How a Landmark Meeting Put Collaboration at the Center of Park, State, and Gateway Community Conversations

Grand County, December 2025

On December 4, the Department of the Interior brought together gateway communities from across Utah to build stronger partnerships between the federal government and the communities that support and are shaped by America’s national parks.

An Executive Order and a Department of the Interior directive laid the foundation for the meeting. Both require federal agencies to work with gateway communities, ask for their input on infrastructure needs, and collaborate on visitor access and resource protection. At the same time, the State of Utah made its own requests, including a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to help facilitate state efforts to keep Utah parks open during future federal shutdowns. The shutdown earlier this year showed  how closely Utah’s national parks are tied to local economies and how important coordination across different agencies has become.

Against this backdrop and in advance of the meeting, the State invited every gateway county to share proposals, solutions, and local perspectives, and those communities, including Grand County responded. Each county arrived prepared with data, priorities, and ideas reflecting their community’s experience at the front door and as host for visitors to the nation’s public lands.

Grand County was no exception.

And this is where public questions have emerged.

Who asked Grand County to create a proposal?

The short answer is the Department of the Interior through the State of Utah.

The longer answer is that for the past three years, federal policy has stressed that gateway communities play a vital role in supporting national parks and need to be active partners in planning and problem-solving.

At the meeting, Associate Deputy Secretary Karen Budd-Falen explained it clearly:

“The federal government depends on strong partnerships with state and local governments. We cannot serve the American public effectively unless we work together. But partnership must be a two-way street.”

The meeting was not held for Grand or any gateway county to require, demand, or overstep the National Park Service. Instead, the meeting was planned to give Utah’s gateway communities an opportunity  to respond to the Department of the Interior’s request for solutions and feedback.

Every county, from Kane to Garfield to Washington, brought its own proposals.

Grand County’s ACE Alternative proposal was one of many.

Why did Grand County share its ACE Alternative proposal with the DOI and NPS?

Because the Department of the Interior asked us to.

But also because the economic and infrastructure needs of Arches National Park and Grand County are closely connected. The County recognizes and deeply respects that NPS has a clear mandate under the Organic Act: to preserve unimpaired America’s natural and cultural resources for future generations. Our goal is not to challenge that mandate, but to support it and ensure we work collaboratively for the wellbeing, safety, and sustainability of the park and our gateway community.

As the Associate Deputy Secretary noted:

“Budgets are getting tighter. Park needs are growing. We need counties to support national parks not only to raise concerns when something goes wrong, but also to step in when we cannot meet operational needs alone.”

That invitation isn't symbolic language. It’s a structural reality of parks and gateway communities for which she gave several practical, real-time examples.

Who hosted the meeting — and who attended?

Host:

The meeting was hosted by the State of Utah, led by:

• Utah Office of Tourism (UOT)

• Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation (DOR)

• Utah Division of State Parks

• Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO)

Federal Leadership in Attendance:

• Associate Deputy Secretary Karen Budd-Falen, U.S. Department of the Interior

• Regional leadership from the National Park Service

• Superintendents from all Utah NPS units, including Zion, Bryce, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, Arches, Glen Canyon, and others

Gateway Community Leaders:

• County commissioners

• Mayors

• Tourism directors

• Economic development staff

• Legislative representatives

Every delegation presented.. Park superintendents spoke about each unit. Each gateway county participated.

This was, in every sense, a full-state working meeting at the County level to prepare for the next round of workshops, including nonprofits, friend groups, and advocacy groups.

Where Grand County’s ACE Alternative Fits In

Grand County’s ACE Alternative (Access • Capacity • Experience) was one of several gateway community-generated ideas presented. The proposal offered practical, future-forward, park-supportive solutions focused on infrastructure, visitor flow, and technology modernization, with most of the presentation centered around Arches' vehicle-centric design and the opportunity to introduce more multi-modal experiences and modern alternatives.

