🎙️Exploring the Climate Crisis and Adaptation on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska and the Pacific, with Robin West
🌎 Designing Nature’s Half: The Landscape Conservation Podcast
In This Episode:
Guest: Robin West, retired Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
Topic: Robin shares climate change-related insights obtained over the course of his 35-year career in Alaska and across Hawaii and the remote Pacific Islands.
Key Discussion Points:
[14:53] Landscape Impacts Due To Climate Change: Receding sea ice and its impacts on polar bears and local communities, Spruce bark beetle infestations in forest habitats, drying lakes impacts on waterfowl, and more.
[20:13] Indigenous PerspectivesL Insights on the Alaska Native Claims Settlements Act and the implications of climate change on native populations
[22:36] Kenai National Wildlife Refuge: This is an introduction to this unique refuge, which balances wilderness preservation with industrial activities like oil and gas development despite high public use visitation.
[35:36] Sea Level Rise Concerns: Sea level rise threatens atolls, critical habitat for seabirds, and marine life breeding grounds.
[42:45] Adaptation Approaches: A “Three-legged stool” approach that emphasizes managing carbon emissions, conducting science-based planning, and promoting public education and outreach.
Resources:
Climate Change and Wildlife in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
Impact of Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change on Pacific Oceans Atolls
Public Land Statistics 2022
Transcription:
S1-E2: Exploring the Climate Crisis and Adaptation on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska and the Pacific Islands with Robin West, Retired Regional Refuge Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
Intro: Mind Matter Media presents Designing Nature's Half: The Landscape Conservation Podcast, where discussions center around the most current and innovative approaches to landscape conservation and design. This is the show for stakeholders who want to adapt to the climate crisis, halt biodiversity loss, and change the world by designing sustainable and resilient landscapes through collaborative conservation action.
Rob: Hey, everyone. Welcome to Episode 2 of Designing Nature's Half: The Landscape Conservation Podcast. I'm your co-host, Rob Campellone.
Tom: …and hi there, I'm your other co-host, Tom Miewald. Hey, Rob. So, this is our first episode where we have a guest. And so, who do we have lined up this week?
Rob: We actually have a great episode planned for today, Tom. Robin West is joining us to discuss climate change impacts and adaptation strategies on National Wildlife Refuges. As you know, Robin was Regional Chief for the Refuge System in Portland, and before that, he was Manager at Kenai Refuge in Alaska. So, he has a wealth of information to share. We're super glad to have him joining us today.
Tom: Right? No, that's very great. And we're very fortunate to have Robin's voice and perspective as someone who was there, as it happened, with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, as it's known, and has really unique perspectives that he's been able to put forth in his book and are well documented in 30 of 40 and the 49th memories of a wildlife biologist in Alaska. I read the book, and in many ways, I saw Robin's book as a personal memoir of landscape conservation in a wilderness setting. I found it to be really fascinating stuff to read, and then someone who was in the hot seat of managing wildlife refuges across the Pacific Northwest and Pacific islands. So, we're privileged to have Robin here to talk about his experience in conservation.
Robin: Over his 30 plus year career in full transparency.
Rob: Robin and I are old colleagues, and I was his planning team leader when he was manager at Kenai. So, Robin and I worked very closely under very stressful political conditions for many years. In addition to being the refuge manager at Kenai, Robin's 35-year career with the Fish and Wildlife Service included being a fisheries biologist, a wildlife biologist, and a contaminant specialist. He closed out his career as regional refuge chief, where he had administrative oversight of tens of millions of acres of marine protected areas and refuges in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and the remote islands. Robin's retired now, but he remains active in conservation causes that support sustainable use of natural resources. He travels frequently throughout the world and enjoys writing, photography, and a wide variety of outdoor activities. His book “30 of 40 and the 49th” shares some of his many adventures while working in Alaska. So, without further ado, let me welcome my colleague and friend, Robin West. It's good to have you here. Robin, welcome to the show.
Robin: Thanks, Rob and Tom. It's good to talk to you. And I look forward to our discussion today.
Rob: So, before we begin, Robin, did I miss anything from your bio that you'd like to add or highlight?
