From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Thu Jun  1 13:59:02 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:59:02 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Public Comment: Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for
 Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy monardella)
Message-ID: <OF7723E38B.BF0F0E06-ON85257180.0067B6EC-85257180.0068486D@fws.gov>

For full notice, see: http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2006/June/Day-01/ 
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: June 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 105)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31137-31141]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jn06-28]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT92
 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 
(willowy monardella)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of 
availability of draft economic analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy 
monardella) and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment 
period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment 
simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic 
analysis. Comments previously submitted on the November 9, 2005, 
proposed critical habitat rule need not be resubmitted as they have 
already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully 
considered in our final determination.

DATES: Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see 
ADDRESSES section) on or before July 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the proposed rule or draft 
economic analysis, you may submit your comments and materials 
identified by RIN 1018-AT92, by any of the following methods:
    (1) E-mail: <A HREF="mailto:fw8cfwomolivi at fws.gov
">fw8cfwomolivi at fws.gov</A>. Include ``RIN 1018-AT92'' in the 
subject line.
    (2) Fax: 760/431-9624.
    (3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
    (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-deliver written documents 
to our office (see ADDRESSES).
    (5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:  <A HREF="http://www.regulations.gov
">http://www.regulations.gov</A>. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/431-9440; facsimile, 760/431-
9624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We will accept written comments and information during this reopened

[[Page 31138]]

comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from our 
critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. 
Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other 
concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, 
industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule 
and/or the associated draft economic analysis. On the basis of public 
comment on the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis, and the 
conclusions of the final economic analysis, we may find during the 
development of our final determination that some areas do not contain 
the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species, 
are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are 
not appropriate for exclusion. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.), including 
whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of willowy 
monardella habitat, and what habitat contains the necessary features 
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) The proposed exclusion of habitat on Federal and non-Federal 
lands within the San Diego Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 
Program (MSCP) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) established 
between the Bureau of Land Management, the Service, the County of San 
Diego, the City of San Diego, and California Department of Fish and 
Game, in cooperation with the San Diego Association of Governments 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please see Application of Sections 
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for 
details on the MSCP and MOU section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956; 
November 9, 2005)). Please provide information demonstrating the 
benefits of including or excluding these lands from the critical 
habitat designation. If the Secretary determines the benefits of 
including the lands outweigh the benefits of excluding them, they will 
not be excluded from critical habitat;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments.
    (7) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local 
costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
    (8) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions 
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a 
result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical 
habitat;
    (9) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on 
regional costs associated with land and water use controls that derive 
from the designation;
    (10) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate 
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for 
possible exclusion from any final designation;
    (11) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs 
that could result from the designation or coextensively from the listing;
    (12) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as 
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat 
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of 
critical habitat areas; and
    (13) Whether the benefit of exclusion in any particular area 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial 
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you 
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning 
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several 
methods (see ADDRESSES). Our final determination concerning designation 
of critical habitat for willowy monardella will take into consideration 
all comments and any additional information received during the 
previous comment period and this reopened comment period (70 FR 67956). 
On the basis of public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the 
draft economic analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during 
the development of our final determination find that areas proposed do 
not contain the necessary features essential to the conservation of the 
species, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments and we will 
make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation 
used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will 
be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal 
business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES). Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule for willowy 
monardella and the draft economic analysis are also available on the 
Internet at <A HREF="http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad
">http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad</A>. In the event that our 
Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents 
directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Background

    On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 67956) to designate critical habitat for willowy 
monardella under the Act. We identified approximately 2,539 acres (ac) 
(1,028 hectares (ha)) of habitat occupied at the time of listing and 
containing the necessary features essential to the conservation of the 
species. We proposed to designate approximately 115 ac (47 ha) of 
critical habitat in one unit in San Diego County, California. 
Approximately 1,863 ac (754 ha) of the 2,539 ac (1,028 ha) of habitat 
are covered under an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 
(INRMP) for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; therefore, this area is 
exempted from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. 
Approximately 560 ac (227 ha) is proposed for exclusion from critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because this area is covered 
under the Multiple Species Conservation Program for southwestern San 
Diego County or conserved as open space (Otay Mountain Wilderness). The 
first public comment period for the willowy monardella proposed 
critical habitat rule closed on January 9, 2006. For more information 
on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as 
endangered, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 
FR 54938).
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it 
is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical 
or biological

[[Page 31139]]

features essential to the conservation of the species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection, and specific 
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it 
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, 
section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out 
by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting 
areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the 
effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a 
draft economic analysis of the November 9, 2005 (70 FR 67956), proposed 
designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of willowy monardella, 
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and 
including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It 
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as 
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat 
conservation for willowy monardella in proposed critical habitat areas 
and areas proposed for exclusion. The analysis considers both economic 
efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat 
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity 
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with 
habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses 
how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including 
an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation 
and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities 
and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-
makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly 
burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this analysis 
considered those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the 
final designation of critical habitat.
    The draft economic analysis estimates that, because all of the 
proposed critical habitat is conserved or will be conserved under the 
Multi Species Conservation Program and there are no effects to future 
development, and there are no potential economic impacts anticipated 
from the critical designation as proposed. There are some costs 
associated with plant monitoring and management on preserve lands; 
however, these costs are minimal. Additionally, the Otay Mountain 
wilderness area, if designated as critical habitat, would also 
presumably result in small administrative costs resulting from the 
inclusion of critical habitat analyses in future Section 7 
consultations involving the plant. Give the wilderness status of the 
lands, the number of future consultations would likely be very low and 
likely conservation measures minimal. But there would likely be some 
small cost. We will evaluate any potential costs associated with the 
Otay Mountain wilderness area in the final rulemaking.
    Of the approximately 2,539 acres (ac) (1,028 hectares (ha)) 
identified as proposed critical habitat for this species, approximately 
560 ac (227 ha) are covered under the MSCP or conserved as open space 
(Otay Mountain Wilderness) and are proposed for exclusion from critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Furthermore, since the MSCP 
was approved in 1997 before the 1998 listing of willowy monardella 
there are no coextensive costs associated with the listing of the 
species as endangered since conservation measures benefiting the 
species were incorporated into the Multi Species Conservation Program 
prior to its listing. Also, the analysis estimates that there will be 
no future development costs for the 115 ac (47 ha) of proposed critical 
habitat not proposed for exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please 
refer to Section III.3.2 of the draft economic analysis and the 
``Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Possible Exclusions Under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956) for a 
more detailed discussion of the Multi Species Conservation Program.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. 
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates that the 
potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of 
critical habitat are negligent, we do not anticipate that this final 
rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for 
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, 
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result 
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would 
have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for

[[Page 31140]]

willowy monardella would affect a substantial number of small entities, 
we considered the number of small entities affected within particular 
types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and 
commercial development). We considered each industry or category 
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal 
activities are not affected by the designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, 
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect 
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the 
existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that potential 
costs involving conservation measures for willowy monardella incurred 
for activities involving non-Federal agencies (residential, commercial, 
and industrial development) would be negligible due to the fact that 
there are minimal economic effects of the proposed critical habitat. 
These minimal costs are associated with plant monitoring and management 
on preserve lands.
    Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed 
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers 
or farmers in San Diego County since private lands proposed for 
critical habitat are part of a designated open space preserve with no 
plans for farming or development as stated earlier in the Background 
section. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of 
critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Section V.2 of our 
draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed 
discussion of potential economic impacts to small business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, 
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is 
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it 
raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft 
economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Section V.1 of our draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed 
discussion of potential effects on energy supply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis, 
all proposed critical habitat areas are already identified and/or 
conserved as open space or covered by a habitat conservation plan. 
Consequently, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for willowy monardella. Critical habitat 
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In 
conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella 
does not pose significant takings implications.

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

[[Page 31141]]

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 19, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E6-8459 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060601/e731a029/attachment.html>

From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Fri Jun  2 11:11:49 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:11:49 -0400
Subject: [PCA] FW: Tues. June 21: COTEdc (Washington Chapter fo the American
 Institute of Architects): Summer Solstice:USBG Meeting
Message-ID: <OF9448F361.B7ABBDEC-ON85257181.005889A8-85257181.0058FDD5@fws.gov>

At a previous PCA meeting, the subject of "green roofs" and green design 
came up.  Thought you might be interested in this and other upcoming 
events.

-Patricia

:Summer Solstice Celebration ? See attached invitation
Wednesday, June 21st, 6:00 pm ? 8:30 pm 
Location: U.S. Botanic Garden, 100 Maryland Avenue, SW 
 
:upcoming events 
An Inconvenient Truth, opening this weekend ? See 
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Location: E Street Cinema, Georgetown Lowes, Bethesda Row, and June 9th in 
Shirlington 
 
Washington Green Roof Design 101, Wednesday June 30th, 8:30 am ? 5pm ? See 
https://eventwizard.com/secured/EWV3.01/Forms/Welcome.asp?Ecode=WAGRD101&ClientCode=grhcna&Lang=English 

Location: Academy for Environmental Development Conference Center, 1825 
Connecticut Ave, NW 
 
The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture and Design ? 
See www.nbm.org/Exhibits/upcoming.html
Location: National Building Museum, May 20, 2006?June 3, 2007
 
AIA Convention 2007 ? Growing Beyond Green ? See 
http://www.aia.org/conted_convention
Call for Proposals due July 1st , 2006
 
:thanks to our sponsors 
 
            
 
                               
 
David M. Schwarz /                   WISNEWSKI  BLAIR
Architectural Services              & ASSOCIATES, Ltd
 
Interested in sponsorship?  See our website: 
http://www.aiadc.com/committees/cote/COTEdc.htm
 ~  ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~  ~ 
COTEdc Subscribers who wish to update their email address in 
the database or REMOVE yourself from the list  should 
contact Erin Christensen at COTEdc at tortigallas.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060602/2137823d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 3743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060602/2137823d/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060602/2137823d/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3052 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060602/2137823d/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 3148 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060602/2137823d/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 06COTEdc Summer Solstice InviteREV.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 106687 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060602/2137823d/attachment.obj>

From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Tue Jun  6 11:08:00 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:08:00 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Job: Environmental review position open at NYNHP (Albany)
Message-ID: <380-220066261680468@earthlink.net>

Respond to Nick Conrad <nbconrad at gw.dec.state.ny.us> not to me.  LEM.

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)

> [Original Message]
> The New York Natural Heritage has an opening for an Environmental
> Review Specialist. NY Natural Heritage, in Albany, New York, is a
> partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the New York State
> Department of Environmental Conservation; this position is a Nature
> Conservancy position. A summary of the job description follows. For a
> complete job description, please contact Nicholas Conrad at the
> addresses below.
> Thanks,
>
> Nicholas Conrad
> Information Resources Coordinator
> New York Natural Heritage Program
> New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
> 625 Broadway, 5th Floor
> Albany, NY  12233-4757
> (518) 402-8944
> nbconrad at gw.dec.state.ny.us 
>
> The Environmental Review Specialist (ERS) works to conserve New
> York's biodiversity by using the Program's databases and GIS to
> respond to requests for information from consulting firms, project
> applicants, local governments, state and federal agencies, private
> organizations, and the general public; to screen proposed projects for
> potential impacts on rare animals, rare plants, and significant
> ecological communities; and to assist requestors in interpreting and
> applying responses. The ERS develops tools and procedures to support the
> environmental review activities of the Program, coordinates the
> environment review activities of other Heritage staff, and serves as the
> liaison with NYS DEC regarding environmental review activities. The ERS
> also prepares GIS data for distribution to partners, and works as part
> of project teams in mapping and processing database records, and in the
> creation of maps, database reports and other products for inventory
> projects and contracts.
>
> Qualifications: Undergraduate or Associates degree, or significant
> coursework in, biology, environmental sciences, natural resources, or
> related field; and at least two year's experience related to
> environmental review of projects, biodiversity conservation, or natural
> resources management; or equivalent combination of education and
> experience. Ability to clearly and effectively communicate and interact
> with the general public, consultants, and private and governmental
> organizations, both verbally and in writing. Experience with GIS,
> particularly ArcView and ArcMap. Experience with Crystal Reports
> desirable. Ability to interpret and use topographic and thematic maps
> and remote imagery (aerial photography). Ability to interpret and apply
> biological information. Experience with personal computers and software
> in a Windows environment. Familiarity with the flora, fauna, and
> ecological communities of New York. Understanding of conservation
> biology desirable. Excellent organizational skills, attention to
> accuracy and detail, and ability to work on several tasks at a time and
> meet deadlines. Commitment to the conservation of biodiversity.
>
> Send cover letter, resume and names of three references by June 30 to
> Nicholas Conrad, Information Resources Coordinator, New York Natural
> Heritage Program, NYS DEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-4757.
> nbconrad at gw.dec.state.ny.us 
>
> The Nature Conservancy is an equal opportunity employer.
> _______________________________________________





From plant at plantconservation.org  Wed Jun  7 16:44:43 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:44:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] EVENT: New England Wild Flower Society plant sale and preview
 (Framingham, MA)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606071644000.29844@cpanel2.betterbox.net>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:39:40 -0400
From: Debra Strick <dstrick at newfs.org>

PLANT SALE PREVIEW PARTY - Friday, June 9th 5-8 pm. Enjoy New England Wild Flower Society's largest plant sale in the northeast, and an evening of earthly delights, music, expert advice, and perfect shopping, without the crowds. $25 ticket benefits plant conservation and gains admission to an unforgettable evening.  180 Hemenway Road, Framingham. 508-877-7630.  Reservations at cbennett at newfs.org.  Rain or Shine.


PLANT SALE - Saturday, June 10th 10 am -3 pm. Rain or Shine. The largest native PLANT SALE in the northeast, at Garden in the Woods 180 Hemenway Road, Framingham benefits plant conservation work of New England Wild Flower Society. Select from 11,000 choice plants including rare lady-slipper orchids, and get advice from Society experts. Children's table refreshments, garden walks and used book sale.  Garden admission $7 adults, $5 seniors, $3 youths.

Debra Strick
Marketing and Public Relations Director
Curator of Visual Collections
New England Wild Flower Society
Garden in the Woods
180 Hemenway Road
Framingham, MA  01701
508-877-7630 x 3501
dstrick at newfs.org <mailto:dstrick at newfs.org>
www.newenglandwildflower.org <http://www.newenglandwildflower.org>



From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  7 17:36:02 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:36:02 -0400
Subject: [PCA] FYI: NatureServe staff directory for all Heritage Programs &
	CDC's
Message-ID: <380-2200663722362171@earthlink.net>

As some of you know, NatureServe maintains a centralized directory of addresses, staff, and other contact information for all the state-based U.S. Natural Heritage Programs as well as the various Canadian, Mexican, and other international Conservation Data Centers:

            http://whiteoak.natureserve.org/HSDS/search/index.cfm

This is searchable by name, program (state/prov/nation), and job type (botanist, ecologist, etc.).  Might be a link worth keeping handy.

