joined before the November

2014 election. Despite the large number of written and oral protests about joining the

Coalition, Councilman Lynn Jackson stated that the officials on the council represented the people, and so they had already voted when they voted in the members of the council

(Bartosh 2014).

Canyonlands National Park Celebrated its 50th anniversary in September 2014. To commemorate the milestone, the Friends of Arches and Canyonlands, a non-profit founded by members of Bates Wilson’s family, and the National Park Service put on a celebration to showcase the park. The events also highlighted the continuing controversy over the future of the Canyonlands region. At the celebration, former superintendent Walt 74

Dabney and author Terry Tempest Williams were present, along with Emily Stock, a

Moab activist, and the executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust, Bill Hedden, all of whom spoke at a panel discussion and film screening. The Grand Canyon Trust was part of the coalition attempting to have Obama pass the GCNM designation and viewed the event as a platform to further their cause. While all the speakers advocated for protection of the region in some form, Williams spoke in favor of a resolution with Congress to preserve the Greater Canyonlands area. All agreed that “completing” the original vision of the park would help remove some external threats the park was facing.

At the anniversary celebration, several films were screened to showcase the history and struggle to preserve the Canyonlands region. There were book signings, an art show, and a picnic to let citizens and locals talk to some of the park’s first rangers. One of the films shown at the event, “The Sculpted Earth,” was produced in 1962 by Charles

Eggert. To make the film, Eggert spent almost a month in the Needles and Maze districts, accompanied by Bates Wilson and several others. The film is considered an important turning point in public support for the creation of Canyonlands National Park (Trenbeath

2014). Showing the film allowed a new generation to experience the struggle and hardship that officials faced attempting to establish the park and would hopefully spark new public support for creating a Greater Canyonlands National Monument. Anne

Wilson, daughter of Bates Wilson, also spoke at the event. Her speech included remembrances of her father and all that he did for the park. She also urged those in attendance to reflect on the future of the park and what the community can do for the park (Trenbeath 2014). 75

A popular master leasing plan program was finalized and enacted in 2016. The

Moab Master Leasing Plan (MLP) was a collaborative process where the BLM listened to local leaders as well as representatives from extractive industries, outdoor recreation, and conservation groups to decide how oil and gas should be leased in shared landscapes, including lands adjacent to national parks (“Landmark energy plan protects Arches,

Canyonlands National Parks” 2016). In addition, the BLM also consulted with local

Indian tribes, community members, the NPS, the Environmental Protection Agency, and local and state agencies (Snow 2015). The MLP considered the future of gas, oil, and potash mining on 785,000 acres of public land in San Juan and Grand counties and

162,000 acres of private, estate, and state lands.

The idea of a Master Leasing Plan arose from conflict in 2008 over a controversial lease offering near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, in which the

Bush administration leased 77 tracts of public land for oil and gas exploration (“The short life of the BLM’s Master Leasing Plan” 2018). Ultimately, the BLM cancelled the leases after a multitude of lawsuits. Wanting to avoid further conflict with environmentalists, the Obama administration developed a planning process for contested public lands. This planning process eventually turned into the Master Leasing Plans that were developed as additional planning tools where sensitive environments overlapped with drilling or mining interests (“The short life of the BLM’s Master Leasing Plan” 2018).

The BLM allowed for a 90-day comment period in which individuals, municipalities, organizations, and different agencies could voice their opinions on four different management plans for oil, gas, and potash development (Fisher 2015). Upfront 76 planning in the MPL allowed for energy development to occur in ways that were not harmful to wildlife habitat or recreation. Additionally, encouraging public comment and input from so many differing groups made the leasing plan less controversial. Creation of the leasing plan showed the value of the national parks in the local economies and, further, that environmental resources and visitor experiences would have been harmed if energy development had been permitted on lands adjacent to national parks. Plans for the

MLP established what tracts of land were suitable for oil and gas exploration and development while still protecting sensitive conservation areas (Snow 2015).

Although the BLM worked to find the right balance between development and protection in a highly contested region, the start of a new administration in 2017 brought back oil and gas leasing in areas proposed for Master Leasing Plan status. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke weakened laws that protected sensitive environments and generally favored a multiple-use approach that benefitted extractive industries (Maffly

2017b). A new policy put into place on February 1, 2018 showed how much BLM policy on oil and gas leases had shifted. With the new policy, the BLM shortened public comment timeframes, expedited NEPA reviews, and terminated the popular master leasing program (“New BLM Oil/Gas policies will fast-track leasing,” Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance, 2018).

At the same time that the BLM was rolling out its MLP program, lawmakers in

Utah were the federal government to transfer the ownership of federal lands in Utah to the state so that the state could dispose of the lands in a way that it deemed appropriate.

This appeal dates to the early days of statehood, when the federal government promised 77 that federal ownership of lands would be temporary. Furthermore, officials in Utah claimed that the federal government was not managing the lands appropriately and wanted the state to establish its own management plan. This plan would have most likely included new developments for fossil fuels on the lands the state would have acquired.

On July 14, 2016, the Public Lands Initiative was introduced. The bill did not propose to advance conservation, but instead promoted fossil fuel development, motorized recreation, and state control of public resources. Out of the original 5,655, 443 acres proposed by the conservation community, only 2,190,500 acres would have been designated, corresponding to only 39% of the wilderness in the region (Peterson 2016).

Additionally, the bill would have greatly limited those who managed federal lands to manage cultural and natural resources appropriately. Instead of designating 4.6 million acres for conservation, the bill would have designated national conservation areas and special management areas. The designation of these areas would have withdrawn existing wilderness management on BLM lands, while failing to protect 62% of lands that were inventoried and qualified for protection as wilderness study areas. The bill made allowances for new motorized trails, deforestation projects, and grazing of livestock on culturally significant grounds. Also, passage of the bill would have prohibited future wilderness protection in the included areas.

