Latest news with #WildEarthGuardians
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Judge rules against decision not to protect Joshua tree
A Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to provide Endangered Species Act protections for the imperiled Joshua tree is unlawful, according to court papers obtained on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu ruled Monday that the USFWS decision to not provide ESA protections for the Joshua tree is illegal and sidesteps climate science. WildEarth Guardians sued the USFWS twice in Los Angeles to secure federal projections for the Joshua tree after initially petitioning to list the Joshua tree as 'threatened' in 2015. The two species of Joshua tree, Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana, face severe climate impacts that will cause the desert icon to become functionally extinct by the end of the century without immediate and robust action, according to the environmental organization. 'The agency's decision, for a second time, reflected a massive disconnect from what the best available science shows — that climate change and wildfire will prevent Joshua trees from successfully recruiting new generations over the coming years,' Jennifer Schwartz, managing attorney for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement. 'I feel hopeful that a federal court recognizes the need to actually assess these risks to the Joshua tree's survival. Now it's up to the service to actually follow the court's order.' Hsu agreed with conservationists on all claims, determining 'that the service has not provided a rational explanation as to why climate change alone does not threaten the species to become threatened or endangered.' WildEarth Guardians said the USFWS' analysis failed to adequately take into account climate change modeling that clearly shows Joshua trees run the risk of extinction due to increasing temperature, drought and wildfire. The court order states that the USFWS 'provides no explanation as to why it did not use current trends and standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for its decision, when this data currently is available.' WildEarth Guardians has been fighting for federal protections for the Joshua tree since the organization's initial petition to list the species as 'threatened' under the ESA in September 2015, citing the severe impacts of climate change on the native succulent. In August 2019, the USFWS first denied listing protection for what it clarified were actually two distinct species of Joshua tree — eastern Joshua tree (Yucca jaegeriana) and western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) — because it believed neither species was likely to face a danger of extinction in the next 80 years, according to WildEarth Guardians. This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Joshua tree protection ruling
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Federal court rules against attempt to withhold Endangered Species Act protections from Joshua tree
A federal court in California sided with environmentalists, striking down a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) attempt to withhold protections for the Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act. The Central District of California ruled on Monday that the FWS decision to not provide ESA protections for the Joshua tree is unlawful and sidesteps climate science. MORE: Extra moisture on West Coast allowing climate-sensitive Joshua trees to recover: Experts Known for its twisted stalks and unusual outline, the Joshua tree is native to the arid southwestern U.S. and thrives in harsh desert environments. In 2015, WildEarth Guardians, an environmental nonprofit group, petitioned the FWS to list Joshua trees as a threatened species, but a second 2023 species status assessment by the FWS found that neither Joshua tree species -- Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana -- requires protections. The FWS said it looked at threats from wildfire, invasive grasses, climate change and habitat loss and fragmentation. It found that none of the threats rose to the level to meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges, according to the assessment. "Through our scientific assessment, the Service determined that Joshua trees will remain an iconic presence on the landscape into the future. Although the two species do not need the protections of the Endangered Species Act, the Service cares deeply about Joshua trees and their roles in the desert environment," said Service Pacific Southwest Regional Director Paul Souza in a statement in 2023. "We are coordinating closely with partners to ensure the long-term conservation of these species, including the National Park Service and other Federal agencies, and the State of California, which is also considering measures for the protection of Joshua trees." However, multiple studies have shown that shifts in climate in the Mojave Desert is a major contributor to weather events that threaten Joshua trees, including wildfires. "The agency's decision, for a second time, reflected a massive disconnect from what the best available science shows -- that climate change and wildfire will prevent Joshua trees from successfully recruiting new generations over the coming years,' Jennifer Schwartz, managing attorney for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement sent to ABC News. MORE: Human skeletal remains found just off trail in Joshua Tree National Park After the FWS analysis was released, WildEarth Guardians sued the FWS "for its failure to follow federal law" in denying protections for the Joshua tree. The Central District of California ruled in favor of the environmental nonprofit's claims, writing in the decision "that the Service has not provided a rational