Guest Blog: Why I Support the Proposed Dolores Canyon National Monument

Sarah Lavender Smith • June 20, 2024

As trail runners, I believe we have an obligation to care about the wilderness areas we traverse and to help steward them. I’ve been a public lands advocate for the past decade because I care about trails and the nature around them. I also believe that preserving wild open land is critical for biodiversity, and that managing the extraction of minerals, oil, and gas from them needs to be part of the climate solution.

The 170-mile Grand to Grand Ultra self-supported stage race traverses and skirts extremely remote public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Some of it, like the Vermillion Cliffs and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments and the Paria Canyon wilderness area, receive special protection for their endangered wildlife and their special cultural and archeological artifacts. Most of it, however, is unprotected and viewed as a national resource to use, not necessarily to conserve.


Doing the inaugural Grand to Grand Ultra in 2012—then again in 2014 and 2019—sparked my interest in this vast open space and what we can do to keep it wild and visit it with minimal impact. I began supporting the Conservation Lands Foundation, the only nonprofit dedicated to protecting and expanding America’s National Conservation Lands, which are specially protected public lands managed by the BLM. I want to spread awareness about the network of relatively new National Conservation Lands, and why they matter, because the public generally doesn’t know much about them; we tend to focus more on our national and state parks.


I’ll be returning to race the 2024 edition of the Grand to Grand Ultra and will aim to raise money and awareness for Conservation Lands Foundation as part of my buildup to the event.


In late April, I found myself at the center of a controversy in western Colorado, in a region near Nucla and Naturita known as the West End, that has polarized people in neighboring communities while spreading mistrust and misinformation. It has to do with a proposal to designate nearly 400,000 acres of land in a river canyon, about an hour west of where I live, as a national monument. In a high school gymnasium packed with angry opponents of the proposal, who don’t want the federal government “locking up” their ability to use and mine the region as they see fit, I spoke in favor of the monument designation to protect the area. It wasn’t easy, but I couldn’t in good conscience sit there and not express a contrary point of view. My reasons are summarized below in a letter to the editor to our local paper, which I also sent to Colorado’s two U.S. senators.


Why I Support a Dolores Canyon National Monument


In late April, I attended a public gathering in Naturita organized by Senator Hickenlooper to hear feedback on the proposal to protect the Dolores River Canyon by designating it a national monument. I was one of only two speakers, out of more than 50, to express support for it. I applaud Sen. Hickenlooper and former state Sen. Don Coram for setting a tone of civility and bipartisan dialogue. Their respectful example, however, didn’t stop the crowd from loudly booing and cutting off my remarks before I finished. I’m writing to share what I hoped to express that day.

Dolores River's historic Hanging Flume. Photo by Sarah Lavender Smith.

I have deep respect for the hard work and resiliency of miners and ranchers, and for the history of the region. My grandfather David S. Lavender was a miner and cattle rancher, and in the 1920s and ’30s, he lived in the West End and operated a ranch on all the acreage that became Uravan. Through him, I learned about the boom and bust cycles in the West End. I also have gotten to know the Dolores canyon area by running many miles on its trails and reporting on the West End’s efforts to rebound after the shutdown of the Tri-State coal-fired power plant. I love the landscape and feel for its communities. So why do I support a national monument in the area instead of leaving it as is?


In my view, it’s smart long-term planning to transition to a cleaner, more sustainable broad-based economy, and to protect the wildlife corridors and biodiversity that’s essential for the future of the natural world, rather than carving up the landscape with pipelines, powerlines, and roads. A national monument would not affect existing valid mining claims but would, importantly, protect the environmentally sensitive public lands from future mining claims and oil and gas leases.

A national monument (designated by the executive branch) is perhaps the best and only way to protect the beautiful northern portion of the Dolores River canyon in Mesa and Montrose counties. The watershed’s southern portion would be protected as a National Conservation Area if congressional legislation, which I also support, ever becomes law.


Monument designation would create a much-needed framework for discussion and collaborative planning with public input, as stakeholders create a resource management plan to determine the boundaries and accommodate uses including recreation, grazing, and hunting.


At the forum, some opponents called the monument proposal a “federal land grab” and used “stop the steal” language, which ignores that the fed government already owns and manages the land; that’s why it’s public. All citizens—not just local residents—should be able to have a say and stake in the public lands’ future.

Dolores River. Photo by Sarah Lavender Smith.

As for locals’ concerns about crowds, it’s important to note that national monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management are vastly different from national parks and do not typically result in anything resembling a “tourist trap.” They’re kept as natural as possible, with minimal infrastructure. The designation may bring a small and steady amount of visitors, not crowds, for outdoor recreation, which could benefit local businesses from Gateway to Naturita.


