UDWR acknowledges the importance of the ESA but also wants police to kill urban deer

Importance of the Endangered Species Act acknowledged by UDWR:

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has been devoting itself to delisting plant (and animal) species formally listed under the very important Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and has not ever to my knowledge ever supported new listings. Quite the reverse.

Yet in a news report piece published on December 27, 2023 with respect to the 50th anniversary of the ESA, a UDWR representative acknowledges that the Act has  "has prevented the extinction of hundreds of [imperiled] species" and that it has also helped "promote the recovery of many species that were near extinction."

This is a great but is also a rather shocking acknowledgment by an agency that has done nothing but pushback against and complain about the ESA, and that has embarked on an ambitious statewide program of introducing non-native mountain goats that are negatively impacting high-elevation ecosystems, and an agency that has traditionally opposed the protection of wolves despite the science that indicates the very important role they play.

The piece goes on to mention the 17 wildlife species currently listed under the ESA that occur in Utah.  Yet there is no mention of the currently 25 listed plant species that also occur in Utah.  The importance of plant species in general is never given the attention that they deserve.  We would not exist without them, nor would any wildlife.  Healthy and diverse ecosystems rely on healthy native plant populations.

Related stories re: the 50th anniversary of the ESA:

https://www.upr.org/2023-12-24/the-endangered-species-act-turns-50

https://www.upr.org/2023-12-24/the-santa-cruz-island-dudleya-is-an-endangered-species-act-success-story

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/earthonline/endangered-earth-online-no1225.html

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/02/2023-28935/50th-anniversary-of-the-endangered-species-act-2023

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/money-endangered-species-goes-small-number-creatures-leaving-others-li-rcna131680

(this last reference discusses the plight of plants that are typically short-changed)

UDWR and urban deer:

As a curiosity completely unrelated to the above, the same UDWR representative on the same date and in another news report indicates that the UDWR has "authorized" city police to "cull" urban deer.  So much for the sanctity of wildlife.  We are living in their habitat, not the other way around.  If they are bothering someone's flower garden (but in winter, they are just looking for something to browse, mainly grass) that really doesn't justify killing them.  That they can cause accidents is true but normally that is because drivers tend to drive too fast and don't pay attention. Somehow we do have to find a way to live with the natural world and not do what we do best (i.e. kill anything that moves, and destroy natural open spaces).  That we have failed to give them corridors to areas where they should be able to freely roam in an attempt to survive is our fault, not theirs. There is also considerable concern about the risk of someone being shot with a bullet or an arrow while attempts are made to cull herds.  Police officers are not trained wildlife hunters or trappers.  City police should not take on this responsibility that UDWR has "authorized" (which likely also exceeds UDWR's authority).

Idaho dam proposal threatens the Great Salt Lake

Pacificorp's newly proposed dam in the Oneida Narrows will likely negatively impact the already beleaguered Great Salt Lake:

The Bear River is the major source of water for the Great Salt Lake (and its ecosystems) which of course is already in serious trouble.  This proposed dam would be the second dam on this section of the river.

While the project location is in Idaho, Utahns need to weigh in on yet another ill-advised dam that will likely have serious downstream consequences.  Dams are short-lived and create ecological collapse.  It is exactly these types of projects that have contributed to the shrinking of the Great Salt Lake, the ultimate loss of which would have devastating human health as well as disastrous environmental consequences for wildlife and related native plant ecosystems.

Comments are due by December 26.

Project background information:

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/community/public-comment-sought-on-proposal-for-new-oneida-narrows-dam-input-due-dec-26/article_dc86c271-fba8-59a3-b6e2-f390519fba9c.html

https://www.pacificorp.com/energy/storage/oneida.html

Friends of Great Salt Lake newsletter (see page 16):

https://www.fogsl.org/newsroom/newsletters/74-2023-winter/file

Advocacy group opposing this project:

https://www.oneidanarrows.org/

Their petition:

https://chng.it/BM465s8Qvz

Ferc comment link:

https://www.ferc.gov/how-file-comment

 

Stone's draba finally officially recognized as new to science

A plant species previously named in 1941 in honor of the late Dr. Bassett Maguire (botany professor at herbarium curator at Utah State University in Logan, Utah from 1931 until 1942 and then a curator and scientist at the New York Botanic Garden until his death in 1991) now once again is being recognized as having two infraspecific taxa based on recently published genetic studies (March 2023).

