DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Badlands Proposes to Drill 16 Wells

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Badlands Proposes to Drill 16 Wells UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BADLANDS PROPOSES TO DRILL 16 WELLS FROM THREE EXISTING WELL PADS DOI-BLM-UT-G010-2017-0008- EA October 2017 Location: Uintah County, Utah Sections 29 and 30, T9S, R19E Applicant/Address: Badlands Production Company 7979 E Tufts Ave., Suite 1150 Denver, CO 80237 Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, Utah 84078 435-781-4400 435-781-4410 BADLANDS PROPOSES TO DRILL 16 WELLS FROM THREE EXISTING WELL PADS DOI-BLM-UT-G010-2017-0008-EA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .............................................................................................................2 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan(s) ................................................................................................................2 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans.......................................................................................... 3 Identification of Issues ......................................................................................................................................................3 Resource 1 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................... 3 Resource 2 Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds, Soils & Vegetation ............................................................... 3 Resource 3 Paleontology .............................................................................................................................................4 Resource 4 Plants: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ................................................... 4 Resource 5 Wildlife: Migratory Birds (Including Raptors) ........................................................................... 4 Resource 6 Wildlife: Non-USFWS Designated ....................................................................................................4 Resource 7 Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ................................................ 4 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.0 Description of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................................5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................5 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................................5 Roads ...................................................................................................................................................................................6 Pipelines.............................................................................................................................................................................6 Water Used .......................................................................................................................................................................7 Reclamation ......................................................................................................................................................................8 Alternative B – No Action .................................................................................................................................................8 Roads ................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Water Used ....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1 Reclamation ...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.0 Affected Environment .....................................................................................................................................................9 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis ..................................................................................................9 Resource 1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 9 Resource 2 Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds, Soils, and Vegetation ...................................................... 16 Resource 3 Paleontology .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Resource 4 Plants: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ................................................ 20 Resource 5 Wildlife: Migratory Birds (Including Raptors) ........................................................................ 20 Resource 6 Wildlife: Non-USFWS Designated ................................................................................................. 21 Resource 7 Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ............................................. 21 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action......................................................................................................................... 22 Resource 1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 22 Resource 2 Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds, Soils, and Vegetation ...................................................... 26 Resource 3 Paleontology .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Resource 4 Plants: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ................................................ 28 Resource 5 Wildlife: Migratory Birds (Including Raptors) ........................................................................ 30 Resource 6 Wildlife: Non-USFWS Designated ................................................................................................. 30 Resource 7 Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ............................................. 30 Monitoring and/or Compliance ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.2 Alternative B – No Action ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Resource 1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emmisions ........................................................................... 32 Resource 2 Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds, Soils, and Vegetation ...................................................... 32 Resource 3 Paleontology .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Resource 4 Plants: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ................................................ 32 Resource 5 Wildlife: Migratory Birds (Including Raptors) ........................................................................ 33 Resource 6 Wildlife: Non-USFWS Designated ................................................................................................. 