DOCSLIB.ORG

·Ocr O 6 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
·Ocr O 6 2015 Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration P.O. Box 281213 Lakewood, CO 80228-8213 ·ocr o6 2015 Dan Ashe Director United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20240 Subject: Petition to delist Deseret milk-vetch (Astragalus desereticus) submitted pursuant to the Endangered Species Act Dear Mr. Ashe: This is Western Area Power Administration's (Western) formal petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to delist the Deseret milk-vetch (Astragalus desereticus) from threatened status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) pursuant to 50 C.P.R. § 424.14. In response to a stipulated settlement agreement (Center for Native Ecosystems et al. v. Norton (05- CV-01336-RCL)), the Service reconsidered in 2007 whether designating critical habitat for Deseret milk-vetch would be prudent based on the species' cutTent status. Rather than designate critical habitat, the Service determined it would not be prudent and instead published an announcement to delist the species in the neaT future (72 Fed. Reg. 3379-82, January 25, 2007, cited in this document as Service 2007). After conducting additional surveys between 2008 and 2010, the Service reiterated its position in 2011 that the species was listed in 1999 in enor and should be delisted (Service 2011). In 2011, the Service also aclmowledged there was no longer a conservation agreement functioning as a viable recovery plan for the species and has not pursued completing one. Western is cunently participating in the Trans West Express Transmission Project (Project), a 600-kilovolt direct cunent transmission line approximately 727 miles in length extending across state, federal, and private lands in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. This Project has been designated as a Presidential Priority Project by the cunent administration. Thiough the ongoing ESA Section 7 consultation process for the Project, Trans West Express LLC (Trans West) in 2015 completed a biological survey for sensitive plant species and documented the existence of Deseret milk-vetch at higher elevations than previously lmown. At the time of federal listing Deseret milk-vetch was thought to be nanowly distributed, occutTing only on the sandy-gravelly hillsides of the Moroni Formation near Birdseye, Utah, in Utah County at elevations between5,400 and 5,600 feet. However, TransWest's 2015 survey documented eight populations totaling 98 individuals at elevations above 6,000 feet located one­ half mile northeast of Birdseye. Beyond additional individuals and populations, the Trans West 2015 survey also supported anecdotal evidence that Deseret milk-vetch does well in disturbed 2 areas such as roads and transmission line conidors. We are providing Trans West's 2015 survey report as an enclosure for your review and consideration. The Service's directed surveys, in addition to Trans West's 2015 survey, all indicate that Deseret milk-vetch is more abundant and more widely distributed than believed in 1999 when it was listed. Furthermore, the Service reviewed the status of the species in 2011 and determined there were no significant threats to the species. For these reasons, Western agrees with the Service that the species should be delisted. If delisting is not executed, Western suggests the Service re­ visit whether writing a recovery plan and designating critical habitat for Deseret milk-vetch may in fact be prudent to help direct conservation efforts for this species. Background Deseret milk-vetch is a perennial, herbaceous, sub-acaulescent (almost stemless) plant (Barneby 1989) in the legume family that grows approximately 2-6 inches tall. The species was listed as threatened in 1999 due to its apparently small population size, restricted distribution, development, cattle grazing (including erosion and trampling), and impacts to pollinator habitat. At the time of listing, the Service determined that designating critical habitat for the species was not prudent due to the lack of benefit to. the species (64 Fed. Reg. 56590-96, October 20, 1999, cited in this document as Service 1999). To determine whether the threats identified in the original listing still existed, if they had been effectively managed, and ifthere were new threats to the species, the Service systematically examined what it knew about Deseret milk-vetch's life history in the context of the same five factors considered when the species was listed as threatened in 1999 when the Service published ·its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for proposed de listing iri 2007 (Service 2011): • In the fmallisting rule, substantial population growth and urban expansion were predicted in the Provo, Spanish Fork, and Weber River drainages east of Wasatch Mountains. However, the Service determined that little to no habitat was lost since the time of listing (QGET 1997; Service 1999, 2007). @ The Service determined that habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification are not threats to the species. Most of the species' habitat occurs on the State-managed Northwest Manti Wildlife Management Area (WMA). No development will occur on the WMA and the Service does not anticipate development on adjacent private lands in the foreseeable future. Similarly, only very limited livestock grazing occurs across the species' range; therefore, trampling and soil erosion are not threats. The potential remains for climate change to impact the species, but the available infmmation indicates that the species is drought tolerant, not threatened by other habitat loss or fragmentation variables, and thus this impact does not rise to the level of threatening the species in the foreseeable future. @ Although there are no existing regulatory mechanisms protecting the species, the Service reported it was unaware of any threats that would require regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species. Therefore, the Service does not consider inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to threaten the species. 3 • Since listing the Service has reported that survey data show the species' range is larger, and population numbers are higher, than previously thought. The Service also noted plants have successfully survived prolonged drought conditions. Thus, the species is more likely to be secure from stochastic events and able to persist into the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Service concluded that stochastic events are unlikely to threaten Deseret milk-vetch. • Because ofDeseret milk-vetch's specific habitat needs, the species is rare. However, in the absence of information identifying threats to the species and linking those threats to the rarity of the species, the Service purported that rarity alone is not considered to be a threat because a species that has always been rare, yet continues to survive and could be well equipped to continue to exist into the future. The Service stated this may be particularly true for Deseret milk-vetch, which is adapted to dry conditions and has survived during periods of drought. In 2011, the Service reiterated its2007 position that Desenit milk-vetch does not warrant protection under the ESA since threats to the species as identified in the 1999 final listing rule were not as significant as earlier believed and are managed such that the species is not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Since 2007, when the Service published its intention to delist Deseret milk­ vetch, additional studies have been completed that reported an increased amount of occupied habitat and increased population estimate, which indicate there are no significant threats to the species (Fitts 2008, Fitts and Fitts 2009, 2010, as cited in Service 2011; Trans West 2015). Since the species listing in 1999, the Service has reported more than once that, in addition to lacking a significant threat, Deseret milk-vetch occurs in much larger numbers and over a larger geographic area than was known at the time of listing. This information is corroborated by the additional data in the enclosed Trans West 2015 survey report. Additionally, the Service has twice detennined it was not prudent to the recovery of the species to either designate critical habitat or complete a recovery plan. Western supports the dete1mination of the Service's five­ year status review that Deseret milk-vetch should be de listed for the reason that the original data for classification was in error, pursuant to 50 C.P.R.§ 424.11 (Service 2007, 2011). Upon delisting, Deseret milk-vetch would be managed pursuant to a Conservation Agreement among the Service and Utah State agencies (Service 2011). Accordingly, Western would still be committed to conservation measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the species. Dr. Tim Langer of my staff is available at (720) 962-7275 to answer any questions relative to Western's petition to delist Deseret milk-vetch. Mark A. Gabriel Administrator Enclosure Trans West 2015 Deseret Milk-vetch Survey Report 4 cc: Bridget Fahey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification Mike Thabault, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain Prairie Region, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services 5 References Cited: Barneby, R.C. In A. Cronquist, A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1989. Intermountain Flora, Volume 3, Part B. Fabales. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. 279 pp. Fitts, R.D. 2008. Summary of Astragalus desereticus field survey. Conducted spring 2008. The Utah Natural Heritage Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2 pp. -----and S.G. Fitts. 2009. Inventory of the rare endemic plant Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch). Preliminary Report. 2008 Project. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Utah Division ofWildlife Resources. February 2009. 9 pp. -----and-----. 2010. Survey and monitoring the rare endemic plant Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, February 2010 draft report. 10 pp. QGET [Quality Growth Efficiency Tools Technical Committee]. 1997. Baseline scenario. Report on file with Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget. 58 pp. Service [United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceJ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Flora: Fabaceae (Leguminosae)