Larry

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060607/f907e674/attachment.html>

From Dir.Educate at wetland.org  Thu Jun  8 14:38:05 2006
From: Dir.Educate at wetland.org (Director of Education )
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:38:05 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Native Plant Sale - St. Michaels, MD
Message-ID: <00eb01c68b33$13dafef0$52334845@wnerb1tmu6l4ea>

Environmental Concern Inc. 
SPRING PLANT SALE & OPEN HOUSE
2006 
 
*        Come spend the day browsing through over 120 species of native
plants.  
*        Bring us your toughest horticultural or landscaping questions.
*        Learn how a native plant nursery grows.
*        Visit and explore a living shoreline, a forested wetland and a
freshwater marsh.
*        Be an art critic and judge entries for the 2006 Write On!
Wetlands Challenge.
*        Grab a meal off the grill and watch the tide come in or go out
on San Domingo Creek
 
When:
June 10, 2006
9am - 2pm
 
Where:
201 Boundary Lane
St. Michaels, MD 21663
 
Contact:
www.wetland.org <http://www.wetland.org/> 
(410) 745-9620
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060608/163219ae/attachment.html>

From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Thu Jun  8 18:06:00 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:06:00 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Mary Klein selected as next president of NatureServe
Message-ID: <380-220066482360718@earthlink.net>

Mary Klein, whom many of you know already, has been selected as the next president of NatureServe.  Details available on NatureServe web site, link below:

       http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/klein_president_release.pdf 

Congratulations to Mary!

Larry

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060608/1379f5f0/attachment.html>

From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 15 23:08:59 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:08:59 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Fw: Forest Service's Proposed Native Plant Materials
	directive: Comment invited thru 25Jul2006
Message-ID: <380-2200665164859750@earthlink.net>

The following (from Marc Bosch) was provided by Andrew Kratz (USFS Rocky
Mtn Region);  direct any questions or formal comments to USFS staff, not to
me!

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)

> [Original Message]
> From: Andrew Kratz <akratz at fs.fed.us>
> To: <larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net>
> Date: 6/15/2006 4:52:50 PM
> Subject: Fw: Forest Service's Proposed Native Plant Materials directive
>
> FYI.  The first link in Marc's message is to the Federal Register notice
(2
> pages).  The second link is to the text of the proposed FSM direction.
>
> SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing to establish a new directive to
> Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2070 for native plant materials, which will
> provide direction for the use, growth, development, and storage of native
> plant materials. Public comment is invited and will be considered in
> development of the final directive.
>
> DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 25, 2006.
>
>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov
/2006/pdf/E6-8136.pdf
>
>
http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/whoweare/documents/FSM2070_Final_2_062905.pd
f
>




From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 17 01:43:52 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:43:52 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Plant Conservation Genetics presentation by Stuart Wagenius
	(Chicago), April 2006 PowerPoint
Message-ID: <380-22006661764352156@earthlink.net>

FYI y'all, send any questions/comments to Stuart Wagenius, not to me or
Mark Barnett!  Larry Morse (Washington, D.C.)

> [Original Message]
> From: Mark Barnett <Mark.Barnett at mobot.org>
> To: [List omitted - LEM]
> Date: 6/16/2006 12:05:20 PM
> Subject: PI Wire - Genetics
>
> All,
>
> Stuart Wagenius led the Plant Conservation Genetics resources workshop
> for CPC's conservation officers in Austin in April. He promised he would
> put up his powerpoint slides online. Below is the link where you can
> find them. I will also include this link in the next full version of PI
> Wire.
>
> Regards,
> M.
>
> Here's the link: http://echinacea.umn.edu/pcg.htm
>
> And Stuart's contact info:
>
> -----
> Stuart Wagenius, Ph.D.
> Conservation Scientist
> Institute for Plant Conservation
> Chicago Botanic Garden
> 1000 Lake Cook Road
> Glencoe, IL 60022
>
> phone: 847 835 6978
> fax: 847 835 5484
>
> email: swagenius at chicagobotanic.org
> http://echinacea.umn.edu





From plant at plantconservation.org  Mon Jun 19 11:35:55 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:35:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] JOB: Grounds Worker position open (New Hope, PA)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606191135040.26698@cpanel2.betterbox.net>


Grounds Worker, Bowman's Hill Wildflower Preserve. Entry-level position
responsible for maintenance and improvement of grounds including
propagation, planting, trail maintenance, and invasive weed control.
Ability to operate and maintain chainsaws, tractor, mowers, trimmers and 
other grounds-related equipment. Must be able to work effectively as a 
team member with other staff, interns and volunteers. Some knowledge of 
mid-Atlantic regional native flora is preferred. Salary commensurate with
qualifications.

Health and retirement benefit package offered. For general info, visit
www.bhwp.org. Send cover letter, resume, salary requirements, and list of
three professional references to: Grounds Search, BHWP, P.O. Box 685, New
Hope, PA 18938. FAX: 215-862-1846, or e-mail application materials to
arnott at bhwp.org. E.O.E.




From plant at plantconservation.org  Thu Jun 22 09:18:57 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:18:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] JOB: Urban Forester (Mascoutah, IL)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606220918040.5265@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

From: Eustis, Dave - Mascoutah, IL
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:49 PM
Subject: Urban forester

Following is the news release that will be going out in the EW Gateway
newsletter.  I have a position description here if someone wants to look
at that as well.

Southwestern Illinois RC&D, Inc. is currently accepting applications for
an Urban Forester who will assist communities in Central and Southern
Illinois in managing their urban landscapes.  The selected candidate
will have a Bachelor degree in Urban Forestry or Forestry, and will also
possess strong communication and organization skills.  Objectives
associated with the position include conducting tree inventories,
proposing tree ordinances, assisting communities in obtaining Tree City
USA status, and conducting seminars related to tree health and
maintenance.  A complete job description is available by emailing:
dave.eustis at rcdnet.net.  Resumes should be forwarded to Southwestern
Illinois RC&D, Inc., 406 East Main Street, Mascoutah, Illinois 62258, or
via email to: dave.eustis at rcdnet.net. EOE

Thanks,

Dave

Dave Eustis
Operations Manager
Southwestern Illinois RC&D, Inc.
406 East Main Street
Mascoutah, Illinois 62258
618-566-4451 (ext. 28)
(f) 618-566-4452
dave.eustis at rcdnet.net
www.swircd.org



From plant at plantconservation.org  Thu Jun 22 12:05:56 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:05:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] NEWS: Botanists fight to save rare, native plant (UT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606221204550.4778@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

Botanists fight to save rare, native plant
CALEB WARNOCK - Daily Herald

Life is hard on these slopes.

An hour from Provo in Spanish Fork Canyon, midway up a hillside so steep a 
rope is required to climb it, are a handful of some of the rarest plants 
in the world, called clay phacelia. Entirely composed of flaking Green 
River shale, the barren landscape is the only place the plants are known 
to grow.

You can access the full article at the following url:
http://www.heraldextra.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183021&Itemid=0




From afrates at addsuminc.com  Thu Jun 22 12:37:36 2006
From: afrates at addsuminc.com (Tony Frates)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:37:36 -0600
Subject: [PCA] NEWS: Botanists fight to save rare, native plant (UT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606221204550.4778@cpanel2.betterbox.net>
Message-ID: <449A8100.30286.7B06E5@localhost>


Thank you Olivia for that posting.

For the same story in a different local/larger paper, see:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640187633,00.html

June 17, 2006 

Rare plant getting helping hands
Clay phacelia is to be planted on public lands in Utah

My understanding is that Dr. Vince Tepedino of the Dept. of 
Agriculture bee lab located at Utah State University (Logan, Utah)  
had suggested use of the blue orchard bees in order to provide 
pollination services.  We don't know whether blue orchard bees have 
ever been previously used like this to pollinate a rare plant species 
grown in captivity.

Some additional information is also on the Utah Rare Plant Guide page 
at www.utahrareplants.org and also on the Archived news page at 
www.unps.org (News section).   The clay phacelia, Phacelia 
argillacea, is on of Utah's 24 federally listed species, and is one 
of our rarest plants.


Tony Frates
Utah Native Plant Society








Date sent:      	Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:05:56 -0500 (CDT)
From:           	Olivia Kwong <plant at plantconservation.org>
To:             	native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject:        	[PCA] NEWS: Botanists fight to save rare, native plant (UT)

> Botanists fight to save rare, native plant
> CALEB WARNOCK - Daily Herald
> 
> Life is hard on these slopes.
> 
> An hour from Provo in Spanish Fork Canyon, midway up a hillside so steep a 
> rope is required to climb it, are a handful of some of the rarest plants 
> in the world, called clay phacelia. Entirely composed of flaking Green 
> River shale, the barren landscape is the only place the plants are known 
> to grow.
> 
> You can access the full article at the following url:
> http://www.heraldextra.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183021&Itemid=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> native-plants mailing list
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
> 
> Disclaimer
> Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.





From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Thu Jun 22 13:59:35 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:59:35 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Availability of Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for San
 Joaquin River NWR
Message-ID: <OF69DA8829.70127073-ON85257195.00683770-85257195.00685545@fws.gov>

Will be curious to see how plants are taken into account...

http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2006/June/Day-22/ 
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35927-35928]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-100]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
 
Notice of Availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 
Plan and Environmental Assessment for San Joaquin River National 
Wildlife Refuge

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that a 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 
(Draft CCP/EA) for San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) 
is available for review and comment. This Draft CCP/EA, prepared 
pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 
amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes 
the Service's proposal for managing the Refuge for the next 15 years. 
The draft compatibility determinations for several public uses are also 
available for review with the Draft CCP/EA.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below by July 
24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to: Kim 
Forrest, Project Leader, San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge, 
947-C West Pacheco Boulevard, Los Banos, California 93635. Comments may 
also be submitted via electronic mail to <A HREF="
mailto:FW8PlanComments at fws.gov">FW8PlanComments at fws.gov</A>. 
Please type ``San Joaquin River CCP'' in the subject line.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Forrest, Project Leader, San Joaquin 
River National Wildlife Refuge, 947-C West Pacheco Boulevard, Los 
Banos, California 93635 or Mark Pelz, Chief, Refuge Planning, CA/NV 
Operations Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832, Sacramento, CA 95825, 
phone (916) 414-6500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be obtained 
by writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Mark Pelz, CA/
NV Refuge Planning Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832, Sacramento, CA 
95825. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be viewed at this address or at 
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge, 947-C West Pacheco 
Boulevard, Los Banos, CA. The Draft CCP/EA will also be available for 
viewing and downloading online at <A HREF="
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning
">http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning</A>. 
Printed documents will also be available for review at the following 
libraries: Los Banos Branch Library, 1312 7th St, Los Banos, CA 93635; 
and Modesto Library 1500 ``I'' Street, Modesto, CA 95354.

Background

    The San Joaquin River NWR was established in 1987 primarily to 
protect and manage wintering habitat for Aleutian Canada geese, a 
federally listed endangered species. Since that time, the Refuge's 
focus has expanded to include protecting other sensitive species and 
restoring natural habitats and ecological processes. This Refuge and 
its management have been important factors in the recovery of the 
Aleutian Canada goose and its removal in 2001 from the Threatened and 
Endangered Species List. The Refuge is Located just west of Modesto, 
California.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the CCP is to provide a coherent, integrated set of 
management actions to help attain the Refuges' establishing purposes, 
and vision, goals, and objectives. The CCP identifies the Refuges' role 
in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 
describes the Service's management actions.

Alternatives

    The Draft CCP/EA identifies and evaluates four alternatives for 
managing the Refuge for the next 15 years. The proposed action is to 
implement Alternative D as described in the EA. Alternative D best 
achieves the Refuges' purposes, vision, and goals; contributes to the 
Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues and relevant 
mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 
management.
    In Alternative A (No Action), existing management programs, which 
focus on Aleutian Canada goose, would continue unchanged. The Service 
would also continue the current visitor services program, which is 
limited to wildlife photography and observation from a

[[Page 35928]]

platform. Management for the benefit of Aleutian Canada geese is also 
central to the other three Alternatives. However, they also expand 
Refuge management for the benefit of additional wildlife and habitats. 
Alternative B places greater emphasis on wetland restoration and 
management and would expand visitor services for all priority public 
uses, including fishing and hunting. Alternative C focuses on 
restoration and management of riparian habitats and providing non-
consumptive wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities. Alternative D, 
the preferred alternative, includes a balance of wetland and riparian 
restoration and management and expands opportunities for all priority 
public uses, including fishing and hunting.

Public Comments

    After the review and comment period ends for this Draft CCP/EA, 
comments will be analyzed by the Service and addressed in the Final 
CCP. All comments received from individuals, including names and 
addresses, become part of the official public record and may be 
released. Requests for such comments will be handled in accordance with 
the Freedom of Information Act, the Council on Environmental Quality's 
NEPA regulations and other Service and Departmental policies and 
procedures.

