eportfolio.westminstercollege.edueportfolio.westminstercollege.edu/gjm1011/wp-content/... · web...

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 15

The Last Frontier: America’s Public Lands

Public Lands in US History

Grayson Massey

Summer Undergraduate Research

July 4, 2016

Jeffrey Nichols, 08/21/16,

Be careful about dates – you can get confused with multiple drafts.


Conservation: a word that has the power to evoke deep feelings of preservation, respect,

and also reverence. While for some it may mean thoughts of development, multi-purpose land

use, and co-mingling of nature and man. It is a word that depending on who is asked has many

different meanings, interpretations, understandings, and ultimately final results.1 Few terms

perhaps mean so much, and yet so little, dependent upon those who are in power and who are in

control. It is a battle that has been waged since the formation of our countrysince the dawn of

time, and stems from an idea ages old. The idea that land is power, and those that control the

land can wield the power.

The history and magnitude of these lands, or what we would call "public lands" or the

"public domain" cannot be entirely encompassed within this paper, which is not it's intent. The

scope of America’s public lands is much deeper than that. The purpose behind this research is to

evaluate, analyze, and ultimately conclude what public lands are, how they can be used, and

what steps are being taken today on their behalf. When looking at all of these, we will be

gradually shifting our tone from a generalized viewpoint, and more into determining the specifics

in regards to Utah's Public Lands, in conjunction with what Rep. Robert Bishop has called his

"Public Lands Initiative" (PLI).2 As we move through these areas, we will incorporate what this

means for us as a nation and more specifically what effects, both in the long and short run that

this will have on the State of Utah. Indeed, Utah's history and the history of public lands are

closely intertwined if not inseparable.

In order to better understand where we are moving in history, I believe it is necessary to

see the past that we have left behind. The piece of the past we shall re-visit takes us to a hot

1

2. Arriagada, Echeverria, and Moya, Creating Protected Areas on Public Lands, 1-2.


Very ambitious for short paper!


Be careful with this kind of phrase – seems overblown – since the European settlement of America, anyway.


Turabian format requires full bibliographic entries for the first use of any given source.


Although you're certainly right about contested meanings for "conservation," "conservation" and "preservation" have a long history associated with wings of "environmentalist" movement: "conservation" being about sustained use/consumption of resources over time; "preservation" being about protecting wild places and NOT consuming resources.


humid day in the summer of 1906.3 That morning in Washington D.C. President Theodore

Roosevelt would sign the Antiquities Act, which gave the President of the United States the

authority to designate areas that are:

Historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management….4

Though he knew this was a landmark achievement President Roosevelt, himself an avid

conservationist, never could have imagined that repercussions that it would have throughout

time.

With the stroke of a pen he began one of America’s first great environmental sagas, the

fight over the public domain. With the first subsequent National Monument being set aside just a

few short months later, the Devil’s Tower National Monument was born, and in its wake a long

legacy forever altering public lands. Though Yellowstone National Park had been designated 34

years earlier on March 1, 1872 by then President Ulysses S. Grant and the United States

Congress,5 the Antiquities Act itself was an anomaly, something that no U.S. President up to this

point had ever had the power to do. The Antiquities Act however, was but a means to an end for

those seeking a combative route to a more "conservationist" or “preservationist” perspective in

regards to the public domain.6

3. Wilson, America's Public Land, 58-60.

4. Utah Public Lands Initiative, “Utah-pli, May 10th, 2016.

5. Bishop, Personal, July 11th 2016.



Debatable that this is the "beginning" of that fight, but it's certainly key to the PLI, with as you say the "threat" of a Bears Ears monument overshadowing the debate. Be careful with term "public domain"; it can have very specific, legal meanings.


In the years and decades following Yellowstone and Devil's Tower, several National

Monuments, and Parks have been designated, predominantly in western states, one of those

states notably being Utah. Utah in itself is a unique situation with almost 60% of its land being

held “in trust” by the federal government, being only surpassed by two other states (Nevada 85%

& Alaska 70%). 7The evolution of the land passing from the Federal Government to each state

and then back to the

Federal Government has

taken place over several

decades, and often

through various means

and channels. As settlers,

colonizers, and

expansionists moved

westward, large tracts of

land were acquired to

help facilitate the concept

of “Manifest Destiny”

such as the Louisiana Purchase, Oregon Territory, and Gadsden Purchase. As conservationist,

environmental, or even preservationist thinking evolved, large sections of these lands were then

taken and designated as “protected areas” which has led to many of the contentious fights about

public lands today.8


8. Arriagada, Echeverria, and Moya, Creating Protected Areas on Public Lands, 1-2.

Figure 1. Federal Land Holdings in the United States

Source: Bureau of Land Management


Big, unwieldy concepts. Maybe here you could talk re "nature as commodity" concept; big in Miller and Wilson both, and hugely important today.


