Townsendia aprica - Welsh & Reveal
Last Chance Townsend-daisy
Other English Common Names: Last Chance Townsendia
Other Common Names: Last Chance Townsend daisy
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Townsendia aprica S.L. Welsh & Reveal (TSN 38539)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.145298
Element Code: PDAST9C030
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Aster Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Asterales Asteraceae Townsendia
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Townsendia aprica
Taxonomic Comments: Townsendia jonesii var. lutea is treated within the synonymy of T. aprica by Kartesz (1999) and FNA (2006); in his 1994 checklist, Kartesz had recognized both of these taxa.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 12Feb2001
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: A narrow endemic of south-central Utah that is known from 23 populations. The total number of individuals is approximately 6,500. The species has low seed set and has also seen declines over the last 20 years due to unfavorable climatic conditions. The biggest threats to the species are coal mining and gas exploration and cattle grazing.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Utah (S2)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LT: Listed threatened (21Aug1985)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: A narrow endemic of south-central Utah in Emery, Sevier, and Wayne counties (USFWS 2013). 

Area of Occupancy: 26-125 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: The USFWS (2013) reports 23 populations (which do directly crosswalk to NatureServe's Element Occurrences).

Population Size Comments: Less than 6, 500 individuals and most sites have fewer than 100 plants.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include coal mining and oil and gas exploration, ORVs, cattle grazing and trampling, damage from wild burros, and highway construction. The most serious threats at this time are coal mining and gas exploration and cattle grazing. Most sites have 2-3 threats per site.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Many sites where long term monitoring is in place have seen declines in the number of plants which is attributed to changes in climatic conditions (USFWS 2013).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Species has low seed set.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: A narrow endemic of south-central Utah in Emery, Sevier, and Wayne counties (USFWS 2013). 

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States UT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
UT Emery (49015), Sevier (49041), Wayne (49055)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
14 San Rafael (14060009)+, Muddy (14070002)+, Fremont (14070003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A perennial herb that forms a low, dense tuft of foliage about 2.5 cm tall. Nearly stalkless yellow flower heads, which are large in proportion to the tufts of foliage, bloom in late April and May. The species' common name comes from Utah's Last Chance Creek Drainage, where the first population was discovered.
Duration: PERENNIAL, Short-lived
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Desert, Forest/Woodland, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: Pinyon-juniper and salt desert shrub communities on barren, silty, silty clay, or gravelly clay soils of the Mancos Shale Formation at 1695-2440 m elevation.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A natural occurrence of one or more plants.
Separation Barriers: EOs are separated by either: 1 kilometer or more across unsuitable habitat or altered and unsuitable areas; or 2 kilometers or more across apparently suitable habitat not known to be occupied.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Justification: The rationale for this large a separation distance across suitable but apparently unoccupied habitat is that it is likely additional research will find this habitat to be occupied. It can often be assumed that apparently unconnected occurrences will eventually be found to be more closely connected. No information on mobility of pollen and propagules is available on which to base the separation distance for this species.
Date: 26Jun2002
Author: Ben Franklin
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: SIZE: There are insufficient spatial / quantitative data available for this species. CONDITION: The occurrence has an excellent likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. This occurrence should be in a high-quality site with less than 1% cover of exotic plant species and/or no significant anthropogenic disturbance. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: The occurrence is surrounded by an area that is unfragmented and includes the ecological processes needed to sustain this species.
Good Viability: SIZE: There are insufficient spatial / quantitative data available for this species. CONDITION: There are insufficient spatial / quantitative data available for this species. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: The occurrence should have a good likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. Anthropogenic disturbance within the occurrence is minimal. If exotic species are present, they comprise less than 10% of the total ground cover.
Fair Viability: SIZE: The surrounding landscape should contain the ecological processes needed to sustain the occurrence but may be fragmented and/or impacted by humans. CONDITION: There are insufficient spatial / quantitative data available for this species. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: The occurrence may be less productive than the above situations, but is still viable, with multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. The occupied habitat is somewhat degraded (exotic plant species make up between 10-50% of the total ground cover and/or there is a moderate level of anthropogenic disturbance).
Poor Viability: SIZE: There may be significant human disturbance, but the ecological processes needed to sustain the species are still intact. CONDITION: There are insufficient spatial / quantitative data available for this species. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: Little or no evidence of successful reproduction is observed (poor seedling recruitment, no flowering or fruiting observed, or poor age class distribution). Exotic plant species make up greater than 50% of the total ground cover, and/or there is a significant level of human disturbance.
Justification: SIZE: Large populations in high quality sites are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival. CONDITION: Large populations in high quality sites are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: Large populations in high quality sites are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival.
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 29Apr2016
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Roth, E.(1988), rev. B. Franklin (1996), rev. A. Treher (2016)

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • 100th Congress. 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973, appropriations authorization for fiscal years 1988-1992. Public Law 100-478-October 7, 1988 102 STAT.2307-102 STAT.2323.

  • Armstrong, L. 1993. Letter of the week of June 7 to Leroy.