    Dated: June 16, 2006.
Ken McDermond,
Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations, Sacramento, California.
 [FR Doc. E6-9848 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060622/8ef9228a/attachment.html>

From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Thu Jun 22 14:15:42 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:15:42 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Delisting of Agave arizonica (Arizona agave) From the Federal
 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
Message-ID: <OFCC7E8605.CC12B5E9-ON85257195.0068582E-85257195.0069CF14@fws.gov>

For full notice, see: http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2006/June/Day-19/ 
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: June 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35195-35198]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jn06-19]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI79

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Delisting of Agave 
arizonica (Arizona agave) From the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), have determined that 
it is appropriate to remove Agave arizonica (Arizona agave) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This 
determination is based on a thorough review of all available data, 
which indicate that this plant is not a discrete taxonomic entity and 
does not meet the definition of a species under the Act. Evidence 
collected subsequent to the listing indicates that plants attributed to 
Agave arizonica do not constitute a distinct species but rather are 
individuals that have resulted from recent and sporadic instances of 
hybridization between two species. Current taxonomic practice is not to 
recognize such groups of individuals as a species. Since Agave 
arizonica is not recognized as a species, it no longer qualifies for 
protection under the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective July 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation for this rulemaking is available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85021-4951.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mima Falk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, located in the Arizona Ecological Services Tucson Sub-office, 
201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 141, Tucson, Arizona 85745 (telephone 
520/670-6150 ext. 225; facsimile 520/670-6154).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Agave arizonica, a member of the agave family, was first discovered 
by J.H. Houzenga, M.J. Hazelett, and J.H. Weber in the New River 
Mountains of Arizona. Drs. H.S. Gentry and J.H. Weber described this 
species in the ``Cactus and Succulent Journal'' in 1970 (Gentry and 
Weber 1970). This perennial succulent has leaves growing from the base 
in a small basal rosette (i.e., an arrangement of leaves radiating from 
a crown or center), and is approximately 20-35 centimeters (cm) (8-14 
inches (in)) high and 30-40 cm (12-16 in) wide. The leaves are dark 
green with a reddish-brown to light gray border extending nearly to the 
base, approximately 13-31 cm (5-12 in) long and 2-3 cm (1 in) wide. The 
slender, branched flowering stalk is 2.5-4 meters (m) (8.2-13 feet 
(ft)) tall with urn-shaped flowers 25-32 millimeters (mm) (1 in) long 
(Hodgson 1999). Some plants, including Agave arizonica, are able to 
produce copies of themselves without sexual reproduction. These copies 
(clones) may remain physically connected to the original plant 
(vegetative offsets) or may be physically separate plants.
    Agave arizonica is found on open slopes in chaparral or juniper 
grassland in Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai counties between 1,100-1,750 m 
(3,600-5,800 ft) in elevation. The plants are often found associated 
with native junipers (Juniperus spp.), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus 
montanus), Opuntia spp., sotol (Nolina microcarpa), and banana yucca 
(Yucca baccata), among other species common to the chaparral/juniper-
oak transition (Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). There are estimated to be 
fewer than 100 plants in the wild, occurring mainly on the Tonto 
National Forest and a few locations on private property. Agave 
arizonica plants are associated with shallow, cobbled, and gravelly 
soils on strongly sloping to very steep slopes and rock outcrops on 
mid-elevation hills and mountains. The soils are well-drained and 
derived from a variety of rocks, including granite, gneiss, rhyolite, 
andesite, ruffs, limestone, sandstone, and basalt (Hodgson and 
DeLamater 1988). Plants typically flower from May to July.
    Field studies on Agave arizonica began in 1983. A natural 
distribution study was not finalized until August 1984 (DeLamater 
1984), after the final listing rule (49 FR 21055, May 18, 1984) was 
published. Surveys for this study were conducted in the New River 
Mountains, and by 1984, ten new clones were found in these mountains. 
These were individual clones of 2-5 rosettes. All of the clones 
occurred together with two other agaves, Agave toumeyana ssp. bella and 
A. chrysantha, neither of which is considered rare. A. chrysantha is 
found in southern and eastern Yavapai County, through much of Gila and 
Maricopa counties, northern and eastern Pinal County, and northeastern 
Pima County. Agave toumeyana ssp. bella is restricted to the eastern 
slope of the Bradshaw Mountains in eastern Yavapai to northwestern and 
central to southern Gila County, and northeastern Maricopa to northern 
Pinal County.
    A comparison of plant characters showed Agave arizonica to be 
intermediate to the other two agave species with which it is always 
found in association (DeLamater and Hodgson 1986). Pinkava and Baker 
(1985) suggested that plants recognized as Agave arizonica may be the 
result of continuing production of hybrid individuals rather than a 
distinct species, based on observations that hybrid individuals are 
found only where the ranges of the putative parents overlap; they are 
found only in random, widely scattered locations of individual plants 
and clones; their putative parents have overlapping flowering periods; 
Agave arizonica's morphological characters are intermediate between the 
putative parents; and, they appeared to be subfertile (reduced 
fertilization), producing pollen with a low percent of stainability (a 
measure of pollen viability). Agave arizonica has the same chromosome 
count ((2n) of 60) as both of its parents which allows for continued 
reproduction with its parents (backcrossing). Polyploidy (a genetic 
variation wherein an individual plant has more than the two normal sets 
of homologous chromosomes) is one factor in determining if a hybrid 
between two species can become genetically stable. This condition is 
not present in the genetic constitution of Agave arizonica.
    Survey work continued in areas that supported populations of the 
two parent species. These surveys resulted in the discovery of two 
clones in the Sierra Ancha Mountains, 100 miles disjunct from the New 
River Mountain locations. To date, plants and clones have been 
identified in three areas on the Tonto National Forest (New River 
Mountains, Sierra Ancha Mountains, and the Humboldt Mountains). The New 
River population is the most numerous, located 17.94 kilometers (km) 
(10.7 miles (mi)) west-northwest of the Sierra Ancha population. Only 
one individual was found in the Serra Anch Mountains (Tr[auml]bold 
2001). The Humboldt Mountains support a population of Arizona agave, as 
well as another agave hybrid. This different hybrid agave is produced 
from a cross between A. toumeyana ssp. toumeyana and A. chrysantha 
(Pinkava and Baker 1985). That hybrid is a triploid (3n=90), and 
therefore has a different chromosome count than Agave arizonica.

[[Page 35196]]

    The Desert Botanical Garden (DBG), in Phoenix, initiated ecological 
studies of Agave arizonica in the mid-1980s through 1994. They 
conducted numerous surveys on the Tonto National Forest, collected 
seeds in situ (in the natural or original environment), conducted 
experimental crosses in situ and ex situ (in an artificial 
environment), and started an ex situ collection. DBG's work has shown 
that Agave arizonica can produce viable seed. In 1985, three different 
crosses were performed on clone #52, in situ, using flowers 
from different panicles (flower stalks). One cross used frozen pollen 
collected from Agave arizonica at the DBG, the second cross was self-
fertilization of clone #52, and the third cross was 
uncontrolled outcrossing of clone #52 (flowers were left open 
to be pollinated by various donors). Seed was collected from all three 
crosses. Cross #1 produced 250 seeds, cross #2 produced 
20 seeds, and cross #3 produced a large quantity of seeds 
(Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). Outcrossing with Agave arizonica pollen 
(Cross #1) produced a high proportion of viable seed, as did 
uncontrolled outcrossing (Cross #3), while self-fertilization 
(Cross #2) produced a poor seed set. The majority of the seeds 
were planted. Ten months after planting, 10 of the 105 seeds produced 
from cross #1 germinated. Some of those resembled Agave 
arizonica, while others did not (W. Hodgson, Desert Botanical Garden, 
pers. comm. 2003). DBG also conducted controlled crosses of A. 
chrysantha and A. toumeyana ssp. bella. The seeds produced from this 
cross resulted in Agave arizonica plants. Individual Agave arizonica 
plants can therefore be created by crosses of the parental species. 
These results support the hypothesis that Agave arizonica is composed 
of individuals that resulted from recent and spontaneous instances of 
hybridization between two species, and is not, at this time, a species 
of hybrid origin.
    Agave arizonica is most likely a first-generation (F1) hybrid 
between two other species. It is not known if any individuals of the F1 
generation, in situ, have backcrossed with either one of the parents or 
with another Agave arizonica individual. The latter seems unlikely 
given the low numbers of individuals and the great distance separating 
them. Seeds have been produced in the wild, but it is not known if 
those seeds were produced from crosses of Agave arizonica and either 
parent species or Agave arizonica and Agave arizonica. Seeds grown out 
in greenhouse conditions produced plants with wide phenotypic (visible) 
variations; not all seedlings presented `pure' Agave arizonica traits. 
The fact that Agave arizonica can be reliably produced by crossing the 
putative parents ex situ lends support to the hypothesis that Agave 
arizonica is a recurring F1 hybrid. All evidence supports that Agave 
arizonica individuals are derived from crosses between different 
species. In other words, each individual Agave arizonica was created 
spontaneously and independently from separate crossings of the putative 
parental species (M. Baker, pers. comm. 2004).
    Agave arizonica plants are rare in the wild. The likelihood is low 
that two of these plants would breed with one another because it is 
unlikely that two such plants would be close enough to one another and 
bloom in the same year. Clones still attached or near to the parent 
plant may produce flowers at the same time, but spatially separated 
clones may not all bloom at the same time. The flowering period of 
Agave arizonica overlaps with that of its putative parents, and the 
same insects (bumblebees, mining bees of the family Halictidae, and 
solitary bees) visit all three agave species. This condition can lead 
to back-crosses with one of the putative parents. Agave arizonica is 
not likely to maintain a separate genetic identity due to low numbers, 
overlap of flowering period with the putative parents, and lack of an 
effective reproductive isolating mechanism to promote genetic 
stability.
    In 1999, Hodgson published a treatment for the Agave family for the 
``Flora of Arizona'' (Hodgson 1999). Agave arizonica was not recognized 
as a species in that treatment, which indicated that it should be 
referred to as Agave arizonica, a hybrid of recent origin involving A. 
chrysantha and A. toumeyana var. bella.
    Jolly (in Riesberg 1991) has suggested protection for a hybrid 
taxon if (1) its evolution has gone past the point where it can be 
reproduced through crossing of its putative parents, (2) it is 
taxonomically distinct from its parents, and (3) it is sufficiently 
rare or imperiled. Under these criteria, F1 hybrids such as Agave 
arizonica should receive no protection because it is still backcrossing 
with its parents and is not taxonomically distinct.
    In summary, the plant species formerly referred to as Agave 
arizonica is now recognized as an interspecific hybrid produced 
sporadically and spontaneously by the cross of Agave chrysantha and 
Agave toumeyana var. bella. Individuals have been determined to be 
hybrids for the following reasons: (1) They share the same chromosome 
number (2n=60) with the putative parents, indicating that there are no 
chromosomal barriers (i.e., reproductive isolating mechanisms) in place 
to facilitate genetic stability, (2) flowering periods of the putative 
parents overlap, (3) morphological characters of Agave arizonica are 
intermediate with those of the putative parents, (4) Agave arizonica 
only occurs where there is overlap with the putative parents, (5) it 
appears to be subfertile, producing pollen with low percent 
stainability, (6) Agave arizonica can be created, ex situ, by crossing 
the putative parents, indicating that there may be no unique genetic 
characters associated with these plants, and (7) it has not, to our 
knowledge, reproduced sexually in the field.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal Government action concerning Agave arizonica began with 
section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be 
endangered, threatened, or extinct. This report (House Document No. 94-
51), which included Agave arizonica, was presented to Congress on 
January 9, 1975, and accepted by the Service under section 4(c)(2), now 
section 4(b)(3)(A), of the Act as a petition to list these species. The 
report, along with a statement of our intention to review the status of 
the plant taxa, was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1975 
(40 FR 27823). On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 
vascular plants to be endangered pursuant to section 4 of the Act. 
Agave arizonica was included in this proposal. On December 10, 1979, we 
withdrew all outstanding proposals not finalized within two years of 
their first publication, as required by the 1978 amendments to the Act. 
On August 26, 1980, the Service received a status report prepared by 
four researchers employed by the Museum of Northern Arizona. This 
report documented the status of, and threats to, the species. On 
December 5, 1980, we published a revised notice for plants (45 FR 
82479) and included Agave arizonica in category 1. Category 1 was 
comprised of taxa for which we had sufficient biological information to 
support their being listed as endangered or threatened species. We 
published a proposed rule to list Agave arizonica as an endangered 
species on May 20, 1983 (48 FR 22757). No critical habitat was 
proposed. The final rule listing Agave arizonica as endangered was 
published on May 18,

[[Page 35197]]

1984 (49 FR 21055), and no critical habitat was designated.
    In 1985, a year after Agave arizonica was listed, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture Forest Service petitioned us to delist Agave 
arizonica because of its hybrid status. We sent out the work on Agave 
arizonica that had been published for peer review and solicited 
comments. Many of the comments supported delisting based on the 
available evidence; however, the Service disagreed that the available 
data conclusively proved that Agave arizonica was a hybrid. The Service 
believed that the results of the controlled crosses were important for 
the analysis, and those had not been completed at the time of the 
review. Therefore, on January 21, 1987 (52 FR 2239), we announced that 
delisting was not warranted.
    We published a proposed rule to remove Agave arizonica from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants on January 11, 2005 
(70 FR 1858), based on additional information indicating that Agave 
arizonica is a hybrid and does not meet the definition of a species as 
defined by the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the January 11, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 1858) and associated 
notifications, we invited all interested parties to submit comments or 
information that might contribute to the final delisting determination 
for this species. The public comment period ended March 14, 2005. We 
contacted and sent announcements of the proposed rule to appropriate 
Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties. In addition, we solicited 
formal scientific peer review of the proposal in accordance with our 
July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 
Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270). We requested five 
individuals with expertise in one or several fields, including 
familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region in 
which the species occurs, and familiarity with the principles of 
taxonomy, to review the proposed rule by the close of the comment 
period. We received comments from six parties, including three 
designated peer reviewers. All three of the responding peer reviewers, 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and one public 
commenter agreed with our assessment that the scientific evidence 
presented in our proposed rule supports the hybrid status of Agave 
arizonica and, therefore, the plant does not merit protection under the 
Act. The comments are addressed in the following summary. We did not 
receive any requests for a public hearing.
    Issue: We are too hasty in our proposal to delist Agave arizonica 
because hybrids can often succeed in combining genes in new ways to 
become successful breeding populations, leading to new species 
formation.
    Our Response: Many vascular plants are of hybrid origin, and we 
acknowledge that hybrids play an important role in speciation. Current 
evidence does not support the view that Agave arizonica is a successful 
breeding population. We based our delisting decision upon the best 
available scientific and commercial information. After a review of all 
available data, we have made the determination that Agave arizonica 
does not meet the definition of a species under the Act. If new 
information becomes available that shows Agave arizonica is exhibiting 
characteristics of a species (i.e., reproductive isolation from the 
parent species and ability to reproduce sexually and maintain a degree 
of genetic stability), we will reexamine the threats to determine if it 
should be listed again.

Delisting Analysis

    After a review of all information available, we are removing Agave 
arizonica from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 50 CFR 
17.12. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) 
issued to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the 
procedures for adding species to or removing them from Federal lists. 
The regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may be 
delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) it recovers, or (3) the 
original classification data were in error. Since the time of listing, 
additional study has shown that Agave arizonica is not a distinct 
species, but consists of individuals that are the result of 
spontaneous, occasional, and continuing hybridization between two other 
distinct species. Individual hybrid plants are produced within 
populations of the parental species, but their production is random. In 
modern taxonomic practice, such groups of individuals are not 
recognized as species. We have concluded that the original taxonomic 
interpretation upon which the listing decision was based has not been 
substantiated by subsequent studies, and Agave arizonica does not 
qualify for protection because it does not fit the definition of a 
species under the Act.
    The term ``species,'' as defined in the Act, includes any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature. Agave arizonica does not meet this definition because it 
is not known to interbreed in situ or otherwise reproduce itself. 
Hybrid origin of species is considered common within the flowering 
plants (Grant 1963), and some species of hybrid origin are capable of 
reproducing themselves and maintaining a degree of genetic stability. 
However, scientific evidence at this point supports the determination 
that Agave arizonica does not have these characteristics of a species. 
The plants are not known to have sexually reproduced in situ. Agave 
arizonica plants have sporadically developed in situ from the putative 
parents, but have not been reproductively self-sustaining. Agave 
arizonica has never been found in well-developed populations or outside 
patches of its putative parents.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the conclusion that Agave arizonica is 
not a species, and therefore does not qualify for protection under the 
Act. We, therefore, conclude that Agave arizonica no longer warrants 
listing under the Act.

Effects of the Rule

    This action removes Agave arizonica from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided 
by the Act no longer apply to this species. Therefore, interstate 
commerce, import, and export of Agave arizonica are no longer 
prohibited under the Act. In addition, Federal agencies no longer are 
required to consult with us to insure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of Agave arizonica. The plant is still protected by Arizona's Native 
Plant Law, A.R.S., Chapter 7, Section 3-901, which specifically 
prohibits collection except for scientific or educational purposes 
under permit. There is no designated critical habitat for this species.