When the bill was introduced, it faced a huge backlash from conservation groups,

Native American tribes, and the recreation community. Had it been passed, the bill would have transferred 100,000 acres of the Ute Tribe of Utah’s reservation to Utah for fossil fuel development, albeit disguised as being held in trust for the tribe. This would have 78 reduced the voices and opinions of Native Americans in the management of their own cultural landscape in Bear’s Ears. Although the bill would have designated Bear’s Ears cultural landscape as a national conservation area, the protections offered by this new status would have been insufficient. Also, 500,000 acres would have been left unprotected—an area that the local tribal coalition fought hard to include in the proposal for Bear’s Ears National Monument (“Chairman Bishop’s Public Lands Initiative an

Affront” 2016). Furthermore, the bill would have encouraged the development of uranium mines. Development of new fossil fuel drilling sites would have contributed to the already changing climate, coming at a time when nations were struggling to address the issue.

A group of different Native American governments, or the Bear’s Ears Inter-

Tribal Coalition, proposed to President Obama that he use his power through the

Antiquities Act to establish a new national monument in southern Utah, Bears Ears

National Monument. The Inter-Tribal Coalition, comprising the Navajo, Hopi, Ute, and

Zuni tribes, announced the proposal on October 15. Lands included in the proposed area of protection were those held sacred by both the tribes in the coalition and others as well.

The proposal for Bears Ears National Monument represented the first time tribes had come together to seek protection. To determine what would be included within the boundaries of the monument, the Inter-Tribal Coalition included more than five years of mapping of cultural resources performed by the non-profit organization Utah Dine

Bikeyah. The proposal exhibited a great amount of collaboration between tribes and the federal government. Although lands in the monument would remain open to all 79

Americans, Native American tribes would also have a say in the management of the lands in a way that would reflect their cultural history. In December of 2016, President Obama secured his environmental conservation legacy by establishing Bears Ears National

Monument.

In addition to the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument and Bears

Ears, there were other proposals designed to protect the Canyonlands area. These proposals included the Dine Bikeyah proposal and a proposal put together by the Friends of Cedar Mesa. The Dine Bikeyah proposal would have protected lands south of the

Greater Canyonlands National Monument near Bluff, UT and featured Navajo co- management. Friends of Cedar Mesa submitted a proposal to appease the Hopi tribe who wanted a national conservation area approved by Congress rather than a national monument declared by the President. All proposals would have protected the area, although staffing would have been a problem, and would have needed to increase to ensure protection.

Although there was support for Obama to designate the Greater Canyonlands

National Monument, it did not garner enough momentum and was slowly phased out.

Much of the land up for protection in the proposal was in San Juan County, which is a large county with only two towns and two stoplights. Almost 92% of the land in the county is either state, federal, or tribal lands, while the rest is agricultural land originally settled by Mormon pioneers. The Lands Council in San Juan County wanted a congressional solution to the dilemma, not one imposed by the President. Instead of the

GCNM, the protection of Bears Ears was brought forth with much more support from the 80

Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and more than 250 additional tribes. Furthermore, Bears

Ears had the inside position on the GCNM because the lands in question were less desirable for energy development. Also, the lands already had significant administrative protections. Overall, there was too much contention and conflict over the proposed

GCNM in the Canyonlands area.

New Era of Administration

Under the new administration, national parks have suffered greatly. New

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and President Donald Trump have called for a sharp increase in fossil fuel extraction initiatives on public lands. The fossil fuel extraction plan threatens wildlife, local communities, climate stability, and public health (Utahns to protest Trump Administration’s Oil, Gas Lease…).

On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order focusing on energy independence, which prioritized fossil fuel extraction over the protection of public lands. Under this order, the Environmental Protection Agency was instructed to “suspend, revise, or rescind four actions related to the Clean Power Plan that would stifle the

American power industry” (President Trump’s Energy Independence Policy).

Additionally, this order rescinds acts that the previous administration put into place to combat climate change. Trump viewed these as roadblocks to energy independence for the U.S. Trump also lifted the ban on federal leasing for the production of coal, as well as restrictions on oil, natural gas, and shale mineral leasing for energy development. The lifting of previous executive and agency actions by Trump allowed for more energy development on scenic public lands. During the first year and a half that Trump was in 81 the White House, many laws and policies that guided the sustainable, multiple-use management of public lands were rescinded. Collectively, these laws were the result of bipartisan compromise. Their reversal could set back management of public lands for decades. (Lyons 2018).

In October 2017, the Superintendent of the Southeast Utah Group, Kate Cannon, sent a letter to the BLM in response to the Environmental Assessment for the oil and gas lease sale planned for March 2018. The leases in this sale would have been in the Canyon

Country District. Cannon claimed that the parcels for lease had a great effect on the natural resources of the surrounding area, including “air quality, dark night sky, scenic value, soundscapes and groundwater quality important to all the parks in the Southeast

Utah Group” (Cannon 2017). If the parcels had been leased, there would have been an increase in paved roads and dust raised from construction and industry vehicles.

Moreover, the dust would affect not only air quality in the region, but scenic views.

Drilling and fracking in the area could have adversely affected groundwater supply and quality for local communities. Additionally, the BLM did not address the possibility of earthquakes that could result from drilling and fracking activities; earthquakes would disrupt cultural sites and prehistoric structures (Cannon 2017).

On December 8, 2017, President Trump announced cuts to Bears Ears National

Monument. The park was reduced by 85% and split into two separate sections.

Meanwhile, Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument was reduced by 45%. Both of these monuments have been at the center of controversy since their establishment in 2016 and 1996, respectively. When it was established, Bears Ears protected more than 1.8 82 million acres of land, much of it Native American ancestral land that contained important artifacts and sacred sites. Republicans opposed the designation by President Obama, claiming it was a federal land grab that overstepped the President’s power. More recently protests have arisen over the cuts to the national monuments, as many artifacts, pictographs, and other prehistoric sites have been left unprotected. Many of the protests have come from Native American tribes, who sued the administration, along with lawsuits from conservation, historical, and outdoor industry groups (Popovich 2017).