Designating a national monument around the Dolores River would protect the waterway and canyon country for future generations while bringing additional resources to the area to care for it. I think that’s a win-win.

By Shi-Lynn Campbell December 10, 2025
This comprehensive Policy Handbook details the foundation and future vision for the National Conservation Lands
By Maria Gonzales December 10, 2025
Some of my earliest and most formative memories are on public lands in New Mexico, where I grew up camping under impossibly starry skies, hiking rocky canyons, and exploring every sunbaked arroyo in Santa Fe for lizards and other small critters. Growing up in the Southwest made me deeply aware of both the beauty and the fragility of these landscapes. I saw how fire, drought, and mismanagement could threaten not only ecosystems, but the health and well-being of the communities who depend on them. Those experiences shaped me. They taught me that caring for wild landscapes isn’t passive, it’s a collective responsibility. That belief has guided my career and approach to leadership: philanthropy is fundamentally about stewardship, community, and creating the conditions for impact to scale. It’s also what drew me to the Conservation Lands Foundation. Its clarity of mission, its commitment to community-led conservation, and its track record of protecting and expanding the National Conservation Lands represent the future of protecting nature, one rooted in collaboration, shared power, and long-term investment. 
Congress building
By Conservation Lands Foundation December 2, 2025
Washington, D.C. — The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard five conservation bills, which will enact much-needed new protections for public lands in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. Below is a statement from Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation, which represents a national network of community advocates who are solely focused on the public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, including the National Conservation Lands: “We thank the champions in the Senate who introduced and continue to move forward these important bills that protect the public’s access to nature and essential wildlife habitats, while supporting Tribal culture and economies. It’s heartening to see the Senate advance meaningful public lands policy with the bipartisan support we know exists with their constituents. These bills include: S. 1005 Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, sponsored by Senators Cortez Masto and Rosen of Nevada. S.764 Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act, sponsored by Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper of Colorado. S. 1195 Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act, sponsored by Senator Rosen of Nevada. S. 1319 Pecos Watershed Withdrawal and S. 1476 M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act, both sponsored by Senators Heinrich and Luján of New Mexico. “These bills honor our collective commitments to strengthen our bonds with the lands we know and love and we urge the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure they are passed by the full Senate quickly.” ###
November 25, 2025
The holiday season is a time for gratitude for the people we love and the places that sustain us. This year, we invite you to celebrate by giving gifts that protect the public lands and waters we all treasure. Whether you're shopping for the outdoor enthusiast in your life or simply looking for a meaningful way to give, here are ways your generosity can help defend and protect nature.
November 25, 2025
Today, the future of public lands — our wildlife, water, and way of life — is under threat like never before. But, as with any darkness, there is always light, and that light shines through the people, organizations, and coalitions working with us to ensure clean water, healthy habitats, diverse wildlife, and thriving local economies. We believe deeply in the power of the people and the people are on our side. Your partnership powers real solutions. Our 2025 Impact Report shows what we were able to accomplish together. Click the image or button below to read our report.
mountains and forest
By Conservation Lands Foundation November 21, 2025
Patagonia, Adyen ask customers to protect public lands this holiday season
November 19, 2025
Washington — Six organizations sent a letter to the Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), warning that at least 5,033 oil and gas leases — covering nearly 4 million acres — may now be legally invalid. The letter asks the agency to halt all new leasing and permitting until it “ensure[s] compliance with the law and remed[ies] this grave legal uncertainty.” Ultimately, Congress must fix the legal crisis it created. The letter details how Congress' unprecedented use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) has called into question the legal efficacy of every land management plan finalized since 1996. These plans don't just guide management decisions; they enable everything that happens on public lands, from oil and gas drilling to recreation, grazing, and wildlife protection. If land use plans may now be invalid, then thousands of oil and gas leases and drilling permits issued under them may also be invalid Congress Was Warned About CRA Consequences When Republican members of Congress voted in October to use the CRA to overturn three RMPs in Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota, they ignored urgent warnings from conservationists, legal scholars, former BLM officials, and even some energy industry voices about the chaos this would unleash. The agency's own Solicitor’s Office cautioned that treating RMPs as “rules” could call into question the validity of every BLM plan since 1996 — along with the leases, grazing permits, rights-of-way, and other decisions based on those plans. Thirty leading law professors warned that this move could jeopardize “thousands of leases and management decisions across hundreds of millions of acres.” Former BLM leaders said overturning land-use plans under the CRA would “undermine the basis for authorizations” and create widespread legal uncertainty for energy developers, ranchers, and recreation permittees, threatening the integrity of the entire planning system. But Congress