State commission to decide fate of iconic western Joshua tree

The science surrounding the iconic western Joshua tree is grim. The tree’s suitable habitat is expected to decline substantially by 2100 due to climate change, especially in the southern portions of its range — meaning the Joshua tree would largely be unable to survive in its namesake park by the end of this century.

Identifying and protecting areas known as “climate refugia,” where Joshua trees may be able to thrive at higher elevations amid rising temperatures and climate change, will become even more important to the species’ survival. Outside of the park, the western Joshua tree’s habitat extends northeast through fast-growing high desert cities like Victorville, Hesperia and Palmdale, where California residents themselves have increasingly sought refuge from high housing prices — a crucial point for opponents who say listing the species would slow development in the region.

Approximately 40% of the western Joshua tree’s range is on private lands, and one analysis by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projected that between 22% and 42% of the habitat within the southern part of the tree’s range may be lost by 2095 due to urban growth and renewable energy development, although less than 1% of the habitat within the northern part of the tree’s range in Inyo and Kern counties is expected to be lost during that same time period.

On June 15, the California Fish and Game Commission will consider whether these threats are enough to warrant “threatened” status under the California Endangered Species Act.

In a report released in April, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife acknowledged that threats from climate change, wildfire, development and other human activities will reduce western Joshua tree habitat in coming years, but recommended against listing the species as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. The department called the listing "not warranted” because the tree is “currently abundant and widespread.”

Conservation groups and advocates are hoping the California Fish and Game Commission votes against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s recommendations, both to protect the western Joshua tree and to show “whether or not California will actually take climate change seriously in terms of managing our natural resources,” said Brendan Cummings, conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, which submitted the petition to list the species.

Meanwhile, high desert cities and trade groups are also closely watching the listing decision, which they say would worsen another California crisis: housing affordability and development.

“The California Mojave Desert is comprised of growing, underserved communities that face economic challenges unlike other areas of our state. Listing the Joshua Tree would effectively halt future development in our communities at a time when California is grappling with housing shortages and rising homelessness,” Victorville Mayor Debra Jones wrote in a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission opposing the listing on behalf of the Victorville City Council.

The commission accepted the Center for Biological Diversity's petition in September 2020, granting the tree interim protections as a candidate species.

As a candidate for listing, the tree temporarily receives the same protections as a state-listed endangered or threatened species. This includes a prohibition on the import, export, take (or kill), possession, purchase, or sale of the western Joshua tree, or any part or product of the tree, without proper authorization.

A separate petition filed in 2015 by WildEarth Guardians asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Joshua tree as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. In 2019, during the Trump administration, the federal agency found the listing "not warranted," and WildEarth Guardians appealed the decision.

Last September, a federal district court judge called the federal agency's decision "arbitrary and capricious," and said the agency had ignored numerous scientific studies. The judge ordered the federal agency to reconsider and issue a new decision within 12 months.

Habitat threatened by climate change

In its report, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife recognized that “there will be a substantial reduction in areas with suitable climate conditions for western Joshua tree in the foreseeable future,” which in combination with other threats “is expected to have negative effects on the abundance of western Joshua tree and is cause for substantial concern.”

But the department recommended against listing the tree as threatened, concluding that the “currently abundant and widespread” population lessens the overall impact of these threats and the threat of extinction for the foreseeable future, which the department defined as through 2100.

The department concluded that the best available science does not demonstrate that western Joshua tree populations are “negatively trending in a way that would show the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct…”

Cummings called the department’s conclusion “a soft form of climate denial,” and said that while the report represented a thorough summary of the research that’s been done on threats facing the species, “the actual conclusions they take from that research consistently downplay those threats.”

Cummings quoted a statement from the Fish and Wildlife report that said the department expects that any changes in the western Joshua tree’s range that are caused by climate change “will likely occur very slowly, perhaps over thousands of years,” based on fossil records following climate changes approximately 11,700 years ago.

“The consensus of climate scientists is that current climate changes are happening at least an order of magnitude faster than they were at the end of the ice ages, Joshua trees do not have a thousand years or more,” Cummings said.

Both Cummings and Cameron Barrows, a retired conservation ecologist with the Center for Conservation Biology at the University of California, Riverside, criticized the department’s conclusion that the best available science doesn’t show that the population is negatively trending toward a threat of extinction.

“The best available science is unanimous in that climate change is now and continues to threaten the Joshua tree’s existence, because they are no longer able to reproduce through a large portion of their range. And study after study has confirmed that… The Joshua tree has been studied with respect to climate change better than any other organism probably in California, but certainly within the California deserts. We have more available data and independent work that’s been done than any other species,” said Barrows.

