Picture Joshua Tree National Park, but without the Joshua trees.
Modeling shows that could be reality for the vast majority of the park by the end of this century if the triple threats of climate change, fire and development continue down the path they’re on.
That’s why the gangly, spindly Joshua tree — which reaches up to cast an unmistakable silhouette across Southern California desert skies — is the focus of California’s first law aimed at protecting a species from threats of climate change.
Legislators passed the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act last summer. And on Thursday, April 4, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife held the first public meeting to discuss details of that conservation plan.
Along with expanding a permit system launched last fall, which requires people to pay fees to remove Joshua trees, state officials said they’re working with local tribes and other stakeholders on everything from seed collection to an “adopt-a-Joshua-tree” program in hopes of keeping the species around.
Some elected officials, property owners and Realtors expressed concerns about the plan, saying it might affect development across the high desert, from the Antelope Valley east a couple hundred miles to the border of Nevada.
Alec Mackie said he and his wife bought half an acre in Yucca Valley in 2021 with hopes of building their retirement home there. But after learning about the new law, Mackie said they counted 67 Joshua trees on the lot. Their builder is now estimating they’ll need to spend up to $30,000 on permit fees to remove larger trees and small sprouts before they can build their home.
Mackie said he’s fine with paying a fee of, say, $10,000 to help mitigate how his project will impact Joshua trees. “We do owe something to this process,” Mackie said. But with talk of their property now also needing additional environmental reviews, he said they could end up “financially stranded.”
Still, some conservationists say the state’s plan doesn’t go far enough.
As important as it is to save Joshua trees, Kelly Herbinson, executive director of the Mojave Desert Land Trust, said there’s more at stake.
“Our policy is often written for individual species,” Herbinson said, with the “charismatic” Joshua tree an easy choice to single out for protection. “But, in reality, we know that’s not how ecosystems work.”
Species rely on each other, with everything from moths to owls to woodrats dependent on Joshua trees for survival. Thousands of species also share the same Mojave Desert habitat as Western Joshua trees. And Joshua tree woodlands lock away carbon, keeping it from getting into our atmosphere. So by protecting Joshua trees and their habitat, Herbinson said, “We’re also protecting that tightly knit web of an ecosystem at the same time.”
And, she notes:
“We are part of that ecosystem. We rely on that ecosystem functioning.”
A triple threat
Scientists and conservationists have been sounding alarms about Western Joshua tree survival for years.
That may come as a surprise, since there are still millions of trees scattered across local deserts. But Herbinson said Joshua trees once were much more common than they are today.
The species, which is actually a type of yucca plant, has been around for some 2.5 million years. As the planet went through slow, natural warming cycles, Herbinson said Joshua trees could adapt by slowly moving further north or to higher elevations. But since humans started burning fossil fuels to power our factories and cars, NASA says global average temperatures have spiked 10 times faster than they did when the Earth was coming out of previous glacial periods.
Joshua trees often live 150 years or more. So many trees we see today were alive when the planet was cooler and less likely to experience extended droughts, like the one that ended just last year. And with warming now happening too fast for trees to adapt, Herbinson said mature yuccas are already showing signs of pressure.
“You can drive around parts of Lucerne Valley all the way to the Lancaster and Palmdale area where you’re seeing populations of just brown, dead, dying Joshua trees,” she said.
Young Joshua trees also are only growing in an area that’s about half as large as the area now covered by adult trees, said Brendan Cummings, a conservation director with the Center for Biological Diversity.
“It’s creating zombie forests, with lots of standing adult trees and no young trees to replace them when they age out,” he said. And that’s with global warming at its current levels. “But it’s not going to stop warming tomorrow. And as it continues to warm, the areas suitable for juvenile trees will shrink and shrink.”
That’s why models predict Joshua trees may lose 80% of their habitat in Joshua Tree National Park by the end of this century. And if climate conditions worsen, a study from UC Riverside suggests the trees — now ubiquitous across 160,000 acres of the park — will be relegated to just 37 acres, or a space about half the size of Disney California Adventure.
Then there’s the fire factor.
Thanks to prolonged droughts and pollution, wildfires in places like Joshua Tree National Park and Mojave Desert Preserve are becoming more frequent and destructive in climates that take generations to recover, said Arch McCulloch, director of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association.