33 Resource 7 Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ............................................. 33 Monitoring and/or Compliance ............................................................................................................................ 33 4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 34 Resource 1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emmisions ........................................................................... 34 Resource 2 Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds, Soils, and Vegetation ...................................................... 36 Resource 3 Paleontology .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Resource 4 Plants: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ................................................ 37 2 Resource 5 Wildlife: Migratory Birds (Including Raptors) ........................................................................ 38 Resource 6 &7 Wildlife: Non-USFWS Designated and THreatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate ........................................................................................................................................................................ 38 5.0
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 43 Number 4 Article 11 10-31-1983 Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah Alan C. Taye U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School, Fort Huachuca, Arizona Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Taye, Alan C. (1983) "Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 43 : No. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol43/iss4/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. FLORA OF THE STANSBURY MOUNTAINS, UTAH Alan C. Taye' Abstract.— The Stansbury Mountains of north central Utah rise over 2000 m above surrounding desert valleys to a maximum elevation of 3362 m on Deseret Peak. Because of the great variety of environmental conditions that can be found in the Stansburys, a wide range of plant species and vegetation types (from shadscale desert to alpine mead- ow) exist there. This paper presents an annotated list of 594 vascular plant species in 315 genera and 78 families. The largest families are Asteraceae (98 species), Poaceae (71), Brassicaceae (33), Fabaceae (27), and Rosaceae (26). Elymiis flcwescens was previously unreported from Utah. Statistical comparison of the Stansbury flora with neighboring mountain floras indicates that the Wasatch Mountains lying 65 km to the east have probably been the primary source area for development of the Stansbury flora.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado
    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Peggy Lyon and Julia Hanson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 December 2005 Cover: Imperiled (G1 and G2) plants of the San Juan Public Lands, top left to bottom right: Lesquerella pruinosa, Draba graminea, Cryptantha gypsophila, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Astragalus naturitensis, Physaria pulvinata, Ipomopsis polyantha, Townsendia glabella, Townsendia rothrockii. Executive Summary This survey was a continuation of several years of rare plant survey on San Juan Public Lands. Funding for the project was provided by San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management. Previous rare plant surveys on San Juan Public Lands by CNHP were conducted in conjunction with county wide surveys of La Plata, Archuleta, San Juan and San Miguel counties, with partial funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO); and in 2004, public lands only in Dolores and Montezuma counties, funded entirely by the San Juan Public Lands. Funding for 2005 was again provided by San Juan Public Lands. The primary emphases for field work in 2005 were: 1. revisit and update information on rare plant occurrences of agency sensitive species in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database that were last observed prior to 2000, in order to have the most current information available for informing the revision of the Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Public Lands (BLM and San Juan National Forest); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Plant List by Genus
    Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Plant List Please send all corrections and updates to Al Schneider, [email protected] Updated 6/2011 Scientific Name Common name Family Abronia fragrans Sand-verbena Nyctaginaceae Achillea lanulosa Western yarrow Asteraceae Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Poaceae Achnatherum speciosum Showy needle grass Poaceae Acosta diffusa Tumble knapweed Asteraceae Acosta maculosa Spotted knapweed Asteraceae Acrolasia albicaulis Whitestem blazingstar Loasaceae Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Asteraceae Adenolinum lewisii Blue Flax Linaceae Adiantum capillus-veneris Venus' hair fern Adiantaceae Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass Poaceae Agrostis scabra Rough bentgrass Poaceae Agrostis stolonifera Redtop bentgrass Poaceae Allium acuminatum Tapertip onion Alliaceae Allium macropetalum Largeflower wild onion Alliaceae Allium textile Textile onion Alliaceae Alyssum minus Yellow alyssum Brassicaceae Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate pigweed Amaranthaceae Amaranthus retroflexus Redroot amaranth Amaranthaceae Ambrosia acanthicarpa Flatspine burr ragweed Asteraceae Ambrosia trifida great ragweed Asteraceae Amelanchier alnifolia? Saskatoon serviceberry Rosaceae Amelanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry Rosaceae Amsonia jonesii Jones's bluestar Apocynaceae Androsace occidentalis Western rockjasmine Primulaceae Androsace septentrionalis Pygmyflower rockjasmine Primulaceae Androstephium breviflorum Pink funnellily Alliaceae Anisantha tectorum Cheatgrass Poaceae Antennaria rosulata Rosy pussytoes Asteraceae
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Materials
