sbio- LOfiflC Rocky Mountain Aggregate, Uncompahgre Gravel Pit Gunnison Sage-grouse Mitigation Plan October 4, 2013

Transcription

1 Rocky Mountain Aggregate, Uncompahgre Gravel Pit Gunnison Sage-grouse Mitigation Plan October 4, 2013 Prepared by: sbio- LOfiflC Natural Resource Consultants Prepared for: Zane Luttrell, Manager Rocky Mountain Aggregate & Construction Hwy 550 South Montrose, CO Steve Boyle, Senior Biologist 125 Colorado Avenue, Suite B Montrose, CO (970) , ext 11 sboyle@bio-geo.com

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE METHODS WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS Gunnison Sage-grouse and Habitat: Regional Context GuSG Habitat at the Site Potential Impacts ofthe Project to GuSG MITIGATION ACTIONS On-Site Mitigation Off-Site Mitigation REFERENCES 10 APPENDIX A: MAP FIGURES 12 APPENDIX B: REVEGETATION SEED MIX 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Areas Figure 2. Sims Mesa Occupied Habitat Figure 3. Gunnison Sage-grouse Suitable Habitat in Project Area Vicinity Figure 4. Area of Off-Site Habitat Mitigation 2

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Rocky Mountain Aggregate and Construction (hereafter, the Operator) seeks to develop the Uncompahgre Pit for mining gravel south of Montrose, Colorado. The proposed gravel pit site (hereafter, Site) is about 7 miles south-southeast of Montrose, on private land. The mining operation has received a permit from the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (DRMS). The Operator now seeks a Special Use Permit from Montrose County. Montrose County is considering the adoption of "1041" regulations to control impacts of County-approved projects to Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus, hereafter GuSG). The purpose ofthe 1041 regulations "...is to provide local protection to Gunnison Sage Grouse and occupied Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat to sustain and enhance the survival of Gunnison Sage Grouse" (Montrose County 2013). If adopted, the regulations would require County review and approval of mitigation recommendations before approving any qualifying development proposal that could adversely impact GuSG or their Occupied Habitat, as defined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and recognized by Montrose County 1041 regulations. If the 1041 regulations are adopted, the project would require a 1041 Development Permit from Montrose County because the Site is within GuSG Occupied Habitat, and the project would cause impacts to GuSG or their habitat. Although the 1041 regulations are not yet adopted and the permit request is not required to comply with the proposed regulations, the Operator wishes to avoid, minimize, and adequately mitigate any adverse impacts to GuSG, and provides this Mitigation Plan for County review and approval, as would be required for a Development Permit if the 1041 regulations were in effect. This report contains a description of methods, then a Wildlife Habitat Analysis that describes the GuSG population and habitat that could be affected, the regional context ofthe wildlife resources, and potential impacts ofthe project to GuSG and their habitat. The Mitigation section presents recommended actions to address the identified potential impacts through standard and commonly accepted mitigation techniques, in order to eliminate or acceptably reduce impacts to meet Montrose County's goal to protect GuSG and its Occupied Habitat to sustain and enhance the survival of GuSG. 2.0 METHODS BIO-Logic Senior Biologist Steve Boyle visited the Site three times in 2013 (winter, summer, and fall seasons) and made a thorough site inspection of the Permit Area and nearby federal public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In winter 2013, BIO-Logic Plant Ecologist Dr. Alison Graff also visited the Site and assessed vegetation conditions. Steve Boyle had several meetings and discussions with the Operator, permitting consultant Greg Lewicki, Montrose County Planning Department Supervisor Steve White, and biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), CPW, and BLM. Some ofthese meetings were at the Site, and Steve Boyle also toured Sims Mesa with CPW biologist Evan Phillips to investigate habitat conditions and mitigation options. 3

