I started to be involved in conservation issues when I was 15 growing up in southern California. I watched natural areas that I loved being bulldozed into oblivion for sprawl development. I’ve continued my conservation involvement ever since. I am now retired and 72.
Along the way, I had many conservation-related jobs, including as an environmental attorney, registered lobbyist, watershed project director, and county zoning administrator. My last job was working for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 15 years as a Planning and Environmental Coordinator.
I am providing my long and eclectic conservation background because I want to share one of the most important lessons that I’ve learned over the years. It is that you can never take for granted that public lands designated by statute or administrative process for permanent protection are actually going to be protected by those charged with their protection.
Many people seem to naively think that once a campaign for a protective designation is successful that they can walk away to fight new battles. The reality is that that protective designation is only the beginning of what needs to be a constant monitoring process to hold those responsible accountable for that protection.
Some conservation groups understand and work under that reality. Sadly, some other groups take credit for the initial success and then largely disappear. When you work closely on these issues, you start to distinguish between these types of groups (the serious long-termers versus the superficial short-termers). All support for conservation is good, but some is more lasting and better than others.
This reality is important to understand for many reasons and if you care about upholding the rule of law against those who disrespect it.
For example, the Biden administration has laudably committed to the “30 by 30” conservation campaign to “protect” 30 percent of our nation’s lands and waters by 2030. But what can or should qualify as “protected” for determining both the baseline and progress on this ambitious commitment.
National parks and seashores? Utah’s “mighty five” national parks are increasingly suffering from excessive visitation and related resource damage. The state of Utah has put millions into an advertising campaign to promote these parks even though the National Park Service (NPS) is struggling to deal with the mounting problems. Tourism dollars have become more important than protecting park resources.
What about Point Reyes National Seashore in California? This is where NPS continues to allow harmful cattle grazing and dairy farming even though those land uses were supposed to be phased out many years ago.
On Fire Island National Seashore in New York, there is constant pressure by local wealthy communities on NPS to support beach scraping and nourishment projects. This is where huge amounts of energy are used to move sand around on beaches or dredge up offshore sand and pump it onto beaches in front of homes that should never have been built on a dynamic barrier island.
What about BLM’s national monuments and national conservation areas? Like Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada where Cliven Bundy blatantly continues his harmful trespass cattle grazing in threatened Mojave desert tortoise critical habitat. Or the Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona where harmful grazing has continued for many years. Or the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area that suffered from chronic trespass grazing. Or the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in Utah that is under attack by a local development cabal to build a catastrophic Northern Corridor Highway (NCH) even though feasible alternatives exist outside the protected area.
What about BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)? I know of ACECs that BLM allowed to be damaged by livestock grazing and other land uses. And I know of one ACEC established to protect riparian habitat where BLM could have but failed to challenge a detrimental upstream diversion due to politics.
What about private lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies for permanent federal protection? I am aware of such LWCF purchases where BLM still allowed harmful or trespass grazing to occur. On the NCH fight in Utah, BLM previously approved a highway that would jeopardize over $20,000,000 worth of LWCF acquired parcels for permanent tortoise habitat protection.
I could describe more examples but you see the pattern. So given this appalling reality, how do we change it? The short answer is stronger and more sustained public involvement to hold responsible officials fully accountable. Those of them who adequately protect the protected lands under their care should be rewarded. Those who don’t should be disciplined or fired. The harsh reality continues because there is not sufficient accountability nor consequences for management decisions.
If you care about one or more protected areas, don’t take them for granted. Find out who manages them, closely monitor their actions, and challenge them when they make bad decisions.
Endless pressure, endlessly applied is often what it takes to achieve a land protection designation. It is also what it takes to ensure that that designation is effectively implemented.
More on the failure to protect the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area
https://conserveswu.org/northern-corridor-highway
https://www.protectredcliffs.com
On the BLM’s recently released Public Lands Rule:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2023/06/14/richard-spotts-proposed-federal
On stopping the Bundy trespass debacle:
On BLM corporate culture reform needs:
Leave a Reply