Robin: Oh, I think that'll get us started. I guess the big thing is I've been around long enough, blessed with a life that's seen a lot of change. And so, 35 years working for the government gives one perspective, but 67 years walking the planet gives another. And so, I really have gained a lot of insight into world problems and solutions, both professionally and personally. And traveling around the planet, I kind of look at what we're facing in terms of the global changes and climate and stresses on resources. It is kind of like watching your children grow. If they're there with you all the time, you don't notice it so much incrementally. But when you move back and forth across the country over decades, the changes are really obvious. And so, I guess that's a lot of what I bring to my view of this is growing up in Oregon, moving to Alaska for 30 years, going back to Oregon, seeing the changes there, and then traveling around the country and around the world and seeing changes over time, too.
Rob: Well, we look forward to you sharing some of that perspective today, Robin, so thank you for that. But before we do, I want to talk about your book a little bit. You published a book in 2021, 30 of 40 in the 49th memories of a wildlife biologist in Alaska. I know what a monumental feat that is. So first, congratulations on getting that across the finish line. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the book?
Robin: Well, I'd be happy to. It really was easy to write because it just relayed stories of some of my work and private life in Alaska. I had the time because of COVID. I like to travel, and yet we were restricted, and for good reason. We're staying home. And so, I had time to sit down at the computer and type these things out. But when I retired, I had a bucket list of things, as a lot of people do, and one of them was to paddle a good portion of the Yukon River, which is a wild, long river that bisects Alaska, and planned on doing it myself to reflect on nature and life and all of that. And so that was kind of the foundation for as I paddled down the upper Yukon, remembering being there 40 years before and some of the things that we'd accomplished and seen along the way. And so that's the basis of the book. Again, it has a lot of work-related things, but a lot of history about Alaska and my experiences privately, too.
Tom: Yeah, I know the challenges definitely are there. Alaska is a really fascinating place to talk about these landscape-scale conservation initiatives and changes related to climate change. And you talked a little bit. At one level, you say that not a lot has changed, but at another level, it sounds like you've seen some changes due to climate and development. Could you maybe provide a little color on some of those high-level changes that you've seen around the state in the 40 years since?
Robin: One of the first things that come to mind, because you often see it in the news, is the sea ice, and so most people never see it. And other than a documentary on polar bears or something like that, you're really not that familiar with it. But one of my early jobs was working on the coastline of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Part of ANILCA set aside the coastal plain of the refuge for further study to determine whether they would open it for oil and gas development or not. And so there was an incredible amount of effort in looking at all parts of the refuge and its wildlife and its fisheries and water, as well as the oil and gas potential. And I worked several years on the coast looking at fisheries and water issues. And I'll say that in those years, and these are the early 1980s, we camped up there for months at a time in the summer and would lie awake at night with the ice crushing and moving and shifting the ice pack. And it was always visible no more than a mile, perhaps, of the barrier islands. And if you went up there today in the summer, you wouldn't see any ice, I guess you could say, so what? But when you start looking at all the ramifications of photosynthesis under the ice, the melting of the permafrost, not just polar bears, but salmon and their life cycle, certainly the coastal communities and the people that live up there, the Iñupiat people and the Yupik folks on the west coast, we're seeing communities’ kind of slough off into the ocean, and we're seeing increased wildfires even in the north. All of the warmer winters and ice conditions affect safety and travel, and so the impact of subsistence uses and certainly the cultural resources are being lost, too. All the historic coastal development where folks lived right on the coastline sloughs off and into the ocean; it's lost. That's just one thing. Up north, as you move further south, there are certainly many more.
Rob: We're going to focus on the Kenai and the Pacific islands, Robin, where you've spent a significant amount of time working to address issues, climate and otherwise. But in regards to the Alaska state of mean, are you seeing any adaptation strategies that are attempting to address some of these?
