-------
There is notable vegetation damage in the immediate vicinity of each of
the detonation sites, particularly north of Johnny Boy. Prior to 1962
numerous atmospheric tests were conducted around the periphery of the
study area, primarily, on the southern and western edges.
METHODS
The ocular reconnaissance method of surveying vegetation was used to
(3)
satisfy all of the required objectives. ' This method is a standard
procedure for surveying vegetation of a homogenous nature. It is
particularly useful in establishing percentage ground cover and per-
centage species composition in a given range vegetation type.
The procedures involve the use of line transects, in which species are
tabulated as they occur along a line. The method is rapid and gives
accurate information, providing the vegetation has the same growth form
and the same average crown diameter throughout. It is particularly
useful in dense stands of scrubby vegetation, which would be very diffi-
cult to sample by other methods.
Ten 100-foot cross transects and 223 one hundred-foot transects were
established within the study area. A 100-foot steel tape measure was
used. The tape was suspended 2 inches above the crown height of the
vegetation by the use of precut wooden stakes driven into the ground
at points 100 feet apart. Sampling points were located at 1-inch
intervals along this tape. A species was considered present if it was
touched by a line dropped perpendicular from the tape at the sampling
point.
During the survey, a total of 291,600 points were sampled in the study
area. The data was recorded on range write-up sheets. (See Appendix II.)
The transects were established in vegetation stands that were considered
to be most representative of the particular area under consideration.
A minimum of two transects was established within the boundaries of
these vegetation stands. This procedure was beneficial in that it gave
a more complete picture of the individual stand by having two or more
sampling locations.
-------
The transects were identified by a consecutive numbering system from B-l
through B-233. They are also identified by a numbering system delin-
eating the plant community and a lettering system identifying the domi-
nant species within the community. The numbering system delineating
plant communities are standard Bureau of Land Management numbering sym-
bols. There are a total of 18 different numbers for 18 different plant
communities; however, only four numbers were used in this range survey.
1 - Grass Perennial grasses predominate and determine the
aspect, although forbs and shrubs may be present.
4 - Sagebrush Includes all afeas where sagebrush predominates.
Shrubby specie^ of similar character may also
be present (tWjp communities).
16 - Desert Shrub This is a general type which includes areas where
other desert sjjirubs aside from those separated
-into individual types constitute the predominant
vegetation.
18 - Annuals This type includes areas in which annual forbs
constitute the dominant vegetation (two communi-
ties). ,
An example of a transect identification symbol is: (1) Hija
B-5 :
(1) = type of plant community
Hija = Hilaria jcmesi-L First two letters of the genus and the
first two letters of the species.
B-5 = fifth transect establisheijl.
Aerial photographs for this project were taken during the latter part of
1966. They were used as an aid in jpstablishing transect locations and
in vegetative mapping. Individual jjpecies were mapped according to their
composition within the stand. The composition ratings are based on the
"'.'. «''
proportion of the total vegetation jprovided by each species. The species
-------
maps were made to overlay on two base maps, one being a transect and
road map and the other a plant community map. The use of overlays
gives a better perspective as to location, abundance, and area covered
by an individual species. The overlay maps show the abundance and
distribution of the species listed in Table 1. (Persons interested
in observing the maps should contact the authors.)
-------
Table 1. Mapped Species List
Species
Common Name
1. Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova
2. Artemisia spinescens
3. Artemisia tridentata
4. Atripl^x oanesoens
5. Atriplex confertifolia
6. Bouteloua barbata
7. Bromus rub ens
8. Bromus teotonm
9. Chrysothamnus nauseosus
10. Chrysothamnus visaidiflorus
11. Cowania mexioana var. stansbwpiana
12. Dalea fremontii
13. Ephedra nevadensis
14. Ephedra viridis
15. Eriogonum umbellatum
16. Eurotia lanata
17. Grayia spinosa
18. Hilaria jamesii
19. Hymenoolea salsola
20. Lyaium andersonii
21. Orhyzcpsis hymenoides
22. Salsola kali var. tenuifolia
23. Sit onion hystrix
24. Stipa speaiosa
25. Tetradymia axillaris
26. Tetraaymia glabrata
27. Thamnosma montana
Black sagebrush
Bud sagebrush
Big sagebrush
Four-winged saltbush
Shadscale
Six-weeks grama grass
Red bromegrass
Cheat grass
Big rabbitbrush
Little rabbitbrush
Cliff rose
Fremont dalea
Mormon tea
Mountain joint-fir
Woody buckwheat
Winter fat
Spiny hop-sage
Gall eta grass
Cheese bush
Anderson thornbush
Indian rice grass
Russian thistle
Squirrel tail grass
Desert needlegrass
Horsebrush
Little-leaf horsebrush
Rue
-------
RESULTS
Six plant communities were identified in the study area (See Appendix
VII). These six communities were classified entirely by structural
features, such as dominant species and life forms. Three of the com-
munities, Artemisia, arbuscula subsp. nova3 Artemisia tridentata, and
Desert Shrub, were considered to be in the final or mature stage,
commonly identified as being in climax. The other three, Grass,
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia, and Eriogonum spp., are in a succes-
sional stage. There were 36 families and 85 species noted in the
study area. (See Appendix III for family and species list.)
Artemisia avbuscula subsp. nova Community
The A. arbuscula subsp. nova community occupies 6,337 acres of the
study area. It is best identified by its grayish-green coloration.
This community is commonly found growing at higher elevations. Fa-
vorite habitats.are hilltops, ridges, ^nd steep slopes.
