logo
California moves closer to ‘30x30' conservation goals as threats to public lands loom

California moves closer to ‘30x30' conservation goals as threats to public lands loom

California officials have moved closer to their goal of conserving 30% of lands and coastal waters by the target year of 2030, a revelation that arrives as the Trump administration advances directives that could claw back areas that were set aside.
Nearly five years after the inception of the so-called 30x30 initiative, California has conserved 26.1% of its lands and 21.9% of its coastal waters — or roughly 41,000 square miles and 1,150 square miles, respectively — according to a California Natural Resources Agency report released Monday.
In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that set the 30x30 effort in motion. The initiative kicked off in earnest two years later when officials released a detailed road map for the plan. At that time, approximately 23.8% of lands and 16.2% of coastal waters were conserved.
The stated goals of the 30x30 initiative extend beyond conservation. The plan also seeks to restore biodiversity, expand Californians' access to nature and help mitigate and build resilience to climate change.
Now at the halfway point in the initiative, the state needs to protect less than 4 million acres of land and 283,000 acres of coastal waters to meet its goal.
Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the CNRA, said the state is on track to hit its target — but could be stymied by the federal government, which owns nearly half of California's lands. Earlier this year, Trump terminated a national version of the 30x30 plan known as the America the Beautiful initiative.
'Federal attacks on public lands and environmental protections ... could impact our progress,' Crowfoot said, 'and we could actually see — if these federal attacks are successful — our acreage moving backwards.'
In the past year, an additional 853,000 acres of land and 191,000 acres of water were conserved in California — representing an area the size of Glacier National Park in Montana, the report states.
The majority of that land — roughly 685,000 acres — received enhanced protection through former President Biden's designation of two new national monuments early this year: Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands. The monuments include vast swaths of land in the Southern California desert and Northern California forests that tribes consider sacred.
The Trump administration has sent signals that it may seek to abolish both Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands.
In March, the Trump administration issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating the monuments. Then, last month, the Justice Department released a legal opinion that concluded that Trump could undo his predecessor's creation of Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands. As of today, the monuments still exist, though their subsistence seems at risk.
Leaving the monuments aside, California's biggest 30x30 gains were on the sea, with the amount of coastal waters conserved jumping nearly 6% year over year.
The Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, off California's rugged Central Coast, represents nearly all of the newly conserved waters. Designated by the Biden administration last November, the 4,543-square-mile sanctuary marked the first such preserve in California to be managed in cooperation with Indigenous peoples.
The designation prohibits new oil drilling and offers other protections, but some conservationists believe it falls short of meeting the criteria for inclusion in the 30x30 tally.
'California's national marine sanctuaries unfortunately do not limit damaging stressors on marine biodiversity,' said Sandy Aylesworth, director of the Pacific Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary allows for the operation of an oil and gas pipeline as well industrial fishing, she said.
'So if this area is to count toward the goal, we'd like to see it meaningfully strengthen biodiversity protections in the sanctuary,' she said.
Crowfoot, the state Natural Resources secretary, said a management plan that would do that is underway. If it doesn't materialize in a way that boosts environmental and biodiversity protections, he said, then the sanctuary could be removed from areas the state considers protected under the 30x30 plan. That would knock the figure for protected waters down.
Looking ahead, Crowfoot said officials are focused on expanding California state parks by integrating private land nestled inside them as well as adjacent properties purchased by conservation groups. An estimated 30,000 acres of land could be added to the state park system for no additional cost because it's within a park or next to it, he said.
Crowfoot called the 30x30 plan 'more important than ever' in light of worsening climate change, with the report stating that natural ecosystems conserved through the initiative capture and store greenhouse gases.
Those areas are also expected to serve as refuges for animals as the climate shifts, as well as enhance biodiversity, which, the report states, 'supports the clean water and soil fertility essential for human survival and environmental stability.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justice Department files misconduct complaint against federal judge handling deportation case

time12 minutes ago

Justice Department files misconduct complaint against federal judge handling deportation case

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Donald Trump 's administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Escalating the administration's conflict with U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg 'for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.' The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press. The comments 'have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,' the complaint says, adding that the administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders. The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law. The judge's verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court. The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting. Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation's capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public. The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations. Trump himself already has called for Boasberg's impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call. The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela.

N. Korea says Trump-Kim relationship 'not bad' but rejects nuclear talks
N. Korea says Trump-Kim relationship 'not bad' but rejects nuclear talks

UPI

time39 minutes ago

  • UPI

N. Korea says Trump-Kim relationship 'not bad' but rejects nuclear talks

SEOUL, July 29 (UPI) -- The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said Tuesday that her brother's relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump was "not bad," but dismissed the notion of resuming denuclearization talks with Washington. "I do not want to deny the fact that the personal relationship between the head of our state and the U.S. president is not bad," Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "However, if the personal relations between the top leaders of the DPRK and the U.S. are to serve the purpose of denuclearization, it can be interpreted as nothing but a mockery of the other party," she said. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea. "Shortly ago, a person in authority of the White House said ... that [Trump] is still open to dialogue with the DPRK leader for achieving the complete denuclearization of the DPRK," Kim said. "Any attempt to deny the position of the DPRK as a nuclear weapons state ... will be thoroughly rejected." Kim appeared to be responding to a Yonhap news agency report Saturday that quoted an unnamed White House official as saying Trump "remains open to engaging with Leader Kim to achieve a fully denuclearized North Korea." During Trump's first term, the two leaders held a pair of high-profile summits and met briefly a third time at the DMZ. The diplomatic outreach failed to result in a nuclear deal, however, and Pyongyang has accelerated the development of its weapons programs in the intervening years. In April, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that there had been communication with North Korea and that the two sides would "probably do something at some point." "I have a very good relationship with [Kim]," Trump said. "I think it's very important. He's a big nuclear nation and he's a very smart guy." In September 2022, the North passed a law declaring itself a nuclear weapons state and giving it the right to conduct a preemptive nuclear strike in self-defense. Kim called the decision "irreversible" and later amended the country's constitution to enshrine the permanent growth of Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal. In her statement Tuesday, Kim Yo Jong said any efforts to engage with North Korea would require acknowledging "the hard fact that its capabilities and geopolitical environment have radically changed." "The recognition of the irreversible position of the DPRK as a nuclear weapons state ... should be a prerequisite for predicting and thinking everything in the future," she said. "It would be advisable to seek another way of contact on the basis of such new thinking." Kim's remarks came one day after she released a statement condemning Seoul's military alliance with Washington and saying that Pyongyang had "no interest" in efforts by the administration of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung to improve relations.

Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities

timean hour ago

Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, have disabilities or are unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits, and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin applauded the decision by the 8th Circuit panel, saying the 2009 state law revolving around voters with disabilities 'protects the right to vote free from undue influence or manipulation.' In the statement, he said Monday's ruling 'means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas's laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.' The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, declined to comment. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store