Future Conservation Measures

    The 1988 amendments to the Act require that all species delisted 
due to recovery be monitored for at least five years following 
delisting. Agave arizonica is being removed from the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants because the taxonomic interpretation that it is a 
species is no longer believed

[[Page 35198]]

to be correct; Agave arizonica is a sporadically occurring hybrid, 
rather than a distinct taxon. Therefore, no monitoring period following 
delisting is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 
1320 implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a 
collection of information as the obtaining of information by or for an 
agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical 
reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or 
more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or 
more persons'' refers to the persons to whom a collection of 
information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For 
purposes of this definition, employees of the Federal Government are 
not included. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    This rule does not include any collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Agave 
arizonica is being delisted because the taxonomic interpretation that 
it is a species is no longer believed to be correct; Agave arizonica is 
a sporadically occurring hybrid, rather than a distinct taxon. 
Therefore, no monitoring period following delisting would be required, 
and we do not anticipate a need to request data or other information 
from 10 or more persons during any 12-month period in order to satisfy 
monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to collect 
information from 10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or 
organizations per year, we will first obtain information collection 
approval from OMB.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this final rule is 
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or 
use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

DeLamater, R. 1984. Natural distribution and status of Agave 
arizonica Gentry and Weber in Arizona with accompanying maps. 
Prepared for USDA Forest Service Range Management, Albuquerque, NM. 
11 pp.
DeLamater, R. and W. Hodgson. 1986. Agave arizonica: An endangered 
species, a hybrid, or does it matter? Proceedings of a California 
Native Plant Society Conference. Sacramento, CA.
Gentry, H.S. and J.H. Weber. 1970. Two New Agaves in Arizona. Cactus 
and Succulent Journal. 42(5): 223-228.
Grant, V. 1963. The Origin of Adaptations. Columbia University 
Press, New York. 606 pp.
Hodgson, W. and R. DeLamater. 1988. Agave arizonica Gentry and 
Weber; Summary of status and report on recent studies. Desert 
Botanical Gardens, Phoenix, AZ. U.S.D.I., U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp.
Hodgson, W. 1999. Vascular plants of Arizona: Agavaceae. Journal of 
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 32(1): 1-21.
Pinkava, D.J. and M.A. Baker. 1985. Chromosome and hybridization 
studies of agaves. Desert Plants. 7(2): 93-100.
Riesberg, L.H. 1991. Hybridization in rare plants: insights from 
case studies in Cercocarpus and Helianthus. In Genetics and 
conservation of rare plants. Donald A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger 
(Eds). Oxford University Press, New York. 283 pp.
Tr[auml]bold, P.A. 2001. Re-establishment--Agave arizonica. M.S. 
thesis. California State University, Fullerton, CA. 65 pp.

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are staff located at the 
Arizona Ecological Services Tucson Sub-office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

? Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

? 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 
noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

? 2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry ``Agave arizonica'' under 
``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

    Dated: May 19, 2006.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. E6-8643 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060622/aaa2f622/attachment.html>

From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Thu Jun 22 14:18:40 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:18:40 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for two butterflies
 and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette Daisy)
Message-ID: <OF1EFE9A56.C1075B4C-ON85257195.0069D8E5-85257195.006A144B@fws.gov>

Comments accepted through: June 30, 2006.  See questions, below.

For full notice, see: http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2006/June/Day-15/ 
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: June 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 115)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34566-34570]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn06-16]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly 
(Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 
(Kincaid's Lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette 
Daisy)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of 
availability of draft economic analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening 
of the public comment period on the proposal to designate critical 
habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi, 
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine), and Erigeron 
decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) and the availability of the 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The draft economic analysis has been completed and we are 
publishing a notice of availability in the Federal Register and 
requesting comments. The economic analysis for the prairie species 
concluded that the potential future costs associated with conservation 
activities for the species are estimated to range from $25.3 to $52.7 
million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 dollars. Costs are estimated 
to range from $19.1 to $40.3 million over 20 years, or $1.3 to 2.7 
million annually using a three percent discount rate. Costs are 
estimated to range from $15.3 to $32.6 million over 20 years, or $1.4 
to $3.1 annually using a seven percent discount rate. The

[[Page 34567]]

activities affected by species conservation efforts may include 
development, management of public and conservancy lands 
(``conservation''), transportation operations, and the Benton County 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). We are reopening the comment period to 
allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed 
rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously 
submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the 
public record as part of this comment period, and will be fully 
considered in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: We will accept public comments until June 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any 
one of the following methods:
    (1) Mail: You may submit written comments and information to Kemper 
McMaster, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish 
and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 
97266.
    (2) Delivery: You may hand-deliver written comments to our Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address.
    (3) Fax: You may fax your comments to 503/231-6195.
    (4) E-mail: You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to <A 
HREF="mailto:
fw1willamettech at fws.gov">
fw1willamettech at fws.gov</A>. Please see the Public Comments Solicited 
section below for file format and other information about electronic 
filing.
    (5) Federal eRulemaking portal: <A HREF="http://www.regulations.gov
">http://www.regulations.gov</A>. Follow 
the instructions found there for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 
SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 (telephone 503/231-6179; 
facsimile 503/231-6195).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We are soliciting comments on the original proposed critical 
habitat designation that was published in the Federal Register on 
November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66492) and on our draft economic analysis of 
the proposed designation. Copies of the proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat and the draft economic analysis are available on the 
Internet at: <A HREF="
http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ESA-Actions/WillValleyPage.asp
">http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ESA-Actions/WillValleyPage.asp</A>
 or from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office at the 
address and contact numbers above. We are particularly interested in 
comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.), including 
whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat.
    (2) Specific information on the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and 
their habitat, and which habitat or habitat components (i.e., physical 
and biological features) are essential to their conservation, such as 
soil moisture gradient, microsite preferences, and light requirements;
    (3) Specific information on: the amount and distribution of the 
Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens habitat; what areas should be 
included in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing 
and contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and why; what areas were not occupied at the time of listing 
but are essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; 
we specifically solicit information including:
    (a) The benefits provided by a management plan; specifically 
describe how the plan addresses each primary constituent element (PCE) 
in the absence of designated critical habitat; describe conservation 
benefits to Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, 
or Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens; include citations that point to 
the certainty of implementation of those aspects of the management 
plans;
    (b) The benefits of excluding from the critical habitat designation 
the areas covered by the management plan; we are especially interested 
in knowing how partnerships may be positively or negatively affected by 
a designation, or through exclusion from critical habitat, and costs 
associated with designation; and
    (c) With specific reference to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we 
request information from the Department of Defense to assist the 
Secretary of the Interior in making a determination as to whether any 
proposed critical habitat overlaps with lands, administered by or under 
the control of the Department of Defense, covered by an Integrated 
Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that benefits the 
conservation of the species;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (7) Whether the economic analysis adequately addresses the likely 
effects and resulting costs arising from State laws as a result of the 
proposed critical habitat designation;
    (8) Whether the analysis adequately addresses the indirect effects;
    (9) Whether the analysis accurately defines and captures 
opportunity costs;
    (10) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on 
regional costs (e.g., housing costs) associated with land use controls 
that could arise from the designation of critical habitat for these 
three species;
    (11) Whether the designation of critical habitat will result in 
disproportionate economic or other impacts to specific areas that 
should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation;
    (12) Whether the economic analysis is consistent with the Service's 
listing regulations because this analysis should identify all costs 
related to the designation of critical habitat for these three species; 
and,
    (13) Whether the benefits of exclusion in any particular area 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial 
comment period need not be resubmitted. Our final determination on the 
proposed critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and 
any additional information received. However, we will not consider 
anonymous comments.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format and avoid 
the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include ``RIN 
1018-AT91'' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If 
you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received 
your e-mail message, please contact us directly (see ADDRESSES 
section). Please note that the Internet address <A HREF="
mailto:fw1willamettech at fws.gov">fw1willamettech at fws.gov</A> 
will be unavailable at the termination of the public comment period.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review

[[Page 34568]]

during regular business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments 
and we will make all comments available for public inspection in their 
entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours in the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service Office at the above address.

Background

    On November 2, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 66492) to designate approximately 3,089 acres (1,250 
hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, 724 
acres (293 ha) as critical habitat for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 
kincaidii, and 718 acres (291 ha) as critical habitat for Erigeron 
decumbens var. decumbens. The proposed critical habitat is located in 
Polk, Benton, Yamhill, Lane, Marion, Linn, and Douglas Counties, 
Oregon, and Lewis County, Washington. The original comment period on 
the proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 3, 2006. On April 
21, 2006, we published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 20636) 
to reopen the comment period and provide notice of a public hearing; 
the comment period closed on May 19, 2006.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it 
is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection; and 
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the 
time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made 
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on 
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after taking into consideration the economic or any other 
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical 
habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 
kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, we have prepared a 
draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    The draft economic analysis addresses the impacts of conservation 
efforts for these three species on activities occurring on lands 
proposed for designation as well as those proposed for exclusion. The 
analysis measures lost economic efficiency associated with land 
development activities, transportation operations, conservation-
oriented land management on public and private lands, development of 
the Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan, and administrative costs 
related to the section 7 consultation process.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of the Fender's blue 
butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens 
var. decumbens, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 
of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical 
habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective 
measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that 
aid habitat conservation for the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens in 
essential habitat areas. The analysis considers both economic 
efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat 
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity 
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with 
habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use). The study also analyzes 
whether a particular group or economic sector bears an undue proportion 
of the impacts, with specific analysis of the impacts to small entities 
and potential impacts on energy availability. Finally, this analysis 
estimates economic impacts to activities from 2000 (the year of the 
final listing for the species) to 2026 (20 years from the year of final 
designation of critical habitat). Forecasts of economic conditions and 
other factors beyond the next 20 years would be speculative.
    We solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic 
analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal to designate 
critical habitat. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting 
documents, to incorporate or address new information received during 
the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical 
habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area 
outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, 
provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
species.
    Costs related to conservation activities for the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 
pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to be 
approximately $25.3 to $52.7 million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 
dollars. Costs are estimated to range from $19.1 to $40.3 million over 
20 years, or $1.3 to 2.7 million annually using a three percent 
discount rate. Cost estimates using a seven percent discount rate range 
from $15.3 to $32.6 million over 20 years, or $1.4 to $3.1 annually.

Required Determinations--Amended

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. On 
the basis of our draft economic analysis, the designation of critical 
habitat for these species is not anticipated to have an annual effect 
on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a 
material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal 
Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally 
reviewed the proposed rule.
    Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies 
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of 
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory 
action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider 
alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical 
habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory 
approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical 
habitat.
    In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from 
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of 
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion 
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination

[[Page 34569]]

thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative 
analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, 
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result 
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would 
have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens would affect a substantial number of 
small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected 
within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential and 
commercial development, forestry, and agriculture). We considered each 
industry or category individually to determine if certification is 
appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially 
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal 
involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical 
habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted or authorized by Federal agencies; non-
Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, 
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect 
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the 
existing consultation process.
    In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated 
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting 
from conservation actions related to the listing of these three species 
and proposed designation of critical habitat. We determined from our 
analysis that the small business entities that may be affected are 
agriculture and forestry. Approximately 85 percent (i.e., 1,794 acres 
(726 ha)) of the estimated 2,120 acres (858 ha) of privately owned land 
within the proposed critical habitat designation is classified as 
agricultural land. The remaining 327 acres (132 ha) is classified as 
various types of forest land, most of which is white oak forest, which 
has no commercial value.
    On the basis of our analysis of Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 
conservation measures, we determined that approximately 195 small 
agriculture operations could be impacted by conservation measures for 
these three species. These agriculture operations represent 
approximately 1.2 percent of the number of small farms and ranches 
operating within the eight counties that encompass the proposed 
critical habitat designation. The percent of small agriculture 
operations impacted ranges from a low of approximately 0.1 percent in 
Marion and Lewis counties to a high of 4.6 percent in Benton County. 
The conservation measures for the three species are not expected to 
impact the profitability of these small agriculture operations, as the 
existing agricultural use of the privately owned lands that encompass 
the proposed critical habitat designation is not likely to be impacted.
    Based on the past and existing land use, it appears the 
agricultural value of these lands is as grassland/pasture, and 
livestock grazing, if not intensive, would not further degrade or 
destroy the prairie habitat. While farm profits are not expected to be 
affected by species conservation, impacted small agriculture businesses 
are expected to lose between $383 (Douglas County) and $118,785 
(Yamhill County) in land value per farm due to species conservation. 
Considering that the average market value of a farm's assets (i.e., 
land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) in the affected counties 
ranges from approximately $375,000 (Lewis County) to $650,000 (Marion, 
Polk, Yamhill, and Linn counties), the economic impacts of species 
conservation to the small agriculture operator is expected to range 
from as little as 0.1 percent (Douglas and Linn counties) of the value 
of an operator's farm assets to as much as 18.2 percent (Yamhill 
County) of an operator's farm assets. The 16 small agriculture 
operators in Yamhill County are expected to bear the greatest impacts 
(1.5 to 18.2 percent of the value of farm assets) followed by the 28 
operators in Polk County (1.0 to 17.1 percent of the value of farm 
assets), the 41 operators in Benton County (2.0 to 13.4 percent of the 
value of farm assets), the 87 operators in Lane County (1.2 to 6.8 
percent of the value of farm assets), and then the 3 operators in 
Marion County (0.4 to 5.8 percent of the value of farm assets). Impacts 
to the remaining 20 small agriculture operators in Douglas, Linn, and 
Lewis counties are estimated at less than approximately 2 percent of 
the value of an operator's farm assets.
    The economic effects to forestry operations of this proposed 
critical habitat designation are expected to be small. Although there 
are about 494 forestry and logging businesses that operate in the eight 
counties that encompass the proposed critical habitat designation, only 
one company has lands that fall within a proposed critical habitat 
unit. The estimated economic impact of species conservation activities 
to Starker Forests, Inc., a family-owned business that owns, grows, and 
manages about 60,000 acres of forest land in Benton, Lincoln, Lane, and 
Polk counties, Oregon, is about $1,000 to $3,000 annually.
    Based on these data, we have determined that this proposed 
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, in particular to agricultural and 
forestry

[[Page 34570]]

interests. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of 
this designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic 
impacts to small business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, 
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is 
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it 
raises novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant action and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with 
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It 
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing 
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually 
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' 
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of 
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, 
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the 
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food 
Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State 
Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; 
Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) 
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would 
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a 
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) The boundaries of five city governments encompass the proposed 
critical habitat designation: Eugene (estimated population in 2005 of 
146,160), Corvallis (estimated population in 2005 of 53,165), Dallas 
(estimated population in 2005 of 14,040), Philomath (estimated 
population in 2005 of 4,400), and Sheridan (estimated population in 
2005 of 5,740). Eugene and Corvallis exceed the criteria (service 
population of 50,000 or less) for small entity. Of the three small 
governments, Dallas is the only small government entity potentially 
impacted by Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, 
and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens conservation activities. In 
fiscal year 2005-06, the City's annual budget is approximately $36 
million. The analysis estimates that potential future Fender's blue 
butterfly and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii conservation activities 
(related to a planned collector street and the one-time application 
costs and annual deferred maintenance and personnel training costs 
associated with a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit) may cost the 
City between $28,000 (low range assuming a seven percent discount rate) 
and $197,000 (high range assuming a three percent discount rate) on an 
annualized basis. These costs represent approximately 0.08 percent to 
0.5 percent of the City's annual expenditures.
    Further, there is no record of consultation between the Service and 
any of these governments since the three species were listed in 2000. 
It is likely that small governments involved with developments and 
infrastructure projects will be interested parties or involved with 
projects involving section 7 consultations for Fender's blue butterfly, 
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. 
decumbens within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with 
this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a city's 
budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of 
critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 
kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens will significantly or 
uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. 
Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do 
not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude 
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental 
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or 
permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical 
habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, 
and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens does not pose significant takings 
implications.