Barrows cited a 2011 study that determined the species would largely go extinct throughout much of its current range by 2100. A few years later, in 2013, Barrows did a follow-up study focused just on Joshua Tree National Park and found that at that time, the species was not reproducing in over 50% of their habitat within the park.

“There were no young trees coming in, it was just a lot of standing trees. And it leads people, perhaps the people that put together the Department of Fish and Wildlife report, to have a false impression that things are secure. Because if you drive through the Mojave Desert, you see Joshua trees all over the place, so what’s the problem?,” said Barrows.

“But if they’re not reproducing, then we’re basically looking at a bunch of senior centers without any elementary schools that are filling in the gaps,” he continued.

High desert cities oppose listing

High desert cities, San Bernardino County, and trade groups like the High Desert Association of Realtors and the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association have opposed listing the species as threatened, arguing that existing local protections are sufficient and that the listing would hamper housing production and other development in the region.

The tree's range overlaps with the fast-growing high desert region, including cities like Hesperia and Victorville. In the 2020 census, the two cities grew in population by 10.7% and 16.3% compared to 2010.

“Listing the tree would add redundant protections that place a significant financial burden on private landowners while doing little to address a long-term threat to the species,” states the letter from Victorville, adding that much of the western Joshua tree’s population is on protected lands and that the city’s municipal code makes it a misdemeanor to unlawfully remove the tree.

Local city and county ordinances related to tree removal vary, and some local ordinances also have specific regulations that are applicable to the western Joshua tree. In Victorville, removing a tree requires written approval from the director of parks and recreation, which the city says recently resulted in the “successful relocation” of 119 western Joshua trees in 2020 from a 360-acre site that now houses a solar generating facility. The trees were relocated to a city-owned golf course. In San Bernardino County, the fine for unlawfully taking a Joshua tree was recently increased to up to $20,000. 

The Department of Fish and Wildlife’s review of existing local ordinances found that “certain local ordinances would allow for removal of western Joshua tree without required mitigation under specified circumstances,” so “these local regulations may not adequately protect western Joshua trees from direct removal or loss of habitat, and the species may remain threatened by human development absent protections under CESA.”

Yucca Valley received a special permit from the state to continue permitting limited takes of western Joshua trees that were necessary for local development during the candidate listing process, which expired on May 9. Under that permit, the city’s planning commission was able to approve permit applications from residents to transplant or remove up to 10 western Joshua trees, with a fee between $10,000 and $40,000 per tree.

Yucca Valley Town Manager Curtis Yakimow said prior to the candidate status, the town's existing ordinance provided for the relocation of trees that needed to be removed for projects.

“Yucca Valley probably has more Joshua trees per developable land than anywhere else. And so the impact of the tree on the ability of the town to function is very, very significant. There are very few lots that we have, for any purpose, whether it's residential, commercial, or industrial, that don't have Joshua trees on them,” said Yakimow, who added that the listing could conflict with other state goals like improving housing affordability through increased housing production.

Solar companies have also weighed in, with a report commissioned by four firms stating that renewable energy development is needed to mitigate the very climate change that is threatening the tree, that the tree's population isn't declining, and that listing the western Joshua tree will "open the floodgates" for "similar petitions claiming climate change is the primary threat to a species."

Advocates of listing the species say the listing wouldn't halt development in the Mojave Desert, but would protect the tree by informing where development should occur and where habitat should be preserved.

"Right now, we're one of the only tools for protecting the desert ecosystem on private lands, by acquiring private land and conserving it in perpetuity. So this listing would help add a layer of protection to habitat that is on private land," said Kelly Herbinson, joint executive director of the Mojave Desert Land Trust, which focuses on acquisition and preservation of private lands in the region.

Cummings noted that there are hundreds of state and federally listed species in the state, and those listings haven't halted development, and both he and Barrows — and Yakimow — pointed to a plan like the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan as an example of balancing protected species habitat with growth and development.

Protecting "every square inch of habitat," isn't the goal, Barrows says, especially since there are many areas that are no longer sustainable habitat for the western Joshua tree and when developing renewable energy is needed to address climate change. Instead, creating a habitat conservation plan would determine critical areas to protect and places that are "marginal habitat" or where trees won't survive in the future, where development could happen.

"We need energy and we need affordable housing... However, climate change is the number one threat to our species as humans, and if we don't address that threat and put protections in place for our ecosystems, then all of the affordable energy and energy in the world isn't going to matter because we're not going to have a viable landscape to live in. Hopefully the listing would put in these protections for the trees and their habitat in a way that gives really clear guidelines for development," Herbinson said.

Previous reporting from Desert Sun reporter Janet Wilson was used in this report. 

Erin Rode covers the environment for the Desert Sun. Reach her at erin.rode@desertsun.com or on Twitter at @RodeErin. 

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Western Joshua tree: California Endangered Species Act decision coming