These groups claimed that under the Antiquities Act, President Trump did not have the authority to shrink the monuments’ sizes; the Act only grants the authority to create national monuments.

In August 2018, Walt Dabney, former superintendent of Canyonlands National

Park, spoke out against the Trump administration’s public lands policies. Throughout

2018, Secretary Zinke dismantled many policies that offered protection for national parks from oil and gas developments. The new policies prioritized energy development over wildlife, recreation, and scenery (Dabney 2018). Dabney claimed that development of the parcels up for lease in September 2018 only two miles from the Horseshoe Canyon district of Canyonlands National Park would cause irreparable damage and changes to the landscape around Canyonlands. The development would interfere with the dark night skies and visitor views and experiences (Dabney 2018). Dabney ended his editorial calling for the smart development of energy, so that public lands and sensitive landscapes would be protected for future generations. 83

One lease sale of public lands that included parcels near Canyonlands National

Park’s Horseshoe Canyon district and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area occurred on September 11, 2018. The online lease sale of 134,000 acres was the largest oil and gas transaction since the Bush administration. Although there has been a slight resurgence in parcels being leased, many of the leases went for the minimum $2 per acre, while 40 parcels received no bids at all (Criticism high, bidding low for Utah’s biggest oil, gas lease sale…). Many of the parcels that actually sold abutted the Horseshoe Canyon district that contains ancient pictographs. Overall, the BLM gained $3 million in revenue from the lease sales, and the agency is now obligated to allow extraction on the parcels for the next 10 years.

Environmentalists and others protested against the lease of these parcels, particularly those near the national park and recreation area. One protest occurred outside the BLM headquarters in Salt Lake City and included members from the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, SUWA, and the Center for Biological Diversity. Those present at the protest claimed that the drilling would harm sensitive cultural heritage areas and wildlife habitats. The SUWA also submitted a 43-page written protest. One SUWA activist, Dave

Pacheco, said there was little opportunity for public involvement. He claimed the public was given a 30-day notice period, but no chance for comment (Criticism high, bidding low for Utah’s biggest oil, gas lease sale…).

Only three months later, in December 2018, more than 150,000 acres were auctioned off near Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, including Bears Ears, and

Canyons of the Ancients and Hovenweep national monuments (Figure 8). Mineral 84 extraction on these parcels will affect archaeological and cultural sites, as well as contribute to the rising greenhouse gas emissions. Utah residents gathered in Salt Lake

City to protest the lease sales that were part of Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and

President Trump’s plans for securing American energy independence by increasing fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Utah residents have demonstrated their willingness to move away from fossil fuels by passing several clean energy resolutions in different regions throughout the state. However, these resolutions were undermined by the policies passed by the federal government.

Figure 8. Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Parcels near CANY.

Following protests from the SUWA, the Utah School and Institutional Trust

Lands Administration dropped its proposal to lease twelve parcels of land within the borders of Bears Ears National Monument on January 28, 2019. The leases totaled 5,700 acres of SITLA-managed land that were located within the original boundaries of Bears 85

Ears National Monument. Although the lands that were considered for leasing did not lie within the boundaries of the monument, they contained many cultural and archaeological sites. The SUWA’s protest letter claimed that the parcels up for lease contained

“abundant rock art, ancient cliff dwellings, ceremonial sites, and…other artifacts [that] provide an extraordinary archaeological and cultural record” (Bloch 2019). Furthermore, two of the parcels were adjacent to Canyonlands National Park, with many of the proposed lease parcels visible from outlooks in the Needles district. In the letter of protest, the SUWA also claimed that by leasing the parcels, SITLA was in violation of their trustee obligation, as the lease sale would not preserve the area’s paleontological and cultural values (Bloch 2019).

Increasing Protection

Most recently, the Senate passed a bipartisan measure on February 12, 2019 that would create more than 1.3 million acres of wilderness in the western U.S., while adding three national parks and expanding eight more. Many miles of rivers will be protected, as well as four national monuments established to honor Civil War soldiers and a civil rights icon. Wilderness designation offers the highest level of protection, banning roads and motorized vehicles. The legislation withdraws more than 370,000 acres from lands surrounding national parks, and relaunches a program to invest offshore drilling revenue in conservation efforts (Eilpernin and Grandoni 2019). This fund, the Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF), started in the early 1960s, will spread the offshore drilling revenue into diverse sites, such as national parks and wildlife preserves, while also benefiting local communities by funding baseball fields and basketball courts. Almost 86

620 miles of rivers would be protected from damming and development, with much of the management going to local authorities. Furthermore, the bill authorizes the Every Kid

Outdoors program for seven years, allowing fourth graders and their families to visit publicly managed lands for free (Eilpernin and Grandoni 2019). Additionally, the passage of the bill allowed for authorization of the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps. This program will generate career paths for youth in the conservation sector. To pass the bill in the Senate, required a number of compromises between Native American tribes, conservationists, geologists, hunters, fishers, and local legislative representatives.

Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, was the most vocal opponent of the bill, maintaining that restrictions tied to new wilderness designations will ultimately make it easier for the federal government to procure private lands. However, another Utah

Senator, Republican Mitt Romney, defended the new bill, arguing that it was possible to protect cultural sites, conserve wildlife, and maintain access while preserving Utah’s public lands and meeting the needs of Utah’s rural citizens (Eilpernin and Grandoni

2019). Many wilderness areas were designated in Utah, including the Jurassic National

Monument and the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area. These new designations will help keep motorized recreation out of the area; however, only half of the river that flows through the area will be protected, as only Emery County endorsed the bill.

In order for the bill to be passed, Senators from both parties came together, barring harmful riders and allowing for a cohesive deal. Following Senate passage of the bill, the House passed the Public Lands Package on February 26. The measure was then sent to the President for his signature. During this time of deep division within the 87 government, passage of the bill served as a reminder of what can be accomplished in an atmosphere of compromise.