Robin: Know, honestly, I'm seeing a lot of discussion, and so I think people are becoming more aware at community meetings. You don't even have to agree on the causes of climate change. You can look at the data and say, okay, things are warming, and if you don't want to talk about human post-industrial revolution carbon in the atmosphere, that's fine. You can ignore that and still recognize that things are warming and there are impacts. And so, I'm seeing a lot of discussion in terms of planning and recognition that wildfire season is changing, insect infestation is increasing, permafrost is thawing, and therefore septic systems are failing. Home foundations are failing in the north. And so, we've got to do something, and we don't have to agree on why we're doing it, except we're trying to mitigate the impacts. In terms of actually seeing the implementation of those plans, I've seen very little to date, but the discussions are increasing, both for the human environment and for fish.
Tom: And wildlife, and talking about all those issues and these changes that we're seeing on the landscape. To me, landscape conservation is about being inclusive to the people living in the landscape and having representation both with the public land management agencies. There's an industry that wants to use the landscape. And then there's historically underrepresented populations that indigenous populations in the landscape, too. Just going back to ANILCA and what you were talking about in the history there, what were some of the repercussions for indigenous populations from that?
Robin: Well, it would probably depend on who you talk to, but certainly, the decisions made for Alaskan natives primarily made with the Native Claim Settlement Act in 1971 and not so much with the Nilka in 1980. And it was just a recognition that these people had rights that were undefined. And there was a little bit of language in the purchase agreement with Russia acknowledging that as well as in the statehood act, that recognized that they needed to be resolved. The issues of sovereignty and ownership of the land were going to be decided either via legislation or adjudication in the courts. An attempt was made in the Native Claims Settlement Act to do that and created some for-profit corporations that conveyed a lot of lands, recognized village corporations, and so forth. And it's really unique in knowing that historically, the United States dealt with indigenous people with reservations. This is unique. And the Alaskan natives were never conquered in any battles like plains Indians or anything else. There weren't any treaties, so it was largely resolved. But Anilka then really dealt with entitled eight subsistence issues. And so that is the lifeblood of native people is being able to take fish and wildlife, as they've done for thousands of years, to support themselves and their families and remote communities. So that's been extremely controversial because of the federal-state divide on it. I don't think we probably need to go into too much mention of that to say that there are changes now that are very evident, and I would argue that they are climate-related, that are impacting subsistence resources. And the native community will benefit from title eight giving them preference. But if the stresses are such that caribou herds are totally declining or salmon are absent, then there really isn't any piece of legislation that's going to help either.
Rob: So, let's shift gears, Robin, and turn to Kenai Refuge. Can you give our listeners a 30,000-foot overview of the refuge for folks who haven't been there?
Robin: Well, sure. Happy to. It's a little over 2 million acres and was created; well, actually, FDR, through executive order, established it just a few days after Pearl Harbor was bombed. So, it's a World War II baby, if you will, refuge, as was Kodiak. So, it's, you know, it's been around a long time. It was originally the Kenai National Moose Range and was set aside because of a unique, large variety of moose that is still very popular for people to come and see here. However, ANILCA expanded its purposes, changed the boundaries, and created some new purposes for land management training as well as the conservation of all its fish and wildlife and its natural diversity. It set aside areas as wilderness, and Kenai is unique in that it's road accessible. It has large wilderness areas. It also has two industrial areas that have oil and gas development. They could argue that one of the primary reasons that Lassa became a state when it did was because of the discovery of marketable quantities of oil in the Swanson River area of the Kenai moose range at the time. And so, it's had to manage for wilderness values as well as industrial use. And it gets over a million visitors a year. So, there's all kinds of recreation to manage with facilities, maintenance and fire, and all the biology that we're tasked to do here, too.
Tom: I'd like to hear more about the climate change impacts on the refuge and the impact since that CCP and the effectiveness of CCP under climate change.