explanation as to why climate change alone does not threaten the species to become threatened or endangered." "The Service provides no explanation as to why it did not use current trends and standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for its decision, when this data currently is available," the decision states. The court also noted that when assessing the "foreseeable future" of the Joshua tree, the FWS only looked to the middle of the 21st century, while the end of the 21st century is the commonly used timeline for most scientific assessments. "It is essential that the Service considers climate change's effect on habitat suitability in relation to young Joshua trees, and not just the persistence of stronger, adult Joshua trees," the order states. MORE: This is how climate change may alter 10 of the world's natural wonders The federal court has instructed the FWS to reconsider whether the Joshua tree should receive ESA protections with more scientific analysis. The ruling "serves as yet another reminder that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must completely grapple with the ongoing and incoming threats from human-created climate change," Casey Bage, legal fellow for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement sent to ABC News. Bage noted that the science "is clear" in this case. "We must face these facts head-on in order to protect Joshua trees -- and other species -- to give them the fighting chance that they deserve," Bage said. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment. Federal court rules against attempt to withhold Endangered Species Act protections from Joshua tree originally appeared on
14-05-2025
- General
Federal court rules against attempt to withhold Endangered Species Act protections from Joshua tree
A federal court in California sided with environmentalists, striking down a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) attempt to withhold protections for the Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act. The Central District of California ruled on Monday that the FWS decision to not provide ESA protections for the Joshua tree is unlawful and sidesteps climate science. Known for its twisted stalks and unusual outline, the Joshua tree is native to the arid southwestern U.S. and thrives in harsh desert environments. In 2015, WildEarth Guardians, an environmental nonprofit group, petitioned the FWS to list Joshua trees as a threatened species, but a second 2023 species status assessment by the FWS found that neither Joshua tree species -- Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana -- requires protections. The FWS said it looked at threats from wildfire, invasive grasses, climate change and habitat loss and fragmentation. It found that none of the threats rose to the level to meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges, according to the assessment. "Through our scientific assessment, the Service determined that Joshua trees will remain an iconic presence on the landscape into the future. Although the two species do not need the protections of the Endangered Species Act, the Service cares deeply about Joshua trees and their roles in the desert environment," said Service Pacific Southwest Regional Director Paul Souza in a statement in 2023. "We are coordinating closely with partners to ensure the long-term conservation of these species, including the National Park Service and other Federal agencies, and the State of California, which is also considering measures for the protection of Joshua trees." However, multiple studies have shown that shifts in climate in the Mojave Desert is a major contributor to weather events that threaten Joshua trees, including wildfires. "The agency's decision, for a second time, reflected a massive disconnect from what the best available science shows -- that climate change and wildfire will prevent Joshua trees from successfully recruiting new generations over the coming years,' Jennifer Schwartz, managing attorney for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement sent to ABC News. After the FWS analysis was released, WildEarth Guardians sued the FWS"for its failure to follow federal law" in denying protections for the Joshua tree. The Central District of California ruled in favor of the environmental nonprofit's claims, writing in the decision "that the Service has not provided a rational explanation as to why climate change alone does not threaten the species to become threatened or endangered." "The Service provides no explanation as to why it did not use current trends and standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for its decision, when this data currently is available," the decision states. The court also noted that when assessing the "foreseeable future" of the Joshua tree, the FWS only looked to the middle of the 21st century, while the end of the 21st century is the commonly used timeline for most scientific assessments. "It is essential that the Service considers climate change's effect on habitat suitability in relation to young Joshua trees, and not just the persistence of stronger, adult Joshua trees," the order states. The federal court has instructed the FWS to reconsider whether the Joshua tree should receive ESA protections with more scientific analysis. The ruling "serves as yet another reminder that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must completely grapple with the ongoing and incoming threats from human-created climate change," Casey Bage, legal fellow for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement sent to ABC News. Bage noted that the science "is clear" in this case. "We must face these facts head-on in order to protect Joshua trees -- and other species -- to give them the fighting chance that they deserve," Bage said.