Soils generally are shallow and rocky. The total ground cover is
24.1%. The community is predominantly made up of shrubs. Shrub
ground cover is 21.6%, grasses 2.1%, and forbs .4%.
The dominant shrub is A. arbusoula sub<;p. nova, black sagebrush..
This specie^ is a small bush 7 to 13 inches high. It makes up 57.2%
of the comppsition and 13.4% of the total ground cover. Many other
species occjjr, of course. Some of these include Ephedra nevadensis-
Mormon tea, Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus-Mttle rabbitbrush, Grayia
spinosa-spiny hop-sage, Atriplex eanes<;ens-four-winged saltbush, and
Eurotia Zorcata-winter fat. The more important grass and forb species
include Sitanion /zystrtar-squirrel tail, Stipa speoiosa-desert needle-
grass, Hilaria jamesii- gall eta grass, ,jind Sphaeraloea coribigua- desert
mallow. (For results of the A. arbusoula subsp. nova Community, see
Appendix IV, Table IV-A.)
-------
Artemisia tridentata Community
The A. tridentata plant community occupies 1,632 acres of the study area.
Coloration is somewhat like that of the A. arbuscula community; however,
it is generally lighter in color. This community is confined orimarily to
the bottom of the washes and out-wash areas. The soils tend to be quite
deep and coarse. The total ground cover is 29.2%. The community is pre-
dominantly made up of shrubs. Shrub ground cover is 24.4%, grasses 3.0%,
and forbs 1.8%.
The dominant species, Artemisia tridentata is a many-branched shrub
standing from \h to 5 feet high, usually with a definite trunk and emit-
ting an aromatic odor. It makes up 33.9% of the composition and 10.2%
of the total ground cover.
Many other species occur in this community. The dominant shrubs in
order of their importance include Ephedra nevadensis, Atriplex aanesaenst
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Grayia spinosa3 and Ccwania mexiaana var.
stansburianas cliff rose. The important grass species are Sitanion
hystriXj Orhyzopsis hymenoides, Hilar-fa jamesii, and Stipa speoiosa.
The dominant forbs are Eriogomm spp. (For results of the A. tridentata
Community, see Appendix IV, Table IV-p.)
Desert Shrub Community
The desert shrub community occupies 3,521 acres. This community is nor-
mally found growing in the shallow valley basins and extending to some
extent up the lower slopes of the foothills. The shrubs are usually
spaced from 10 to 20 feet apart, a characteristic which sets off this
community from the two sagebrush communities. During the spring months
many low annuals occur between the shrubs. The soils are similar to
those found in Artemisia tridentata community being relatively deep
and sandy.
The desert shrub community consists of many species of different fami-
lies. In respect to their systematic relationship, the desert shrubs
are less homogeneous than either of the two sagebrush communities.
8
-------
An aerial view of this community would reveal distinct color tones due
to the foliage, stems, and branches of the plants. Mormon tea has a
brownish hue. However, in many areas Grayia spinosa occurs in such
abundance as to give a blue-gray aspect. During the spring months,
this area would appear a vivid green due to the abundance of summer
annuals.
The total ground cover is 26.8%. Like the two sagebrush communities,
it is predominantly made up of shrubs. The total shrub ground cover
is 20.2%, grasses 4.9%, and forbs 1.7%.
The most abundant species is Ephedra nevadensis. It makes up 18.7%
of the composition and 4.9% of the ground cover. The other dominants
in order of importance include Grayia spinosa, Tetradymia glabrata,
!
and Chrysotharmus viscidiflorus. Important grasses are Hilaria jamesii,
Orhyzopsis hymenoides* Sitanion hystrix3 and Stipa speaiosa. Important
forbs are Eriogomm spp. and Sphaeralaea ambigua, globe mallow. (For
results of the Desert Shrub Community,, see Appendix IV, Table IV-C.)
Because the desert shrub community is made up of several dominant spe-
cies, subtype designations were assigrjed. There are many different
shrub species noted. However, only five were considered to be of major
importance"for subtype classification.
Subtype classifications:
Community -u Desert Shrub
Subtype -
Ephedra nevadensis Mormon tea
Grayia spinosa Spiny hop-sage
Chrysothamnus Rabbitbrush
Atriplex oanesoens Four-winged saltbush
Tetradymia gldbrata Little-leaf horsebrush
(For results of the subtypes see Appendix V, Tables IV-A-E.)
Many of the vegetation species were not confined within specific commu-
nity boundaries. Because of this, a composite of the three climax
-------
communities was completed. The order of dominance for each individual
species could then be correctly evaluated throughout the total climax.
Data revealed that the total vegetation ground cover is 26.7%. The
shrub ground cover being 21.4%, grass 4.4%, and forbs .9%. (For com-
plete results refer to Appendix VI.)
The Grass Communi ty
The grass community, which occupies 1,856 acres of the study area, is
located in the burned areas. This community, which is almost exclu-
sively grass and forbs, originated after a range fire in 1959. (See
Appendix I.) The fire changed existing natural conditions. It de-
stroyed the climax vegetation leaving the soil surface exposed to
erosion. Following these changes, new species invaded the area. The
first invaders into this area were mobile annuals. Salsola kali var.
tenuifolia and species of Brome grasses were the primary invaders.
Remnants of these pioneer species can still be observed throughout
the burned area. However, with time perennial grasses have become
established and are now dominant.
The grass community is made up of four dominant Gramineae genera,
Hilaria, Stipa, Orhyzopsis and Bromus. Species distribution and
composition vary throughout this community. The average total
ground cover for the grass community is 29.7%. The grasses make up
20.1% of the ground cover, shrubs 2.4%, and forbs 7.2%.