    Supplementary Materials A Fruita (1380m) 1902-2012 10.3C 231mm 300 C mm 50 100 40 80 34.0 30 60 20 40 -11.6 10 20 0 0 -10 J F M A M J J A S O N D B GJ Walker Field (1477m) 1900-2015 9.4C 223mm 300 C mm 50 100 40 80 33.8 30 60 20 40 0.2 10 20 0 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D C Montrose 1 (1763m) 1905-1982 9C 239mm 300 C mm 50 100 40 80 31.3 30 60 20 40 -10.8 10 20 0 0 -10 J F M A M J J A S O N D Figure S1. Walter-Leith climate diagrams based on data retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather stations at A) Fruita (1902 - 2012), B) Grand Junction (Walker Field 1900 - 2015), and C) Montrose (1905 - 1982), all in Colorado (NCDC 2015). Blue hatched areas indicate moist seasons, red dotted areas indicate dry seasons, and months with possible (light blue) and likely (dark blue) frost are indicated by horizontal bars. 1 Table S1. Native plant species characteristic of salt desert ecosystems of intermountain west of North America based on review of the literature. Nomenclature follows NRCS (2015). Family Species Common name Reference Succulent Agavaceae Yucca glauca soapweed yucca 1 Cactaceae Echinocereus spp. hedgehog cactus 1 Mammillaria spp. -- 2 Opuntia engelmannii cactus apple 1, 3 Opuntia sp. Pricklypear 2, 4 Annual/biennial forbs Asteraceae Chaenactis stevioides Esteve's pincushion 4 Boraginaceae Cryptantha elata cliffdweller's cryptantha 2, 3 Lappula occidentalis var.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawkins Preserve Plant List Compiled by David Faulkner, Edited and Updated May, 2015 by Al Schneider
    Hawkins Preserve Plant List Compiled by David Faulkner, edited and updated May, 2015 by Al Schneider Scientific names are in accord with the latest research as shown on www.bonap.org/tdc . Latin names are in italics followed by common names. It is best to use scientific names because they are standardized worldwide, whereas common names vary from person to person and region to region. Often a common name refers to more than one species. sp=species not determined ??=identification needs to be verified Angiosperms (flowering plants) Amaranthaceae (Amaranth Family) Amaranthus retroflexus Amaranth alien annual (noxious) Atriplex canescens Fourwing Saltbush native shrub Chenopodium berlandieri Goosefoot native annual Chenopodium leptophyllum Lamb's Quarter native annual Kochia americana Summer Cypress native perennial Monolepis nuttalliana Poverty Weed native annual Salsola australis Russian Thistle, Tumbleweed exotic annual (noxious) Suaeda nigra Seepweed native annual Amaryllidaceae (Amaranth Family) Allium acuminatum Purple Wild Onion native perennial Anacardiaceae (Sumac Family) Rhus aromatica Aromatic Sumac, Squawbush native shrub Toxicodendron rydbergii Poison-ivy native shrub (dermatitis) Apiaceae (Parsley Family) Cymopterus sp. Biscuitroot native perennial Apocynaceae (Dogbane Family) Asclepias speciosa Showy Milkweed native perennial Asclepias subverticillata Whorled Milkweed native perennial (poisonous) Asparagaceae (Asparagus Family) Asparagus officinalis Wild Asparagus alien perennial Yucca baccata Banana or Broadleaf Yucca native
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Phase II Report
    Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Phase II Report By Dr. Terri Hildebrand Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT and Dr. Walter Fertig Moenave Botanical Consulting, Kanab, UT Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit Agreement # H1200-09-0005 1 May 2012 Prepared for Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Southern Utah University National Park Service Mojave Network TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # Introduction . 4 Study Area . 6 History and Setting . 6 Geology and Associated Ecoregions . 6 Soils and Climate . 7 Vegetation . 10 Previous Botanical Studies . 11 Methods . 17 Results . 21 Discussion . 28 Conclusions . 32 Acknowledgments . 33 Literature Cited . 34 Figures Figure 1. Location of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 5 Figure 2. Ecoregions and 2010-2011 collection sites in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 8 Figure 3. Soil types and 2010-2011 collection sites in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 9 Figure 4. Increase in the number of plant taxa confirmed as present in Grand Canyon- Parashant National Monument by decade, 1900-2011 . 13 Figure 5. Southern Utah University students enrolled in the 2010 Plant Anatomy and Diversity course that collected during the 30 August 2010 experiential learning event . 18 Figure 6. 2010-2011 collection sites and transportation routes in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in northern Arizona . 22 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # Tables Table 1. Chronology of plant-collecting efforts at Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument . 14 Table 2. Data fields in the annotated checklist of the flora of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument (Appendices A, B, C, and D) .
    [Show full text]
  • Common Plants of the INL Site
    Preface Although we sincerely hope this guidebook will appeal to a broad audience, it was written for a specific purpose; to aid in plant identi- fication for vegetation projects at the INL (Idaho National Laboratory). Therefore, several aspects of the format and content of this book were specifically chosen to facilitate vegetation data collection. For example, each species is presented alphabetically by a four letter code that is typically derived from the first two letters of the genus and the first two letters of the specific epithet. These codes are commonly used and widely accepted abbrevia- tions for vegetation data. The codes used in this book generally follow the USDA Plants National Database (2004); however, a few species are listed under codes that are traditional to the INL (i.e. ARTP). When two species share the same code, at least one of the species is assigned a number (i.e. ERNA2) so that they can be easily differentiated from one another. The number is specific to the INL plant species list and is related to the abundance of that species at the INL. The parenthetical immediately following the code indicates origin (Native or Introduced) and duration (Annual, Biennial, Perennial). A table containing species’ scientific names and their associated codes can be found in a table at the end of the book. Identification follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), but several scientific names and codes have been updated to reflect recent reclassifications. The updated classifications and nomenclature can be viewed on the USDA Plants National Database (2004). The book is a second edition of a living document that will continue to change as its utility is assessed and tested through use in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Site R034BY104UT Desert Clay (Shadscale)
    Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological site R034BY104UT Desert Clay (Shadscale) Accessed: 09/30/2021 General information Figure 1. Mapped extent Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated. Table 1. Dominant plant species Tree Not specified Shrub (1) Atriplex confertifolia Herbaceous (1) Elymus elymoides Physiographic features Rolling Shale Hills Table 2. Representative physiographic features Landforms (1) Hill Elevation 1,433–1,859 m Slope 5–50% Climatic features Average annual precipitation is 6 to 12 inches. Approximately 60 to 70 percent occurs as rain from march through september. On the average, november through february are the driest months and july through october are the wettest months. The mean annual air temperature is 8.4 degrees celsius and the soil temperatures are in the mesic regime. The average years, plants begin growth around march 15 and end growth around october 15. Table 3. Representative climatic features Frost-free period (average) 140 days Freeze-free period (average) 0 days Precipitation total (average) 305 mm Influencing water features Soil features This site occurs on rolling shale hills. Slopes are mostly 0 to 50 percent. Elevations range from 4,700 feet on all aspects to 6,100 feet on all aspects. Characteristic soils in this site are deep over shale and well drained. They formed in residuum derived mainly from shale parent materials. Soil textures are clay to silty clay loam.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Species Checklist and Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National
    Vascular Plant Species Checklist And Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument Physaria condensata by Jane Dorn from Dorn & Dorn (1980) Prepared for the National Park Service Northern Colorado Plateau Network By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming PO Box 3381, Laramie, WY 82071 9 October 2000 Table of Contents Page # Introduction . 3 Study Area . 3 Methods . 5 Results . 5 Summary of Plant Inventory Work at Fossil Butte National Monument . 5 Flora of Fossil Butte National Monument . 7 Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument . 7 Other Noteworthy Plant Species from Fossil Butte National Monument . 8 Discussion and Recommendations . 8 Acknowledgments . 10 Literature Cited . 11 Figures, Tables, and Appendices Figure 1. Fossil Butte National Monument . 4 Figure 2. Increase in Number of Plant Species Recorded at Fossil Butte National Monument, 1973-2000 . 9 Table 1. Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plant Flora of Fossil Butte National Monument . 13 Table 2. Rejected Plant Taxa . 32 Table 3. Potential Vascular Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument . 35 Appendix A. Rare Plants of Fossil Butte National Monument . 41 2 INTRODUCTION The National Park Service established Fossil Butte National Monument in October 1972 to preserve significant deposits of fossilized freshwater fish, aquatic organisms, and plants from the Eocene-age Green River Formation. In addition to fossils, the Monument also preserves a mosaic of 12 high desert and montane foothills vegetation types (Dorn et al. 1984; Jones 1993) and over 600 species of vertebrates and vascular plants (Beetle and Marlow 1974; Rado 1976, Clark 1977, Dorn et al. 1984; Kyte 2000). From a conservation perspective, Fossil Butte National Monument is especially significant because it is one of only two managed areas in the basins of southwestern Wyoming to be permanently protected and managed with an emphasis on maintaining biological processes (Merrill et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Indicator Significance of Vegetation in Tooele Valley, Utah
    INDICATOR SIGNIFICANCE OF VEGETATION IN TOOELE VALLEY, UTAH By T. H. KEARNEY,1 L. J. BRIGGS,2 H. L. SHANTZ,3 J. W. MCLANB,4 and R. L. PIEMEISEL,5 Bureau of Plant Industry INTRODUCTION In the arid portion of the United States the different types of native vegetation are often very sharply delimited, the transitions being so abrupt that they can not be attributed to climatic factors ; this has sug- gested the possibility of correlating the distribution of the vegetation with the physical and chemical properties of the soil. If such correla- tions can be made, they may be utilized in the classification of land with respect to its agricultural capabilities. One of the writers 6 has described the correlations which exist in the Great Plains between the different types of vegetation and the physical characteristics of the corresponding types of land and has pointed out how the native growth may be used in that region to determine the suitability of the land for dry farming. The results obtained in the Great Plains made it desirable to undertake similar investigations in the Great Basin region, or that portion of the United States lying between the Rocky Mountains on the east and the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges on the west. The problems to be solved were: First, what types of vegetation indicate conditions of soil moisture favorable or unfavorable to dry farming, and, second, what types indicate the presence or absence of alkali salts in quantities likely to injure cultivated crops. For the purpose of this investigation it was necessary to find a locality where both dry farming and irrigation farming are practiced, where much of the land is still covered with the original native growth, and where some of the soils contain an excess of alkali salts.
    [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]
  • Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands
    E. Durant McArthur Richard Stevens Chapter 21 Composite Shrubs The sunflower family (Compositae or Asteraceae) is the largest family of flowering plants. Its many species occur around the world as annual and perennial herbs and as shrubs and trees (Benson 1957; Cronquist 1968; Wagenitz 1977). Three shrubby genera of the family—sagebrush (Artemisia), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus), and matchbrush (Gutierrezia)—make plants of this family among the most common and important plants of the Intermountain area (McArthur and others 1979a; table 1). Shrubs of these genera provide critically needed ground cover on arid Western ranges, are important sources of browse for domes- tic livestock and big game, and serve as cover and forage for many wildlife species. A number of sagebrush and rabbitbrush species are important as cover for small birds, game birds, and mam- mals, and as browse plants for big game animals, especially on winter and early spring ranges. Some species also provide forage for livestock (sheep and cattle). Horsebrush and matchbrush also contribute more forage than is generally believed; however, both plants may, under certain conditions, be harmful to domestic livestock (Benson and Darrow 1945; Johnson 1974a; McArthur and others 1979a) and cause allergies in humans (Lewis and Elvin-Lewis 1977; Rodriguez and others 1976). USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 493 Chapter 21 Composite Shrubs Chapter Contents by Species General sagebrush culture ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]