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 38 Number 3 Article 1 9-30-1978 Utah flora: Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Stanley L. Welsh Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Welsh, Stanley L. (1978) "Utah flora: Fabaceae (Leguminosae)," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 38 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol38/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. The Great Basin Naturalist Published at Provo, Utah, by Brigham Young University ISSN 0017-3614 Volume 38 September 30, 1978 No. 3 UTAH FLORA: FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) Stanley L. Welsh' Abstract.— A revision of the legume family, Fabaceae (Leguminosae), is presented for the state of Utah. In- cluded are 244 species and 60 varieties of indigenous and introduced plants. A key to genera and species is pro- vided, along with detailed descriptions, distributional data, and pertinent comments. Proposed new taxa are As- tragalus lentiginosus Dougl. ex Hook, var. wahweapensis Welsh; Astragalus subcinereus A. Gray var. basalticus Welsh; Hedysarum occidentale Greene var. canone Welsh; Oxytropis oreophila A. Gray var. juniperina Welsh; and Trifolium andersonii A. Gray var. friscanum Welsh. New combinations include Astragalus bisulcatus (Hook.) A. Gray var. major (M. E. Jones) Welsh; Astragalus consobrinus (Bameby) Welsh; Astragalus pubentissimus Torr & Gray var. peabodianus (M. E. Jones) Welsh; Lathyrus brachycalyx Rydb. var.
    [Show full text]
  • As Threatened Regulations
    56590 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 1999 / Rules and Regulations (1) Removal, cutting, digging up, Environmental Impact Statements, as List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 damaging, or destroying threatened defined under the authority of the plants on non-Federal land if conducted National Environmental Policy Act of Endangered and threatened species, in knowing violation of State law or 1969, need not be prepared in Exports, Imports, Reporting and regulation or in violation of State connection with regulations adopted recordkeeping requirements, criminal trespass law. pursuant to section 4(a) of the Transportation. (2) Interstate or foreign commerce and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Regulation Promulgation import/export without previously amended. We published a notice obtaining an appropriate permit. outlining our reasons for this PART 17Ð[AMENDED] (3) The unauthorized removal, determination in the Federal Register reducing to possession or collection of on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Accordingly, the Service amends part this species from areas under Federal 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of Required Determinations jurisdiction. the Code of Federal Regulations, as In appropriate cases, permits could be This rule does not contain collections follows: issued to allow collection for scientific of information that require Office of 1. The authority citation for part 17 or recovery purposes, for horticultural Management and Budget approval or botanical exhibition, for educational continues to read as follows: under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. purposes, or for special purposes Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361±1407; 16 U.S.C. consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 18/Wednesday, January 28, 1998/Proposed Rules
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 4207 with the Commission's minimum DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR initially fruitless (Barneby 1964; Welsh distance separation requirements at city 1978a, 1978c), leading to a presumption reference coordinates. The coordinates Fish and Wildlife Service of extinction (Ripley 1975; Welsh 1975, for Channel 234C3 at Manson are North 1978b). However, a population of A. Latitude 47±53±18 and West Longitude 50 CFR Part 17 desereticus was discovered by Elizabeth 120±09±18. Since Manson is located RIN 1018±AE57 Neese on May 27, 1981, on a sandstone within 320 kilometers (200 miles) the outcrop above the town of Birdseye, U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Utah County, Utah, less than 16 the Canadian government has been and Plants; Proposed Threatened kilometers (km) (10 miles (mi)) from requested. Status for the Plant Astragalus Indianola (Welsh and Chatterley 1985). Desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) This population remains the only DATES: Comments must be filed on or known occurrence of this species before March 16, 1998, and reply AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (Franklin 1990, 1991; U.S. Fish and comments on or before March 31, 1998. Interior. Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1991). It is ADDRESSES: Federal Communications ACTION: Proposed rule. possible that this population is the one Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In from which Jones and/or Tidestrom SUMMARY: addition to filing comments with the The U.S. Fish and Wildlife made their collections more than 70 FCC, interested parties should serve the Service (Service) proposes to determine years earlier (Franklin 1990, 1991; petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as a Utah plant species, Astragalus Welsh and Chatterley 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement July 14, 2015 FS_0081605 Revised Biological Assessment for Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need for GRSG LUP Amendment ........................................................................................... 6 Description of Planning Area ........................................................................................................................ 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................... 10 SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 10 SPECIES INFORMATION AND CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................. 42 A. Wildlife and Fish .................................................................................................................................... 42 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)—Threatened ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Astragalus Desereticus Deseret Milk-Vetch
    Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milk-vetch 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Bekee Hotze (USFWS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 July 2011 5-YEAR REVIEW Astragalus desereticus (Deseret Milk-vetch) 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process including public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 January 2013 Revision THREATENED, ENDANGERED & CANDIDATE PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho (ret.) Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 6 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles 7 Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 8 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 10 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 12 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 14 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 16 Astragalus limnocharis var. montii Heliotrope Milkvetch ASLIM 18 Carex specuicola Navajo Sedge CASP9 20 Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Jones’ Waxy Dogbane CYHUJ 22 Glacocarpum suffrutescens Shrubby Reed-Mustard GLSU 24 Lepidium barnebyanum Barneby Ridge-cress LEBA 26 Lesquerella tumulosa or L. rubicundula Kodachrome Bladderpod LERU4 28 Pediocactus despainii San Rafael Cactus PEDE17 30 Pediocactus winkleri Winkler Cactus PEWI2
    [Show full text]
  • Oufiiil of Research Volume 59, No
    - - 2... oufiiil of Research Volume 59, No. 2 ISSN0092-6345 November, 1984 ISJRA6 59(2) 97-216 1984 LfBP./\RY DEC 10 1984 !QI//,. ·1iA-: ~ i 'ii!\'FRSITY From the Editors . .... i;{ ~C1. ~J •.cc .. ~ °JfCUi'!:Jl.G~~' · .... 97 ISELY, D. Astragalus L. (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae) II: Species Summary A-E................. .......... ........ 99 Book Review . 215 IOWA STATE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Published under the auspices of the Graduate College of Iowa State University EDITOR .. ............................................... DUANE ISELY BUSINESS MANAGER . MERRITT E. BAILEY ASSOCIATE EDITOR ................. .... ....... KENNETH G. MADISON ASSOCIATE EDITOR ........... .......................... PAUL . HINZ ASSOCIATE EDITOR ................................. BRUCE W. MENZEL COMPOSITOR-ASSISTANT EDITOR ............... CHRISTINE V. McDANIEL Administrative Board N. L. Jacobson, Chairman M. E. Bailey, I. S. U. Press J. E. Galejs, I. S. U. Library Duane Isely, Editor W. H. Kelly, College of Sciences and Humanities W. R. Madden, Office of Business and Finance J. P. Mahlstede, Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station W. M. Schmitt, Information Service G. K. Serovy, College of Engineering Editorial Board G. J. Musick, Associate Editor for Entomology, University of Arkansas Paul W. Unger, Associate Editor for Agronomy, USDA, Bushland, Texas Dwight W. Bensend, Associate Editor for Forestry, Hale, Missouri L. Glenn Smith, Consultant for Education, I. S. U. Barbara E. Forker, Consultant for Physical Education, I. S. U. Gerald Klonglan, Consultant for Sociology, I. S. U. All matters pertaining to subscriptions, remittances, etc. should be addressed to the Iowa State University Press, 2121 South State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010. Most back issues of the IOWA STATE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH are available. Single copies starting with Volume 55 are $7.50 each, plus postage.