ignored these warnings — and is now moving ahead with even more CRA resolutions that will escalate the crisis. "By incorrectly treating land use plans as rules under the Congressional Review Act, Congress hasn't just overturned three plans — they've thrown every plan finalized since 1996, representing 166 million acres, into doubt. That mistake replaces a stable, science-based, community-driven system with needless chaos and uncertainty. It was lazy and irresponsible and is harmful to all land users," said Jocelyn Torres, chief conservation officer at the Conservation Lands Foundation. Along with the at least 5,033 existing leases, the legal uncertainty extends to future leasing. According to the letter, 69.8% of all BLM lands available for oil and gas leasing are managed under RMPs finalized after 1996 that were never submitted to Congress. BLM is currently evaluating 850 parcels totaling 787,927 acres across 14 upcoming lease sales on lands that may lack a valid RMP. This legal chaos affects far more than oil and gas. Land management plans for national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges finalized since 1996 may also be invalid, potentially calling into question grazing permits, timber sales, recreation authorizations, and wildfire management projects across hundreds of millions of acres nationwide. "Congress was warned repeatedly that weaponizing the CRA against land management plans would create exactly this kind of chaos. They charged ahead anyway, putting short-term political gain ahead of stable land management. Now they've jeopardized the very oil and gas development they claimed to be protecting. Congress must immediately fix the mess it made." said Alison Flint, senior legal director for The Wilderness Society . “Let’s be crystal clear: The Congressional Review Act is bad public policy. And it’s absolutely terrible public policy when used to overturn comprehensive public land planning decisions that radically reduces predictability for all public land users — in particular, as we have highlighted to the Bureau of Land Management, the oil and gas industry itself,” said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “Congress lit the fuse on a legal time bomb that now calls into question the validity of thousands of oil and gas leases covering millions of acres as well as grazing permits and numerous other authorizations. But equally concerning, use of the CRA unravels decades of community-led land-use planning and throws into disarray the legal foundation for how our public lands are managed,” said Laird Lucas, executive director at Advocates for the West. “Congress’s use of the CRA to disapprove several Bureau of Land Management land use plans that were put in place following years of stakeholder and Tribal Nation input has sown confusion throughout the American West. This is not what Congress intended when it passed the CRA,” said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “As one of the principal architects of this newest line of attack on public lands, Sen. Daines opened Pandora’s Box. Using the Congressional Review Act to wipe out years of local work on Resource Management Plans is unprecedented, and it puts rural economies at risk, including the oil and gas industry. Inserting Congress into these processes threatens to unravel the foundations of public resource management and dismantle the systems that communities, businesses, and Montanans rely on. Congress is heading down a reckless path, yet another example of the pattern of attacks we’re seeing out of Washington D.C. on one of the most foundational aspects of Montana’s way of life: our public lands and resources,” said Aubrey Bertram, Staff Attorney & Federal Policy Director at Wild Montana.
Congress with text
November 19, 2025
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. House last night used the Congressional Review Act to consider and pass three resolutions undermining public lands protections in three areas in Alaska and Wyoming. The three resolutions are: S.J. Res. 80 – disapproving of the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision’’. H.J. Res. 130 – disapproving of the ‘‘Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment’’. H.J. Res. 131 – disapproving of the ‘‘Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision’’. Below is a statement from Jocelyn Torres, Chief Conservation Officer of the Conservation Lands Foundation, which represents a national network of community advocates who are solely focused on the public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including the National Conservation Lands: “Today’s action by the U.S. House is part of a series of coordinated attempts to roll back common sense management of public lands. It’s simple - America’s public lands should be managed for the public good. These resolutions undermine the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s authority to manage public lands for the benefit of all Americans, not just those who seek to buy up and close public lands to public access and benefit. “It is clear from the recent actions of this Congress to remove protections from key areas across the West that supporters of these actions are opponents of public lands. By removing the BLM’s authority to manage lands, these resolutions ensure that privatizing or industrializing them are the only viable remaining options. It’s a classic example of trying to solve a problem that was self-inflicted for the express purpose of achieving an outcome that benefits you. “We remain opposed to these one-sided, destructive attempts to roll back the clock on public lands protection and we’ll continue to work with members of the Friends Grassroots Network to oppose these obvious attempts to use public resources for private gain. We’ll continue to remind members of Congress that the overwhelming majority of Americans support responsible, effective, balanced management of the public lands.” ###
November 17, 2025
Rule repeal leaves irreplaceable wildlife habitat vulnerable to unchecked oil drilling, despite 300,000+ public comments in support of conservation
November 10, 2025
Members of Congress, local elected officials, Tribal leaders, outdoor industry executives, legal scholars and former BLM officials join calls for protecting public lands and preserving the Public Lands Rule.
Show More