This is a debatable narrative of events – you could detail how the process works, and quote from the Enabling Act which describes what happens to lands within the new state borders.


Over 60%


To help with the colossal settling of the west, after the acquisition of huge land parcels,

the government would offer land grants or homestead acts to speed up and help the expansionary

policy that dominated much of the

United States between 1820-1900. This

growing population was also an

opportunity that many businessmen saw,

the foremost being the large railroad

companies who took control of huge

swaths of land, claiming “right of ways”

and then developing the ground for

commercial use, a far cry from the

evolution of their Eastern predecessors.9

Traditionally when Eastern and

Mid-Western States were enacted, their

land was designated by the federal

government to the respective state. Not

so for many of their western counterparts. As part of the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, and as part

of their request to commission Utah as a state, there were certain requirements to relinquish huge

areas of land within Utah's borders.10 Some politicians and researchers believe that this land was

implicitly promised back to the State of Utah, when it was formally adopted as a state in 1896,

though the lands were never formally returned. This has caused heated contentions among


10

Figure 2. Land Designations in the State of Utah

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management


Again, this – and "formally returned" below – are debatable. Many would say the state never controlled/owned those lands; that the federal government never gave up control since 1848.


This needs more explanation – "relinquished" by whom, to whom.


Yes – could spend some time here talking about varieties of use – mining, timber, ranching, etc.


several groups insistent upon their own agendas’ in regards to the lands use, maintenance, and

overall legacy. Not to mention the controversy over the creation and control that both federal

and state organizations have taken in regards to use of these lands, and the shift away from the

"nature as commodity" and development thinking that shaped much of American land issues in

the early 19th and 20th century.

For much of that time period, the acquisition of public lands was for the sole purpose of

selling them off for resource development. However, with early conservationists being molded

by George Perkins Marsh's work “Man and Nature” which deeply challenged a new

conservationist approach in the early part of the 19th Century, the “nature as commodity”

thinking that had dominated almost all of modern American was beginning to be reviewed, re-

thought, and even disregarded.11 New leaders in the world of conservationism were emerging,

and with them their own ideas on how to best shape the future of the public domain in the United

States, where a large vacuum for conservation existed. These leaders such as President Theodore

Roosevelt, Governor of Pennsylvania and first Chief of the Forest Service Gifford Pinchot, and

John Muir the founder of the Sierra Club helped secure the future for conservationist and

preservationist efforts to establish government agencies over these lands now under federal

control.12 They along with several other Presidents and administrative officials employed a

variety of skills and mindsets to help accomplish this, establishing the National Park Service and

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the direction of the Department of the Interior.

Meanwhile creating the United States Forest Service (USFS) headed by the Department of

Agriculture, to facilitate these goals.13

It was these government bureaus from which the issues of recreation, resource

11

12

13


Here you could distinguish between Pinchot's "conservation" – managed use of resources – and Muir's "preservation"; and TR's efforts to do some of both.


Could talk about the obvious damage, notion of limits that Marsh and others document.


Another place you could expand on this notion; you give some description of the shift in the following paragraph.


development, conservation, preservation, grazing etc.… would implement and ultimately

determine what could be done on the public domain. Over the years this issue has evolved,

becoming a political one that is more and more polarized as political ideologies have begun to

shape and mold how they think citizens should view the true purpose of public lands to be. As

political values have shifted the motives for some parties has been to capitalize on this tense

political struggle.

Republican's favor a very Jeffersonian approach, favoring that States should maintain

and can best utilize the public domain, which they also believe is rightfully the states. They favor

state run organizations, or no agency at all, in managing these lands, intending for them to

remain truly "public lands".14 Democrats on the other hand best see their interests served by

allowing the federal government to control them. This allows for environmental conservation,

and the belief that they can best manage and conserve the resources at hand, with the benefit of

national uniformity. They in turn believe that in order to keep "public lands" for the people, there

must be a degree of government intervention to keep private interests from destroying or

mismanaging them. The preservation and legacy of these lands for future generations is a central

theme, and as they see it, they too wish to keep the lands “public” and free of development and

exploitation.15

This partisanship has extended far beyond the bygone days of President Roosevelt, and

can still be felt in Congress today. While working with Representative Rob Bishop R-Ut

(Chairman of the powerful Natural Resources Committee) this summer in Washington D.C. I

was able to see firsthand just how polarized the process can be in regards to public lands

disputes. Representative Bishop, in collaboration with Rep. Jason Chaffetz R-Ut, and Rep. Chris

14

15


The way you frame this is intriguing – state vs. federal government control – again, much of the fear is that it will be private, not public at all.