Plant species aren't necessarily named for the first person to make a plant collection of that ultimately named species.  But in this case, Dr. Maguire along with Dean Hobson and Ralph Gierisch on June 2, 1936 made a high elevation collection in Cache County in the Bear River Range that they knew was a species of Draba in the mustard family, but without identification of the species within that genus:

Maguire 13687 deposited at the Gray Herbarium (Harvard University) subsp. maguirei

The genus Draba is sometimes referred to as "Whitlow grass" and other related variations but it is not a grass species.

In 1941, C.L. Hitchcock named this plant as a new species, Draba maguirei, with two intraspecific varieties: var. maguirei and var. burkei.

On July 7, 1995, Doug Stone with Frank "Buddy" Smith made a collection of a plant in the Monte Cristo Range similar to D. maguirei at an elevation that was 1800 feet lower then the 1936 collection and brought it to the attention of mustard expert Dr. Michael Windham:

Stone 1804 of subsp. stonei (note the premature var. designation and author names)

Windham collected it in 1997:

Windham 97-118 subsp. stonei (note the premature var. designation and author names)

This same plant, as it turns outs, was collected by the USU's Dr. Richard Shaw in June of 1983.

Shaw 3132 subsp. stonei (with a handwritten premature var. designation and author names)

Since var. stonei was never published (until published as subsp. stonei in March of 2023), the annotations of the name to the specimens above was premature; it was based on the same understanding of research that had already been largely conducted in the late 1990's, and sometimes specimen sheets make reference to unpublished or expected names.  But, often there never is a publication of that name.  The naming of a species however requires a publication that meets the minimum threshold requirements of the ICBN (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature).  Just writing a proposed name on a herbarium specimen sheet (or "voucher") does not constitute a publication.

In May of 1999, USU's Dr. Mary Barkworth collected this later named taxon in Logan Canyon:

Barkworth 99.010 subsp. stonei at NYBG

Botanists Duane Atwood and Joel Tuhy separately also collected this same lower elevation plant in the 1980's before being described now as Draba maguirei C.L. Hitchc. subsp. stonei Windham via the recent publication.  Until now, those plants (as well as those referenced above) have simply been classified as Draba maguirei var. maguirei.

Based on chromosome counts and analysis provided in a 2004 paper , Windham and Beilstein moved Draba burkei, previously named as a variety of D. maguirei, to the species level. 

Oldest Draba burkei collection (May 1932, Box Elder Co.) by Melvin Burke (holotype)

It was thought that an analysis of plants still considered to be D. maguirei other than "burkei" was going to be made by 2005 based on initial conferences that I participated in relating to the Utah Rare Plant Guide (URPG) project.  Preparations were being made going back as far 2003 to add "var." stonei to the URPG (with the same author assumptions, i.e. by Windham and Beilstein) but those efforts then were paused awaiting a future publication, which in 2023 has now finally happened.  

Link to the publication: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36779544/.  Full PDF.  Citation:

Windham MD, Picard KT, Pryer KM. 2023. An in-depth investigation of cryptic taxonomic diversity in the rare endemic mustard Draba maguirei. American Journal of Botany e16138.

Related prior article:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41425341

The taxa in this complex have different ploidy levels:

Draba maguirei subsp. maguirei n=16

Draba maguirei subsp. stonei n=8

Draba burkei  (syn. D. maguirei var. burkei) n=10

All three taxa are northern Utah endemics.  Their ranges however do not overlap.   D. burkei occus in Box Elder, Cache, Morgan (barely) and Weber Cos.   The D. maguirei subspecies only occur in Cache County with subsp. stonei occurring somewhat to the south at lower elevations than subsp. maguirei. 

All three have yellow flowers with oblong leaves in basal rosettes.  The flowering stems are scapose (i.e. lacking leaves).  D. maguirei plants have longer leaves than D. burkei. There are differences in leaf and fruit trichomes (hairs).   D. burkei only has trichomes along its leaf margins.  This tends to be true also with subsp. maguirei whereas subsp. stonei has trichomes on blade surfaces.   Unlike the short-stalked and usually four-rayed trichomes of subsp. maguirei, subsp.stonei mostly has 2-rayed (bifurcate) trichomes; D. burkei has unbranched trichomes. 