CHAPTER 5

Significance

Looking at the way the socio-economic, legal, and political forces affected the configuration of the boundaries of the proposed Greater Canyonlands National

Monument improves our understanding of park landscapes as contested places. Casting light on the different factors involved gives us insights into the vagaries of public lands management, and how they affect the process of land protection and conservation.

Although the Greater Canyonlands region and Canyonlands National Park are unique, there are broader lessons that can be learned from the way geographic forces come together to inform and influence important decisions and conservation efforts.

Yet another outcome of this study is a clearer understanding of the role of the local community in the decision-making process. Local communities want to have a say in the way lands near their homes are managed. As Agarwal and Gibson (1999, 630) note: “the poor conservation outcomes that followed decades of intrusive resource management strategies and planned development have forced policy makers and scholars to reconsider the role of community in resource use and conservation.” Conservationists need to listen to local people who may not only have a better understanding and knowledge of the land but rely on it for their livelihood (Indian Country Today).

Involving local communities allows for a more cohesive and civil compromise, as all sides work together to craft a solution.

The United States today is seemingly entering a fourth era in conservation, as evidenced by the recent change in administration and policies passed. Although this 89 change can be conceptualized as a different era, the underlying conflicts are continuing and may be considered still to be part of the third era. If anything, the political divides have grown deeper. This study allowed for an in-depth look at the conflicts in the

Canyonlands region, offering a window into the recently passed policies. The recently passed land conservation bill, however, may be leading the way for more land preservation and protection and could possibly mark the beginning of a fourth era. This thesis demonstrates how difficult it is to compromise within the local and political sphere, and the United States may be headed towards another uphill struggle to protect its public lands.

Conclusion

When looking at the chronological history of the contested Canyonlands region in

Utah, one can see that conflict is deeply ingrained in the area. The main conflicts and contentions are still the same as they were 60 years ago, with conservative Republican lawmakers resisting the federal government, as they see the land in Utah rightfully belonging to the state. Conservative locals and officials also wanted to keep the land unprotected in order to develop the mineral resources found in the area. Furthermore,

Utah politicians prefer BLM management over NPS management. With a designation under the BLM, there is more chance for multiple-use and development of resources. If a parcel is under NPS management, there is a much higher level of protection, usually leading to decreased or single use of the area. Conservationists and progressives have attempted to preserve the land for future generations, viewing the scenic vistas of the area 90 as an important natural resource. People on all sides of the argument see the value in the region, but just see the value differently.

Different socioeconomic, legal, cultural, and political factors have combined to contribute to the contested history of the surrounding region. Currently, there is a deep divide among residents and interest groups in the region. This divide is illustrated through the numerous proposed Acts that were never passed. Furthermore, many of the local citizens who live in the Canyonlands region are rural and conservative and rely on jobs in the livestock or extractive industries for a living. Many of these rural citizens oppose strict federal government control of public lands, as it would prevent multiple-use of some of the lands under protection. This distrust of the federal government traces its roots to the promise made to Utah that it would receive more lands at statehood.

That said, most Utah citizens (66%) identify as conservationists. Although Utah citizens may vote as conservationists, there can be a disconnect or conflict within conservation circles. Just because a voter identifies as a conservationist does not mean that they support the complete protection of public lands. Some conservationists are also proponents of outdoor recreation, such as motorized vehicles or mountain biking.

Additionally, the majority of Utah voters view public lands as a vehicle to promote jobs in the state. They agree that national parks, monuments, forests and wildlife areas all support steady jobs and return to the local economy. However, the opinions and desires of the public are not represented by the region’s representatives, be they local, state, or federal. Utah is a Republican state, which can be strongly attributed to the fact that a significant number of citizens practice Mormonism. So even though many Utahns are 91 strongly in support of public land and conservation, the state will remain in the hands of

Republican lawmakers if there is a Mormon majority. Republican politicians realize this power and use it to push through their anti-public land agendas. Politicians in Utah also seem to favor the views of extractive industries, even though it has been proven that an economy based on tourism and public land is lucrative and sustainable.

Conservation groups and other non-profits have long valued the scenic and cultural resources that are present in the region and have gone to great lengths to protect them. They want the whole ecological and natural area preserved, rather than just sticking to the political boundaries set at the park’s establishment. Throughout the years since the park’s establishment, there have been several attempts to expand and complete the original vision for the park. In order for the expansions and protections to actually succeed, there must be willingness on the part of all parties to compromise. Presidential or Congressional action that does not solicit and incorporate the viewpoints of stakeholders will not solve any of the deeper cultural and political problems associated with the region. Rather, it incites resentment and anger from those who oppose the protections. Favorable conservation outcomes in the Canyonlands region requires careful negotiation. This negotiation must involve multiple layers of government, including federal, state, county, and municipal. Additionally, there are tribal groups and local citizens that come into play. To come to a favorable outcome and compromise, all groups must have their opinions heard and valued.

Federal stewards of public land have everchanging roles. The federal government has a dual role as both steward and exploiter. It oversees protection and preservation of 92 landscapes for future generations, while at the same time allows for energy development on some lands in its possession. For example, within the span of a year the BLM went from a wilderness steward to promoting ramped-up exploitation of federal lands. The nature of federal stewards can change drastically within a very short time frame, making it difficult to trust what and who they are representing.

The reduction of Bear’s Ears National Monument was also especially poignant given the concentration of Native American art and artifacts. This directly coincides with the history of Native American dispossession by white settlers. Furthermore, Bear’s Ears would have been an opportunity for tribes to take on a significant management leadership role. Native Americans have been shut out of managing their tribal lands for generations, and this opportunity would have allowed them to adhere to their own tribal guidelines.

Moving forward, especially given the political climate of the country, it is important to secure bipartisan support for protection of public lands in the Greater

Canyonlands region. It is a vulnerable area that despite widespread protests has been recently opened for energy development. Conserving larger landscapes rather than fragmented pieces will protect sensitive ecosystems and cultural sites, as well as the scenic views that can contribute greatly to the local economy. However, the political and cultural divide that characterizes the Canyonlands region of Utah, and the country, must first be addressed.