This may be the crux of the debate. Many opponents of PLI and other such laws don't believe that Republicans really believe in "public lands" at all – controlled by the feds OR the states – and that the result would be the states selling off these lands to private development.


A lot going on here -


Stewart R-Ut, have put forth their "grand bargain" otherwise known as the Public Lands

Initiative, to help settle Utah's public land concerns once and for all.16

This piece of policy would effectively allow "certain federal lands (to be set aside) for

conservation purposes, certain lands for recreational purposes, and other lands for economic

development purposes." The overarching achievement of it would be to finally settle Utah's

problem regarding how to designate land to be used for development (a main tenant of Rep.

Bishop's plan), for environmental/cultural protection, and to also allow recreation for a variety of

activities such as camping, hiking, biking, and ATV riding in some of the most beautiful

landscapes in North America. "As a result, the PLI Act creates land-use certainty for local

communities and land users." This "land use certainty" would all but cement the public domain

in the state of Utah, and what purposes it would serve, for the rest of its history.17 The feasibility

and public perception of the bill however, is not without controversy. While the bill has been

both praised and heckled, it will be crucial to understand both the philosophies involved and

whether the impacts of the bill will allow for the betterment of our future as a State and Nation.

Rep. Bishop's keynote message in regards to the bill has been that of a former public

educator who wishes to bring additional funding for the Utah Public Education system. As a

former educator in the state for 28 years, he sees where Utah has been falling behind, and in an

attempt to circulate more revenue for public education (and for other reasons) has brought the

PLI forward.18 With property taxes being used to fund public education in the state of Utah, and

with the majority of the state under federal control, the amount of tax dollars, combined with the

rapidly growing child population in Utah, has brought grave concern for the future of education

in the state. There has been a strong push from local city, county, and state officials, along with

16

17

18


Could give some more details here about which lands are being debated – it's NOT existing National Parks, designated Wilderness, etc.


Be clear about the source of this quote.


community activists, business development, recreational users, and some environmental groups

such as Friends of the Cedar Mesa, Pew, and Nature Conservancy to move forward with the

initiative. This would also allow Utah to take back its lands from what Republicans perceive to

be a large and overextended federal grasp.

The Obama administration, along with some environmental groups namely the Southern

Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) the Wilderness Society and Grand Canyon Trust along with

Native Tribes in Utah and the surrounding area, oppose the Public Lands initiative, rejecting the

"nature as commodity" thinking that has been prolific throughout much of history. In an attempt

to preserve historic, natural, and ecological systems they have pushed against Rep. Bishop, citing

that it is an attempt to sell away the nation's heritage to developers or the highest bidder.19

It has become more heated with the proposed Bears Ears National Monument in

Southeastern Utah. Department of the Interior Secretary, Sally Jewell, has been recently visiting

the area in Southeast Utah and discussing the proposed monument, which would protect several

thousand acres of ancestral land, and also severely impede Rep. Bishop's bill. The proposed

Bears Ears National Monument is crucial in the respect that it ultimately will be the deciding

factor for the PLI in 2016. President Obama, speaking with Rep. Bishop, promised that no such

monument would be designated without appropriate consent from local tribal groups, who

consider some of the Bears Ears area as sacred. With Secretary Jewell’s visit in place, she

intends to testify of her experience in Utah too President Obama, who will then make the

decision of whether to designate the monument.20

However, there are many other aspects of that make up PLI as well. Some

environmental/government agencies found PLI unsuitable because of smaller than expected

19

20


This is from your interview with Rep. Bishop? Interesting phrasing -


Nearly 2 million


You could elaborate more on objections – here's a place to talk about fears of privatization; too much motorized recreation, etc.


This is a good and important paragraph. If you were developing this paper further this is a good place for some data re per-pupil spending. And make it explicit: with over 60% of land federal, smaller property tax base – but you should also note the offsetting payments that the federal government makes for exactly that issue.


designations for wilderness, and the larger areas, with less environmental protection, designated

for "conservation" use. 21 While these two terms might seem synonymous in some respects, as

we will soon find they are anything but similar when defining our public lands. When describing

conservation, preservation, restoration, rehabilitation etc...It’s important to understand what

context it is being framed under. These terms have meant different things throughout history to

different groups/individuals.