Draba maguirei subsp. stonei (Teresa Prendusi, May 23, 2004, Logan Canyon, Utah)

Draba maguirei subsp. stonei leaves (Teresa Prendusi, May 2004, Logan Canyon, Utah)

D. maguirei and D. burkei are both on the Forest Service's (Intermountain Region, R4) sensitive species list that has not been updated since 2010.  Both currently have G2 (Imperiled) NatureServe rankings.  They have been included in Utah Native Plant Society rare plant lists since at least 2003 on-line and have been ranked with a conservation priority of "Watch" (third highest).  These now newly recognized subspecies have not yet been ranked and their conservation priority could end up being now higher when ultimately re-reviewed.  D. maguirei was also included in the 1991 Utah Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plant Field Guide, so has been on the radar for a long time.

The URPG has accordingly been updated.  Utah rare plant guide links to each of these three taxa follow:

https://www.utahrareplants.org/pdf/Draba_burkei.pdf

https://www.utahrareplants.org/pdf/Draba_maguirei_subsp_maguirei.pdf

https://www.utahrareplants.org/pdf/Draba_maguirei_subsp_stonei.pdf

Supplemental page to the above:

https://www.utahrareplants.org/pdf/Draba_maguirei_subsp_stonei_supp.pdf

Note: it is coincidental that the plants in this complex have all been named for individuals* that have a last letter of "e" in their names, i.e.:  Maguire, Burke, and Stone.  These individuals were all males so hence the "i" ending in the corresponding scientific names.  

*Purely opinion: I am not a big fan of naming plants or animals after people.  A better approach is to, whenever possible, try to use either a characteristic of the plant or something that relates to where it occurs (i.e. geographic location or habitat type for example) or something else related to its biology in forming the specific or varietal epithet.  Admittedly this can also be problematic since that distinguishing character or location may end up being different than originally thought, leading to misleading names.  And that is made harder with cryptic taxa like those discussed here. Nonetheless, these are biological organisms that came into existence over a likely vast evolutionary time period, and were also known by others long before they were ever named. They deserve appropriate respect.  It is nice to honor someone who may have made a huge botanical contribution or even with simply an incidental discovery of some kind, but that person's name could just as easily be used as part of the common name (for which there are no rules when it comes to plants) if applicable, or indicated in the published write-up for the taxon.  To have a word that translates to something with respect to the plant itself is I think far more meaningful.  Naming plants after your spouse, your children, your grandchildren, your friends or colleagues, etc. (or even the person who either first recognized something as undescribed, or who collected it first even though those circumstances make more sense), to me borders on being something that is more typically inappropriate for a scientific endeavor (and despite the precedent that has been set in doing so, the one frowned upon approach is not to name something for yourself - the line is at least drawn there!).  Yet, and with all due respect, the scientific names of our native plant species are quite literally littered with the often rather meaningless names of people.

 

Plants in the news: winter 2023

Invasive Tamarisk removal efforts:

From southern Utah, we have this recent story:

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2023/02/10/agl-local-nonprofit-woodturners-join-forces-to-rid-southern-utah-of-invasive-very-flammable-tamarisk-tree/

Tamarisk (also known as "Saltcedar" and by the scientific name Tamarix ramosissima) is found throughout the state of Utah and not just in southern Utah.  It is a Class III ("contain") designated noxious weed in Utah, and is found in pretty much every county in the state.  In the United States, where it is not native, it is now principally found in the western-central portion of the country and then down into Mexico.  It chokes out other vegetation (and makes it very difficult to find a camping spot along rivers!).  I don't recall reading an article before that focuses on its flammability like this article does.

The power of plants:

This recent piece:

https://www.abc4.com/community/hidden-history/black-history-month/crazy-plant-bae-brings-plant-therapy-to-black-community/

quotes a study indicating that " . .  taking care of plants can aid in stress reduction, alleviate symptoms of depression, aid with memory retention, promote better self-esteem, and make us generally more productive and creative."

