30 X 30 Initiative – Enviro Updates

Andrew Rypel & Peter Moyle, CALIFORNIA WATER BLOG

It’s an odd, disturbing feeling – watching populations of native fish species collapse and then disappear. Sometimes it happens quickly, other times it’s a series of slowstep change events. The end result is the same though – smaller populations, extinctions, less biodiversity. We put up a little fight, and occasionally have moderate success. But by and large, the overall trend is down, the pace of change quickening, and it is relentless. We’ve watched it over our careers, and maybe some of you have too. Either as biologists or water professionals, or perhaps as long-time readers of this blog. This summer has been no different. It has been an avalanche of stories, all with variations on this theme. Here, we provide a synopsis of some recent events, along with wider thoughts on what watching this happen means.

See full article for details about:

California White Sturgeon Decision

Longfin Smelt Listing

Wild Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento Basin are on the Brink of Extinction

Speckled Dace Listings

[…]

When we lose species, it speaks volumes about our inability to prevent ecosystem decline, and to constantly borrow from nature without repayment (Rypel 2023). The pattern is especially sobering with charismatic species such as Chinook salmon, which receive large amounts of conservation funding and attention. This is a clear and unambiguous signal that cannot be ignored. But what should we do about it? A good start might be the development and implementation of a comprehensive fish management plan for California. We provided some scaffolding for what such a plan might look like in a previous blog. The 30×30 conservation goal of the Resources Agency can boldly protect many declining fishes if fully implemented. This initiative seeks to directly protect entire watersheds, including where many declining fish occur.

Eric Simons,BAY NATURE

On October 7 California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered the state to create a new California Biodiversity Collaborative and conserve 30 percent of its land and coastal waters by 2030.

Conservationists have celebrated the enshrinement of biodiversity preservation among the state’s priorities, as well as the state aligning with an international “30 by 30” goal shared by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and many of the world’s most prominent conservation scientists.

Now comes the hard part: figuring out which 30 percent of California, and making it clear what it means to truly “conserve” it.

After a summer and fall of record-breaking wildfires and arguments between the state and the Trump Administration about who was to blame for them, many Californians now know that 45 percent of the total land area of the state is owned and managed by the federal government. That includes 15 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land, much of which is held in vast swathes of the eastern deserts and inner coast range; 7.6 million acres of National Park Service land; and 20.8 million acres of US Forest Service land.

If you consider California’s federal land more or less protected — it’s publicly owned and rarely ever sold, though it can be developed for solar energy or used for mining, drilling, grazing, and logging — it shouldn’t be hard to rope off 30 percent of the state by 2030. And that’s not all. California State Parks already manages 1.4 million acres. The executive order also mentions the importance of agricultural and working lands, with the first point under the 30 percent line calling for guaranteeing “economic sustainability and food security” — adding the potential for California’s 43 million acres of agricultural land to count toward the goal, too. The order also highlights the importance of marine protected areas, which currently protect one half-million acres in state waters offshore, and tribal lands, which add up to another half-million acres.

All in all, then, it’s defining the nature of “conserve” that will be much more challenging than drawing lines on a map around one third of the state’s land. How much use is too much use? What kinds of use make land count as “not conserved”? How do fishing, hunting, hiking, birding, logging, or ranching factor in? Does a flooded rice field that’s habitat for endangered birds and fish count? Can the state protect 30 percent of its land in a way that reflects its full redwoods-to-desert and coast-to-mountains biodiversity?

Environmental Center of Sonoma County

Tag: 30 X 30 Initiative

Watching native fishes vanish

California commits to conserving 30 percent of its land and water by 2030. What does that mean?