Author

    The primary author of this package is Mikki Collins, Oregon Fish 
and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 6, 2006.
David P. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E6-9323 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060622/95534e82/attachment.html>

From Patricia_Ford at fws.gov  Thu Jun 22 14:17:28 2006
From: Patricia_Ford at fws.gov (Patricia_Ford at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:17:28 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Americans Prefer Video to National Parks
Message-ID: <OFE6CCD7FD.DD062EC5-ON85257195.0069D8F6-85257195.0069F802@fws.gov>


Full story at:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=10714








From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Thu Jun 22 15:12:53 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:12:53 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Fw: Yahoo! News Story - Scientists find self-fertilizing
	orchid - Yahoo! News
Message-ID: <OFC036E9B7.1F507559-ON85257195.006EAA13-85257195.006F0B3A@fws.gov>

This is a good example of how newspapers catch people's attention with 
AMAZING headlines.  I'm glad they think it's cool; but it's sad that they 
act as though this has never been observed before in nature - As my boss 
said, "Someone needs to tell them that this is not the only species that 
is self-fertilizing!"  Read on!

Scientists find self-fertilizing orchid - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_sc/china_lonely_orchid

Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural 
resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060622/d0d6eead/attachment.html>

From plant at plantconservation.org  Fri Jun 23 09:10:03 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:10:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] NEWS: Switchgrass used to create ethanol
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606230909290.7215@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

Just some various articles about switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and using 
it for fuel:

http://www.gaylordheraldtimes.com/articles/2006/06/21/news/local_news/local_news03.txt
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/06/23/2003315169
http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/market/business/viewstory?id=45188
http://www.carnegiemellontoday.com/article.asp?Aid=368



From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Fri Jun 23 09:58:12 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:58:12 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Fw: PRESS RELEASE - Herb Day Support Continues to Grow
Message-ID: <OF5EE3628B.EEC9A754-ON85257196.00522CEA-85257196.00523BEC@fws.gov>

Press Release 
For Immediate Release
 
HerbDay Support Continues to Grow
 
(Friday, June 16, 2006) ? Support for HerbDay from the herbal community is 
increasing with new sponsors, partners and participants joining their 
efforts to those of the HerbDay Coalition. And exciting events to 
celebrate herbs and herbalism are being planned at sites all across 
America, as reported by people and companies who register at the event?s 
website: www.herbday.org.
Nature?s Resource herbal supplements, sold in food and drug stores 
nationwide, has become a Sponsor of HerbDay and will promote activities in 
key cities across the country and assist at the national events planned in 
Washington.  Several retailers, large and small, will participate as 
HerbDay hosts, either on HerbDay itself (October 14) or on the days just 
before and after. Vitamin World will promote and publicize the day at its 
480 stores and through its publications. Great Earth Vitamins, based in 
Ontario, CA, will celebrate herbs at its 150-plus stores and Nature?s 
Sunshine, based in Provo, UT, will also host HerbDay activities. Students 
of the Tai Sophia Institute in Columbia, MD, will to set up discovery 
stations on their campus, with lectures on various herb-related topics.
Three new HerbDay Partners have been named to recognize the outstanding 
contributions of nonprofit, educational, conservation and environmental 
organizations that commit to developing HerbDay events. The International 
Herb Association will promote the event to its members and the general 
public. The National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) has created a 
HerbDay committee to assist in informing retailers of the event including 
donating a booth at its national tradeshow in Las Vegas during July. And 
the U.S. Botanic Garden will host two days of HerbDay events at its 
facility on the Washington Mall, October 13?14. 
 
And another important trade media sponsor has joined others in promoting 
the event to their readers. Ads and articles will be running in Natural 
Foods Merchandiser, a publication delivered to natural product retailers 
by New Hope Natural Media.
 
The entire herbal community is invited to participate actively in HerbDay 
2006, either by hosting an event or providing sponsorship in the form of 
financial support. Now is the time to start developing ideas for local 
HerbDay activities to ensure that every community celebrates the wonders 
of herbs. Visit www.herbday.org to review the initial menu of ideas that 
the HerbDay Coalition has developed, and to register to tell others what 
you are planning to do to join the herbal celebration. The website will be 
the primary location to organize and disseminate information about HerbDay 
activities and resources.
 
HerbDay is a coordinated series of public educational events celebrating 
the importance of herbs and herbalism through harmonized, independently 
planned activities that will occur on October 14, 2006, and/or during the 
days leading up to and following that date. Activities will occur at 
retail stores, botanical gardens, and parks throughout North America. 
HerbDay activities will be designed by each hosting venue, which will have 
broad latitude in selecting its own events, such as lectures and workshops 
by well-known herbalists; herb walks; in-store cooking demonstrations 
featuring herbs and spices; seasonal herbal handcrafts; in-store herbal 
beauty product demonstrations; presentations by herb company 
representatives; activities with herbal themes for children; etc.
 
Five national nonprofit organizations? American Botanical Council (ABC); 
American Herbalists Guild (AHG); American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP); 
American Herbal Products Association (AHPA); and United Plant Savers (UpS) 
? are working together as the HerbDay Coalition to launch this event. 
 
# # #
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060623/4762d606/attachment.html>

From plant at plantconservation.org  Fri Jun 23 10:28:29 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:28:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] JOB: Communications & Outreach Specialist (Washington, DC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606231027180.12041@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

http://www.potomacriverkeeper.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=59

Potomac Riverkeeper (PRK) is looking for an individual to manage the 
organization's communication needs and activities and communicate the 
organization's mission to the public, media, potential donors and its 
members and volunteers.

See the link above for the full position description.



From plant at plantconservation.org  Fri Jun 23 10:30:37 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:30:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] NEWS: Trappings of protection (Venus' flytraps)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606231029310.12041@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/NEWS/606230418

Trappings of protection: Keeping illegally obtained Venus' flytraps off 
the black market

By Gareth McGrath
Staff Writer
gareth.mcgrath at starnewsonline.com

Boiling Spring Lakes | Hunched on her knees in the narrow ditch, Laura 
Gadd removed soil from around the base of the small plant and dabbed glue 
and then orange dye onto the Venus' flytrap.

"So all the inspector has to do in the nursery is move a little dirt with 
his finger to see if the plant has been marked," said the botantist with 
the state's Plant Conservation Program.

See the link above for the full article text.



From plant at plantconservation.org  Fri Jun 23 10:42:09 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:42:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] NEWS: NPS & FWS policies
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606231040100.12041@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0622/p02s01-uspo.html

Conservation will trump access at the national parks

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ASHLAND, ORE. . Not many times over the past five years have 
environmentalists applauded President Bush. But this week they're cheering 
new administration policies for national parks - which reflect the 
priorities of the Clinton administration.

The National Park Service is returning to its original 1916 mandate "to 
protect and preserve unimpaired the resources and values of the national 
park system." This means clean air, wilderness protection, unspoiled 
vistas, and wildlife conservation.

See the link above for the full article text.

------------------------------------------------------

http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=F22D4159-0E89-426B-1F2B28C6B5E5A7E5

Secretary Kempthorne Announces New Policies to Improve Management of 
National Wildlife Refuges

(WASHINGTON) -- Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced 
new policies that define the unique wildlife conservation mission of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System and will help refuge managers enhance 
opportunities for people to participate in fishing, hunting, bird 
watching, and other wildlife-related recreational activities.

See the link above for the full text.



From plant at plantconservation.org  Fri Jun 23 10:51:49 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:51:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] NEWS: Volunteer efforts at park aim to preserve rare plant
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606231050370.12041@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

Volunteer efforts at park aim to preserve rare plant

By Suzanne Wentley
THE STUART NEWS
Posted June 23 2006

SAVANNAS STATE PRESERVE  Gently holding the small, reddish leaves, park 
Ranger Greg Kaufmann knelt in the sandy soil Thursday and patted the 
ground around one of the rarest plants in the nation.

Sweat soaking his shirt, he helped volunteers and experts from the 
Historic Bok Sanctuary in Lake Wales add 87 newly cloned plants to the 
park -- work meant to assure the survival of a sub-species of Lakela's 
mint, an endangered plant found only from Hobe Sound to Vero Beach.

For the full article see:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pplant23jun23,0,6090598.story?coll=sfla-news-palm



From plant at plantconservation.org  Fri Jun 23 14:55:34 2006
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:55:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] JOBS: Native Plant/Botany Internships (South Carolina)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606231453060.6914@cpanel2.betterbox.net>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:57:28 -0400
From: Wiegand <wiegand at ntelos.net>
Subject: Native Plant/Botany Internships

Internship positions in South Carolina.

Botany Invasive Species Team Internship
Marion and Sumter National Forests, SC
9/18/2006- 12/22/2006

Do you want to help our environment and our national lands while 
experiencing first-hand a new location in our country? SCA, in 
partnership with the United States Forest Service (USFS), is taking part 
in a nationwide effort to eradicate invasive plants on our national 
lands. An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is non-native 
(or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction 
causes or is likely to cause economic, environmental, or human health 
harm. "Without understanding.and having considerable resources going into 
the matter of controlling alien invasives, the goals.of preserving 
biodiversity cannot be met" - Peter Raven. Learn more about invasive 
plant issues at: www.nature.nps.gov/biology/invasivespecies. SCA is 
actively seeking a team of volunteers to help control invasive plants in 
the Marion and Sumter National Forests and surrounding districts. Learn 
more about Marion and Sumter National Forests at www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/. 
Marion and Sumter National Forests comprise approximately 624,00 acres of 
national forest land and provides habitat for numerous wildlife species 
such as black bear, deer, boar, fax, turkey and countless waterfowl 
including nine endangered animal and plant species plus eight threatened 
animal and plant species. This team will consist of 1 SCA staff Project 
Leader and 4 SCA interns and will focus much of its efforts in 
mountainous and prairie environments on manual and chemical removal of 
Chinese Privet, Autumn Olive and various additional invasive plant 
species.

Invasive plant removal through manual and mechanical means; GPS mapping 
of project sites; data collection on surveys, treatments, and monitoring 
activities: 85%; community outreach and educational activities: 15 %. You 
will employ hand tools, chainsaws and backpack sprayers. The team may 
have the opportunity to conduct some native plant restoration in aquatic 
environments.

Require: Valid driver's license; willingness to use chemical and 
non-chemical invasive plant control methods; excellent interpersonal 
skills; good physical condition; ability to carry up to 40 lbs. up to 5 
miles over steep terrain; interest and willingness to live in close 
quarters with fellow team members; desire to travel and a sense of 
adventure.

Desire: Coursework or field experience in botany, ecology, resource 
management, environmental science; experience using GPS technology; 
experience operating power equipment and 4-wheel drive vehicles.

Please send cover letter & resume to: joinus at thesca.org


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Botany Invasive Species Team Internship
Congaree National Park, SC
9/19/2006-2/20/2007

Do you want to help our environment and our national parks while 
experiencing first-hand a new location in our country? SCA, in 
partnership with the National Park Service's (NPS) Exotic Plant 
Management Team (EPMT) program, is taking part in a nationwide effort to 
eradicate invasive plants in our national parks. An "invasive species" is 
defined as a species that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under 
consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause 
economic, environmental, or human health harm. "Without understanding.and 
having considerable resources going into the matter of controlling alien 
invasives, the goals.of preserving biodiversity cannot be met" - Peter 
Raven.

Learn more about invasive plant issues and the park service's approach 
at: www.nature.nps.gov/biology/invasivespecies.

SCA is actively seeking a team of volunteers to help in the control of 
invasive plants in various parks in South Carolina, North Carolina, 
Georgia and Alabama. The team will travel and work for 8-day hitches with 
6 days off in 8 parks in the South Atlantic region including, but not 
limited to: Congaree National Park, Cape Hatteras National Park, 
Cumberland Island National Seashore, Horseshoe Bend National Military 
Park, Fort Sumter National Monument and Kennesaw Mountain National 
Battlefield Park. Learn more about these amazing parks at: www.nps.gov. 
The team's home base will be in Columbia, South Carolina, just outside of 
Congaree National Park. Congaree National Park preserves the largest 
intact tract of old-growth floodplain forest in North America and is 
designated as an International Biosphere Reserve. Learn more at: 
www.nps.gov/cosw. The team will consist of 1 SCA staff Project Leader and 
4 SCA interns. Target species for the South Atlantic region include 
Kudzu, Japanese Knotweed, English Ivy, Tree of Heaven and Oriental 
Bittersweet.

Responsibilities: Invasive plant removal through manual and mechanical 
means; GPS mapping of project sites; data collection on surveys, 
treatments, and monitoring activities: 85%; community outreach and 
educational activities: 15 %.

Require: Valid driver's license; willingness to use chemical and 
non-chemical invasive plant control methods; excellent interpersonal 
skills; good physical condition; ability to carry up to 40 lbs. up to 5 
miles over steep terrain; interest and willingness to live in close 
quarters with fellow team members; desire to travel and a sense of 
adventure.

Desire: Coursework or field experience in botany, ecology, resource 
management, environmental science; experience using GPS technology; 
experience operating power equipment and 4-wheel drive vehicles.

             Send cover letter & resume to: joinus at thesca.org



From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Mon Jun 26 07:30:16 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:30:16 -0400
Subject: [PCA] GMW: Contaminating the wild? New report
Message-ID: <OF8580AD95.6FFA7BE1-ON85257199.0044815C-85257199.0044B073@fws.gov>

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
A new report on gene flow from experimental GM field trials in the US to 
sexually compatible wild plants, has just been released by the Center for 
Food Safety in Washington, DC.

The report's author is Doug Gurian-Sherman, CFS's Senior Scientist, who 
was formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where he was 
responsible for assessing human health and environmental risks from 
transgenic plants and microorganisms, and for developing biotechnology 
policy. 

