Board of Trustees meeting draws crowd
Four presenters discussed Dolores River National Monument
By Mia Rupani
More than 30 people attended last week’s Norwood Town Board of Trustees meeting during which the Dolores River National Monument proposal was discussed.
The Dolores River Canyon Country spans from below McPhee Dam to the Utah state line, an area that encompasses over 500,000 acres of public lands.
The proposal urges President Joe Biden to use the Antiquities Act to designate a roughly 400,000-acre national monument in Mesa and Montrose Counties.
The board of trustees listened to four speakers, each with different opinions on the monument and what it could mean for the West End: Mason Osgood, Natalie Binder, Aimee Tooker and Makayla Gordon.
The attendees had the option to fill out question cards, which were given to the speaker of their choice. Those questions and answers will be compiled on the Town of Norwood’s new website, which is scheduled to launch on April 2.
Mason Osgood, director of Sheep Mountain Alliance and a representative of the Protect the Dolores Coalition, started his presentation by explaining why the Dolores River is worth protecting.
“It’s home to numerous special values,” he said. “Not only the river, but the canyons and the ecosystems that surround it.”
Osgood said there are many geological and paleontological resources located there, plus indigenous cultural sights.
He gave a brief overview of the history of conservation efforts related to the Dolores River, which began in 1969 when the river was first described as a candidate for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
“The Dolores River is a dynamic space and unfortunately, it’s experienced quite a few threats,” Osgood said.
He stressed that the goal of the monument is not to end uranium mining in the West End.
“I think a national monument would draw a balance between areas where one is allowed to mine and areas where the ecological values outweigh that,” he said, adding that the monument would avoid most active mining claims.
As interest in the area continues to grow, the management plan would ensure it isn’t “over-recreated,” Osgood said. “A designation strikes a balance between protecting nature and contributing to transitioning local economies, while also preserving access for recreation and traditional uses like hunting and grazing.”
Osgood said the community would have the opportunity to weigh in on “what the monument would look like” if it’s designated.
“A new management plan typically takes place after proclamation and takes two to five years to be finalized,” he said.
Natalie Binder, who owns CampV outside of Naturita, took a neutral stance on the monument.
She told the crowd that both sides of her family arrived in the West End during the uranium boom years.
“We must remember the shared history and ensure we continue to support and advocate for diverse economies,” she said. “All public land users should have the opportunity to prosper and exist and work together.”
Binder said she understands having strong opinions on subject, but denounced some of the behaviors she has recently witnessed in the community.
“We believe that name calling, intimidation, bullying, misinformation and encouraging fighting amongst neighbors and communities does not solve anything,” she said.
Binder also discouraged arguing on Facebook and other social media platforms.
“The monument proposal is just an idea,” she said. “There is no formal proclamation on the table with language and exact boundaries to review, and yet folks who support the idea or want to learn more have been bullied, threatened and shamed.”
West End resident Aimee Tooker was outspoken in her opposition to the monument.
“With federal and state support of nuclear power and advanced energy solutions, the West End community is optimistic about finally being able to use our mineral assets again,” she said. “We look to provide excellent jobs and quality of life for workers, and to contribute to energy independence for our nation.”
Tooker expressed doubt in the Bureau of Land Management being able to establish a management plan in a timely manner.
“It took the West End about seven years just to get a mountain bike trail done…so that worries me,” she said.
The size of the national monument is another concern for Tooker.
“Why is it so big? Why isn’t it staying in the river if we’re protecting the Dolores River?” she said. “There’s no reason to venture out that far. To me that’s not necessary.”
Tooker argued that if the monument is designated, the way of life for many West End residents could be negatively affected.
“Yes, the roads can be closed if it’s consistent with the care and management of the Dolores River,” she said. “They say that hunting will not be affected. Sure, as long as it’s consistent with the care and management of the Dolores River. It’s pretty clear what’s happening here. They don’t want us to explore and they don’t want us to mine.”
Tooker said the designation of a national monument will bring with it a slew of tourists that “I don’t want here.”
“Last year, 730,000 people visited the Colorado National Monument,” she said. “Those people are going to drive 30 minutes to come down here and visit the Dolores River National Monument.”
WEEDC Executive Director Makayla Gordon’s main concern regarding the monument is the West End’s inability to support the growth that will come with it.
“Yes, our small businesses could benefit from increased traffic…but at what cost?” she said, adding that “we don’t have a workforce to support a tourism industry” or workforce housing.
“This proposal has not been locally led,” she said. “It is from organizations that are outside of our region. Although they support the Dolores River, they don’t actually live here.”
Following the presentations, the board of trustees listened to more than 30 minutes of public comment, which was capped at three minutes each.
Town Trustee Jaime Schultz said she felt there wasn’t enough information available to take a stance on the monument on behalf of the Town of Norwood.
“There isn’t a proposal,” she said. “There isn’t something for me to vote on. I personally don’t feel comfortable voicing my support or my opposition.”
The board ultimately agreed and voted to table the discussion until a later date.
Read the article here.