Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Op-ed: Federal-state proposal won’t protect rare flowers

By Laura Welp

First Published Jul 03 2014 05:43 pm • Last Updated Jul 03 2014 05:48 pm

Penstemons are lovely plants with showy, eye-popping flowers, and Utah is blessed with more species than any other state (96!). Two of them, Graham’s penstemon and the White River penstemon, are so rare they are eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). And, unfortunately for them, they are inconveniently located only on oil shales in the middle of energy country in the Uinta Basin.

Graham’s penstemon was first proposed for listing in 1975, but no action was taken because threats were not deemed urgent. That changed when oil shale development began to expand in its habitat, and in 2002 conservation groups petitioned to list the plant. In 2006, the USFWS acknowledged that threats were imminent and ESA protection was necessary for both species. It proposed to list both Graham’s penstemon and the nearby White River penstemon. Just a few months later, however, the agency reversed itself and withdrew listing in a decision that was widely seen as politically motivated rather than scientifically justifiable. In response, scientists and conservation organizations filed suit and won in 2011. The judge found that USFWS failed to consider threats and rejected the best available science provided by its own peer review panel. Instead, it relied on input from the BLM, which downplayed the threats identified by the penstemon experts. After losing the suit, the USFWS again proposed the two species for listing in 2013. Thirty-nine years after the initial effort, the species are about to receive the protections they need.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Or are they? This May, the USFWS released a conservation agreement (CA) written by itself, the Bureau of Land Management, and Utah state and county governments, with input from the energy companies that hold the oil shale leases. No members of the conservation or science communities were included. USFWS hopes to substitute this less restrictive CA for ESA listing. But is this the best choice for species recovery? Consider that the total acreage proposed for protection in the CA amounts to 49,400 acres, compared to nearly 84,000 acres recommended by the agency’s own scientists in the proposed listing. Additionally, the management prescriptions on private land are primarily voluntary and hard to verify. The people ensuring that the provisions in the agreement are being followed are the same ones who are supposed to be following them. This is worrisome because the state and private signatories have included a statement in the CA itself stating that "The non-federal participants do not agree with the USFWS analysis regarding the type and magnitude of the threats to the species identified in the Proposed Rule." This invites questions about the level of commitment the signatories will show to adhering to the CA provisions on non-federal land.

If the limited protections offered by this CA fail, by the time the USFWS realizes it the species and their habitat will have declined further and recovery would be even more distant, more expensive, and more restrictive. An ESA listing provides more protection for these species when they most need it. Managing according to the precautionary principle is a better long-term management strategy. Unfortunately, this is a short-term strategy world.

Comments on the proposal are due July 7 at http://www.regulations.gov. Use Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0081 for the proposed listing rule or FWS-R6-ES-2013-0082 to comment on critical habitat. Copies of the draft conservation agreement, other USFWS documents, and background information on the two penstemons can be found under the "news" tab on the Utah Native Plant Society home-page (www.unps.org).

Laura Welp is ecosystems specialist for Northern Arizona/Southern Utah for the Western Watersheds Project.

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.