For the purposes of our research however, we will be using the chronological land system

used by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. The 1964 Wilderness

Act is the highest level of protection and wilderness "is hereby recognized as an area where the

earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man...". The second category stems from the

1972 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in which areas that are being

considered for Wilderness protection, are designated as "Wilderness Study Areas" as they are

being studied for their acceptance into the wilderness category. The next designation would be

that of a National Monument, which can be managed either by the (NPS), (USFS), (BLM), or the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as is the case with Escalante National Monument,

under the control of the (BLM). National Parks can be designated by Congress, and signed by the

President. These National Parks are under the jurisdiction of the (NPS). The last and presumably

the largest areas that are designated are called "conservation areas" which have the least level of

protection, and fall under the jurisdiction of the (BLM). 22

These designations are what have been ultimately the deciding factor in whether or not

environmental groups were willing to back PLI. With not enough wilderness areas granted in the

legislation and with the majority of the land being mentioned falling into the “conservation”

21

22


This is really important stuff. You could do more with the "conservation area" definition – it's not a commonly understood term. And you seem to indicate that monuments have more protection than parks. This isn't "chronological"; it's categorical.


category, it left loopholes that environmental groups felt they could not overcome, and that the

Republican congressional delegation was trying to exploit.23 In truth, when asking Rep. Bishop

on the long term economic feasibility for the state if PLI was to pass, he seemed to avoid any

specifications or direct answers. Much of the conversation then turned toward how the federal

government was simply not able to manage all of the public domain, and that in the long run PLI

would be able to recoup the costs it would incur during the interim period.

In working with Governor Gary Herbert R-Ut, Rep. Bishop said the state had the

appropriate funds set aside in order to carry out the work that the federal agencies were currently

doing.24 His rebuttal was not that the Feds were being poor stewards of what they had been

entrusted, but that he fervently believes the state of Utah has the resources in place to take

control of its own lands, and that PLI is the tool to help perform that function. It is part of the

long fight between that of the Federal branch of government and the states.25

As it stands, successful passage of PLI is diminishing day by day. With a Republican

controlled House of Representatives, and a narrow majority in the United States Senate, Rep.

Bishop knows this is a hard sell. To President Obama’s credit he has given the respective

Congressional delegation the opportunity to bring a very heated issue to the table, in the hopes of

reaching a bipartisan agreement, an agreement unfortunately that turned sour last November

when key environmental groups backed out of negations with the Congressmen.26 With Congress

currently in recess, and not due back until September, the work on any legislation has ground to

a halt. With an election year fast approaching and all Congressmen up for re-election, the

timetable to accomplish anything with the bill is quickly drawing to a close. Congress will have

23

24

25

26


Such as?


Seems like these are two different issues: what "conservation area" means and what they're used for, vs. the state having the financial means to manage the lands they'd control.


until about mid-October before Congress will effectively recess for the rest of the year, a short

time for committee mark ups, introduction on the House floor, and then a final vote to pass it on

into the Senate where the whole process will start again.27 Depending on the chances of the

Republican’s taking control of the White House, President Obama will likely designate the

monument before he leaves office, either as a way of preserving the land, or solidifying his

legacy. It is a decision that will have large impacts on Utah’s environment and its economy.

In determining the economic repercussions PLI will have upon Utah, I devoted a major

portion of my work in Washington into analyzing the factors that would play into the legislation,

and I feel comfortable in saying that in the long run, the proposed Public Lands Initiative would

provide economic prosperity for the state of Utah. However, in contrast with Rep. Bishop, I

would disagree as to whether the state of Utah could provide the necessary funds to sustain all of

the National Parks, Monuments, Forests, etc. that dominate Utah’s landscape in the short run. At

the very least, it would take approximately 5-7 years at the earliest for the appropriate monies to

begin balancing from development on the public domain. The environmental costs of which,

might far outweigh any economic price tag.28 The Benefit Based Management or (BBM)

philosophy that has been incorporated into public agencies to care for the land would also be at

stake, compromising the dual framework of environmental protection, as well as recreational use

management. 29

With such a variety of factors having to play out perfectly in order to provide a positive

result, there is little room for error, and thus diminishes the initiatives chance of success. The

state of Utah with its plethora of public lands could cope with the economic burden that would

have to be shouldered if PLI was successful, only in the distant future, and only under a unique

27

28

29



needs explanation


Be careful – PLI doesn't contemplate the state managing/paying for all these categories (for example, National Parks).


set of circumstances, mainly the utilization/development of conservation lands designated within

the bill. This however, has led to mistrust between environmental groups and developers.30 These

“development activities” would include and are not limited to, logging, mining, and fracking to

extract oil reserves as well as drilling to secure natural gas.31 This would bring about

environmental risks, and concerns for the future of Utah's landscapes. In the short run, millions

of dollars would have to be set aside to support such a plan. Millions of dollars the state would

have to accrue in debt, or cope with by cutting other government expenditures until the

development of conservation lands could bring revenue back into state coffers.