When looking at the larger landscape across the country, the problems plaguing the Canyonlands region is a microcosm of what is happening nationally. Blaming the other side for not compromising and seeing the other viewpoint will only lead to 93 increased anger and decreased communication. Not only is it important for the actors in the Canyonlands region to come to a compromise, it is necessary nationally to come to an agreement. Local citizens, protestors, and political figures must decide what is important, and what issues may be actually agreed upon. James Huffman, a professor of law, said it best when he stated: “Public lands are unavoidably political lands, and politics is inescapably about competing private interests” (1994, 277). Seeing past our private interests and working toward the greater common good will be the challenge of the future.

REFERENCES

3 Utah Demos Push Canyonland Project. (1962, January 19). Deseret News. News

Clippings.

January-February 1962 (Folder 417). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Agarwal, A. and Gison, C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role

of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4),

629-649.

Aikens, C. M.. (1967). Plains Relationships of the Fremont Culture: A Hypothesis.

American Antiquity, 32(2), 198-209.

Alagona, P. (2013). After the Grizzly: Endangered Species and the Politics of Place in

California. University of California Press.

Allen, T.J. (1960, Dec. 21). Letter to W.L. Hansen. Correspondence 1959-61, (Folder

124). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Allen, T.J. (1961). Letter to Director of NPS. Correspondence 1958-61 (Folder 124).

SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, H.R. 2044, 115th Cong. (2017-2018).

America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. (2018). Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Retrieved from https://suwa.org/wp-

content/uploads/ARRWA_4pager_2018update_Grassroots-2.pdf

Bailey, L. (n.d.). Map: National monuments at risk under Trump. The Wilderness

Society. Retrieved from https://wilderness.org/map-national-monuments-risk-

under-trump 95

Baylor University. (2014). Critiquing and citing oral histories. Baylor University

Institute for Oral Histories. Retrieved from

https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/66439.pdf

Bartosh, L. (2014, August 13). Tension around seven-county coalition boils over at

council meeting. Moab Sun News. Retrieved from

http://www.moabsunnews.com/news/article_860a1e90-2268-11e4-be7f-

0017a43b2370.html

Baxter, J. and Eyeles, J. (1997). Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography:

Establishing “Rigour” in Interview Analysis. Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers, 22(4), 505-525.

Belated Attention to Magnificent Area. (1961, July 10). The Salt Lake City Tribune.

News Clippings 1961 (Folder 416). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content

analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.

Bennet Will Implement Comm. Recommendations. (1962, March 22). The Times

Independent. News Clippings March-April 1962 (Folder 418). SEUG Archives,

Moab, Utah.

Bennet, Moss Disagree on Canyonlands Bill. (1962 February 28). The Salt Lake Tribune.

News Clippings January-February 1962 (Folder 417). SEUG Archives, Moab,

Utah.

Bloch, S. (2019, January 25). SUWA Protest, SITLA January 2019 Competitive Lease 96

Offering Conflicts with Bears Ears National Monument. Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance. Retrieved from https://suwa.org/wp-

content/uploads/01252019-FINAL-Protest-SITLA-BENM-leasing.pdf

Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative

Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Brill, M. (2012). Making the Case for Wilderness: The Bureau of Land Management’s

Wild Lands Policy and Its Role in the Storied History of Wilderness Protection.

Legislation and Policy Brief, 4(2), 7-32.

Bureau of Land Management. (2016). National History. Retrieved from

https://www.blm.gov/about/history/timeline

Cannon, K. (2017). NPS Comments on BLM Canyon Country District Environmental

Assessment for March 2018 Oil and Gas Lease Sale. U.S. Department of the

Interior. Retrieved from

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplfrontoffice/projects/nepa/82261/126400/154011/Natl

_Park_Service.pdf

Canyonland Controversy: A new national monument in southern Utah? (2015, March

10). The Journal. Retrieved from https://the-journal.com/articles/24201

Canyonlands Pact. (1963, April 10). The Salt Lake Tribune. News Clippings 1963

(Folder 420). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Carr, E. (2007, June 6). Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma.

University of Massachusetts Press.

Casimiro, S. (2015, April 13). Should Obama Create More National Monuments?. 97

Adventure Journal. Retrieved from https://www.adventure-

journal.com/2015/04/the-aj-poll-should-obama-create-more-national-monuments/

Chairman Bishop’s Public Lands Initiative and Affront to Tribal Sovereignty. (2016,

September 22). Bears Ears Tribal Coalition. Retrieved from

https://bearsearscoalition.org/public-lands-initiative-an-affront/.

Clyde, Moss to Seek Utah Park Accord. (1963, February 12). The Salt Lake Tribune.

News.

Clippings 1963 (Folder 420). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Congressman Lowenthal Introduces Bill to Enshrine Southern Utah Wilderness. (2017,

April 6). U.S. House of Representatives: Alan Lowenthal. Retrieved from

https://lowenthal.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398830

Conway, M. (2014, April 25). BLM Approves Utah Recreational Land Exchange. Marten

Law. Retrieved from https://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20140425-utah-

recreational-land-exchange

Criticism high, bidding low for Utah’s biggest oil, gas lease sale since the Bush years.

Sensitive areas near Canyonlands auctioned. (2018, September 11). The Salt Lake

Tribune. Retrieved from www.grandcanyontrust.org

Dabney, Walt. (2018, August 26). Commentary: Oil and gas leases threaten national

parks. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/08/26/commentary-oil-gas-

leases/

Davidson, L. and Spangler, J. (1999, March 8). Utahns look long, hard at Canyonlands 98

Expansion; Change in political climate gives new life to old idea. Deseret News.

Retrieved from www.desertnews.com

Defenders of Wildlife. (2017, July 10). Proclamation of Berryessa Snow Mountain

National Monument was Legal and Appropriate Under the Antiquities Act. 3-18.