Robin: Sure. I think that when the Refuge Administration Act was amended and required that comprehensive conservation plans be completed on a regular basis, it didn't really mention climate change per se. Still, it required that we look at all our uses and ensure they're compatible with our purposes and emphasize the purposes of the refuge mission and the individual refuges. And so, since the Kenai's primary purpose was to conserve all of its fish, wildlife, and plants in their natural diversity, you have to know what the stressors are. Kenai has been around long enough and staffed well enough that it had decades-long data sets that it could look at changes and make decisions on kind of where it was headed and what the impacts to wildlife and people might be from that. So, we benefited more than maybe some newer refuges or those that didn't have a lot of the science to look at changes over time. And I guess I'll mention a couple. There's certainly been a lot of studies, and people can look at those themselves. But you mentioned the bark beetle, and that was very controversial because it was killing basically all of the older spruce trees on the Kenai Peninsula and south-central Alaska. And the spruce bark beetle has been around for thousands of years. They've found pieces of it and coring glaciers when they go down for eons in the past. And they certainly found that the beetle was around. But what we found had changed is the climate had warmed just enough that the beetles were able to complete their life cycle in one year rather than two. And so, under normal circumstances, they seem to evolve by overwintering as larvae under the cambium layer of trees and then fly the next year. But with just a few degrees of temperature change, they could complete that life cycle in one year and fly and get into other stands of trees. As such, we've seen an epidemic that basically killed white spruce and trees 60 years and older, peninsula-wide over a few years, changed the habitat, greatly created changes in fire risks and view sheds, and got people pretty excited. So that was one change that we documented, and just basically, others were rising tree lines from warmer climates up into the alpine, which affects sheep and goat habitat, caribou habitat, and that kind of thing. As well as drying of our lakes and ponds, we lost about 50% over a 50-year time period, so it's pretty significant.
Tom: Yeah. All of this talk about Alaska and national wildlife refuges is fascinating to me. I spent some time working in the Pacific Northwest National Wildlife Refuge system, as you did, and so maybe we can shift the conversation about that. It's a totally different situation where in Alaska, you have multi-million-acre refuges that are landscapes unto themselves. You come down to Portland, and you have something like the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge that is a few thousand acres and has a lot of visitors. It's next to close to highways, and it's a different game down here. So, I imagine that was a bit of a mind shift for you to fit into that role as the chief of the National Wildlife Refuge system in what we called Region One, the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific islands as well, where I guess now there are seascapes that are protected under the refuge system as well. So, I guess. Can you explain kind of the role of the regional refuge chief in general and, more specifically, what your responsibilities were in that role?
Robin: The Fish and Wildlife Service has eight regions, and each of the geographic areas has a chief of refuges for that area. And in the Pacific Northwest and Hawaii and the remote Pacific islands, there were over 70 refuges that I had administrative responsibility for. And you mentioned the marine protected areas because I think it's of note, really, that there are between 506 hundred national wildlife refuges nationwide now that I think have about 95 million acres of land, but 700 to 800 million acres of marine. So, all of that comes out of the Pacific region, obviously. There are very large marine national monuments that were formed under the Antiquities Act. They're part of the National Wildlife Refuge system and very unique and wonderful places. Papahānaumokuākea National Monument includes the Midway Atoll and all of its history and the wonders of seabirds and sea turtles. All of that is remarkable. And if you could ever get to Palmyra toll, it's 1000 miles south of Honolulu with nothing in between 50 some islands in an extinct volcano that's one of the most pristine coral reefs left in the world, some amazing resources out there that are part of the national wildlife refuge system.
Rob: What kind of issues and concerns kept you up at night, Robin, while you were working there in the Pacific region?
Robin: Well, I guess it probably isn't too surprising. They really weren't that much different than now. It's all the stressors and politics that come with managing large areas. And so, while on one hand it's very cold in the north and warm out in the west, there still are remote areas that have unique resources and logistical challenges and unique history with indigenous peoples that we had to manage. And since we're really talking about climate change, those issues were maybe even more evident to me in the last few years working in the Pacific, mostly because of sea level rise. And I'll speak about that a little bit, but I think also fire. When you think of Hawaii, you don't think of fire. But obviously, the news has changed some people's minds with the horrific fires that we've seen in the last year in Hawaii and even in a declining budget. I remember the very last new position that I funded when I was the regional chief; there was a fire management position to work in collaboration with others in Hawaii. So, it's drying, and there are more brush fires, and it drastically new habitat that we're managing for forest birds. If you invest decades in growing a Koa tree forest for native birds and you have it burn, that's not a good thing. So, looking at that was a major emphasis. But the sea level is the one that I think, if I was lying awake at night, gave me the most concerns. And that's just because of melting ice and permafrost and just the science of water molecules being a little larger when they're warm. The sea level is coming up. One of the decisions that I made when I was the Regional Chief was to abandon our research facility at French Frigate Shoals on Tern Island. There was a World War II Runway on it. When we get surges of storms, the Coast Guard would go in and land and take people off. And the last time they did that, they said they wouldn't do it anymore. And so, we had to take people off the. So, all of these remote atolls are very low-elevation islands, and they are critically important for hauling out and nesting for millions and millions of seabirds. Albatross comes to mind, but there are so many others, as well as sea turtles and endangered monk seals. So, when they're underwater, what are we going to do to conserve those species? And about the only thing you really can do in the long run is have access to and manage forelands and higher elevation islands and remove predators and fence them, because that's the limiting factor in the mainland areas in Hawaii is cats and mongooses and dogs. You can't have birds come ashore and nest successfully for several months when they have that kind of predation. And so it can be mitigated, but it'll take a lot of work and planning.
Advertisement: What if we could rescue the planet from the ravages of the climate crisis and, in the process, save a million species from extinction? Would we do it? Former U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Senior Policy Advisor for the National Wildlife Refuge System, Robert Campellone, explores the United States' most pressing conservation challenge since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring the triple planetary crisis, pollution, climate, boiling, and biodiversity loss in designing nature's half a practical guide to conserve 50% by 2050, Campellone reveals previous nationwide initiatives to design sustainable and resilient landscapes, provides an easy to follow how-to guide for taking a collaborative, science-based approach to identify conservation actions across large landscapes, and advocates for taking a third nationwide try at Designing Nature's Half and learn how to take a synergistic approach to mitigating the climate crisis and conserving biodiversity in Designing Nature's Half: A Practical Guide to Conserving 50% by 2050 and be part of the global movement to save the planet. For more information, visit www.designingnatureshalf.com.
Rob: We’ve spent half of the podcast talking about the challenges the Refuge System faces in Alaska, but you've opened the door there, Robin, to shift and talk about adaptation. So maybe we could follow that thread a little bit more. Are there any broad, high-level concepts that resonate with you?
Robin: We're facing an issue that was centuries in the making, and it's global in nature, so you have to address long-term strategies and view your planned actions with results that you hope to attain. Given the environment that we're predicting, we're coming to. And it is global in nature, and it's so huge, it's easy, one, just to put your head in the sand and say, I can't do anything, or two, get so focused on something that's so minor, you might as well not be doing anything. I say that a little bit tongue in cheek, but at the same time, I like to look at this whole thing kind of as a three-legged stool that the whole world sits on and with an umbrella that they're holding. And that three-legged stool to address this issue would be something like, first off, managing carbon. There's an old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. But that's huge. And then number two, when is having complete science and planning. So, you can't just go willy-nilly with this, as we have to really know what we're doing. These are big, big decisions, so you have to have the right science and the right planning tools to lay it out in front of you before you start pulling the trigger on adaptation or anything else. Three, you have to have adequate tools. And in this case, I'm just going to say broadly, it's kind of what you guys are discussing is that you have to have the land and the water and the area in order to do the manipulations. If you don't have control, that doesn't mean you have to own it. You have to have willing partners. And so it can be state land, tribal land, military land, refuges, parks, and all that, working together for common goals that they appreciate and have a self-interest in. And then that umbrella that I mentioned over this three-legged stool is having public outreach and education, which equals support. And so, people, and it doesn't have to be everybody, but it has to be a vocal majority to influence decision makers as engaged constituents, that this is what they want to see in life. And so, when you get that combination, and whether that is locally or statewide or nationally or internationally, that's the formula for chipping away at this. And so, adaptation is part of the picture. It's what we will do to address known threats and try and mitigate losses, because there's going to be losses, we're going to have more extinctions. We already are seeing that the world's population in my lifetime has grown 180%. The demand for water, food, and land is only increasing. So that's the environment we'll be making these decisions in. But tease that all apart. You need engaged, collaborative communities working on a specific set of goals, and they're going to be different for different areas. And so, if you're trying to manage seabirds in the Pacific, that's a whole different set of goals versus managing for fire issues in the Pacific Northwest or desert turtles in the Southwest or whatever. You'll have to look at both the human needs as well as nature's needs and recognize they often overlap. And also, when you make progress in one area, you'll make progress in others, maybe not even planned. But, for example, when you have large conservation units that you're using to mitigate and adapt, you also can maintain vegetation at levels or even enhanced levels to help with the sequestration of carbon. So, we could talk about this for a century. As long as we're moving forward, that's a good thing. But this is a big one.
Tom: Yeah, it's a huge one. And I liked your three-legged stool analogy. And one of the legs you talked about was science. I'm just wondering what kind of science would be helpful to the refuge managers or land managers or these collaboratives that are working for climate adaptation.
Robin: Well, I think we're becoming increasingly accepting of artificial intelligence, and yet really, it's nothing new in terms of just making projections. And so when I was going to school, we did modeling and then developed algorithms to predict outcomes. That's really what we're talking about. And if you look at a lot of the decisions that have been made on climate change for, say, listing polar bears or not listing sage grouse and that kind of thing, it's based on the best science we have available and putting predictive models together, and they will never be perfect, they will always be wrong. Unfortunately, some of them, and maybe many of them that I've witnessed in the last decade or so have underpredicted the rapidity of change. And nonetheless, you can't get caught up in that. Use the best science you can and improve it as you can. And that's part of the feedback loop on any science that anybody does, is that you need to see if your predictions are accurate and make adjustments. And we have to be able to adapt ourselves and our management actions in order to do the larger adaptive management on the ground. And we're going to make mistakes. The worst thing you can do is nothing. And you learn from mistakes, too. And so, sitting on our hands and not trying to test some of these things and improve our models would be a mistake.
Rob: Another aspect of this, Robin, that you mentioned was adaptation planning. And as a planner, it's very near and dear to my heart. Over the past ten years or so, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Wildlife Refuge system specifically, has been advocating for and promoting the idea of collaborative, multi-jurisdictional, multisector conservation design at landscape levels. The LCCs, back in the day were beginning to move down that path. Some of those regional partnerships were actually trying their hand at landscape conservation design. Unfortunately, they went away. And we're kind of here now wondering, how do we start that up again? I think you're spot on when you talk about the need for multi-jurisdictional, multisector parties coming together and doing that type of planning and design work. Still, without a nationwide convening body to kind of facilitate that, it's kind of left up to landscape partnerships to kind of come together and begin to think about implementing a design process, which is a real challenge without some ability to feel as if you're part of a larger network, a larger movement of collaboratives working together across the country, that when they all kind of roll up their data together at a nationwide level, we could say, okay, we know what we're doing. As you mentioned, we could review our models, make sense of the data, and make sense of the adaptation strategies that we're applying on the ground. But without that national kind of coordination, it becomes a little bit more challenging to be able to calculate our success. And I'm just wondering, from a refuge manager's perspective or even as a regional chief's perspective, how you feel about my perspective on that.
Robin: Well, certainly that's true, Rob. I mean, everything you said, you know, individuals working alone and in neighborhoods and even small community organizations are all valuable in affecting change. But in order to get the kind of change as fast as we probably need, we need larger communities and states and national coordination and planning and implementation, which will require public debate and likely legislation and maybe even international treaties. Nothing new, but challenging. Given the subject matter, I think that we've seen some good examples of how this has worked with successes at various levels. I look at the Fish and Wildlife Services Initiative with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan back in the mid eighty s, and we signed an agreement with Canada, I think in 1986, and then with Mexico later in 1994. And it is a national plan and then a North American plan, all focused on migratory birds and waterfowl. And yet it was broken down in subsequent years into joint ventures. And I think there's probably about 25 joint ventures that they mostly focused on habitat, that they were regional partnerships, focused on collaboration, didn't make anybody do anything. They looked at enlightened self-interest in their objectives. Governments were involved, certainly, but also NGOs, non-governmental organizations, tribes and corporations, and private citizens. It all was really successful because it engaged others, built partnerships, and developed a cooperative spirit with industry. And folks could see the benefits to them personally as well as to their communities when they got that done. And that's one good example. And then one when I was in Oregon that I think is a little different, but it shows what a state can do. This goes back to, I think, 1973 when the law passed because I know Tom McCall was the governor. Then they developed 19 statewide land use planning goals via legislation that looked at basically everything. The one I was most involved with was forest lands, which was goal four. And they required implementation at the local level. So, counties are the ones that implemented it. And yet there was a statewide commission, the Oregon Land Conservation Development Commission, that was put together that ensured that the county plans were consistent with the statewide goals and again dealt with everything from citizen involvement to urbanization and energy and ocean resources, and you name it. It was a comprehensive plan for a state that has evolved over the years, changing direction and the target goals and all that. It's not a one-and-done kind of thing. And that process is in place to ensure compliance with the goals and everything that is being done within a state. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples where groups have got together with a common interest, and it takes time and honesty.
Tom: That's how it'll get done. As a career-long federal employee, what do you see as the role of the US federal government in landscape-scale conservation?
Robin: We own much of it…not for ourselves…but in trust for the American people and future generations. However, the executive branch and all the federal land management agencies are just implementers of legislation. Whether it's to manage a national park or mineral leasing on BLM land or whatever, it comes via the direction of Congress, which is an accumulation of our elected officials that we have to do our best to keep our eye on the ball. Recognizing the political environment is kind of like a pendulum that does switch back and forth and try not to get hit when it's moving the other way, but to follow the law within that. Again, recognize that we already have. I don't know. The refuge system I think I mentioned had about 100 million acres, and the national forest is close to 200 million acres. And park service, I think, is about 85 million acres. And of course, BLM is about an 8th of the whole United States, about 250,000,000 acres, tons of land and resources that we manage directly or indirectly, even in trust for tribes and that kind of thing. And the question is a big one. But the simple answer is, with what we have responsibility for now, our primary goal ought to be working together on common goals. And so, we shouldn't be managing the National Wildlife Refuge system with total autonomy from BLM or the Forest Service. We ought to be talking with each other and working with our constituents to do land management and conservation across the country and not manage for our own specific purposes because we share common threats. And if we're going to be successful, we have to share a common solution.
Rob: Let's drill down a little bit more focused on the national wildlife refuge system, Robin. It's one of the largest protected area networks in the world, with close to 600 units nationwide. But unlike refuges in Alaska, the refuges in the lower 48 tend to be small patches of managed habitat, often within a human-dominated matrix. You talked a little bit about how we should be managing those units in close association with other protected areas across the landscape. It's hard to argue with that. But I'm just wondering, what do you see as the role of the refuge system in furthering, promoting, and implementing landscape conservation, if any? And what role can individual refuges play within that larger landscape, within that larger matrix that includes a diversity of stakeholders? Quite frankly, how does the refuge system begin to interact with other land entities and other jurisdictions? Again, if there's not this convening body, how does that happen? Does a refuge manager pick up the phone?
Robin: Well, yeah, someone has to take the initiative if an initiative doesn't exist. But I think just in general, refuges certainly are the only group of lands that are set aside totally for the conservation of fish and wildlife. And so other lands are managed for multiple uses or for cultural resource protection or whatever. So, they're unique. They have strong legislative backing. There's at least one in every of the 50 states. Most large communities have a refuge within an hour's drive of their communities. So, they can provide anchors for people to connect with nature, as well as learn about important community involvement. And through friend’s organizations, private organizations working through refuge demonstrate what may be considered small things. But small things get to medium-sized things, to large things like conserving pollinators. And frequently, I would argue, too, even though some of these are extremely small. Most of the refuges were established because of their importance either to an endangered species or for migratory birds, and are important as unique elements in the life history of birds. For example, one of the refuges I worked on in Alaska was Izembek Refuge, and most people will never visit it at 650 miles from the roaded area of Anchorage. But the eelgrass beds there are critically important for migrating Brandt and ducks and geese that are moving up and down the coast. And so even though it's just one small refuge in Alaska, it's critically important for the whole life history of a variety of animals. And when you put that together, times nearly 600, you have quite a network of importance not only for the wildlife but also an opportunity to work with people through initiatives like urban wildlife refuge development and getting people out on the ground to connect with nature. It's all part of, I think, what's necessary to help the public not only enjoy the resource that they co-own but get involved fundamentally. I'm wandering a little bit here, but I go on and on talking about refuges because they were my life for so long. But when you're managing for wetlands, and you are contributing to aquafer recharging and flood control and storm surge protection and wildfire management and that kind of thing. They're critical anchors, even in small areas in the community. So, take that to what we just talked about and use those in collaboration with adjacent landowners, whether they be private or other public lands. They can play a critical role in the future conservation of the country. And they already are, I would argue, and they can do more.
Rob: Well, Robin, I'm afraid we're running out of time here. It's been great having you on as a guest and reconnecting with you. Before you go, I want to give you one more chance to share any parting thoughts with our listeners.
Robin: Well, I appreciate the time for us to chat and again applaud your guys’ efforts. It's a monumental task, and I guess the last thing that I would share is an often-used quote from Aldo Leopold, who said something to the effect of keeping every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. And so, I look at that as a primary mandate in conservation is that we need to do some tinkering and we need to get about it pretty quickly on some things or sit back and watch the changes without being involved. But in doing so, we need to be conservation-minded. And I think in the long run, we'll be well served by taking care of our fish and wildlife resources, too. Don't get a vote in this matter.
Rob: Excellent. Thanks so much, Robin. Tom, do you have any parting thoughts to share?
Tom: Just that I really appreciated the conversation. I loved hearing Robin's thoughts about finding common ground, and I think that's how you do conservation at a broader scale. So that was great to hear and just the wisdom of multiple years working on challenging issues. So, thank you so much, Robin.
Robin: Thank you, guys.
Rob: Well, thanks again to our guest, Robin West. And thank you, our listeners, for tuning into episode two of Designing Nature's Half: The Landscape Conservation podcast. I've been your co-host, Rob Campellone.
Tom: And I've been your other co-host, Tom Miewald. Join us again every two weeks for another informative episode of Designing Nature's Half: The Landscape Conservation podcast. Thank you.
Outro: Designing Nature's Half: The Landscape Conservation podcast is researched, written, edited, and produced by Rob Campellone and Tom Miewald. Lucas Gallardi created the Designing Nature's Half cover art and logo design. Tom Askin is the voice behind the intro and outro, and the music was written and performed by composer Alexi Kislin via Pixabay. Designing Nature's Half: The Landscape Conservation podcast is a proud member of Mind Matter Media, a startup multimedia network whose mission is to change the world by designing sustainable and resilient landscapes for people, planet, and prosperity.
An Invitation
If you think you have something to offer to the conversation and would like to be a guest on our pod, drop me a note at: info@lcdinstitute.org and put "Guest" in the subject line.
Sharing is Caring
Please consider sharing this newsletter with your social contacts so we can build a community of folks who want to turn down the boil, save our planet, and its inhabitants.
Join the Designing Nature’s Half Community
Sign up below to hear about what we have up our sleeves to save the planet and learn how you can get involved.
A man and his mic — where the magic happens.
Thanks for your interest and support!
Until next time,
Dr. Amanda Sesser, the Coordinator of the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) Partnership, discusses the need for inclusive design and decision-making processes that involve diverse stakeholders and empower communities. By bringing together various sectors of society, such as transportation, energy, and conservation, sustainable landscapes can be co-designed, created, and managed for people, planet, and prosperity. The episode emphasizes the need to balance human well-being and ecological integrity – a challenge that requires a new governance model that breaks down silos in traditional planning and decision-making. It addresses historic patterns of inequality and injustice to create a more inclusive and equitable society and highlights the concept of reciprocity and the importance of engaging indigenous and other disenfranchised people.