Native plants and friends in the news

Sego Lily:

https://thursd.com/articles/utah-state-flower

(while this is the Utah state flower, it enjoys no legal protection)

(the "pink" Sego Lily pictured in the article above is treated by some as Calochortus ciscoensis - see additional picture below; flowers have a reduced chevron or none at all with long, flexible, drooping leaves that remain persistent at the time of flowering; flowers can be pink or white)

Wildflower Festival:

https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2026/07/14/the-utah-wildflower-festival-celebrates-its-30th-anniversary/

Wild About Utah post:

https://www.upr.org/show/wild-about-utah/2026-07-20/wild-about-utah-natures-monuments

Upcoming community events:

https://unofficialnetworks.com/2026/07/17/looking-to-help-to-keep-utahs-mountains-beautiful-heres-a-list-of-upcoming-community-events/

Hummingbird event:

https://www.moabtimes.com/articles/see-hummingbirds-up-close-at-upcoming-banding-event-in-northeastern-utah/

Native plants in the landscape:

https://www.thenewsherald.com/2026/07/11/once-dismissed-as-weeds-native-plants-are-now-flying-off-the-shelves/

Cisco Sego Lily (Calochortus ciscoensis)
(flowers can be white or pink; note the reduced chevron and the long, drooping ,flexible leaves)

The fight over GSENM and Bears Ears will go on

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/07/13/president-trump-shrinks-bears-ears/

(with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse standing behind the feared leader of the Oompa-Loompas)

https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/trump-shrinks-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments-again

(includes short video from Jackie Grant, Executive Director for Grand Staircase Escalante Partners and a board member for the Utah Native Plant Society; note that this action was expected)

Other links of interest:

https://suwa.org/trump-illegally-decimates-bears-ears-and-grand-staircase-escalante/

https://suwa.org/suwa-statement-on-trumps-illegal-reductions-of-grand-staircase-escalante-bears-ears-national-monuments-7-13-26/

https://suwa.org/suwa-statement-on-tenth-circuit-decision-over-long-running-attack-on-national-monuments-6-23-26/

https://nativenewsonline.net/environment/timeline-grand-staircase-escalante-and-the-fight-over-utahs-national-monuments/

(no contact was made with Tribal Nations re: Bears Ears)

https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/report-trump-administration-to-illegally-attack-bears-ears-and-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments

There already was significant litigation in the works.  There is a good chance this will remain tied up in the courts for the duration of the current presidency.

A tremendous amount of misinformation has been put out by the White House and Utah congressional  representatives ("we the people" have not been fairly represented).  The land was never stolen from the people of Utah and it remains in federal ownership.  Hunting and cattle grazing were already being allowed.

Bears Ears (April 2017)

Rolling back the ESA's regulatory definition of the word "harm"

See:

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-administration-kills-protections-for-endangered-wildlife-habitat-2026-07-10/

Comments:

The word "harm" was not specifically defined in the Endangered Species Act but was used in defining the word "take" to  mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect."

It became settled law that the word "harm" in the context of the Endangered Species Act regulations (again with reference to the "take" provisions) included habitat modification and destruction.  Federal regulations have (until now) defined "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife."    

But no doubt as a result of Trump administration goals to open up areas for logging and mining, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has now, some 30 years later, decided to follow a minority dissenting opinion made in 1995 by conservative Justice Scalia (who was joined by Thomas and one other), that the word "harm" does not in fact mean negatively impacting listed species habitats.  

The Service claims that this change is unrelated to critical habitat provisions afforded under the Act and that existing critical habitat designations will not change (yet many listed species do not have critical habitat designations and the protection those provide do not in any event exclude development and degradation of those habitats.). 

Some 358,000 comments were submitted in response to a 30 day only comment period that  was deemed to be a sufficient amount of time for the public to be notified and make those responses.

Now the word "harm" has no specific regulatory meaning.   Rescinding the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act that has just been published involves some highly contorted logic.  And, exactly what this means when it comes to plants is not  yet clear.

EarthJustice is reportedly planning to fight this change in court since there is no legal or scientific basis to support the position that the Service has now taken.   Given now the even more "conservative" nature of the Supreme Court, chances of success are probably low.  

Congressional action ultimately may be required.

See also:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/10/epa-rollback-endangered-habitats-logging-mining