4 We reviewed relevant literature, maps, and reports, including: o o o o o o Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005) Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gunnison Sage-grouse, Gunnison Basin Population (FWS 2012) Guidelines to Manage Sage-grouse Populations and Their Habitats (Connelly et al. 2000) Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation ofa Landscape Species and Its Habitats (Knick and Connelly 2011) Colorado Sagebrush: A Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Boyle and Reeder 2005) CPW Species Activity Maps, GuSG Habitat Status map, and GuSG lek location data 3.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS 3.1 Gunnison Sage-grouse and Habitat: Regional Context GuSG currently occupy parts of southwestern Colorado and adjacent Utah, with the largest population in the Gunnison Basin and much smaller populations in other areas (FWS 2013a). The current distribution represents about 7% ofthe presumed pre-settlement distribution. The current population is estimated at about 4,600 birds; the Gunnison Basin population is relatively stable but all other populations have consistently declined over the past several years (FWS 2013a). GuSG occupy primarily sagebrush-dominated shrublands, with occasional use of shrublands co-dominated by Gambel oak or other mountain shrub species. Wet meadows within sagebrush landscapes are important in late summer and early fall for brood-rearing, and edges of irrigated fields can provide a similar habitat function if adjacent sagebrush cover is adequate. GuSG gather on communal display grounds called leks to mate in spring (March through May), and an important conservation element is protection of leks from human disturbance or habitat changes that could increase predation. GuSG nest in sagebrush in early summer, usually within four miles of leks. They raise broods in late summer and fall in mesic (wetter) sagebrush and associated wet meadows or irrigated field margins, and winter in sagebrush stands that provide adequate food and cover. The GuSG Rangewide Conservation Plan (Gunnison Sagegrouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005) provides detail on habitat requirements. Because of GuSG declines in population and distribution, many conservation programs have been initiated government agencies, affected landowners, and conservation groups. In 2005 the Rangewide Conservation Plan was completed. In January 2013 FWS proposed to list GuSG as endangered underthe U.S. Endangered Species Act (FWS 2013a), and proposed to designate GuSG critical habitat (FWS 2013b). GuSG historically occupied most ofthe Uncompahgre Valley and surrounding hills where suitable habitat formerly occurred, and the Site is mapped by CPW within GuSG historic habitat. With habitat conversion and fragmentation following Euro-American settlement, GuSG in the Uncompahgre River watershed now appear to be restricted to the Cerro Summit area about 8 to 4

5 20 miles east-northeast ofthe Site, and possibly in the Sims Mesa area which includes the Site (Figure 1). The other nearest known populations of GuSG are in the Crawford area of Montrose County and adjacent Delta County, and the San Miguel Basin population to the southwest. Most ofthe San Miguel GuSG population inhabits the Miramonte Basin or Dry Creek Basin, over 37 miles from the Site, but a few GuSG occupy remnant sagebrush patches on Iron Springs Mesa (about 22 miles from the Site), and some substantial sagebrush areas apparently unoccupied by GuSG lie between Iron Springs Mesa and the Site (Figure 1). The Site is within a polygon of CPW-mapped Occupied Habitat (hereafter, the Sims Mesa OH), which is coincident with FWS-proposed critical habitat for GuSG (FWS 2013b). The Occupied Habitat map in this area has not been modified since the Rangewide Conservation Plan was created in 2005, and it is not clear if the Sims Mesa OH is still occupied by GuSG. A single lek is known in the Sims Mesa OH, on BLM land about 1.8 miles west ofthe proposed gravel pit Site. Annual counts by CPW of GuSG at the lek were 4 (highest count of males) in 2001 and 2 in Since 2002 CPW counts at the lek each year have detected no GuSG at the lek, and searches for other leks in the area have not been successful. In 2003 CPW biologists found GuSG sign on Sims and Moonlight Mesas, and in February 2004 one male GuSG was observed on Moonlight Mesa. CPW has conducted more recent searches for GuSG in the area without documenting any GuSG. At least 2 sightings of GuSG by the public in the Sims Mesa OH have been reported to CPW recently, and CPW considers the sightings plausible but unconfirmed. These reports may represent remnants ofthe formerly resident flock, recent immigrants, or transient birds moving through the area. The Sims Mesa OH's ability to support a permanent resident population of GuSG is in doubt, because ofthe apparent extirpation or near-extirpation of resident birds since the early 2000s. The reasons forthe decline ofthe Sims Mesa GuSG flock are not known, but may include habitat fragmentation and degradation by human activities, natural encroachment of pinyon pines and junipers into sagebrush stands, or other factors. The value ofthe Sims Mesa OH for habitat connectivity is clearer, and probably represents the most important value ofthe area to GuSG at least in the short term. The Rangewide Conservation Plan identifies Sims Mesa within a linkage corridor that connects the resident population in the San Miguel Basin to populations in Cerro Summit and Crawford, and ultimately to the largest and most stable GuSG population in the Gunnison Basin. The Rangewide Conservation Plan and a more recent FWS conservation assessment (FWS 2013a) identify maintenance of habitat connectivity through linkage corridors as an important part ofthe overall conservation strategy for GuSG, to promote natural dispersal and gene flow among populations and reduce the overall risk of extinction. 3.2 GuSG Habitat at the Site The Site is on Moonlight Mesa, at the eastern end of the Sims Mesa OH (Figure 2). By far the best quality GuSG habitat in the Sims Mesa OH is on Sims Mesa west of the gravel pit Site, with a single large expanse of sagebrush covering about 2,300 acres of mixed BLM and private ownership (Figure 2). In the remainder of the Sims Mesa OH, including Moonlight Mesa where the gravel pit Site lies, sagebrush stands are much smaller, more fragmented, and isolated by pinyon-juniper woodlands and some areas of steep slopes and gullies. Although virtually all ofthe Site permit area on Moonlight Mesa is within CPW-mapped Occupied Habitat, it should be understood that Occupied Habitat was mapped at a landscape scale and that the Sims Mesa OH polygon includes some suitable GuSG habitat and other 5