Definitions. (1961) [List of definitions of national parks, monuments, and recreation

areas].

Canyonlands Hearings 1961 to 1967 (Folder 666). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Dilsaver, L.M. (2016). A National Park in the Wasteland. The Public Historian, 38(4),

38-55.

Dilsaver, L.M. (2009). Research Perspectives on National Parks. The Geographical

Review, 99(2), 268-278.

Dilsaver, L.M. and Wyckoff, W. (2005). The Political Geography of National Parks.

Pacific Historical Review, 74(2), 237-266.

Dilsaver, L.M. and Wyckoff, W. (2009). FAILED National Parks in the Last Best Place.

Montana: the Magazine of Western History, Autumn 2009, 59(3), 3-24.

Dunn, K. (2010). Interviewing. In Iain Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in

Human Geography (3rd ed., pp. 101-138). Oxford University Press.

Eilperin, J. and D. Grandoni. (2019, February 12). The Senate just passed the decade’s

biggest land bill. Here’s what’s in it. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

www.washingtonpost.com

Enabling Act. (2002, May 29). Utah’s Road to Statehood. Retrieved from

https://archives.utah.gov/community/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm 99

Fidel, S. (2011, March 16). SUWA Takes Canyonlands ORV ban request to Washington.

KSL Broadcasting. Retrieved from https://www.ksl.com/article/14755702/suwa-

takes-canyonlands-orv-ban-request-to-washington

Fisher, C. (2015, Nov. 24). Moab Master Leasing Plan can be an example of

collaborative conservation [web log post]. Retrieved from

http://sfred.org/blog/moab-master-leasing-plan-can-be-a-shining-example-of-

collaborative-conservation

Fitzpatrick, J. (1962, March 20). The Salt Lake Tribune. News Clippings March-April

1962 (Folder 418). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Geltman, E.A.G. (2016). Oil and Gas Drilling in National Parks. Natural Resources

Journal, 56, 145-192.

George, K. and Stratford, E. (2010). Oral History and Human Geography. In Iain Hay

(Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (3rd ed., pp. 1139-

150). Oxford University Press.

Gerard, D. (1997, Dec. 1). The Mining Act of 1872: Digging a Little Deeper. PERC

Policy Series, PS-11.

Greater Canyonlands Letter to President Obama. (2014, July 30). Sierra Club Utah

Chapter.

Hartman, B.J. (2011). Extending the Scope of the Antiquities Act. Public Land and

Resources Law Review, 32, 153-192.

Hanscom, G. (1997, November 24). Greens differ over plan to expand national park.

High Country News. Retrieved from www.hcn.org/issues 100

Hanscom, G. (2013, July 22). Stakeholders. High Country News. Retrieved from

www.hcn.org/issues

Herndon, S. (2012, August 1). Bidder 70: The Tm DeChristopher Story. Retrieved from

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/its-your-body/bidder-70

Hewlett, F. (1963a, August 3). Senate Votes Quick Okeh For Canyonlands Park. The Salt

Lake Tribune. News Clippings 1963 (Folder 420). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Hewlett, F. (1963b, February 7). Udall Sees Shelving of Park. The Salt Lake Tribune.

News Clippings 1963 (Folder 420). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Holley, A. (2012, November 16). Urge Representative Matheson to Oppose Efforts to

Severely Curtail Access to the Greater Canyonlands. Retrieved from

www.etv10news.com

Holtslag-Broekhof et al. (2016). Perceived (In)justice of Public Land Acquisition.

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2), 167-184.

House Body Takes Up Park Plans (1964, July 1). The Salt Lake Tribune. News Clippings

1964 (Folder 421). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Huffman, J. L. (1994). The Inevitability of Private Rights. Public Lands, 65. 241-277.

Hunter, D. (2018, Feb. 28). Worse and Worse: The Trump Administration’s Continuing

War on National Parks [web log post]. Scientific American. Retrieved from

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/worse-and-worse-the-trump-

administrations-continuing-war-on-national-parks/

Indian Country Today. (2015, Oct. 7). National Parks: America’s Best Idea or Con

Trick? Retrieved from https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive 101

Jackson, R. H. (1992, Jan.) The Mormon Experience: The Plains as Sinai, the Great Salt

Lake as the Dead Sea, and the Great Basin as Desert-sum-Promised land. Journal

of Historical Geography, 18(1), 41-58.

Jacoby, K. (2001) Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden

History of American Conservation. University of California Press.

Jones, A., Catlin, J. and Vasquez, E. (2011). The ecological importance and biological

uniqueness of the greater canyonlands ecoregion. The Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance.

Kame’enui, A. (2017, Dec. 21). 2017 in Review: The Trump Administration’s 10 Worst

Actions for Parks. National Parks Conservation Association. Retrieved from

www.npca.org

Kay, J. and C.J. Brown. (1985 July). Mormon beliefs about land and natural resources,

1847-1877. Journal of Historical Geography, 11(3), 253-267.

Keiter, R.B. (2000, March-April). Completing Canyonlands. National Parks. 27-31. The

Story of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. (2019). Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance. Retrieved from https://suwa.org/issues/arrwa/the-story-of-americas-red-

rock-wilderness-act/

Kochan, D.J. (2013, Jan.) A Legal Overview of Utah’s H.B. 148- The Transfer of Public

Lands Act. The Federalist Society, 1-29.

Landmark Energy Plan Protects Arches, Canyonlands National Park. (2016, July 20). 102

National Park Conservation Association. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/natmu/Zotero/storage/XPEMCC6W/1277-landmark-energy-plan-

protects-arches-canyonlands-national-parks.html

Lawton, N. (2014). Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act: Demanding a Gift of Federal

Lands. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 16, 1-37.