The primary species is Hilaria jcmesii3 gall eta grass. Gall eta. is
a perennial growing from 12 to 20 inches tall. The leaves are mostly
basal, fairly rigid, and bluish-green in color. The flower heads are
purplish in color, fading to almost white at maturity. As a result
of its woody rhizomes, it grows in large patches. This species makes
up 25.4% of the composition and 7.8% of the total ground cover.
Many other species occur in this community. The dominant grasses in
order of their importance include Stipa speoiosa, Bromus teotoiim,
B. rubenss and Orhyzopsis hymenoides. The important shrubs include
Ephedra nevadensis and Gvayia spinosa. The dominant forb is the
10
-------
pioneer invader Salsola kali var. tenuifolia. (For results of the Grass
Community, see Appendix IV, Table IV-D.)
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia Community
The Salsola kali var. tenuifolia, Russian thistle, plant community occu-
pies 267 acres of the study area. It is confined solely to areas of
soil disturbance. This community is located in the immediate vicinity
of the three mentioned nuclear testing sites and along the main gravel
roads. It exists also as a remnant in many areas of the grass commun-
ity. As succession progresses, it will in time be replaced by peren-
nial grasses. The total ground cover is 26.6%. Forbs make up .26.3%,
shrubs .3%; and there are only trace amounts of grasses.
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia is an intricately branched bushy annual
growing from % to 2 feet tall. The stems are ridged and often red-
dish in color, especially at maturity. The leaves are % to 2 inches
long, awl-shaped, and end in a spine. It makes up 95.3% of the com-
position and 25.3% of the ground cover. (For results of the Salsola
kali var. tenuifolia Community, see Appendix IV, Table IV-E.)
Eriogonum Plant Community
The Eriogonwn plant community is located primarily along the graveled
roads. It consists of many species belonging to the genus Eriogonum
commonly referred to as buckwheats. This community is similar to
the Russian thistle community in that, it grows normally on disturbed
soil sites. Also, these species are invaders and exclusively annuals.
During the spring and summer months, this community is vivid green in
color. However, during the early fall it turns dark brown.
The buckwheats are perhaps best identified by their umbrella shape.
They grow from 2 inches to 1 foot in height. The leaves are mostly
basal. The small flowers are usually white in color.
11
-------
The area occupied by this community is very small compared to the other
communities. Because of this, no transects were established.
12
-------
SUMMARY
The ocular reconnaissance method of surveying vegetation was used to
survey 13,630 acres in Area 18 Nevada Test Site. A total of 233 line
transects were established to obtain species distribution, composition
and ground cover.
There were six distinct plant communities identified: two sagebrush
(Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova, A. tridentata)* two annual (Salsola
kali var.tenuifolia, Eviogonwn), one grass, and one Desert Shrub.
These six communities contained a total of 36 families and 85 species.
The A. arbuscula subsp. nova community occupied the largest area,, 6,337
acres, and the Eriogomm community the smallest, 17 acres.
13
-------
APPENDIX
I Area 18 Range Fire 1959. 14
II Public Health Service Range Condition Write-Up Sheet. 15
III Species List. 16
IV Summary of Artemisia arbusaula subsp. nova, Artemisia 19
tridentata, Desert Shrub, Grass, and Salsola kali var.
tenuifolia Communities.
V Subtypes - Ephedra nevadensis, Grayia spinosa, Chrysothanmus 28
Atriplex canesoens, and Tetradymia glabrata.
VI Summary of Artemisia arbusculp subsp. nova, Artemisia 38
tridentata and Desert Shrub Communities.
VII Plant Community Map. 41
-------
POINT OF ORIGIN
Area 18 Range Fire 1959
14
-------
Aerial Photo No..
Surveyor
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
RANGE CONDITION WRITE-UP SHEET
NTS 18-19 96 Location:!.
-R.
.Sec
Kenneth W. Brown
January 10, 1967
Plant
Groups
Grass
or
Grass-
like
Plants
4.8%
Forbs
T %
Shrubs
or
Trees
95.2%
100%
Plant Names
Sitanion hystrix
Orhyzopsis hymenoidee
Bromus tectorum
Sphaeraloea ambigua
Opuntia spp.
SalSQla^/tali- var.
tenwfoMa
Artemisia arbusaula
subsp. nova
Cgwania mexioana var.
BtansDwnana
Grayia spinosa
Chruso.tlwffnn.us
v^sc^a^fiorus
Ephedra viridis
Juniperus osteosperma
Ephedra nevadensis
Pinus monophylla
Yuoaa Baaaata
Totals
Ground
Cover
1.1
.2
T
T
T
T
17.9
3.6
1.3
1.3
1.0
T
T
T
T
26.4
r %
Compo-
sition
4.1
.7
T
T
T
T
68.0
13.6
5.1
4.7
3.8
T
T
T
T
100 %
Remarks :
T = trace (less than 0.1%)
Check (in circle) if additional
remarks are on reverse side.
CONDITION INDICATORS
(Circle ones that apply)
Range Condition (based on vegeta
EC GC FC PC
Residues
Adequate Inadequate
Erosion
Non-active Slightly
Moderately active Severely
Range Trend:
O
tion)
active
active
Improving Holding its own
Going down
FORAfiF, GROUND COVER
Stand for site
Full 3/4 1/2 1/4 1/10
Use Adjustment:
Slope
Rocks
Brush
Unstable soils-
Lack of water _
Erosion
Estimated Forage Yield:
Total Lbs/Ac
Usable Lbs/Ac
A/AUM
A/SM
Range Site Name Area L8-
B-91
Sheet Number
J> Land Capability Unit.