His report concludes that given the large number of field trials, some of 
which are on a massive scale and many of which contain genes that may 
spread in wild relatives, permanent escape of largely untested 
experimental genes is virtually inevitable given USDA's current leaky 
confinement requirements and inadequate safety testing.

Here's the press statement from CFS - www.centerforfoodsafety.org -  that 
accompanies Gurian-Sherman's report.
---
Contaminating the wild?
Press Summary

Before genetically engineered (GE) crops are marketed, developers conduct 
field trials of these
experimental GE varieties for several years. Field trials include all 
outdoor cultivation of
experimental GE crops, and thousands have been planted across the country 
since the mid-1980's.
Because research on these crops is incomplete, their risks are often 
largely unknown. But a new report, "Contaminating the Wild?," from the 
Center for Food Safety shows that despite unknown risks, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) regulations cannot be relied upon to keep 
experimental genes from escaping from field trial crops into related wild 
plants. This process, called "gene flow," occurs when pollen from 
experimental crops fertilize wild species related to crops such as wheat, 
grapes or carrots.

Experimental genes that make their way into crop wild relatives may become 
a permanent part of the
landscape because, unlike most crops, these wild plant species can grow 
without cultivation by farmers.

Anyone who has seen fields of Queen Anne's lace (a wild relative of 
carrots) can understand how
prolific these wild relatives can be. And once they escape from crops, 
some of these genes could spread through the environment, where they may 
harm animals and plants.

As noted in a recent critical report by the USDA Inspector General (IG), 
for the vast majority of field
trials issued as "notifications," gene confinement measures are rarely 
reviewed by USDA prior to planting.

"Contaminating the Wild?" also shows that risk assessments are not 
generally performed, and
where risks are examined, the process is usually superficial.

USDA has assured the public that the risks from experimental genes are 
insignificant because they are confined to the field trial site. But the 
many cases of contamination from GE crops seriously challenge this 
assertion. Most startling was gene flow from a field trial of transgenic 
herbicide-tolerant creeping bentgrass that exceeded the 900 ft 
USDA-accepted separation from wild relatives by at least 13 miles.

"Contaminating the Wild?" asks whether gene flow could similarly occur 
from some of the thousands
of previous field trials, and by extension, whether gene flow may happen 
in the future. The report considers these questions through a detailed 
examination of the scientific literature and data from previous field 
trials, and concludes that untested genes from field trials of crops with 
wild relatives may breech their confinement and spread in the environment.

THE REPORT FINDS THAT:

*There have been at least 1710 field trials of 20 types of crops in states 
where one or more wild relatives grow. These have included 170 for 
creeping bentgrass, 332 for wheat and 107 for rice, among other crops that 
have serious weeds as wild relatives.

*The USDA/APHIS confinenement standards cannot ensure that permanent gene 
flow will be prevented.
Review of the scientific literature and USDA Environmental Assessments 
shows that gene flow can occur beyond the confinement distances accepted 
by USDA.

*Many &#64257;eld trials contain genes that may provide an advantage to 
wild relatives, and can thereby spread through the wild population, even 
if initial gene flow occurs at low levels. For example, there have been 
about 600 field trials for biotic and abiotic stress resistance genes, 
identified by the National Academy of Sciences as having properties that 
may facilitate spreading through wild relatives.

*As with the escaped creeping bentgrass example, many field trials are 
large, often hundreds or thousands of acres, facilitating gene flow. These 
large trials produce much more pollen than small trials, and can cause 
more gene flow at longer distances. There have been 290 field trials of 50 
or more acres for crops with wild relatives.

*The vast majority of field trials, currently about 95%, are conducted 
under simplified notifications that require no Environmental Assessment. 
These notifications require only that any problems noticed
during the field trials are reported to APHIS. But as widely recognized, 
without specific testing for
environmental harm, most problems may not be detected.

The risks from gene flow in the future may be even more troubling as 
multiple genes, genes with less
predictable consequences, and more powerful genes (for example designed to 
kill more types of pests), and new types of plants such as engineered 
forest trees, are developed.

USDA is currently revising its regulations of GE crops. This is an 
opportunity to strengthen the regulation of field trials to prevent gene 
flow or harm if gene flow occurs. The report therefore makes several 
recommendations for strengthening confinement requirements and improving 
risk assessment. Given the large number of field trials, many of which 
contain genes that may spread in wild relatives, and current leaky 
confinement requirements, permanent escape of largely untested 
experimental genes is virtually inevitable unless USDA substantially 
improves its confinement and safety testing requirements.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060626/6a4b0526/attachment.html>

From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Jun 27 08:36:42 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:36:42 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Public comment: Petition to USDA to allow commercial growing
 of genetically engineered plums
Message-ID: <OF9288D479.43E2EABD-ON8525719A.004A5396-8525719A.004AC2F0@fws.gov>

Forwarding this message from another member.  For the full notice, follow 
the directions under: "to submit your comments online."

The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now 
and July 17, 2006 on the petition to formally deregulate and allow 
commercial growing and marketing of  GENETICALLY ENGINEERED  (GE)  plums.

To submit your comments online:

Go to http://www.regulations.gov .
In the "Agency" box, select "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" 
>From the drop-down menu; select "NOTICES" as the Document Type and 
APHIS-2006-0084 as the "Keyword or ID." 
Then press "submit" to submit or view public comments as well as the 
agency's supporting materials; 
click just beneath "Add Comments" and scroll down to submit your letter.

To submit your comments by mail:

Send an original and three copies with your name and address to Docket No. 
APHIS-2006-0084, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 
3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. 

Thanks for helping us STOP the genetic engineering of trees!

Feel free to copy and paste any or all of the 7 points below, along with 
any comments of your own.

The following comments are in reference to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0084

I oppose the deregulation of genetically engineered plum trees for the 
following reasons:

1. Genetic contamination is a serious threat. Flowers and fruit in organic 
and conventional plum orchards will become contaminated with GE plum genes 
via pollen transported by bees and other insects that travel many miles in 
search of pollen. The result is that organic and conventional plum growers 
will lose their markets for non-GE plums as DNA testing confirms the 
contamination, as it has with GE papayas in Hawaii. An organic tree might 
remain organic itself, but the fruit and seeds will become contaminated.

2. The approval of GE plums would  open  the floodgates for more GE trees 
including fruit, nut, ornamental, and paper-pulp species, as well as trees 
engineered for soil remediation, and other traits. Approximately 80 
species and varieties of trees are currently undergoing gene splicing 
research and development for commercial use.

3. There is a serious concern about the genetic stability of the inserted 
genes in GE plum trees. USDA claims that the plum pox viral resistance 
gene and other inserted genes are sufficiently genetically stable, but the 
testing has only been performed over ten years and not the entire 
pollen-producing life span of a plum tree. Over the life of a tree, an RNA 
virus such as plum pox is susceptible to many cycles of recombination, 
leading to the creation of new plant viruses that could infect a wide 
variety of plants. This can also occur with the viral DNA that has been 
inserted into these plums.

4. The plum pox virus is not currently known to exist in the US as a 
problem for plum growers. Thus there is no justification for exposing 
other trees, plants, insects and people to the various hazards posed by GE 
plums.

5.  The deregulatory petition completely ignores potential effects on bees 
and other pollinator species. There are no studies that would allow us to 
evaluate the potential hazards of GE tree pollen for a variety of insects, 
or for consumers of honey. We also do not know how animals and insects 
that browse on plum leaves might be affected.

6. The USDA's environmental assessment admits that the GE plum readily 
hybridizes within its species. Thus, there is a significant potential for 
gene flow into native plum varieties. Wild plum trees are perennial 
species living for several decades and populations exist in dozens of 
states from coast to coast.  GE plum trees will be long lived, and capable 
of contaminating orchards and native plum tree populations for several 
decades. One GE plum tree will be able to produce thousands of GE seeds 
and extensive quantities of GE pollen, and will be capable of spreading 
fertile GE plum seeds and pollen into the environment for many years. The 
petition did not adequately evaluate the relative fitness of GE plum 
varieties as compared to native plums; it is possible that the GE 
varieties would become more successful in natural settings, and 
out-compete non-GE varieties.  We challenge the USDA spurious claim that 
contamination would be positive by reducing potential reservoirs for 
harboring the plum pox virus in the wild.

7. There has been no short-term or long-term safety testing or feeding 
trials for toxicity and other adverse effects of the genes inserted into 
the GE plum trees. GE plums have not been tested on animals, birds or 
humans for safety.  Toxicity tests are necessary since unintended genetic 
effects are known to occur with gene splicing. USDA has ignored the need 
for scientific studies of gene splicing and for comprehensive studies of 
the environmental consequences of GE plantings.

---------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060627/b9e3d186/attachment.html>

From emilyr at plantsocieties.org  Tue Jun 27 15:57:56 2006
From: emilyr at plantsocieties.org (Emily Roberson)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:57:56 -0700
Subject: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
In-Reply-To: <44A15783.571D@ecoseeds.com>
Message-ID: <00d701c69a2c$668a8370$0302a8c0@EmilyRoberson>


Native Plant Conservation Campaign folks and others: 

This is very important right now because the Forest Service has a draft
policy on revegetation with native plants out for comment right now. 

The proposed definition of "genetically appropriate" plants for revegetation
and restoration projects is somewhat problematic or at least could use some
refining. Their definition of "native" also needs review.

Any comments or definitions of "native", "local native" or anything related
would be VERY helpful. I am interested not just in agency definition but
also in scientific definitions, native plant organization definitions, etc. 

THANK YOU! 

======================================

Draft policy attached FYI. Comments are due by 7/25. 

Here are the definitions:

Genetically appropriate. 
A plant adapted to target site conditions (e.g., has good establishment,
vigor, and reproductive capabilities); sufficiently diverse to respond and
adapt to changing climates and environment conditions; unlikely to cause
genetic contamination and undermine
local adaptations, community interactions, and function of resident native
species within the
ecosystem; unlikely to become (unnaturally or inappropriately) invasive and
displace other
native species; unlikely to be a source of non-native invasive pathogens;
likely to maintain
critical connections with pollinators.
 
Native plant. 
All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved
naturally in an
ecosystem.

Emily
____________________________
Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.
Director
Native Plant Conservation Campaign
A Program of the Center for Biological Diversity

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 
1459 18th St. 
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415 970 0394 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org 
Web:   http://www.plantsocieties.org 
          www.biologicaldiversity.org 

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of
native plant species and communities through collaboration, education, law,
policy, land use and management.

.


-----Original Message-----
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig Dremann
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: [APWG] "Native plant" definitions of government agencies?

Dear All,

Government land management agencies write manuals and definitions for
the work they do.

The US Forest Service manual has a definition for "native plants", to
differentiate the native plants from the exotic plants.

Andrew Kratz, a Forest Service Regional Botanist in Colorado and I were
having a discussion about the Forest Service's current definition of
"native plant", which follows:

"All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved
naturally in an ecosystem." (FSM 2070.5)

Unfortunately, at first glance, the sentence looks correct, but has
numerous errors in it.   We are suggesting a rewrite, as follows:

"The indigenous plant species of a particular area, both aquatic and
terrestrial, that are natural members of the local ecosystem."

Are there any other government agency definitions of "native plant" out
there?

Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

_______________________________________________
PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
tion.org

Disclaimer                                                                
Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FS Nat Plant Reveg Policy Draft unedited.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 301527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060627/a246eed6/attachment.pdf>

From Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil  Wed Jun 28 10:36:53 2006
From: Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil (Brown, Christopher MVN)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:36:53 -0500
Subject: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
Message-ID: <4DD9F4630175FC4AA9D167AD1BB4E4170808048D@MVN-ML02NOL.mvn.ds.usace.army.mil>

The line between "native" and "invasive" can sometimes get blurry.  As one
example, consider Rosa rugosa Thunb.  It is native to Japan, and was imported
into New England as an exotic garden plant about 150 years ago.  Since then,
it has escaped from cultivation and established itself so thoroughly along
beaches in New England that it is considered by most people to be part of the
native flora, since no one living today has any memory of a time when it
wasn't present in abundance.  The National Park Service even considers it
native and warns people not to disturb it, because it is part of the "native"
flora!  How long ago does a plant need to have arrived to be considered
"native"?


Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.,  (Syn.: Phragmites communes
Trin.;  Phragmites vulgaris B.S.P.) is so widely distributed that it is
difficult to discern to what region it may be "native".  


Cocos nucifera L. is probably native to the Indian Ocean region, but now so
widely distributed that the term "native" has little meaning.

 

These are just three examples, among many others possible to cite, of how
tricky it can be to say what is "native".  In the case of recent arrivals the
question is not difficult, but when introductions have occurred hundreds or
thousands of years ago the answers are usually not so clear.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

CB

 

 

Dr. J. Christopher Brown, Botanist

US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

USACE-MVN-PM-RP, Room 363

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA  70160-0267

Voice phone:  504-862-2508

Fax:  504-862-2088

 

email:  christopher.brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil

 

-----Original Message-----
From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Emily
Roberson
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:58 PM
To: 'Craig Dremann'; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?

 

 

Native Plant Conservation Campaign folks and others: 

 

This is very important right now because the Forest Service has a draft

policy on revegetation with native plants out for comment right now. 

 

The proposed definition of "genetically appropriate" plants for revegetation

and restoration projects is somewhat problematic or at least could use some

refining. Their definition of "native" also needs review.

 

Any comments or definitions of "native", "local native" or anything related

would be VERY helpful. I am interested not just in agency definition but

also in scientific definitions, native plant organization definitions, etc. 

 

THANK YOU! 

 

======================================

 

Draft policy attached FYI. Comments are due by 7/25. 

 

Here are the definitions:

 

Genetically appropriate. 

A plant adapted to target site conditions (e.g., has good establishment,

vigor, and reproductive capabilities); sufficiently diverse to respond and

adapt to changing climates and environment conditions; unlikely to cause

genetic contamination and undermine

local adaptations, community interactions, and function of resident native

species within the

ecosystem; unlikely to become (unnaturally or inappropriately) invasive and

displace other

native species; unlikely to be a source of non-native invasive pathogens;

likely to maintain

critical connections with pollinators.

 

Native plant. 

All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved

naturally in an

ecosystem.

 

Emily

____________________________

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

A Program of the Center for Biological Diversity

 

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 

1459 18th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org 

Web:   http://www.plantsocieties.org 

          www.biologicaldiversity.org 

 

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of

native plant species and communities through collaboration, education, law,

policy, land use and management.

 

.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org

[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig Dremann

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM

To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org

Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org

Subject: [APWG] "Native plant" definitions of government agencies?

 

Dear All,

 

Government land management agencies write manuals and definitions for

the work they do.

 

The US Forest Service manual has a definition for "native plants", to

differentiate the native plants from the exotic plants.