The main ideas proposed by the ACE Alternative are:

ACCESS

• Modernizing the entrance experience with automation and real-time visitor information

• Re-evaluating Desired Conditions as required by the NPS process through data like the 2021 Visitor Survey

• Improved transit connections between Moab Area Transit, shuttle models, and the Park

CAPACITY

• Trail system improvements, including redesigned trailheads and strategic connections in previously disturbed areas

• Adding multi-modal transportation

• Distributing visitors through connectivity and improved infrastructure

EXPERIENCE

• Technology upgrades that replace the ineffective recreation.gov model

• Accurate real-time communication between the Park, businesses, and gateway communities

• Better distribution of visitors across times of day and less-crowded areas, protecting resources while reducing congestion

These ideas were shared in response to the DOI’s request for practical input from gateway counties, and they were well received.

The Associate Deputy Secretary called several of these types of ideas forward-looking, pointed out overlapping technology projects, and highlighted the kind of partnerships the DOI wants with gateway communities:

“I’m here to listen, take notes, and work with our agencies to help implement the ideas we discuss today.”

She engaged and echoed some of ACE Alternative’s key recommendations like:

Accelerating federal technology improvements

She acknowledged and shared the gateway community's frustration with rec.gov's issues and limitations, and expressed interest in accelerating the development of a new visitor information platform that can collaborate with gateway businesses and provide reliable, real-time data. She, the DOI, and state representatives all provided ideas, similar examples, and support for providing connectivity in Arches for mobile apps that enhance visitor experience, distribute visitation, and support local businesses and gateway economies.

Allowing parks to keep the increased international fees to help pay for infrastructure improvements.

Working more closely with gateway businesses to improve the visitor experience and support local economies

She stressed the importance of the private sector and community partnerships like those described in the ACE Alternative.

In her words:

“These kinds of partnerships matter. Counties are already stepping in to help when we cannot.”

The conversation and collaborative tone of the meeting affirmed Grand County’s proposal was aligned with DOI and NPS priorities, not in contradiction or opposition with them.

What are the Benefits for Grand County Residents and Businesses

The meeting focused on realistic concerns that residents and business owners deal with every day.

• traffic congestion

• small business impacts

• timeliness and consistency of park-to-community and park-to-visitor communication

• modernization of infrastructure

• alternatives to individual car-centric experience

• visitor overflows onto county roads

• staffing and housing shortages

• trail congestion

• public safety and search-and-rescue strain

• the need for predictable management

State and federal leaders acknowledged these concerns throughout the meeting.

Natalie Randall, Managing Director of the Utah Office of Tourism, explained why these issues matter:

“Our visitor economy is shaped by the success of our national parks. The decisions we make together directly affect local businesses, workers, and communities.”

Jason Curry, Director of Outdoor Recreation, emphasized the importance of working together:

“We’re not only investing in the land. We’re investing in the people.”

Several superintendents also thanked the state and gateway counties for their strong partnership, especially during the shutdown.

The meeting helped build stronger relationships and created new ways for residents, businesses, and the national parks to work together.

A Final Note: A New Chapter for Collaboration

The December 4 meeting highlighted a shared understanding among all levels of government. Utah’s national parks, the State, and gateway communities are interconnected and essential to collective success.

The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service emphasized that gateway communities are foundational partners, not peripheral stakeholders. The experience and creativity of gateway communities are vital to enhancing visitor experiences and protecting public lands. The State of Utah agreed, noting that sustainable tourism and resilient economies require unified planning.

Several Gateway communities and state agencies came prepared with ideas and solutions, which were welcomed and discussed. DOI left the meeting ready to accelerate its technology initiatives, which mirrored those proposed by the ACE Alternative, improve infrastructure coordination, and establish long-term resource partnerships.

Importantly, there was a shared commitment to next steps:

• expanding participation to more agencies, nonprofits, partners, and advocacy groups

• improving coordination and deepening collaboration across jurisdictions

• developing strategies that strengthen operations and benefit both park resources and gateway communities

For our gateway economy dependent on public lands visitation, the meeting affirmed that collaboration strengthens our shared stewardship. We are optimistic about the partnership framework that has been developed and look forward to working more closely with the State of Utah and the National Park Service to support our parks, residents, visitors, and landscapes.

Read Grand County's Full ACE Alternative Proposal

Meeting Presentation

Submit a Question