TOTAL
Final Range Condition Rating
Land Mapping Uni£_
15
-------
APPENDIX ,111
SPECIES LIST
GRASSES
GRAMINEAE Grasp Family
1. Aristida gla^ca
2. Bouteloua bapbata
3. Bromus rubenp
4. Bromus tectopwn
5. Bromus spp.
6. Elymus cinev^us
. 7. Hilaria jamepii
8. Muhleribergia porteri
9. Orkyzopsis kymenoides
10. Poa spp.
11. Sitanion hys^rix
12. Stipa speciosa
13. Tridens pulcfiiellue
16
-------
APPENDIX III (Continued)
CACTACEAE Cactus Family
1. Opuntia bos Harts
2. Opuntia spp.
SPECIES LIST
SHRUBS AND TREES
HYDROPHYLLACEAE Waterleaf Family
1. Eriodiotyon angustifolium
CHENOPODIACEAE Pigweed Family
1. Atriplex canescens
2. Atriplex confertifolia
3. Atrip lex spp-
4. Eurotia lanata
5. Grayia spinosa
COMPOSITAE Sunflower Family
1. Artemisia arbusoula subsp. nova
2. Artemisia spinesoens
3. Artemisia tridentata
4. Chrysothamnus nauseosus
5. Chrysothamnus viseidiftorus
6. Gutierrezia sarothrae
7. Hymenoclea salsola
8. Tetradymia axillaris
9. Tetradymia glabrata
CRUCIFERAE Mustard Family
1. Lepidium fremontii
CUPRESSACEAE Cypress Family
1. Juniperus osteosperma
FAGACEAE Beech Family
1. Querous gambelii
GNETACEAE Joint Firs
1. Ephedra nevadensis
2. Ephedra viridis
3. Ephedra funerea
LEGUMINOSAE Pea Family
1. Dalea fremontii
LILIACEAE Lily Family
1. Yueca bacaata
2. Yucoa sohidigera
OLEACEAE Olive Family
1. Menodora spinesoens
PIMCEAE Pine Family
1. Pinus monophylla
POLEMONIACEAE Phi ox Family
1. Phlox stansburyi
POLYGONACEAE Buckwheat Family
1. Eriogonum fasciculatum
2.' Eriogonum umbellatum
ROSACEAE Rose Family
1. Cowania mexioana var. stansburiana
2. Prunus fasoiaulata
3. Purshia glandulosa
RUTACEAE Rue Family
1. Thamnosma montana
SAXIFRAGACEAE Saxifrage Family
1. Philadelphus spp.
SOtANACEAE Nightshade Family
1. Lyoium andersonii
17
-------
APPENDIX III (Continued)