  • Armstrong, L. 1993. Rare plant survey forms for several species of concern. Inventory completed in August of 1993. 9 pp.

  • Armstrong, L., and K.H. Thorne. 1991. Challenge Cost Share report for Bureau of Land Management. Target species: Townsendia aprica Welsh & Reveal. Unpublished report on file Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City. 13 pp + appendices.

  • Armstrong, L., and K.H. Thorne. 1991. Challenge cost share report for Bureau of Land Management. Target Species: Townsendia aprica Welsh & Reveal. Unpublished report. 14 pp. + appendices.

  • Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Memorandum of August 14 to Utah State Director from Richfield District Manager: T & E Plant locations and inventory Areas, Instruction memorandum UT 84-270.

  • Clark, D. 1997. Progress report-July 1997: "Expedition Into The Parks" rare plant survey at Capitol Reef National Park.

  • Clark, D.J. 1998. 1998 field survey results for Winkler and San Rafael Cactus. Capitol Reef National Park & Bureau of Land Management.

  • Clark, Tom. 1995. Fax of September 01, 1997 to Lori Armstrong of the Bureau of Land Management.

  • Cronquist, A. 1994. Asterales. In A. Cronquist, A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 496 pp.

  • England, J.L. 1993. Last Chance townsendia (Townsendia aprica) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 18 pp.

  • Heil, K. 1994. The effects of grazing on threatened/ endangered plant species in The Hartnet and Sandy III grazing allotments, Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Conducted for: National Park Service. Unpublished report. San Juan College, Farmington, New Mexico. 45 pp. + maps.

  • Heil, K. D. 1987. A vegetation study of Capitol Reef National Park, conducted for the National Park Service. Final progress report for 1986. San Juan College, Farmington, New Mexico. 9 pp.

  • Heil, K. D., J. M. Porter, R. Fleming, and W. H. Romme. 1993. Vascular flora and vegetation of Capitol Reef National Park. Technical report NPS/NAUCARE/NRTR-93/01. 82 pp.

  • Jennings, L. 2001. Townsendia aprica localities. Email of April 26 to Ben Franklin.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kass, R. J. 1990. Final report of habitat inventory of threatened, endangered and candidate plant species in the San Rafael Swell, Utah. Environmental Consulting, Springville, Utah. 87 pp.

  • Leeson, J. 1992. Letter of May 1 to Ernest Eberhard of the Branch of Biological Resources, BLM. Attached is the May 18, 1992 reply of Thomas Slater, Acting Deputy State Director, Division of Renewable Resources.

  • Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Moseley, eds. 1990. The official World Wildlife Fund guide to endangered species of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C. 1180 pp.

  • Neese, E. 1986. Literature search report (preliminary report for Habitat Inverntory of Sclerocactus wrightiae and other associated sensitive species.

  • Neese, E. 1987. Final report. Habitat inventory of Sclerocactus wrightiae and other associated sensitive species. Volume I - Text and photographs. Prepared for: [USDI] Bureau of Land Management, Richfield District Office. Neese Investigations, Salt Lake City, Utah. ??? pp.

  • Reveal, J. L. 1970. A revision of the Utah species of Townsendia (Compositae). Great Basin Naturalist 30: 23-52.

  • Thompson, B. 1991. Information on sensitive species of the Manti La-Sal National Forest and elsewhere.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Last Chance townsendia (Townsendia aprica) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 18 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Rule to determine Townsendia aprica (last chance townsendia) to be a threatened species. Federal Register 50(162): 33734-33737.

  • USDA Fishlake National Forest. No date. Management Strategy for Townsendia aprica.

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Townsendia aprica (Last Chance townsendia) 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 70 pp.

  • Welsh, S. L. 1978. Endangered and threatened plants of Utah: a reevaluation. Great Basin Naturalist 38(1): 1-18.

  • Welsh, S. L. 1983. Collection data - rare plants of Utah. Prepared by Endangered Plant Studies, Inc. 129 North 1000 East, Orem, UT 84057. Report from Larry England, US Fish and Wildlife Service, T & E Species.

  • Welsh, S. L., and E. Neese. 1979. Inventory of potentially endangered or threatened plant species of selected coal lands of Emery County, Utah. Endangered Plant Studies, Inc. Orem, UT. #UT-060-79-SOA-019 BLM. Final Report.

  • Welsh, S.L. 1979. Illustrated manual of proposed endangered and threatened plants of Utah. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT. 318 pp.

  • Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins (eds.) 1993. A Utah flora. 2nd edition. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah. 986 pp.

  • White, S.M. 1991. Memo of April 16 to Pamela Grubaugh- Littig, Permit Supervisor, DNR Division of Oil Gas and Mining; forwarded April 17 to Joel Tuhy, Utah Natural Heritage Program.

  • Wosten, Mireille. 1997. The San Rafael Swell; the impact of off-road vehicle use. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Salt Lake City, Utah.

  • Young, D. 1990. Memorandum of October 19 to BLM District Manager, Richfield. Subject: surface disturbance within Townsendia aprica habitat. 2 pp. + 2 maps and sketch.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.