E&E News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Court orders FWS to consider protections for Joshua trees
A federal judge ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday to consider Endangered Species Act protections for Joshua trees, ruling in favor of environmental advocates who challenged a Biden-era rejection of the listing proposal. U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu of the Central District of California sided with WildEarth Guardians, which filed a lawsuit in 2024 after FWS decided against protections for two Joshua tree species. Hsu, a Biden appointee, found FWS failed to properly consider climate change and other threats in its 2023 determination. Advertisement 'Although the Court does not expect the Service to predict the future with absolute certainty, the Service provides no explanation as to why it did not use current trends and standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for its decision, when this data currently is available and the Service states in its [species status assessment] the regulations are unlikely to alter the trajectory of climate change impacts,' Hsu wrote in his decision.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
WildEarth Guardians: Oil and gas spills in New Mexico amount to a 'deluge'
The silhouette of a drill head, backlit by a vibrant sunset, is visible from Route 550 just outside Farmington, N.M., on Oct. 26, 2021. (Photo by Isabel Koyama / Howard Center for Investigative Journalism) New Mexico oil and gas operators averaged a spill every seven hours in the beginning months of 2025, according to a recent report released by a local environmental group. Santa Fe-based nonprofit WildEarth Guardians compiled the spill data reported between January and March 2025 by oil and gas operators to the state's Oil Conservation Division, and found 75,000 barrels of liquids had spilled across six counties in the San Juan, Bravo Dome and Permian basins. The report concludes these spills, mostly from active wells, 'threaten drinking water aquifers, soil health, air quality and the well-being of frontline communities and ecosystems.' 'We want to make sure that the public and policymakers are aware that this is an environmental crisis hiding in plain sight,' Rebecca Sobel, a campaign manager at WildEarth Guardians, told Source. 'These spills are happening as the regular cost of doing business, they're not exceptions — they're the rule for oil and gas operations in New Mexico.' Of the 75,858 barrels of liquid spilled, operators lost about 10% of the waste into the environment. 'That loss means it's spilled and not recoverable from the environment,' Sobel said. 'That's permanent contamination.' A spokesperson for the New Mexico Energy Minerals and Natural Resources Department, which oversees the state's Oil Conservation Division, said in a written statement that the department would not comment on specifics in the report. 'We cannot speak to the specifics of the Wild Earth Guardians report,' EMNRD spokesperson Sidney Hill wrote. 'However, the Oil Conservation continues to enforce its rules requiring operators to report and properly remediate all releases on land under its jurisdiction. The OCD also issues violation notices and fines when operators fail to properly remediate a release.' The report urged state and federal regulators to 'issue meaningful fines, deny permits for repeat violators,' and publicly report the outcomes for violations around spills. Nearly two thirds of the spills were of produced water — the wastewater from oil and gas fracking — which can contain radioactive materials, cancer-causing or toxic chemicals, heavy metals. Produced water also contains unknown chemicals used in the fracking process which do not have to be disclosed to the public or regulators under trade secrets protections. 'It's hard to do any kind of remediation or cleanup when you don't know what you're cleaning up,' Sobel said. Additionally, 90 of the spills included crude oil — which contains cancer-causing components such as benzene and metals such as nick, arsenic and mercury. Finally, 28 spills contained condensate, the entrapped liquid hydrocarbon mixtures, and a byproduct of oil and natural gas production, which contains benzene, as well as emissions that can cause health effects. About half of the spills' causes — 152 — were listed as 'equipment failure,' followed by 66 incidents of 'corrosion' and 29 'human error' spills. Nearly 90% of the spills happened in the state's southeast corner, split nearly evenly between Eddy and Lea Counties in the Permian basin. Next highest were San Juan and Rio Arriba counties in the San Juan. Finally, one spill each occurred in Harding and Union counties in the Bravo Dome basin. The majority of spills were listed on federal public lands at 199 spills, followed by 66 incidents on private land and 65 releases on state trust land. This is the first of quarterly reports WildEarth Guardians expects to release this year. 'Our hope is that by tracking these spills, making them publicly available and accessible, folks start to take them seriously and regulators enact meaningful enforcement and regulation,' Sobel said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