BORAGINACEAE Borage Family
1. Amsinokia tessellata
CHENOPODIACEAE Pigweed Family
1. Chenopodiwn fremontii
2. Chenopodiwn leptophyllwn
3. Halogeton glomeratus
4. Salsola 'kali, var. tenuifolia
COMPOSITAE Sunflower Family
1. Aster spp.
2. Baileya pleniradiata
3. Encelia spp.
4. Lygodesmia spinosa
5. Seneoio spp.
CRUCIFERAE Mustard Family
1. Desourainia pinnata
2. Stanley a pinnata
EUPHORBIACEAE Spurge Family
1. Euphorbia spp.
GERANIACEAE Geranium Family
1. Erodiim cieutarium
HYDROPHYLLACEAE Waterleaf Family
1. Phaeelia spp.
LEGUMINOSAE Pea Family
1. Astragalus lentiginosus
2. Astragalus spp.
3. Dalea polyadenia
LILIACEA Lily Family
1. Allium 3pp.
2. Caloohortus kennedyi
SPECIES LIST
FORBS
LINACEAE Flax Family
1. Linwn lewisii
MALVACEAE Mallow Family
1. Sphaeralaea ambigua
OMGRACEAE Evening-Primrose Family
1. Oenothera brevipes
2. Oenothera spp.
PO^EMONIACEAE Phi ox Family
1. Gilia eremioa
2. Gilia scopulorwn
3. Gilia spp.
4. Phlox spp.
PO^IGONACEAE Buckwheat Family
1. Eriogoman nidulariwn
2. Eriogonum spp.
3. Oxytheea perfoliata
SCftOPHULARIACEAE Figwort Family
1. Penstemon palmeri
2. Penstemon spp.
SOlAMCEAE Nightshade Family
3
1. Nicotiana attenuata
UMBELLIFERAE Carrot Family
1. Lomatium nevadense
18
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-A'. Artemisia arbusaula subsp. nova Community Summary
Percentage
Ground Cover
Grasses
Sitanion hystrix
Eilaria jcanesii
Stipa speoiosa
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
Bromus rubeps
Bromus teotorum
Bouteloua barbata
Tridens pulohellus
Total
Shrubs and Trees
Artemisia arbuscula s libs p. nova
. Ephedra nevadensia
Chrysotharmus visoidiflorus
Grayia spinosa
Atriplex canescens
Cawania mexioana var. stansburiana
Ewcotia lanflta
Tetvadymia glabrata
Lyoiwn andersonii
Chrysothamnus nauseosus
Artemisia tridentata
Ephedra viwidis
Tetradymia 'axiZlaris
Juniperus asteosperma
Yuaoa baooata
Eriogonum fasoiculatim
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Prunus fascioulata
Atriplex oonferti folia
Pinus monophylla
Artemisia spinesoens
Total
.7
.5
.4
.4
1 .1
T
T
T
:M
13.4
2.1
?.2
2.1
.4
.2
.3
.2
.4
.1
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
21.6
Percentage
Composition
3.1
1.9
1.7
1.2
.4
T
T
T
8.3
57.2
9.3
9.1
8.1
1.6
1.1
1.0
.8
.7
.3
.3
.3
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
' T
T
T
90.0
T = trace (less than 0.1%)
19
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-A. Artemisia arbusoula subsp. nova Community Summary (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Sphaeralcea coribigua .2 .8
Ann. spp.* .1 .6
Eriogonwn spp. .1 .1
Opuntia spp. T . 1
Euphorbia spp. T . 1
Desourainia pinnata T T
Senecio spp. T T
Stanley a pinnata T T
Gilia scopulorum T T
Amsinokia spp. . T T
Gilia eremiaa T T
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia T T
Phlox spp. T T
Caloohortus kennedyi T T
Linum lewisii T T
Astragalus spp. T T
Eriogonum nidularium T T
Oxytheoa perfoliata T T
Gilia spp. T T
Lomatium nevadensis T T
Menodora spinesoens T T
Halogeton glomeratus T T
Total .4 1.7
* Annual remnant (unidentified)
T = trace
20
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-B. Artemisia tridentata Community Summary
Percentage
Ground Cover
Grasses
Sitanion hystrix
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
HiZaria jamesii
Stipa speaiosa
Bromus teotonm
Bromus rubens
Bromus spp.
Tridens pulchellus
Elymus cinereus
Bouteloua barbata
Poa spp.
total
Shrubs and Trees
Artemisia tridentata
Ephedra nevadensis
Atriplex odnesoens
Ch.rysothamnus visoidiflorus
Cowania mexioana var. stansburiana
Gray-La spinosa
Tetradymia glabrata
Chrysothamnus nauseosus
Ephedra viridis
Eitrotia lanata
Tharnnosma montana
Artemisia arbusoula subsp. nova
Eriodiatyon angustifoliwn
Lycium andersonii
Menodora spinesoens
Atriplex spp.
Tetradymia axillaris
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Juniperus osteosperma
Eriogonum imbellatwn
Hymenoolea salsola
.9
.8
.5
.4
.2
.1
.1
T
T
T
, T
3,0
10.2
3.6
3.0
1.5
1.7
1.5
.6
.5
.4
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
Percentage
Composition
2.9
2.8
1.6
1.3
.5
.1
.1
T
. T
T
T
9.1
33.9
13.2
11.4
6.2
5.6
5.4
2.4
1.8
1.1
.9
.9
..7
.2
.1
M
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
T = trace
21
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-B. Artemis-La tridentata Community Summary (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Shrubs and Trees
Ephedra funerea T T
Finns monophylla T T
Phlox stansburyi T T
Artemisia spinesaens T T
Yucca baccata T T
Total 24.4 84.4
Forbs
Eriogonum spp. .8 3.0
Ann. spp.* .3 1.4
Sphaeralcea ambigua .2 .8
Descuraivia pinnata -2 .8
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia .1 .1
Aster spp. 1 '.1
Senecio spp. .1 .1
Euphorbia spp. .1 «1
Gilia eremica .1 .1
Eriogonum .nidularium T T
Amsinckia spp. T T
Oenothera spp. T T
Lomatiwn nevadensis T T
Astragalus lentiginosus T .T
Phlox spp. T T
Penstemon spp. T T
Stanleya pinnata T T
Opuntia spp. T T
Lygodesmia spinosa T T
Total 1.8 6.5
T = trace
* = Annual remnant (unidentified)
22
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table iv-C. Desert Shrub Community Summary
Percentage
Ground Cover
Grasses
Hilaria jamesii
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
Sitanion hystrix
Stipa speoiosa
Bouteloua barbata
Bromus rubens
Bromus teotonm
Muhlenbergia porteri
Total
Shrubs and Trees
E'phedra nevadensis
Grayia spiriosa
Tetradymia glabrata
Chrysothanmus visoidiflorus
Atriplex oanesoens
Artemisia tridentata
Chrysothanmus nauseosus
Lyeium andersonii
Eurotia lanata
Atriplex confertifolia
Artemisia arbusoula subsp. nova
Artemisia spinescens
Eriogoniwn umbellatum
Thamnosma montana
Eriodictyon angusti folium
Tetradymia axillaris
Hymenoclea salsola
Dalea fremontii
Cowania mexicana var. stansburiana
Menodora spinescens
Yucoa bacaata
Philadelphus spp.
Total
2.8
1.0
.6
.4
.1
T
T
T
4.9
a
4.9
4.1
3.3
2.7
1.5
.7
.3
.7
.4
.5
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
2(3.2
Percentage
Composition
11.0
3.1
2.4
1.3
.5
.1
.1
T
18.5
18.7
15.0
12.0
11.0
7.6
3.0
2.3
1.9
1.3
1.3
.9
.9
.7
.4
.2
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
77.4
T = trace
23
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-C. Desert Shrub Community Summary (Con.)
Forbs
Eriogonum spp.
Sphaeraleea ambigua
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia
Ann. spp.*
Amsinokia spp.
Descurainia pinnata
Gilia spp.
Gil-La QTemioa
Lepidium fremontii
Euphorbia spp.
Opuntia spp.
Seneoio spp.
Oxytheca perfoliata
Stanley a pinnata
Astragalus .spp.
Oenothera spp.
Caloehorius kennedyi
Phlox spp.
Allium spp.
Chenopodium spp.
Eriogonum nidularium
Oenothera brevipes
Phaoelia spp.