 

Andrew Kratz, a Forest Service Regional Botanist in Colorado and I were

having a discussion about the Forest Service's current definition of

"native plant", which follows:

 

"All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved

naturally in an ecosystem." (FSM 2070.5)

 

Unfortunately, at first glance, the sentence looks correct, but has

numerous errors in it.   We are suggesting a rewrite, as follows:

 

"The indigenous plant species of a particular area, both aquatic and

terrestrial, that are natural members of the local ecosystem."

 

Are there any other government agency definitions of "native plant" out

there?

 

Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

 

_______________________________________________

PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list

APWG at lists.plantconservation.org

http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva

tion.org

 

Disclaimer                                                                

Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the

opinion of the individual posting the message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060628/d993ab6d/attachment.html>

From TUFTS at nwf.org  Wed Jun 28 11:05:30 2006
From: TUFTS at nwf.org (Craig Tufts)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:05:30 -0400
Subject: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
Message-ID: <s4a27092.075@nwfxnet.nwf.org>

Chris:

I am somewhat surprised that anyone considers the first two species
listed as native. A number of jurisdictions label Rugosa Rose an
invasive and it certainly isn't native. It might be that some NPS staff
think it a native, but I have trouble believing that the agency
considers it so.

There has been a lot of discussion about Phragmites, native
genotypes/species vs. hybrid swarms and Eur species. I think most people
who study the plant generally know which is the native and how the
invasive form acts.

Coconut is a little different. In addition to being transported all
over much of the tropics and subtropics by people for thousands of
years, it is a drift-dispersed species and can easily island hop by
itself. 

Craig Tufts



>>> "Brown, Christopher MVN" <Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil>
6/28/2006 11:36 AM >>>
The line between "native" and "invasive" can sometimes get blurry.  As
one
example, consider Rosa rugosa Thunb.  It is native to Japan, and was
imported
into New England as an exotic garden plant about 150 years ago.  Since
then,
it has escaped from cultivation and established itself so thoroughly
along
beaches in New England that it is considered by most people to be part
of the
native flora, since no one living today has any memory of a time when
it
wasn't present in abundance.  The National Park Service even considers
it
native and warns people not to disturb it, because it is part of the
"native"
flora!  How long ago does a plant need to have arrived to be
considered
"native"?


Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.,  (Syn.: Phragmites
communes
Trin.;  Phragmites vulgaris B.S.P.) is so widely distributed that it
is
difficult to discern to what region it may be "native".  


Cocos nucifera L. is probably native to the Indian Ocean region, but
now so
widely distributed that the term "native" has little meaning.

 

These are just three examples, among many others possible to cite, of
how
tricky it can be to say what is "native".  In the case of recent
arrivals the
question is not difficult, but when introductions have occurred
hundreds or
thousands of years ago the answers are usually not so clear.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

CB

 

 

Dr. J. Christopher Brown, Botanist

US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

USACE-MVN-PM-RP, Room 363

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA  70160-0267

Voice phone:  504-862-2508

Fax:  504-862-2088

 

email:  christopher.brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 
[mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
Emily
Roberson
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:58 PM
To: 'Craig Dremann'; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org 
Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?

 

 

Native Plant Conservation Campaign folks and others: 

 

This is very important right now because the Forest Service has a
draft

policy on revegetation with native plants out for comment right now. 

 

The proposed definition of "genetically appropriate" plants for
revegetation

and restoration projects is somewhat problematic or at least could use
some

refining. Their definition of "native" also needs review.

 

Any comments or definitions of "native", "local native" or anything
related

would be VERY helpful. I am interested not just in agency definition
but

also in scientific definitions, native plant organization definitions,
etc. 

 

THANK YOU! 

 

======================================

 

Draft policy attached FYI. Comments are due by 7/25. 

 

Here are the definitions:

 

Genetically appropriate. 

A plant adapted to target site conditions (e.g., has good
establishment,

vigor, and reproductive capabilities); sufficiently diverse to respond
and

adapt to changing climates and environment conditions; unlikely to
cause

genetic contamination and undermine

local adaptations, community interactions, and function of resident
native

species within the

ecosystem; unlikely to become (unnaturally or inappropriately) invasive
and

displace other

native species; unlikely to be a source of non-native invasive
pathogens;

likely to maintain

critical connections with pollinators.

 

Native plant. 

All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved

naturally in an

ecosystem.

 

Emily

____________________________

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

A Program of the Center for Biological Diversity

 

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 

1459 18th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org 

Web:   http://www.plantsocieties.org 

          www.biologicaldiversity.org 

 

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of

native plant species and communities through collaboration, education,
law,

policy, land use and management.

 

.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 

[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig
Dremann

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM

To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 

Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org 

Subject: [APWG] "Native plant" definitions of government agencies?

 

Dear All,

 

Government land management agencies write manuals and definitions for

the work they do.

 

The US Forest Service manual has a definition for "native plants", to

differentiate the native plants from the exotic plants.

 

Andrew Kratz, a Forest Service Regional Botanist in Colorado and I
were

having a discussion about the Forest Service's current definition of

"native plant", which follows:

 

"All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved

naturally in an ecosystem." (FSM 2070.5)

 

Unfortunately, at first glance, the sentence looks correct, but has

numerous errors in it.   We are suggesting a rewrite, as follows:

 

"The indigenous plant species of a particular area, both aquatic and

terrestrial, that are natural members of the local ecosystem."

 

Are there any other government agency definitions of "native plant"
out

there?

 

Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

 

_______________________________________________

PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list

APWG at lists.plantconservation.org 

http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva


tion.org

 

Disclaimer                                                             
  

Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the

opinion of the individual posting the message.




From Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil  Wed Jun 28 13:13:38 2006
From: Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil (Brown, Christopher MVN)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:13:38 -0500
Subject: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
Message-ID: <4DD9F4630175FC4AA9D167AD1BB4E41708080492@MVN-ML02NOL.mvn.ds.usace.army.mil>

Thanks Craig,  I think I will have to modify or retract my statement about
the National Park Service.  I think this is what I was told, and I think I
even read it somewhere in a brochure years ago, but I cannot prove it at this
point or give a citation.  I think it would be more correct to say that many
people assume that it is indigenous in New England because it is so
widespread. Also, it is attractive, and I think that the public is inclined
to assume that that attractive plants "belong".  I have heard people exclaim
how beautiful an expanse of purple loostrife is!  Yet we know it as an
agressive invader.  (It was first collected growing on piles of wool waste
near textile mills in Massachusetts).

I wasn't aware of the nuances of the latest research on Phragmites.  I do
know that the various species or varieties are widespread and a source of
confusion.

You are correct in what you say about the coconut.  Charles Darwin soaked
coconuts in seawater for months and they still germinated.  Undoubtedly it
was widely dispersed without human intervention, and undoubtedly humans also
brought it along in their migrations, so at this point it is hard to separate
the two means of dispersal.

Thanks for your comments.

Christopher Brown



-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Tufts [mailto:TUFTS at nwf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:06 AM
To: craig at ecoseeds.com; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org; Brown,
Christopher MVN; emilyr at plantsocieties.org
Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?

Chris:

I am somewhat surprised that anyone considers the first two species
listed as native. A number of jurisdictions label Rugosa Rose an
invasive and it certainly isn't native. It might be that some NPS staff
think it a native, but I have trouble believing that the agency
considers it so.

There has been a lot of discussion about Phragmites, native
genotypes/species vs. hybrid swarms and Eur species. I think most people
who study the plant generally know which is the native and how the
invasive form acts.

Coconut is a little different. In addition to being transported all
over much of the tropics and subtropics by people for thousands of
years, it is a drift-dispersed species and can easily island hop by
itself. 

Craig Tufts



>>> "Brown, Christopher MVN" <Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil>
6/28/2006 11:36 AM >>>
The line between "native" and "invasive" can sometimes get blurry.  As
one
example, consider Rosa rugosa Thunb.  It is native to Japan, and was
imported
into New England as an exotic garden plant about 150 years ago.  Since
then,
it has escaped from cultivation and established itself so thoroughly
along
beaches in New England that it is considered by most people to be part
of the
native flora, since no one living today has any memory of a time when
it
wasn't present in abundance.  The National Park Service even considers
it
native and warns people not to disturb it, because it is part of the
"native"
flora!  How long ago does a plant need to have arrived to be
considered
"native"?


Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.,  (Syn.: Phragmites
communes
Trin.;  Phragmites vulgaris B.S.P.) is so widely distributed that it
is
difficult to discern to what region it may be "native".  


Cocos nucifera L. is probably native to the Indian Ocean region, but
now so
widely distributed that the term "native" has little meaning.

 

These are just three examples, among many others possible to cite, of
how
tricky it can be to say what is "native".  In the case of recent
arrivals the
question is not difficult, but when introductions have occurred
hundreds or
thousands of years ago the answers are usually not so clear.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

CB

 

 

Dr. J. Christopher Brown, Botanist

US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

USACE-MVN-PM-RP, Room 363

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA  70160-0267

Voice phone:  504-862-2508

Fax:  504-862-2088

 

email:  christopher.brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 
[mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
Emily
Roberson
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:58 PM
To: 'Craig Dremann'; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org 
Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?

 

 

Native Plant Conservation Campaign folks and others: 

 

This is very important right now because the Forest Service has a
draft

policy on revegetation with native plants out for comment right now. 

 

The proposed definition of "genetically appropriate" plants for
revegetation

and restoration projects is somewhat problematic or at least could use
some

refining. Their definition of "native" also needs review.

 

Any comments or definitions of "native", "local native" or anything
related

would be VERY helpful. I am interested not just in agency definition
but

also in scientific definitions, native plant organization definitions,
etc. 

 

THANK YOU! 

 

======================================

 

Draft policy attached FYI. Comments are due by 7/25. 

 

Here are the definitions:

 

Genetically appropriate. 

A plant adapted to target site conditions (e.g., has good
establishment,

vigor, and reproductive capabilities); sufficiently diverse to respond
and

adapt to changing climates and environment conditions; unlikely to
cause

genetic contamination and undermine

local adaptations, community interactions, and function of resident
native

species within the

ecosystem; unlikely to become (unnaturally or inappropriately) invasive
and

displace other

native species; unlikely to be a source of non-native invasive
pathogens;

likely to maintain

critical connections with pollinators.

 

Native plant. 

All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved

naturally in an

ecosystem.

 

Emily

____________________________

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

A Program of the Center for Biological Diversity

 

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 

1459 18th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org 

Web:   http://www.plantsocieties.org 

          www.biologicaldiversity.org 

 

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of

native plant species and communities through collaboration, education,
law,

policy, land use and management.

 

.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 

[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig
Dremann

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM

To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 

Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org 

Subject: [APWG] "Native plant" definitions of government agencies?

 

Dear All,

 

Government land management agencies write manuals and definitions for

the work they do.

 

The US Forest Service manual has a definition for "native plants", to

differentiate the native plants from the exotic plants.

 

Andrew Kratz, a Forest Service Regional Botanist in Colorado and I
were

having a discussion about the Forest Service's current definition of

"native plant", which follows:

 

"All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved

naturally in an ecosystem." (FSM 2070.5)

 

Unfortunately, at first glance, the sentence looks correct, but has

numerous errors in it.   We are suggesting a rewrite, as follows:

 

"The indigenous plant species of a particular area, both aquatic and

terrestrial, that are natural members of the local ecosystem."

 

Are there any other government agency definitions of "native plant"
out

there?

 

Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

 

_______________________________________________

PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list

APWG at lists.plantconservation.org 

http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva


tion.org

 

Disclaimer                                                             
  

Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the

opinion of the individual posting the message.



From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 28 15:10:07 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:10:07 -0400
Subject: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
Message-ID: <380-22006632820107734@earthlink.net>

Agree with Craig.  The origin status ("nativity") of Rosa rugosa isn't a
bit debatable within the North American floristics community, being a
deliberate post-Columbian intercontinental introduction. 

Last I heard, the NPS policy and definition for native plants focuses on
origin (whether or not direct or indirect human intervention was involved)
and not on degree of establishment or duration of presence.  These latter
factors are usually contributing evidence for consideration as
"naturalized" but that is still a subset of non-native (exotic,
nonindigenous, etc.).  While Rosa rugosa may be naturalized on Northeastern
U.S. beaches (and I know the plant and the landscape well myself), that
does not make it native there.  Science, not public sentiment, needs to be
the deciding factor in these cases.

Debates on origin (native/non-native status) are commonest for places not
far from the range boundary of regionally native plants, such as the status
of black locust in the D.C. region.  That Appalachian species is
unquestionably native further up the Potomac, in the Harpers Ferry area of
the Blue Ridge, and has been widely planted in the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain of our region, from which escapes have become established and
naturalized.  Yet, given the flood dynamics of the Potomac, and the long
list of Appalachian or Midwestern species that follow the river downstream
to the Fall Line if not beyond (such as the white trout lily), it seems
reasonable that the intrinsically rather weedy black locust would have
likewise been easily dispersed as seeds, fragments, and even whole
re-rootable trees downstream from Appalachia in the numerous floods over
past ages.  In this view of mine, stands of black locust near the Potomac
are likely native downstream to the Fall Line (DC/Arlington) and probably
somewhat beyond (e.g., Potomac shore in Charles Co., Md.).  However, the
origin of upland trees in the D.C. region is more likely to involve past
human intervention, making them non-native.  The parallel case of natural
spread of black locust along the Ohio River downstream of Appalachia into
the Central Lowlands (e.g., Cincinnati area) is much better documented in
pioneer literature, as summarized by Lucy Braun  in 'Woody Plants of Ohio.'
and William B. Werthner in 'Some American Trees.'  Might be a good research
topic for someone comfortable with genetic tracers or 'fingerprinting,'
especially if the cultivated plants were originally derived from relatively
narrow initial samplings.

Pre-Columbian human interventions are also generally a more difficult case.
Nobody seems to consider corn to be "native" to New England just because
the Native Americans grew it there well before European contact, but many
other plants may also have been deliberately or accidentally moved around
by the pre-Columbian human inhabitants of our landscapes, which would make
them non-native in some of their pre-Columbian range by the
human-intervention guideline for nativeness.  The floristic status of the
coconut in Hawaii is one such case -- it was probably brought there by
Polynesian settlers, but may have arrived earlier by sea currents as well.