As polluted rain falls in the deserts, McCulloch said the soil is becoming richer in nitrogen. That allows invasive grasses and other species to fill spaces between native plants. When those grasses dry out, usually by late spring, they can become fuel for fires created by lightening strikes, carrying flames between native plants that have been weakened by years of drought. That’s what happened during the York fire last summer.
Joshua trees outside the national park also face increasing pressure from people who want to use the land housing, business and renewable energy projects.
There’s irony to that last one, of course, since solar and wind farms are in high demand as we try to pivot away from burning fossil fuels. But a recent study out of UC Davis shows existing and proposed renewable energy projects alone are expected to wipe out an additional 1.7% of Joshua tree habitat by 2070.
Endangered vs. protected
Up until just a couple of years ago, Herbinson said Joshua trees had the same limited legal protections as are afforded other native plants in California.
Homeowners or developers were supposed to get permits from their city or county to remove them, but those permits were largely free. And despite San Bernardino County increasing its penalty up to $20,000 for a third offense of illegally removing Joshua trees, Herbinson said there was little enforcement. That’s why Cummings and others started pushing to get federal or state protection for Joshua trees.
In 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to get Western Joshua trees listed under the California Endangered Species Act.
The California Fish and Game Commission agreed to accept that petition and study whether there was merit to the endangered species claim, which triggered interim protections. Then, in the summer of 2022, the commission deadlocked over listing Western Joshua trees as endangered species.
The petition is still “under consideration.” But environmental groups also started pursuing legislation, and last summer the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act passed as a trailer bill to the state budget.
Since then, anyone wanting to remove a dead Joshua tree, or trim a live one that posed a hazard, has been required to apply online for a free permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. To date, the agency has approved 203 such permits, according to Drew Kaiser, who’s overseeing the conservation plan.
Removing a live tree requires permits with fees that start at $150 for small yuccas in more developed parts of the Antelope and Victor valleys. Fees peak at $2,500 for larger trees in higher elevation communities close to state and national parks.
The state has received 69 applications for those sorts of permits, Kaiser said. Some applicants want to remove two trees while others want to tear out hundreds. Five have been approved so far, with the rest still under consideration.
Cities and counties also can arrange to issue permits for smaller Joshua tree removal projects. The same fees still apply, though it could speed up the process of getting through the state’s backlogged system. State officials said they’re still in the discussion stage with some interested jurisdictions.
The department is investigating two potential cases of illegal Joshua tree removal since the new law kicked in, according to Capt. Patrick Foy with Fish and Game’s law enforcement division. Foy said he couldn’t share details but that both are in the process of being filed with prosecutors.
Chris Lindholm, who handles commercial land sales in the area, said in Thursday’s meeting that he’s seeing property values go down because developers know they’ll have to account for fees tied with any Joshua trees on desert parcels.
“To me that sounds like fear mongering,” responded high desert resident Mario Garcia.
Permits are more affordable and accessible than they would have been if California regulators had declared the Joshua tree endangered, Herbinson noted. She said she’s sure there’s “some line” where developers might decide parcels that are full of Joshua trees are now too pricey to build on, but she added “that’s the point.”
“The idea is that it’s forcing development into areas with less density of Joshua tree habitat.”
Several speakers Thursday asked about the Fish and Wildlife department reducing permit fees or offering waivers for small projects. But since fees were set by state law, changing them before a mandated 2026 review probably would require new legislation.
Revenue from permits goes into a conservation fund. The state has banked $756,960 in that fund from permits under the new law, plus $7.4 million from pricier permits in place while Joshua trees were being considered for endangered status. Some of that money must be used to buy and conserve Joshua tree habitat, so the state hired a consultant to help figure out which parcels to target.
With input from the Native American Land Conservancy, the state in October used $410,178 in fund revenue to buy its first 280-acre habitat for preservation in Kern Valley.
Desirae Najares-Jordan, with the intertribal nonprofit, called that arrangement “consequential.” She said it provides an example “for other environmental state projects to recognize and collaborate with Tribal Nations” and to incorporate their “sacred traditional ecological knowledge.”
The first round of public comments on the plan is open until April 30. Questions or comments can be emailed to WJT@wildlife.ca.gov.
Fish and Wildlife staff has to finalize a plan by the end of the year. Then the plan will go to the state Fish and Game Commission for a vote in 2025.
Source: Orange County Register
Be First to Comment