Lomation ndvadensis
Lygodesmia spinosa
Total
Percentage
Ground Cover
.5
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1.7
Percentage
Composition
1.4
1.3
.4
.4
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
4.1
* Annual remnant (unidentified)
T = trace
24
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-D. Grass Community Summary
Percentage
Ground Cover
Grasses
Ei.1a.ria jamesii
Stipa speciosa
Bromus tectorwn
Bromus rubens
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
Bouteloua barbata
Sitanion hystrix
Tridens pulohellus
Poo. spp.
Bromus spp.
Muhlenbergia porteri
Aristida glauoa
Total
Shrubs and Trees
Ephedra nevadensis
Gray-la spinosa
Atriplex canescens
Artemisia s'pinescens
Clirysothamnus viscidiflorus
Lycium andersonii
Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova
Eiafotia lanpta
Tetradymia glabrata
Yucca baccata
Artemisia tridentata
Hymenoclea salsola
Cowania mexicana var. stansburiana
Tetradymia axillaris
Jun-iperus osteosperma
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Ephedra viridis
Opuntia spp.
Total
7.8
2.5
2.7
1.9
1.8
1.5
.7
. .5
.4
.3
T
T
2(P.1
.9
.5
.3
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
M
Percentage
Composition
25.4
9.0
8.5
6.2
5.9
4.3
3.2
1.6
1.3
.7
.1
T
66.2
3.1
1.8
1.1
.7
.7
.6
.3
.2
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
8.7
T = trace
25
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-D. Grass Community Summary (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia 3.8 13.3
Sphaeralcea ambigua 1.2 4.7
Eriogonum spp. 1.0 3.2
Lygodesmia spinosa .4 1.3
Chenopodiwn fremontii .3 .9
Euphorbia spp. .2 .8
Eriogonum nidulwium .1 .3
Gi lia spp. .1 .3
Amsinokia tessellata .1 .2
Evodium cicutariwn T .1
Astragalus spp. T T
Seneoio spp. T .T
Chenopodiwn leptophyllwn T T
Oxytheoa pevfoliata T T
Gilia eremiaa T T
Baileya pleniradiata T T
Enoelia spp. T T
Stanleya pinnata T T
Lomatium nevadensis T T
Caloohovtus kennedyi T T
Total , 7.2 25.1
T = trace
26
-------
APPENDIX IV
Table IV-E. Salsola kali var. tenuifolia Community Summary
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Grasses
Hilaria jamesii T T
Orhyzopsis hymenoides T T
Total T T
Shrubs and Trees
Chrysotharmus viscidiflorus .3 .8
Atriplex oanesoens T T
Total .3 .8
Forbs
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia 2lp.3 95.3
Eriogonum spp. .9 3.8
Cilia spp. .1 .1
Oxytheoa perfoliata T T
Astragalus spp. T T
Stanleya pirmata T T
Total 2(5.3 99.2
T = trace
27
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-A. . Subtype - Ephedra nevadensis
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Grasses
Orhyzopsis hymenoides 3.6 10.6
Bouteloua barbata .6 2.3
Sitanion hystrix A 1.5
Stipa speoiosa ' .3 1.2
Hitaria jamesii, .3 .9
Bromus teatorwn .2 .6
Bromus rubens T . 1
Total 5.4 17.2
Shrubs and Trees
Ephedra nevadensis lp.4 33.9
Teticadymia glabrata jl.8 8.9
Grayia spinosa $. 1 8.2
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus' $.0 7.1
Atriplex aanescens ^-5 4.9
Eriogonwn wnbellatwn 1.4 4.2
Artemisia trLdentata 1.0 3.9
Lyoiwn andersonii .5 2.6
Fhamnosma montana .8 2.2
Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova .3 .8
Artemisia spinescens .2 .6
Eurotia lanata T T
Chrysothamnus nauseosus T T
Atriplex oonfertifolia T T
Total 22.0 77.3
T = trace
28
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-A. Subtype ^ Ephedra nevadensis (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
s Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Eviogonum spp. .1.3 3.7
Desourainia pinnata .3 .8
Ann. spp.* .2 .4
Oenothera spp. .1 .2
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia .1 .2
Gil-La spp. T . 1
Sphaeralaea ambigua T .1
Opuntia spp. T T
Stanleya pinnata T T
Lomation nevadensis T T.
Astragalus lentiginosus T T
Total 2.0 5.5
TOTAL GROUND COVER 29.4
* Annual remnant (unidentified)
T = trace
29
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-B. Subtype - Grayia spinosa
Percentage
Ground Cover
Grasses
Eilaria jamesii
St-Lpa speoiosa
Sitanion hystrix
Orhysopsis hymenoides
Bouteloua barbata
Bromus spp.
Bromus rubens
Bromus teotorum
Muhlenbergia porteri
Total
Shrubs and Trees
Grayia spinosa
Ephedra nevadensis
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
Tetradym-La glabrata
Eurotia lanata
Atriplex aanesoens
Artemisia arbusaula subs p. nova
Artemisia tridentata
Lyciiffn andersonii
Artemisia spinesoens
Tetradymia axillaris
Thamnosma montana
Hymenoalea salsola
Dalea fremontii
Eriodiotyon angustifolium
Eriogoniffn umbellatum
Coidania mexicana var. stansburiana
Chrysothamnus nauseosus
Total
1.3
.9
.5
.4
.2
.1
.1
T
T
3.5
llP.7
£.5
3.2
1.4
1.3
.8
.5
.3
.3
.2
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
22.3
Percentage
Composition
4.6
2.9
2.1
1,7
.6
.5
.2
T
T
12.6
36.4
13.8.
