DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY REGULATION DESCRIPTION PAGE R645-301-300 Biology............................................................................................ 3-1 R645-301-320 Environmental Description ............................................................. 3-1 R645-301-321 Vegetation Information................................................................... 3-1 321.100 Plant Communities............................................................................................ 3-1 321.200 Productivity of Land....................................................................................... 3-16 R645-301-322 Fish and Wildlife Information ...................................................... 3-17 322.210 Endangered or Protected Plants and Animals................................................. 3-28 322.220 Habitats and Areas of High Value .................................................................. 3-32 R645-301-323 Maps and Aerial Photographs....................................................... 3-33 323.200 Monitoring Stations ........................................................................................ 3-33 323.300 Protection Facilities ....................................................................................... 3-33 323.400 Plant Communities and Sample Locations ..................................................... 3-33 R645-301-330 Operation Plan ............................................................................. 3-34 R645-301-331 Intrim Reclamation Plan .............................................................. 3-34 R645-301-332 Subsidence Impacts and Mitigation ............................................. 3-38 R645-301-333 Plant, Fish and Wildlife Plan ....................................................... 3-38 R645-301-340 Reclamation Plan ......................................................................... 3-46 R645-301-341 Revegetation ............................................................................... 3-46 341.230 Mulching Techniques ..................................................................................... 3-57 341.240 Irrigation ........................................................................................................ 3-57 3-ii 12/8/04 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY REGULATION DESCRIPTION PAGE 341.250 Determination of Revegetation Success ......................................................... 3-58 R645-301-342 Fish and Wildlife Reclamation Plan ............................................. 3-60 R645-301-350 Performance Standards ................................................................. 3-61 R645-301-351 General Requirements................................................................... 3-61 R645-301-352 Contemporaneous Reclamation ................................................... 3-61 R645-301-353 Revegetation General Requirements ............................................ 3-61 353.250 Noxious Weeds............................................................................................... 3-62 R645-301-354 Revegetation: Timing.................................................................... 3-63 R645-301-355 Renegetation: Mulching and Soil Stabilizing ............................... 3-63 R645-301-356 Revegetation: Standards For Success .......................................... 3-63 R645-301-357 Revegetation: Extended Responsibility Period............................. 3-64 R645-301-358 Protection of Environmental Values............................................. 3-64 3-iii 12/8/04 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX DESCRIPTION PAGE Appendix A Vegetation Analysis of Reference Areas...........................................................3A-1 Appendix B Miscellaneous Data............................................................................................3B-1 Appendix C Shower House Pad Vegetation and Reference Areas........................................3C-1 Appendix D Tank Seam Access Road Vegetation.................................................................3D-1 Appendix E Vegetation Studies for the Federal Lease Area U-024316.................................3E-1 Appendix F Vegetation Sampling in the Wild Horse Ridge Area.........................................3F-1 Appendix G Vegetation Sampling in the Wild Horse Ride Tank Seam Area........................3G-1 Appendix H Mohrland Vegetation Study...............................................................................3H-1 Appendix I Fish and Wildlife Resource Information.............................................................3I-1 Appendix J Mitigation and Impact Avoidance Procedures, General to All Wildlife.............3J-1 Appendix K Vertebrate Species of Southeastern Utah...........................................................3K-1 Appendix L Wildlife Survey Information .............................................................................3L-1 Appendix M Wild Horse Ridge Bat and Owl Surve 3M-1 Appendix N Prey Base Study 3N-1 3-iv 01/01/2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE Table 3-1 Vegetation Types.......................................................................................38 Table 3-2 Vegetation Reference Areas...................................................................3-16 Table 3-3 Recommended Seed Mix for Interim Reclamation................................3-36 Table 3-4 Revegetation Schedule............................................................................3-47 Table 3-5 Recommended Seed Mix. Riparian-Creek Bottom................................3-49 Table 3-6 Recommended Seed Mix. Pinyon Juniper Grass....................................3-50 Table 3-7 Suggested Proportions of Tack to Fiber................................................3-51 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE Figure 3-1 Utah Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Mammalian Species in Relation to Permit Area 3-29 Figure 3-2 Correct Planting Procedures...................................................................3-55 Figure 3-3 Seedling Storage.....................................................................................3-56 3-v 01/01/2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY LIST OF PLATES PLATE DESCRIPTION Plate 3-1 Vegetation Map Plate 3-2 Deer Habitat Plate 3-3 Elk Habitat Plate 3E-1 