    [Show full text]
  • References Cited Deseret Milkvetch Final Rule Anderson, K.T. 2016. U.S. Forest Service. Email to J. Lewinsohn. May 31, 2016
    References Cited Deseret Milkvetch Final Rule Anderson, K.T. 2016. U.S. Forest Service. Email to J. Lewinsohn. May 31, 2016. Ault, T.R., J.E. Cole, J.T. Overpeck, G.T. Pederson, and D.M. Meko. 2013. Assessing the risk of persistent drought using climate model simulations and paleoclimate data. Journal of Climate 27:7529–7549. Barneby, R.C. 1989. In Intermountain Flora Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volume 3, Part B, Fabales. The New York Botanical Garden. Pp. 126–127. Dodge, R. 2009. Deseret milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus) collection and propagation final report. Red Butte Garden and Arboretum. 12 pp. Fitts, R.D. 2008. Summary of Astragalus desereticus field survey conducted spring 2008. Project report by Natural Heritage Program Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2 pp. Fitts, R.D. 2016. Utah Natural Heritage Program. Comments submitted on www.regulations.gov. May 12, 2016. Fitts, R.D. and S.G. Fitts. 2009. Inventory of the rare endemic plant Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milkvetch). Project report by Natural Heritage Program Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 9 pp. Fitts, R.D. and S.G. Fitts. 2010. Survey and monitoring the rare endemic plant Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milkvetch). Project report by Natural Heritage Program Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 10 pp. Franklin, M.A. 1990. Report for 1990 challenge cost share project Manti-LaSal National Forest. Utah Natural Heritage Program. 22 pp. Fulbright. 1987. Natural and artificial scarification of seeds with hard coats. In Proceedings of Seed and Seedbed Ecology of Rangeland Plants. P. 40. Gitlin, A.R., C.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 18/Wednesday, January 28, 1998
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 4207 with the Commission's minimum DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR initially fruitless (Barneby 1964; Welsh distance separation requirements at city 1978a, 1978c), leading to a presumption reference coordinates. The coordinates Fish and Wildlife Service of extinction (Ripley 1975; Welsh 1975, for Channel 234C3 at Manson are North 1978b). However, a population of A. Latitude 47±53±18 and West Longitude 50 CFR Part 17 desereticus was discovered by Elizabeth 120±09±18. Since Manson is located RIN 1018±AE57 Neese on May 27, 1981, on a sandstone within 320 kilometers (200 miles) the outcrop above the town of Birdseye, U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Utah County, Utah, less than 16 the Canadian government has been and Plants; Proposed Threatened kilometers (km) (10 miles (mi)) from requested. Status for the Plant Astragalus Indianola (Welsh and Chatterley 1985). Desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) This population remains the only DATES: Comments must be filed on or known occurrence of this species before March 16, 1998, and reply AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (Franklin 1990, 1991; U.S. Fish and comments on or before March 31, 1998. Interior. Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1991). It is ADDRESSES: Federal Communications ACTION: Proposed rule. possible that this population is the one Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In from which Jones and/or Tidestrom SUMMARY: addition to filing comments with the The U.S. Fish and Wildlife made their collections more than 70 FCC, interested parties should serve the Service (Service) proposes to determine years earlier (Franklin 1990, 1991; petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as a Utah plant species, Astragalus Welsh and Chatterley 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Lingua Botanica the National Newsletter for FS Botanists & Plant Ecologists
    Lingua Botanica The National Newsletter for FS Botanists & Plant Ecologists I have an incredible amount of respect for former Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas. He was a bellwether for our agency, especially for biologists. The most important thing that Chief Thomas said during his tenure was, “Tell the truth and obey the law.” This is as sound an ethical foundation as you are likely to find. Unfortunately, the quote I most often hear attributed to him is “Ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think.” The problem with this snappy little aphorism is that it’s wrong. Not only is it wrong, it’s also misleading and counterproductive because it implies to some people that we should not act, and has been used by others as an excuse to avoid change. While it may be true that we do not now fully understand all the workings of the smallest parts of all natural ecosystems, it is not true that one needs complete knowledge of a system to understand it. Physicists don’t require full knowledge of cosmology to make fabulous predictions about the universe, engineers don’t require full knowledge of their materials to build fantastic structures, and doctors don’t require full knowledge of a particular patient’s physiology to heal them. These same assertions could be made about artists, musicians, and poets. In all of these cases, the best practitioners (virtuoso poets and physicists alike) require substantial knowledge, but ask any virtuoso and they will tell you that intuition plays a critical role in transforming the practitioner from merely capable to inspired.
    [Show full text]