Library of Congress (2018). Brief History of the National Parks. Retrieved from

https://www.loc.gov/collections/national-parks-maps/articles-and-essays/brief-

history-of-the-national-parks/

Lloyd, Bennet Support Canyonlands. (1964, June 19). The Salt Lake Tribune. News

Clippings 1964 (Folder 421). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Lyons, J. (2018, Aug. 23). President Trump is sacrificing our public lands legacy. High

Country News. Retrieved from https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-president-

trump-is-sacrificing-our-public-lands-legacy

Maffly, B. (2017a, July 9). Is seven-county coalition squandering money earmarked for

rural Utah? The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5484565&itype=CMSID

Maffly, B. (2017b, November 1). Championing America’s energy dominance,’ feds to

scrap master plans for leasing public lands. Retrieved from www.sltrib.com/news

Maffly, B. (2018, December 18). 10 years after he monkey-wrenched a Utah oil and

gas lease auction, Tim DeChristopher is feeling demoralized by the state of the

world but sees hope in humanity. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/12/15/years-after-he-monkey/ 103

Margherita, M. (2016). The Antiquities Act and National Monuments: Analysis of

Geological, Ecological, and Archaeological Resources of the Colorado Plateau.

Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 30, 273-324.

Martin, T. (2014, July 22). Health Professionals Call for Protecting Greater Canyonlands.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Retrieved from www.suwa.org

McKibbin, A. (2015, March 29). Red Rock Wilderness Team Members Go To Congress.

Utah Wilderness Team. Retrieved from www.content.sierraclub.org

McManamon, F.P. (2014). The Antiquities Act and How Theodore Roosevelt Shaped It.

The George Wright Forum, (3), 324.

Mills, K. (2013, January 22). Country sends letter to president opposing monument.

Moab Sun News. Retrieved from http://www.moabsunnews.com/news/article

National Archives. (2016, October 3). The Homestead Act of 1862. Retrieved from

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act

National Park Service. (2018a, May 14). Quick History of the National Park Service.

Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/articles/quick-nps-history.htm

National Park Service. (2018b). Climate Change in National Parks. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/articles/climatechangeandparks.htm

National Park Service. (2018c). About Us. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

National Park Service. (2018d). Climate Change: Effects in Parks. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/effectsinparks.htm

National Park Service. (2017, Mar. 22). Joshua Tree. Retrieved from 104

https://www.nps.gov/jotr/learn/historyculture/parkhistory.htm.

National Park Service. (n.d.). National Park System Timeline (Annotated). Retrieved

from

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSHistory/timeline_annotated.htm

National Parks or Recreation Areas? (1962, February 26). The Salt Lake Tribune. News

Clippings January-February 1962 (Folder 417). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Nelson, R.H. (1994). Government as Theater: Toward a New Paradigm for the Public

Lands. University of Colorado Law Review, 65. 335-368.

New BLM Oil/Gas Policies Will Fast-track Leasing, Cut Opportunities for Public

Review. (2018, February 1). Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Retrieved from

https://suwa.org/new-blm-oil-gas-policies-will-fast-track-leasing-cut-

opportunities-public-review/

NPS Director (1961). Letter from NPS Director to Secretary of the Interior.

Correspondence 1958-61 (Folder 124). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Ohio History Central. (2018). Land Ordinance of 1785. Retrieved from

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

Outdoor Industry Calls for Utah Canyonlands Monument. (2012, November 15). Off-

road Business Association, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.orba.biz/outdoor-

industry-calls-for-utah-canyonlands-monument/

Outdoor Industry Proposed Supersized Canyonlands. (2012, November 22). Moab Sun

News. Retrieved from www.moabsunnews.com/news/article

Outdoor industry urges federal government to protect Greater Canyonlands area, avoid 105

unbalanced spending cuts. (2012, Nov. 12). SNEWS. Retrieved from

https://www.snewsnet.com/news/outdoor-industry-urges-federal-government-to-

protect-greater-canyonlands-area-avoid-unbalanced-spending-cuts

Park Plot Thickens as New Bill Enters Hopper. (1962, January 18). The Times

Independent. News Clippings January-February 1962 (Folder 417). SEUG

Archives, Moab, Utah.

Peterson, T. (2016, December 9). Rob Bishop’s Utah Public Lands Initiative Defeated

[web log post]. Grand Canyon Trust. Retrieved from

https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/rob-bishop-utah-public-lands-initiative-

defeated

Popovich, N. (2017, Dec. 8). Bears Ears National Monument is Shrinking. Here’s What

Is Being Cut. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com

Powers, A. (2011, July 27). Activist who faked Utah energy lease bids sentenced to 2

years. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com

President Signs Utah Park Bill. (1964, September 13). The Salt Lake Tribune. News

Clippings 1964 (Folder 421). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

President Trump’s Energy Independence Policy. (2017, March 28). Retrieved from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trumps-energy-

independence-policy/

Prettyman, B. (2014, October 7). Meet four champions of Canyonlands. The Salt Lake

Tribune. Retrieved from

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=58364997&itype=CMSID 106

Public Lands Foundation (2014 December). America’s Public Lands: origin, history,

future. Public Lands Foundation.

Pusey, R. (1962). Clyde Urges Cuts in Park Sizes. The Deseret News. News Clippings

January-February 1962 (Folder 417). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Repanshek, K. (2010, February 1). Will the Long-Desired “Completion” of Canyonlands

National Park Ever Arrive? National Parks Traveler. Retrieved from

www.nationalparkstraveler.org

Repanshek, K. (2019, February 26). House Passes Public Lands Package, Sends Measure

to President for Signature. National Parks Traveler. Retrieved from

www.nationalparkstraveler.org

Righter, R.W. (1989). National Monuments to National Parks: The Use of the Antiquities

Act of 1906. The Western Historical Quarterly, 20(3), 281-301.

Roche, M. (2010). Historical Research and Archival Sources. In Iain Hay (Ed.),

Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (3rd ed., pp. 173-190).

Oxford University Press.

Runte, A. (2010). National Parks: The American Experience, 4th Edition. Taylor Trade

Publishing.