Vegetation Resources Map for Federal Lease Area U-024316 Plate 3-4 Black Bear Plate 3-5 Bob Cat 3-vi 01/01/2007 R645-301-300 Biology R645-301-320 Environmental Description R645-301-321 Vegetation Information 321.100 Plant Communities A reference area, approximately one acre in size was selected in July 1983, encompassing pinyon-juniper-grass and riparian vegetation types (Plate 3-1). The reference area was selected on the basis of similarity with vegetation types which were believed to have occurred within the disturbed area before mining. This was done in conjunction with Mr. Lynn Kunzler of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM). In 1993, reference areas were selected for the Shower House Pad disturbance and the Tank Seam Access Road disturbance. The areas were selected in conjunction with Susan White of the D.O.G.M. These areas are also shown on Plate 3-1. In 1996, a reference area was selected by Patrick Collins for the proposed Wild Horse Ridge disturbance. In 2001 he selected a reference area for the Wild Horse Ridge Tank Seam Pad area. These areas are shown on Plate 3-1. Plant communities and productivity was determined from these studies. 3-1 12/8/04 OPERATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN 3.1 SCOPE This Chapter describes the action and procedures of Co-op Mining Company (Co-Op) to satisfy the requirements for underground mining operations and reclamation. 3.2 SURFACE FACILITIES - EXISTING The mine which existed at the present site when mining began had been abandoned for over 30 years and subsequently there is no evidence of long existing facilities. 3.3 SURFACE FACILITIES - NEW 3.3.1 Site Selection and Preparation of Proposed Facilities Plates 2-4 show the location of all surface facilities. In addition, the maps show an accurate determination of where each facility is in relation to the existing topography as well as structural fixtures such as highways and stream buffer zones. This page intentionaly left blank 3-2 1/01/07 VEGETATION SCOPE A reference area, approximately one acre in size was selected in July 1983, encompassing pinyon-juniper-grass and riparian vegetation types (Plate 3-1). The reference area was selected on the basis of similarity with vegetation types which were believed to have occurred within the disturbed area before mining. This was done in conjunction with Mr. Lynn Kunzler of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM). Further discussion with D.O.G.M has determined that there are better reference areas nearer to the mine site, therefore this area will no longer be used as a reference area. In 1993, reference areas were selected for the Shower House Pad disturbance and the Tank Seam Access Road disturbance. The areas were selected in conjunction with Susan White of the D.O.G.M. These areas are also shown on Plate 3-1. The Shower House Pad reference area will also be used for the shop, sediment pond A, scale house, and coal storage areas. The tank Seam Access Road reference area will also be used for the mine access road. In 1996, a reference area was selected by Patrick Collins for the proposed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean
    ` NONTRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS REGULATORY GUIDE FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean Acknowledgements Several branches and many individuals of the U.S. Government contributed to the preparation and review of this guide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends special recognition to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Technical Services Project (LACTECH II) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which planned the document, managed its development, and provided overall technical direction. EPA wishes to thank Robert Kahn and Robert Bailey, LACTECH II Project Officers, who designed, promoted, and disseminated the contents of this guide; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for special assistance and collaboration; and all the U.S. Government branches cited herein. Initial funding for the preparation of this guide was provided by the Bureau for Latin America NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries iii and the Caribbean, USAID, to the LACTECH II Project. Additional funding for the editing, Spanish translation, and dissemination was provided by the AID/EPA Central American Project and the AID/EPA Mexico Project, both based at EPA. iv NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries Contents Page
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FINDING OF NO SIGNFICANT IMPACT San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA August 2020 Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, Utah 84501 435-636-3600 San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA FINDING OF NO SIGNFICANT IMPACT I have reviewed the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA. After considering the environmental effects as described in the EA, and incorporated herein, I have determined that Alternative D, as identified in the EA and modified in the Decision Record (Modified Alternative D), will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared. I have determined that the proposed action, which is to designate a comprehensive off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel management plan (TMP) for the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Area (TMA), is in conformance with the approved 2008 Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2008 RMP) and is consistent with applicable plans and policies of county, state, Tribal and Federal agencies. This finding is based on my consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) criteria for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) regarding the context and the intensity of impacts described in the EA. Context The TMA that forms the basis of the San Rafael Desert TMP contains 377,609 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed lands, and an existing road inventory containing 1,180.8 miles of roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah, Endemic And
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
    [Show full text]
  • Schoenocrambe Barnebyi (Barneby Reed-Mustard)