12.8
5.6
4.6
3.1
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.0
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
T
T
81.7
T = trace
30
-------
APP.ENDIX V
Table V-B. Subtype - Grayia spinosa (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Spltaeralcea ambigua .7 2.5
Ann. spp.* .4 1.4
Eriogomm spp. .2 .8
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia .1 .4
Euphorbia spp. .1 .3
Opuntia spp. T .1
Seneoio spp. T .1
Oxytheca pesfoliata T .1
Yucca baccata T T
Amsinckia spp. T T
Stanleya pi-pnata T T
Astragalus spp. T T
Descurainia pinnata T T
Gilia spp. T T
Gilia eremioa T T.
Total 1.5 5.7
TOTAL GROUND COVER 27.3
* Annual remnant (unidentified)
T = trace
31
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-C. Subtype - Chrysothcomus
Percentage
Ground Cover
Grasses
Sitanion hystrix
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
Hilaria jamesii
Stipa speaiosa
Bromus rubens
Total
Shrubs and Trees
Chrysothamnus visoidiflorus
Ephedra nevadensis
Chrysothamnus nauseosus
Atriplex cdiriescens
Grayia spinosa
Tetradymia glabrata
Ewfotia lanata
Lyeiwn andersonii
Artemisia spinesaens
Eriodictyon angusti folium
Artemisia arbusoula subsp. nova
Artemisia tridentata
Cowania mexicana var. stansburiana
Total
Sphaeralcea ambigua
Amsinokia spp.
Eriogonum spp.
Ann. spp.*
Gilia eremica
Cilia spp.
1.2
.8
.7
.1
T
,2.8
4.9
3.4
M
L.7
12.3
12.2
.4
.3
.3
.1
.1
T
T
17.3
.6
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
Percentage
Composition
5.6
3.1
2.7
.4
T
11.8
18.6
17.2
12.3
10.9
9.3
8.4
1.8
1.3
1.2
.2
.1
T
T
81.3
3.1
1.3
.6
.5
.5
.5
T = trace
* = Annual remnant (unidentified)
32
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-C. Subtype - Chrysotharmus (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Stanleya pinnata .1 .3
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia .1 .1
Oxytheoa perfoliate T T
Phlox spp. T T
Allium spp. T T
Euphorbia spp. T T
Chenopodiwn spp. T T
Opuntia spp. T T
Eriogonum nidularium T T
Astragalus spp. T T
Oenothera brevipes T T
Phaoelia spp. T T
Total 1.5 6.9
TOTAL GROUND COVER 21.6
T = trace
33
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-D. Subtype - Atriplex oanesoens
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Grasses
Hilaria jamesii 3.5 9.2
Stipa speaiosa
Sitanion hystrix
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
Bromus rubens
.5 1.6
.4 1.2
.5 1.1
T . . .1
Total A. 9 13.2
Shrubs and Trees
Atriplex oanesoens
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus \
Artemisia ividentata \
Tetradymia glabrata 1
Grayia spinosa I
Atriplex oonferti folia j
Ephedra nevadensis
Artemisia arbusoula subs p. nova
Hymenoolea salsola
Menodora spinesoens
1.8 24.1
2.4 13.7
2.8 9.1
2.9 8.5
2.5 8.1
2.9 7.9
L.7 4.7
L.O 3.0
.3 .2
.1 .2
Total 21.4 79.5
Forbs
Sphaeralcea ambigua
Eriogonum spp.
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia
Ann. spp.*
.8 3:.l
.4 1.6
.2 1.5
T .1
T = trace
* = Annual remnant (unidentified)
34
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-D. Subtype- Atriplex canescens (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Starileya pinnata T . T
Lygodesmia spinosa T T
Astragalus spp. T T
Descurainia. pinnata T T
Oxytheoa perfoliata T T
Opuntia spp. T T
Total 1.4 6.3
TOTAL GROUND COVER 27.7
T = trace
35
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-E. Subtype - Tetradymia gldbvata
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Grasses
Ovhyzopsis hymenoides .9 2r.3
Stipa speoiosa .6 1.7
Sitanion hystrix .6 1.7
Total 2.1 5.7
Shrubs and Trees
Tetradymia glabrata 11.6 38.1
Ephedra nevadensis 7.3 23.6
Grayia spinosa 4.0 12.7
Chrysothcarmus visoidiflorus 3.7 10.9
Eurotia lanata .4 1.5
Artemisia tjridentata .4 1.3
Lyaium andevsonii .4 1.1
Eriodiotyon angustifoliwn .4 .6
Lepidium fremontii .1 .4
Thamnosma montana .1 T
Chrysotharmus viscidiflorus T T
Atriplex oanesoens T
Total 28.3 91.5
Forbs
Eriogomm spp. .7 2.4
Sphaevaloea ambigua .1 .3
T = trace
36
-------
APPENDIX V
Table V-E. Subtype - Tetradymia glabrata
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Astragalus spp. .1 .1
Stanleya pinnata T T
Oxytheaa p&rfoliata T T
Lomatiwn nevadensis T T
Total .9 2.8
TOTAL GROUND COVER 31.3
T = trace
37
-------
APPENDIX VI
Table VI-A. Summary Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova,
Artemisia tridentata, and Desert Shrub Commumities
Grasses
Hilaria jamesii
Orhyzopsis hymenoides
Sitanion hystrix
Stipa speciosa
Bouteloua barbata
Bromus teatorum
Bromus rubens
Tridens pulchellus
Bromus spp.