While several hundred bills have sought to resolve the issues regarding the public domain

over the lifespan of the U.S. Congress, there has and will continue to be controversy surrounding

them. Ultimately, it will be determined by the will of the people, in conjunction with those they

elect to represent them. The struggles and hearts of Americans are imbedded in these lands.

Contained within them are the stories of a new nation developing its resources, growing its

understanding of conservation, protection for the environment, and for the earth. It is not only a

history, but also a future and legacy that must be left behind for the generations that follow. We

must be able to provide for ourselves and be responsible stewards of that which we have been

entrusted. We need to develop our resources and also protect and ensure the vitality of the

environment. It is our responsibility and our duty, as all of us are unequivocally tied into the

rock, soil, and vegetation of America's great Public Lands.

30

31


You've done well to put a complicated, contentious issue with a long and complicated history into some context. There are, as I note throughout, some places where you could expand, but I understand the limitations of time you were working under. You could easily write a good book on the PLI. We discussed from the start what an ambitious idea this was, but you've written a good introduction to the subject. You're wrestling with a number of terms – "conservation" is only one – that could use some more extensive explanation. Your writing style is generally clear, and there are relatively few mechanical errors. You do have a tendency to sentence fragments – sentences without a subject and verb. Be sure to


This is very important – goes to what's allowed on the "conservation areas," and environmentalists' fears of privatization.


Bibliography

Arriagada, Rodrigo A., and Cristian M. Echeverria, and Danisa E. Moya. "Creating ProtectedAreas on Public Lands: Is There Room for Additional Conservation?." Plos ONE 11, no.2 (February 5, 2016): 1-16 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148094.

Bishop, Rob (Congressman). Interview with Grayson Massey. Personal Interview. WashingtonD.C. U.S House of Representatives, July 11th 2016.

Carter, Rick. (Lobbyist for National Grid: Vice President of Federal Government Relations).Interview with Grayson Massey. Personal Interview. Arlington, Virginia. June 9th, 2016.

Davis, Charles E. 2001. Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 2001.

Lehmann, Scott. 1995. Privatizing Public Lands. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

McCreary, Allie, Erin Seekamp, Lee K. Cerveny, and Andrew D. Carver. 2012. "NaturalResource Agencies and Their Motivations to Partner: The Public Lands PartnershipModel." Leisure Sciences 34, no. 5: 470-489. DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2012.714707.

Miller, Char. 2012. Public Lands, \Public Debates : a Century of Controversy. n.p.: Corvallis :Oregon State University Press, 2012.

Parry, Brian, Justin Gollob, and Jennifer Frans. 2014. "Benefits of public land usage: an analysisof outdoor recreationists." Managing Leisure 19, no. 4: 231-244. DOI:10.1080/13606719.2014.885716.

Petersen, Steve. (Military Legislative Assistant) Interview with Grayson Massey. PersonalInterview. Washington D.C. U.S. House of Representatives, July 12, 2016.

Phil Edwards, "See How Much of Your State Is Owned by the Federal Government." VoxMedia. February 16, 2015. Accessed June 3, 2016.http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8046349/federal-government-land-by-state.

"Public Lands Initiative." Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Accessed May 27, 2016.http://suwa.org/.

Stewart, Adam. (Legislative Director). Interview with Grayson Massey. Personal Interview.Washington D.C. U.S. House of Representatives, June 22, 2016.


United States. National Park Service. "American Antiquities Act of 1906 (16USC431-433)."National Parks Service. Accessed July 16, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm.

Utah Public Lands Initiative “Utah-pli.” Accessed May 10, 2016. http://www.utahpli.com/.

Wilson, Randall K. America's Public Lands: From Yellowstone to Smokey Bear and beyond.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.

Wurtzebach, Zachary. 2015. "Adaptive Management for Oil and Gas Development on Public

Lands: An Innovative Approach to Resource Protection, or Symbolic Placation of PublicInterests?." Review Of Policy Research 32, no. 2: 246-268.

eportfolio.westminstercollege.edueportfolio.westminstercollege.edu/gjm1011/wp-content/... · web...

Documents