Larry

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)


> [Original Message]
> From: Craig Tufts <TUFTS at nwf.org>
> To: <craig at ecoseeds.com>; <native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>;
<Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil>; <emilyr at plantsocieties.org>
> Date: 6/28/2006 12:11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
>
> Chris:
>
> I am somewhat surprised that anyone considers the first two species
> listed as native. A number of jurisdictions label Rugosa Rose an
> invasive and it certainly isn't native. It might be that some NPS staff
> think it a native, but I have trouble believing that the agency
> considers it so.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about Phragmites, native
> genotypes/species vs. hybrid swarms and Eur species. I think most people
> who study the plant generally know which is the native and how the
> invasive form acts.
>
> Coconut is a little different. In addition to being transported all
> over much of the tropics and subtropics by people for thousands of
> years, it is a drift-dispersed species and can easily island hop by
> itself. 
>
> Craig Tufts
>
>
>
> >>> "Brown, Christopher MVN" <Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil>
> 6/28/2006 11:36 AM >>>
> The line between "native" and "invasive" can sometimes get blurry.  As
> one
> example, consider Rosa rugosa Thunb.  It is native to Japan, and was
> imported
> into New England as an exotic garden plant about 150 years ago.  Since
> then,
> it has escaped from cultivation and established itself so thoroughly
> along
> beaches in New England that it is considered by most people to be part
> of the
> native flora, since no one living today has any memory of a time when
> it
> wasn't present in abundance.  The National Park Service even considers
> it
> native and warns people not to disturb it, because it is part of the
> "native"
> flora!  How long ago does a plant need to have arrived to be
> considered
> "native"?
>
>
> Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.,  (Syn.: Phragmites
> communes
> Trin.;  Phragmites vulgaris B.S.P.) is so widely distributed that it
> is
> difficult to discern to what region it may be "native".  
>
>
> Cocos nucifera L. is probably native to the Indian Ocean region, but
> now so
> widely distributed that the term "native" has little meaning.
>
>  
>
> These are just three examples, among many others possible to cite, of
> how
> tricky it can be to say what is "native".  In the case of recent
> arrivals the
> question is not difficult, but when introductions have occurred
> hundreds or
> thousands of years ago the answers are usually not so clear.
>
>  
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>  
>
> CB
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Dr. J. Christopher Brown, Botanist
>
> US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
>
> USACE-MVN-PM-RP, Room 363
>
> P.O. Box 60267
>
> New Orleans, LA  70160-0267
>
> Voice phone:  504-862-2508
>
> Fax:  504-862-2088
>
>  
>
> email:  christopher.brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil 
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 
> [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
> Emily
> Roberson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:58 PM
> To: 'Craig Dremann'; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org 
> Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Native Plant Conservation Campaign folks and others: 
>
>  
>
> This is very important right now because the Forest Service has a
> draft
>
> policy on revegetation with native plants out for comment right now. 
>
>  
>
> The proposed definition of "genetically appropriate" plants for
> revegetation
>
> and restoration projects is somewhat problematic or at least could use
> some
>
> refining. Their definition of "native" also needs review.
>
>  
>
> Any comments or definitions of "native", "local native" or anything
> related
>
> would be VERY helpful. I am interested not just in agency definition
> but
>
> also in scientific definitions, native plant organization definitions,
> etc. 
>
>  
>
> THANK YOU! 
>
>  
>
> ======================================
>
>  
>
> Draft policy attached FYI. Comments are due by 7/25. 
>
>  
>
> Here are the definitions:
>
>  
>
> Genetically appropriate. 
>
> A plant adapted to target site conditions (e.g., has good
> establishment,
>
> vigor, and reproductive capabilities); sufficiently diverse to respond
> and
>
> adapt to changing climates and environment conditions; unlikely to
> cause
>
> genetic contamination and undermine
>
> local adaptations, community interactions, and function of resident
> native
>
> species within the
>
> ecosystem; unlikely to become (unnaturally or inappropriately) invasive
> and
>
> displace other
>
> native species; unlikely to be a source of non-native invasive
> pathogens;
>
> likely to maintain
>
> critical connections with pollinators.
>
>  
>
> Native plant. 
>
> All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved
>
> naturally in an
>
> ecosystem.
>
>  
>
> Emily
>
> ____________________________
>
> Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.
>
> Director
>
> Native Plant Conservation Campaign
>
> A Program of the Center for Biological Diversity
>
>  
>
> PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 
>
> 1459 18th St. 
>
> San Francisco, CA 94107
>
> Phone: 415 970 0394 
>
>  
>
> Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org 
>
> Web:   http://www.plantsocieties.org 
>
>           www.biologicaldiversity.org 
>
>  
>
> The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of
>
> native plant species and communities through collaboration, education,
> law,
>
> policy, land use and management.
>
>  
>
> .
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 
>
> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig
> Dremann
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM
>
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
>
> Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
>
> Subject: [APWG] "Native plant" definitions of government agencies?
>
>  
>
> Dear All,
>
>  
>
> Government land management agencies write manuals and definitions for
>
> the work they do.
>
>  
>
> The US Forest Service manual has a definition for "native plants", to
>
> differentiate the native plants from the exotic plants.
>
>  
>
> Andrew Kratz, a Forest Service Regional Botanist in Colorado and I
> were
>
> having a discussion about the Forest Service's current definition of
>
> "native plant", which follows:
>
>  
>
> "All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved
>
> naturally in an ecosystem." (FSM 2070.5)
>
>  
>
> Unfortunately, at first glance, the sentence looks correct, but has
>
> numerous errors in it.   We are suggesting a rewrite, as follows:
>
>  
>
> "The indigenous plant species of a particular area, both aquatic and
>
> terrestrial, that are natural members of the local ecosystem."
>
>  
>
> Are there any other government agency definitions of "native plant"
> out
>
> there?
>
>  
>
> Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org 
>
>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
>
>
> tion.org
>
>  
>
> Disclaimer                                                             
>   
>
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> native-plants mailing list
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plan
tconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is
posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the
Plant Conservation Alliance.





From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Wed Jun 28 15:15:16 2006
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:15:16 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Reopening comment period on Part 23 - how CITES gets
	implemented in the U.S.
Message-ID: <OF96489D08.FA4A0398-ON8525719B.006ECB84-8525719B.006F4038@fws.gov>

Following is a link to the FEDERAL REGISTER notice announcing that the US 
FWS has reopened the comment period for public input on the way that the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora (CITES) is implemented in the United States. 

For your information:  The U.S. currently has 28 native plant taxa listed 
on Appendix-I (including several pitcher plant species) and 626 taxa 
listed on Appendix-II (including ginseng and goldenseal).  For more 
information, see: <http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html>, under 

Search by Country, scroll down to the United States and hit "Go."

Comments are requested by July 28, 2006.

-Patricia

----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 06/28/2006 04:10 
PM -----


Dear Colleagues,

For your information, today we published a notice in the Federal Register 
reopening the public comment period on our proposed revision of the U.S. 
CITES regulations.  The notice reopens the public comment period through 
July 28, 2006.  You can access the notice and our proposed rule at the FWS 
International Affairs website at http://www.fws.gov/international/

Please share this information as appropriate.

Regards,

Anne St. John, Biologist
Division of Management Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060628/a1ed13fa/attachment.html>

From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 28 15:31:52 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:31:52 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Job Opening:  SE Vegetation Ecologist (NatureServe, Durham,
	NC)
Message-ID: <380-220066328203152234@earthlink.net>

Contact Rickie White (below) directly about this, not me!  LEM

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)

> _______________________________________________
>  POSITION TITLE:	Regional Vegetation Ecologist
> SUPERVISOR: 		Senior Regional Ecologist (Southern U.S.)
> LOCATION: 		Durham, North Carolina
> DATE POSTED:		June 26, 2006
> CLOSING DATE:	July 31, 2006
> FLSA:			Exempt
>
> INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND
> NatureServe is a non-profit conservation organization that provides the
> scientific information and tools needed to help guide effective
> conservation action.  NatureServe and its network of natural heritage
> programs are the leading source for information about rare and
> endangered species and threatened ecosystems. 
>
> NatureServe is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with regional
> offices in Boston, Minneapolis, Durham, Boulder, and Ottawa. NatureServe
> offers a results-oriented and collaborative workplace where a common
> mission provides focus and excitement and where staff are empowered to
> take ownership of projects and mission success.  Benefits include a 401K
> savings and retirement plan; health and dental insurance; short and
> long-term disability; annual and sick leave; and life insurance.
>
> SUMMARY OF POSITION
> The Regional Vegetation Ecologist oversees projects that involve
> ecological monitoring design and implementation, vegetation
> classification and mapping, and accuracy assessment.  Much of the work
> conducted by NatureServe Southeast ecology staff involves implementation
> of the International Ecological Classification Standard (including the
> U.S. National Vegetation Classification and Ecological Systems
> Classification) for conservation applications primarily in the
> southeastern United States.
>
> The work associated with this job description will be completed in
> partnership with federal agencies such as the National Park Service in
> conjunction with state Natural Heritage Programs, the central ecology
> program of NatureServe, The Nature Conservancy, independent contractors,
> private non-profits and granting agencies.  
>
> S/he is supervised by the Senior Regional Ecologist (Southeastern U.S.).
>
> ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
> 1.	Develop rare plant and ecological monitoring protocols with
> federal partners.  Specific duties include project management, protocol
> development, field work to test 	methodology, and some data
> analysis (75-85%).
> 2.	Complete accuracy assessment reports of newly completed
> vegetation maps (5-10%).
> 3.	Perform ecological sampling, and inventory with a special
> emphasis on plant communities (5-10%).
> 4.	Classify and describe ecological communities and vegetation
> types (0-20%). 
> 5.	Manage ecological data (5-10%). 
> 6.	Analyze vegetation data both qualitatively and quantitatively
> (5-10%). 
> 7.	Provide science support for conservation planning efforts
> (0-10%).
> 8.	Develop proposals for future projects (0-5%).
> 9.	Develop, supervise, and coordinate other projects as needed,
> such as community inventories, vegetation mapping, and conservation
> planning efforts.  Coordinate 	efforts of short term, contract, and
> project staff as needed (5-10%).
>
> QUALIFICATIONS
> Training and Experience:
> *	Masters Degree or Ph.D. in Ecology, Plant Ecology, Botany or
> closely related field, and experience in the classification and
> description of vegetation; or 	equivalent training and experience.
> *	One year's experience (academic training in statistics can
> substitute for some job experience) in quantitative ecology, statistics
> or related field.  
> *	Ability to communicate effectively with a statistician and
> manage statistically valid ecological monitoring design and sampling
> based on partner needs.
> *	Familiarity with standard Microsoft Office software for word
> processing, spreadsheets, database management (i.e. Microsoft Access),
> presentation graphics, and 	some statistical analysis software. 
> *	Experience with ArcView, ArcGIS or other GIS software.
> *	Specific experience with SAS, SYSTAT, S-PLUS, R or other
> statistics software and/or familiarity with PC-ORD or JUICEsoftware for
> the analysis of multivariate 	ecological data. 
> Knowledge and Abilities:
> *	Ability to effectively manage multiple projects.  
> *	Record of setting and meeting productive work goals and
> deadlines, and ability to complete projects requiring exacting attention
> to detail.
> *	Superb communication and interpersonal skills
> *	Ability to work independently with some work as part of a team
> as well.
> *	Ability to travel, especially during the spring, summer, and
> early fall seasons.
> *	Commitment to the conservation of biological diversity.
> *	Flexibility and adaptability in the face of mid-course project
> corrections.
> Additional Preferred Skills:
> *	Knowledge of the plant species composition, environmental
> characteristics, and distribution of the vegetation communities of the
> southeastern United States. 
> *	Experience in the collection of structural, compositional, and
> environmental information on vegetation communities in a variety of
> systems. 
> *	Experience in plant taxonomy and the ability to field identify
> most plant species encountered in sampling. 
> *	Familiarity with aerial photography interpretation,
> interpretation of other resources such as soils and geology maps is
> desirable.  Experience in substantial parts of 	the southeastern United
> States is desirable.
> *	Experience with biodiversity inventory, data management, and
> conservation planning activities in the context of Natural Heritage
> Programs (or CDCs) highly 	desirable.
>
> CONTACT
> To apply, send resume and letter of application addressing your
> knowledge of statistics, computer analysis programs, and plant
> communities in the Southeast as well as any project management
> experience to: 
>
> Rickie White
> Attn: Job #SD60627
> NatureServe
> 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor
> Arlington, Virginia 22209
> Fax: (703) 908-1917
>
> E-mail:  jobs at natureserve.org  (Please refer to Job #SD60627 in subject
> line)
>
> For more information about NatureServe, go to www.natureserve.org 
>
> 	NATURESERVE IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER





From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 30 08:25:47 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:25:47 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Vacancy Announcement, Forest Pest Coordinator (NPS,
	nationwide esp. Eastern forests)
Message-ID: <380-220066530132547843@earthlink.net>

>From Betsy Lyman / MA-EPPC list.  Contact NPS not me for further info or to
apply !  Larry Morse

> [Original Message]
> From: <Betsy_Lyman at nps.gov>
> To: <DRIPP at yahoogroups.com>; <ma-eppc at yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 6/29/2006 6:34:16 PM
> Subject: [ma-eppc] Fw: Vacancy Announcement,  Forest Pest Coordinator
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> The National Park Service is pleased to announce a vacancy for an
> interdisciplinary position (Forester, Entomologist, Pathologist or
> Biologist) at the GS-13 level.  The position may be located in either Fort
> Collins, Colorado, or Washington DC.  The person selected will be
> responsible for forest insect and disease management, with the initial
> focus on eastern forests.  Due to the tie-in with forests insects, this
> person will also serve as the NPS Invasive Animal Coordinator.  The
> deadline for applications is July 27.
>
> The Merit Promotion announcement (for current federal employees) can be
> viewed at http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=44987398 . The
> vacancy is also being advertised for non-employees at
> http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=44987709 . These links
> will lead to the announcements for the Biologist series.  By searching USA
> jobs, you can see the announcements for the other series.
>
> Please circulate this notice to all interested persons.  I would be happy
> to discuss the position with anyone wanting more information
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry Cacek
> NPS - Biology Division
> 1201 Oakridge Drive
> Fort Collins, CO 80525
> Office Phone 970-225-3542
> Fax 970-225-3585
> terry_cacek at nps.gov
>




From larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 30 08:29:09 2006
From: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:29:09 -0400
Subject: [PCA] FW: [Botany] WY BLM State Office Botanist Position
Message-ID: <380-22006653013299781@earthlink.net>

>From Marion Reid at NatureServe;  contact BLM (not her or me) to apply or
for further info.  Larry Morse

> FYI in case you know anyone who might be interested in this botanist
> position with the BLM in Wyoming.  It is apparently a new position for the
> WY office, and the contact below did not include his email address, so you
> will need to call him or watch for the announcement on the government jobs
> websites. Marion
>
> *****************************
> Subject: BLM State Office Botanist Position
>
> Hi All:  We will be advertising a Botanist position here in the BLM State
> Office (Cheyenne) very soon.  It will be open to both Federal and
> non-Federal applicants.  Its a GS-12 level position and pays pretty well
> ---> paying $62,291 - $80,975!!!  The position is a "real" botany slot,
> similar to Carol Dawson's position in the Colorado State Office (her phone
> number is (303) 239-3725 for input on her job duties).  Let me know if
> you're interested, so that when it comes out I can get ya the
announcement.
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Carroll
> T&E Species Coordinator/Botany Guy
> BLM - Wyoming State Office (WY-930)
> [5353 Yellowstone Rd (zip 82009-4178)]
>  [for overnight mail - FedEx, UPS, etc.]
> P.O. Box 1828
> Cheyenne, WY  82003-1828
> Phone # - (307) 775-6090
> FAX # - (307) 775-6042
>