    Schoenocrambe barnebyi (Barneby Reed-Mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Tom Clark, National Park Service; used with permission. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 July 2011 5-YEAR REVIEW Schoenocrambe barnebyi (Barneby reed-mustard) 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since the time it was listed or since the most recent 5-year review. Based on the outcome of the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should: 1) be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species; 2) be changed in status from endangered to threatened; 3) be changed in status from threatened to endangered; or 4) remain unchanged in its current status. Our original decision to list a species as endangered or threatened is based on the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and we review new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Guide for Barneby Reed-Mustard (Schoenocrambe Barnebyi)
    Plant Guide 1992). There are an estimated 2,000 individual plants BARNEBY REED- in existence (USDI-FWS, 1994). MUSTARD Consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s Schoenocrambe barnebyi (S.L. current status (e.g., threatened or endangered species, Welsh & N.D. Atwood) Rollins state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Plant Symbol = SCBA80 Description General: Mustard family (Brassicaceae). Barneby Contributed by: USDA NRCS Idaho and Utah Plant reed-mustard is a perennial forb with multiple stems Materials Program arising from a branching woody caudex and taproot. The stems grow 10 to 35 cm (4 to 14 in) tall, and bear elliptical, entire leaves which can be hairy to glabrous and glaucus. The leaves are 13 to 51 mm (0.50 to 2.0 in) long and 4 to 24 mm (0.16 to 0.94 in) wide with 0.4 to 10 mm (0.02 to 0.40 in) long petioles. The flowers have four white to lavender petals, 10 to 12 mm (0.40 to 0.47 in) long, with conspicuous purple veins. The fruit is a silique (a lengthened pod), 34 to 65 mm (1.34 to 2.56 in) long and 1 to 2 m (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide (Welsh, et al., 2003). Distribution: There are two known populations of Barneby reed- mustard. One population is within the boundary of Capitol Reef National Park in the Fremont River drainage west of Fruita, Utah in Wayne County, and the other population is in the southern portion of the San Rafael Swell in Emery County, Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement July 14, 2015 FS_0081605 Revised Biological Assessment for Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need for GRSG LUP Amendment ........................................................................................... 6 Description of Planning Area ........................................................................................................................ 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................... 10 SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 10 SPECIES INFORMATION AND CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................. 42 A. Wildlife and Fish .................................................................................................................................... 42 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)—Threatened ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 January 2013 Revision THREATENED, ENDANGERED & CANDIDATE PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho (ret.) Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 6 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles 7 Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 8 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 10 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 12 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 14 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 16 Astragalus limnocharis var. montii Heliotrope Milkvetch ASLIM 18 Carex specuicola Navajo Sedge CASP9 20 Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Jones’ Waxy Dogbane CYHUJ 22 Glacocarpum suffrutescens Shrubby Reed-Mustard GLSU 24 Lepidium barnebyanum Barneby Ridge-cress LEBA 26 Lesquerella tumulosa or L. rubicundula Kodachrome Bladderpod LERU4 28 Pediocactus despainii San Rafael Cactus PEDE17 30 Pediocactus winkleri Winkler Cactus PEWI2
    [Show full text]
  • Schoenocrambe Suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-Mustard)
    Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo courtesy of Bekee Hotze, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 November 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby reed-mustard) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (hereafter referred to as the “ESA”) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process including public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • 1398 Fedeml Register / Vol. 57, No. 9 I-T+Resday, January 14, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
    1398 Fedeml Register / Vol. 57, No. 9 I-T+resday, January 14, 1992 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Unita Basin in Uintah County, Utah. alternately arranged on the stem and are Welsh and Atwood (1977) described the attached to the ste6 bya_petiole. The Fish and Wlldllfc Servlcc species as Thelypodiopsis argillacea. flowers of S. bprnebflhave petals that Schoenocmmbe bamebyi was are light purple with prominent darker 50 CFR Part 17 discovered by James Harris in 1960 from purple veins and measure about 12 mm -- a site in the southem portion of the San (0.4 inch) long and 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) RIN 101~AB56 Rafael Swell in Emery County, Utah. wide. The entire flowers are about 1 cm Welsh and Atwood described the (0.4 inch) across in full anthesis and are Endangered and Threatened’Wlldllfe species as Thelypodiopsis bamebyi displayed in a raceme of, commonly. 2 and Plant& Final Rule to Determlnc tf~ (Welsh 1961). Rollings (1962) in to 8 flowers at the end of the plant’s Plant Schoenocrambe Arglllacea (Clay reevaluating the cruciferous genera of leafy stems. Reed-Mustard) To Be a Threatened Schoenocmmbe and Thelypodiopsis Schoenocmmbe agillaceo grows on Specie4 and the Plant move T argillacea and T. bamebyi from clay soils rich in gypsum, overlain with Schoenocrambs Bamebyl (Bameby Thelypodiopsis to Schoenocmmbe as S. sandstone talus. derived from a mixture Reed-Mustard) To Be an Endangered a~illacea and S. bamebyi of shales and sandstones from the zone Species The genus Schoenocmmbe includes of contact between the Uinta and Green five currently known species: two are River geologic formation.
    [Show full text]