SAMHSA. (2017, Mar. 2). Data Collection Methods: Pros and Cons. Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from

https://www.samhsa.gov/capt/tools-learning-resources/data-collection-methods-

pros-cons

Schmieding, S. J. (2008). From Controversy to Cooperation: The Administrative History 107

of Canyonlands National Park. National Park Service.

Sen. Bennet Proposes Utah Recreation Area. (1961, March 15). Deseret News and

Telegram. News Clippings 1961 (Folder 416). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Sellars, R. W. (1997). Preserving Nature in the National Parks. Yale University Press.

Smith, L. (2004). The Contested Landscape of Early Yellowstone. Journal of Cultural

Geography, 22(1), 3-26.

Smith, L., Karosic, L., and Smith, E. (2015). The Professional Geographer, 67(3), 438-

446.

Snow, N. (2015, August 14). BLM brings Master Leasing Plan concept to Utah. Oil and

Gas Journal. Retrieved from www.ogj.com/articles.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. (2018). Protecting Our Canyonlands. Retrieved

from https://suwa.org/issues/canyonlands/

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. (n.d.) America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act.

Retrieved from https://suwa.org/wp-

content/uploads/ARRWA_4pager_9.2017update_v2.pdf

Sowards, A.M. (2017, Aug). Public Lands and Their Administration. In Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of American History. Retrieved from

http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.

0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-396?print=pdf

Speech pushed for nat’l monument. (2013, June 19). Moab Sun News. Retrieved from

www.moabsunnews.com/news/article

Spence, M.D. (1999). Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of 108

the National Parks. Oxford University Press.

Squillace, M. (2003) The Monumental Legacy of the Antiquities Act. Georgia Law

Review, 37, 473-610.

Stemler, S. (2001, June). An Overview of Content Analysis. Practical Assessment,

Research & Evaluation, 7(17).

Stiles, J. (2011, October 2). Take it or Leave it. Retrieved from

http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2011/10/02/take-it-or-leave-it-by-jim-

stiles/

The 2013 Conservation Poll in the West: Utah. (2013). Colorado College. Retrieved from

https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/47c98cd7-96fd-4e16-9a50-

18dd96c6c13e.pdf

The Canyonlands Workshop. (1968, December 10). Letter of support for the expansion of

Canyonlands National Park boundaries. Master Plan CANY 1965 to 1975

(Folder 181). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

The Short Life of The BLM’s Master Leasing Plans [web log post]. (2018, Jan. 22)

Retrieved from https://west.stanford.edu/news/blogs/and-the-west-

blog/2018/master-leasing-plans

Thompson, J. (2017, Dec. 5). How to make sense of Trump’s changes to Bears Ears.

High Country News. Retrieved from https://www.hcn.org/articles/bears-ears-

national-monument-trumps-confounding-boundaries-for-bears-ears

The United States Department of the Interior. (2017). National Park Service Fiscal Year 109

2018 Budget Justifications. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY-2018-NPS-Greenbook.pdf

The Wilderness Society. (2018). How America started saving national forests. Retrieved

from https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/how-america-started-saving-

national-forests

This is how we do it (2012, January) Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Retrieved from

https://suwa.org/this-is-how-we-do-it-redrock-report-january-2012/

Trenbeath, E. (2014, September 11). Nat’l park marks 50-year milestone. Moab Sun

News. Retrieved from http://www.moabsunnews.com/news/article_44973178-

39ce-11e4-8f96-001a4bcf6878.html

Trenbeath, E.W. (2014, November 5). Monumental Decision. Retrieved from

www.cityweekly.net

Turkewitz, J. (2017, Dec, 4). Trump Slashes size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase

Monuments. The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/trump-bears-ears.html

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016, June 13). America’s Public Lands Explained.

Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018, October 16). About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/help/about_us.html

U.S. History. (2018). 9a. The Royal Proclamation of 1763. Retrieved from

http://www.ushistory.org/us/9a.asp

Udall Defends Park Plans. (1961). News Clippings 1961 (Folder 416). SEUG Archives, 110

Moab, Utah.

Udall to Lead Trek Through Utah Area (1961, June 26). Deseret News. News Clippings

1961 (Folder 416). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Utah Proposal: Needles Park (1961, March 7). The Salt Lake City Tribune. News

Clippings 1961 (Folder 416). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Utahns to Protest Trump Administration’s Oil, Gas Lease Auction on Tuesday. (2018,

September 11). Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved from

www.biologicaldiversity.org

Van Eyck, Z. (1999, May 10). To expand or not to expand Canyonlands; 2 sides gearing

up for a battle over park’s boundaries. Deseret News. Retrieved from

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/696250/To-expand-or-not-to-expand-

Canyonlands.html

White, G.E. (1962 January 19). Park Details Disclosed on Canyonlands. News Clippings

January-February 1962 (Folder 417). SEUG Archives, Moab, Utah.

Wilderness Act, 16. U.S. C. 1131-1136, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1964).

Williams, G.W. (2005, April). The USDA Forest Service- The First Century. United

States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/The_USDA_Forest_Servi

ce_TheFirstCentury.pdf

Williams, T. (1996). My Cry for Wilderness: One Women’s Plea to protect Utah’s

Canyonlands. Retrieved from https://www.utne.com/environment/preserve-red-

rock-canyonlands-terry-tempest-williams 111

Wilson, R. (2014). America’s Public Lands: From Yellowstone to Smokey Bear and

Beyond. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Winchester, H. and Rofe, M.W. (2010). Qualitative Research and Its Place in Human

Geography. In Iain Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human

Geography (3rd ed., pp. 3-24). Oxford University Press.

Yaworsky, P. M. and Codding, B.F. (2018). The Ideal Distribution of Farmers:

Explaining the Euro-American Settlement of Utah. American Antiquity, 83(1), 75-

90.

Youngs, Y. (2018). Constructing place attachment in Grand Teton National Park. In J. S.

Smith (Ed.) Explorations on Place Attachment, (pp. 117-131). New York, N.Y.:

Routledge. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !