The White House’s Expansive Ecological and Climate Change Initiative – which Includes a 30 by 30 Goal – Is Much More than Conservation and Has Major Implications for Colorado, Its Natural Resources, and the Economy

Colorado is the eighth largest state by area. It has considerable natural resources and historic outdoor recreation. Conservation has always been part of its commonwealth. But new environmentalism, like the type seen in the 30 by 30 plan, is of a different “nature” than traditional land management.

30 by 30: Not the Sports Documentary, But May Be Taking the Field

On Jan. 27, 2021, Joe Biden signed the broad-reaching Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. It calls for “taking a government-wide approach to the climate crisis.” Where earth scientists acknowledge the existence, they widely debate the scale and scope of human-caused climate change.

Biden’s expansive executive order is a start, but an ambitious one. Out of approximately 1200+ presidential executive orders this century, this wholesale pledge is in the top 25 longest (non-revoked), at over 7400 words long.

Part of the perceived solution to this crisis is “30 by 30.” It signifies putting 30% of US territory, including some marine locations, under federal ecological protection by 2030.

Federal protection for 30 by 30 has also been called “permanent” protection. This is a designation that concerns property holders in Colorado and elsewhere.

Mind the GAP (Gap Analysis Project)

The White House, in a fact sheet follow-up to the executive order, said, “only 12% of lands are permanently protected.” This is according to the US Geological Survey which oversees the Gap Analysis Project (GAP). GAP is an exhaustive surveying of plant and animal (climate and biological) presence across US territories. 30 by 30 goals align with GAP 1 and GAP 2 Status: the most restrictive protected land designations.

Reckoning by map, virtually all GAP 1 and 2 regions in Colorado are in scattershot locations throughout the Western Range with almost none in the state’s Eastern half. Also, nearly the entire Western half of the state is in GAP 1, 2, or 3 designations.

GAP Status 1

• The location has “permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover”
• There is a strategy to forcibly keep the continual, uninhibited natural state
• This is to be a natural state “within which disturbance events (of natural type, frequency, intensity, and legacy) [parentheses in original] are allowed to proceed without interference or are mimicked through management” by USGS-GAP
• Approximates examples by map: large areas of the San Juan Mtns. and Park Range

GAP Status 2

• Also has “permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover”
• There is a strategy to forcibly keep a less stringent “primarily natural state”
• There can be “uses or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities, including suppression of natural disturbance” by USGS-GAP
• Small spots along parts of the Purgatoire and Arkansas Rivers appear to be GAP 2

The goal for GAP 1 and 2 designations is protection from biological disruption. However, this protection can disrupt the well-being of humans.

GAP 1 Status precludes “conversion of natural land cover.” By any reasonable definition, logging, coal mining, oil/gas drilling, and building homes or businesses involve breaking “permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover.”

This preclusion can become a drain on Colorado’s industry and economy.

GAP 2 status allows for minor interruptions of non-human natural habitat processes, but with the same practical ban on “conversion of natural land cover.”

“What Biden has done is now eliminated the requirement of state and local government agreement for federal land purchase in the counties.”

Government Closest to the People (?)

People in Colorado communities want safety and health in terms of the natural environment (naturally). The White House’s executive order claims to want “substantive engagement by stakeholders, including State, local, and Tribal governments.”

Speaking about this pledge to involve local governance, self-described Wyoming “cowboy lawyer,” Barbara Budd-Falen said on “The Rancher’s Voice” podcast, “what Biden has done is now eliminated the requirement of state and local government agreement for federal land purchase in the counties.”

Budd-Falen’s statement in that April 2021 podcast that the federal government is not required to consult local landowners appears to bear out. White papers, literature, reports, and fact sheets have few particulars. Despite the frequent promising language, there does not appear to be any hard-and-fast pledges to have detailed, consequential input from locals.

The federal government has said they want to hear from the residents, but do they mean it?

Multiple Use Mandates: Come One, Come All

Land owned by the federal government legally mandates the needs of the people on that land be considered. That’s the case whether the need is to generate revenue or have access to nature. Usually, it is both. Some lands have eco-friendly livestock grazing, limited fossil fuel extraction, hiking, and camping. Colorado is one of the few states that has all of these (and more) within its territory. And, of course, Colorado has its own livestock and energy development.

Colorado Livestock, Energy and Recreation – Fast Data

• There are 39,000 farm operations and 840,000 beef and milk cows combined
• 48% of the territory is used for agriculture
• Colorado is the “fifth-largest crude oil-producing state”
• The state is number seven in production of natural gas for the US and the overall cost of natural gas for Colorado is half of that for Massachusetts
• Its natural gas is currently twice the output of the year 2000
• As of 2019, Colorado has proven reserves of roughly 1.5 billion barrels of oil resources
• In 2020, during the pandemic, it produced around 171.5 million barrels
• Less than a decade ago, Colorado was number 10 in coal production
• Colorado has over 39,000 miles of trails

Budd-Falen also said to Rancher’s Voice that less-restricted federal lands can be reassigned as lesser-use or non-use protected properties by the federal government to meet the 30% goal. This appropriation or reassignment can be done, according to Budd-Falen, without an easement or payout from the federal $900 million held in trust to pay for land.

A Place to Land

For many farmers, ranchers, trappers, hunters, and recreational guides, these distantly decided policies are concerning. Ideas about extreme restrictions–communicated academically and politically–on large swathes of land concern people who are literally closest to that land.

In part 2: factoring into the discussion a favored political cause among largely urban voting blocs and how this is affecting the Rockies and the Southwest.

The Maverick Observer is an online free-thinking publication interested in the happenings in our region. We launched in February 2020 to hold our politicians and businesses accountable. We hope to educate, inform, entertain, and infuse you with a sense of community.