This article doesn't focus on locally native plants per se. But, the same idea can be applied to gardening with native plants and helping to protect ecosystems harboring our diminishing natural areas.  So often those of us working in plant conservation are grilled with the question, "Why care?" [in reference to say a rare plant or to plants in general]. While there are so many excellent responses available to this usually mind-numbing question, this response is as good as any.  They benefit us in so many ways (including the fact that we wouldn't exist without them!).

Some good news hopefully for Monarchs:

The winter Monarch count is up:

https://www.upr.org/utah-news/2023-02-06/monarch-butterfly-winter-count-shows-significant-improvement

By no means does this mean that Monarchs are out of the woods and all ongoing efforts must continue at warp speed. Monarch caterpillars only feed on milkweed species and so there is an incredibly important connection between Monarch species survival and native plants (and the adults who require nectar from flowering plants, preferably locally adapted native plants).  Attempting to do as many things as possible to conserve Monarch butterflies is not a recent phenomenon.  Scientists have been concerned about them for decades.  They have been the poster child for the Union of Concern Scientists for a very long time.  But, as with climate change, people were just largely not paying attention to their plight until relatively recently.  Crisis management is how we respond to environmental issues.

Utah Legislature Tackles Wasteful Grass:

https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2023/02/07/langley-grass-utah-drought-water-usage/

Utah is extremely wasteful of its water resources and there needs to be a much bigger push with significant private landowner incentives to replace lawn grass.  And, in fact, until relatively recently, in many homeowner associations and related neighborhood settings, owners were persecuted when trying to implement water-saving landscapes.  An about-face is slowly starting to happen. 

Using the desperate condition of the Great Salt Lake to address our poor water use practices is I suppose fine, but I agree with a quote in this article that it will not be enough by itself to save the lake.  Golf courses should not be exempted from the legislation that is being currently discussed (but through lobbying efforts, which essentially corrupt good governance throughout our democracy, no doubt will lead to their exclusion). 

Meanwhile, an encouraging development from last year that contradicts the long-held notion that front yards with native plants are just a bunch of weeds and must be immediately removed, is this change in Utah's Condominum Act which took effect on May 4, 2022.  Some background:

https://utahhoalawblog.com/2022/06/01/new-2022-hoa-laws-and-what-they-mean-for-your-hoa/

Here's a link to the new Utah law:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title57/Chapter8A/57-8a-S231.html?v=C57-8a-S231_2022050420220504

Note from the above that now (Section 57-8a-231):

"(2) An association may not enact or enforce a governing document that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, a lot owner of a detached dwelling from  incorporating water-wise landscaping on the property owner's property."

Nice!

There is in addition to the above section, another reference to landscaping (under Section 57-8-8.1, also effective May 4, 2022 of the Condominium Ownership Act):

"(9) An association of unit owners:

(a) shall adopt rules supporting water-efficient landscaping, including allowance for low water use on lawns during drought conditions; and

(b) may not prohibit or restrict the conversion of a grass park strip to water-efficient landscaping."

See:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title57/Chapter8/57-8-S8.1.html?v=C57-8-S8.1_2022050420220504

In a country and particularly in a state that seems to be largely headed backwards towards a less enlightened time, this is a refreshing change in attitude (even if it is happening over the fear of the looming ecological catastrophe, severe human health impacts, and the impact to Utah's ski and therefore tourism industry, that would be the end result of a non-existent Great Salt Lake).

Elks eat Yews and die:

We plant a lot of biological garbage in our yards and then we essentially block wildlife from lower elevation areas where for thousands of years they migrated during the winter.  And now they end up being forced to eat whatever they can find in the foothills (instead of the valleys).

https://kjzz.com/news/local/19-elk-found-dead-in-utah-county-likely-from-plant-poisoning-wildlife-utah-yew-landscaping-animals-dwr

Yews (Taxus, a genus of coniferous shrubs and trees) have no place in Utah landscapes.  Both Taxus baccata and the even more poisonous Taxus cuspida have nonetheless been sold in the nursery trade in Utah (and culvitated on both the University of Utah and BYU campuses since at least the 1950's) and are sometimes used as a hedge or border wall.  One of these species is believed to be responsible for the death of these elk.

Yew poisoning is well known.  For some references see:

https://extension.psu.edu/toxicity-of-yew-wood-and-roots

My recommendation:  don't plant Yews!  And "yank the yews" if you have them already in your yard.