Elymus cinereus
.Poa spp.
Muhleribergia porteri
Percentage
Ground Cover
2.2
.9
.7
.4
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
Percentage
Composition
8.3
2.8
2.8
1.4
.4
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
Total 4.4 15.9
Shrubs and Trees
Ephedra nevadensis
Grayia spinosa
Tetradynia glabrata
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova
Atriplex canes cens
Artemisia tridentata
Lycium andersonii
Chrysothanmus nauseosus
Eurotia lanata
Atriplex confertifolia
4.3
3.4
M
3.8
1.8
1.4
1.7
.9
.3
.3
.3
16.6
13.0
9.5
8.8
7.8
7.5
6.3
3.5
1.8
1.2
.9
T = trace
38
-------
APPENDIX VI
Table VI-A. Summary Artemisia arbuscula subsp. nova,
Artemisia tridentata and Desert Shrub Communities (Con.)
Shrubs and' Trees
Cowania mexioana var. stansburiana
Artemisia spinesoens
Eriogonum fasciculatwn
Thaannosma montana
Ephedra viridis
Eriodictyon angusti folium
Tetradymia axillaris
Junipei'us osteosperma
Yucca baccata
Gutiervezia sarothrae
Prunus fasciculata
Finns monophyllus
Menodor-a spinesaens
Atviplex spp.
Gutievrezia sarothrae
Hymenoclea salsola
Ephedra funerea
Lygodesmia spinosa
Dalea fremontii
Philadelphia spp.
Total
Forbs
Eriogonum spp.
Sphaerdlcea ambigua
Ann. spp.*
Salsola kali var. tenuifolia
Descurainia pinnata
Amsinckia spp.
Percentage
Ground Cover
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
21.4
.4
.2
.1
.1
.1
T
Percentage
Composition
.8
.7
.5
.3
.2
.2
.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
79.7
1.5
1.3
.5
.3
.2
.2
T = trace
* Annual Remnant (unidentified)
39
-------
APPENDIX VI
Table VI-A. Summary Artemisia arbusaula subsp. nova,
Artemisia tridentata and Desert Shrub Communities (Con.)
Percentage Percentage
Ground Cover Composition
Forbs
Euphorbia spp. T . 1
Gilia spp, T .1
Gilia eremiaa T . 1
Lepidium fremontii T .1
Opuntia spp. T T
Seneoio spp. T T
Oxytheca perfoliata T T
Stanleya pinnata T T
Astragalus spp. T T
Oenothera spp. T T
Lomation nevadensis T T
Calochortus kennedyi T T
Phlox spp. T T
Allium spp. T T
Chenopodium fremontii T T
Eriogonum nidularium T T
Oenothera brevipes T T
Phaceli-a spp. T T
Lygodesmia spinosa T T
Aster spp. T T
Penstemon spp. T T
Gilia scopulorwn T T
Linum lewisii T T
Total .9 4.4
TOTAL GROUND COVER 26.7
T = trace
40
-------
PLANT COMMUNITIES
ARTEMISIA ARBUSCULA
ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA
DESERT SHRUB
GRAMINEAE
SALSOLA KALI
:o ,-iERIOGONUM
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anim. Invest. Prog. 1967. Progress Report of the Animal Investi-
gation Program, June 1, 1964, through December 31, 1965. Part II,
Routine Bovine Sampling Studies. BER-8 (U. S. Public Health Ser-
vice, Las Vegas, Nevada).
2. Nevada Test Site Report on Brush Fires. June 18 through
July i, 1959.
3. Ocular Reconnaissance Forage Survey Handbook. B. L. M. Manual
4412. 11A. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of
Land Management*
42
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1 - 15 SWRHL, Las Vegas, Nevada
16 Manager, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
17 R. H. Thalgott, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
18 Chief, NOB/DASA, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
19 Office of Information, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
20 NTS Support Office, NVOO/AEC, Mercury, Nevada
21 D. H. Edwards, Safety Evaluation, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
22 Martin B. Biles, DOS, AEC, Washington, D. C.
23 John S. Kelly, DPNE, AEC, Washington, D. C.
24 Philip W. Allen, ARL, ESSA, Las Vegas, Nevada
25 G. D. Ferber, ARL, ESSA, Silver Springs, Maryland
26 - 30 Charles L. Weaver, NCRH, PHS, Rockville, Maryland
31 Bernd Kahn, NCRH, RATSEC, Cincinnati, Ohio
32 Northeastern Radiological Health Lab., Winchester, Mass.
33 Southeastern Radiological Health Lab., Montgomery, Alabama
34 Wm. C. King, LRL, Mercury, Nevada
35 John W. Gofman, LRL, Livermofe, California
36 Wm. E. Ogle, LASL, Los Alamo,^, New Mexico
37 Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, New Mexico
38 Victor M. Milligan, REECo, Mprcury, Nevada
39 Clinton S. Maupin, REECo, Mercury, Nevada
40 D. W. Hendricks, NVOO/AEC, Lfis Vegas, Nevada
41 Paul T. Tueller, U. of Nev., Reno, Nevada
42 Charles Hanson, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nev.
43 V. R. Bohman, U. of Nev., Repo, Nevada
44 H. M. Kilpatrick, U. of Nev., Reno, Nevada
45 Director, Nevada Fish & Game, Reno, Nevada
46 P. Gustafson, AEC, Washington, D. C.
47 DTIE, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
48 CETO, Ecology Studies, Mercury, Nevada
49 Dr. Arthur Wallace, Lab. of Nuclear Med. & Radiation Biology,
U. of Cal., Los Angeles, California 90007
-------