6 areas that are not suitable habitat. Most ofthe Site permit area on the Mesa is covered by a sagebrush-dominated vegetation community, suitable habitat for GuSG, but some is pinyonjuniper woodland that is not suitable GuSG habitat. We estimate that the permit area on Moonlight Mesa contains 169 acres of sagebrush community, part ofa larger 200-acre patch of sagebrush that extends onto adjacent BLM land (Figure 3). The sagebrush patch is isolated from the large block of sagebrush on Sims Mesa by pinyon-juniper woodland, irrigated farms, and residential development. CPW and BLM biologists agree that the Sims Mesa OH extending south of Moonlight Mesa toward Government Springs Road contains more unsuitable than suitable GuSG habitat, with small and scattered patches of sagebrush in often steep dissected terrain dominated by pinyon-juniper woodlands. The sagebrush community at the Site is heavily dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush, with few other shrubs present. Sagebrush cover is fairly uniform across the Site, estimated at 20-35% with some areas in the south perhaps as low as 15%. Sagebrush height is also fairly uniform, trending to mainly older mature shrubs that average inches in height. Herbaceous vegetation is scant, probably less than 5% mean grass cover and less than 3% mean forb cover. Most of the ground surface between shrubs is bare. Perennial grasses mostly occur only underneath sagebrush canopies. Appendix H ofthe Rangewide Conservation Plan establishes vegetation structural habitat guidelines for GuSG (Table 1 below). Guidelines are established for cover and height of sagebrush, total shrubs, grasses, and forbs (non-grass herbaceous plants). GuSG habitat requirements vary depending on season, so guidelines have been defined for breeding, summer-fall, and winter habitats. In addition, habitat guidelines vary between mesic (wet) and arid habitats, and the Sims Mesa OH should be regarded as arid forthe purposes ofthese guidelines. In general, sagebrush at the Site is quite deficient in herbaceous vegetation for all seasonal habitats except winter habitat. As such, sagebrush on the Site appears suitable for GuSG only as winter habitat, and probably provides less value to GuSG for breeding or summer-fall habitat. GuSG throughout their range are thought to be mostly limited by habitat factors affecting reproduction, and lack of suitable winter range is not regarded as an important threat to GuSG in the Sims Mesa area. Table 1. GuSG Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) Structural Habitat Guidelines. I RCP Recommendations for GUSG Habitat Summer-Fall Breeding Habitat Habitat Winter Habitat Structural Parameter Arid Mesic Arid Mesic Arid Mesic Sagebrush Cover (%) Non-Sage Cover (%) Total Shrub Cover (%) Sagebrush Height (in) Grass Cover (%) Forb Cover (%) Grass Height (in) Forb Height (in)

7 Past and current land uses on and near the Site are other factors that should be considered to assess the Site's GuSG habitat potential. Prior owners of the Site in recent years maintained a long-range target shooting area, and an elevated wooden stand still remains. Prolonged target shooting would likely have discouraged GuSG from inhabiting Moonlight Mesa. In addition, Moonlight Mesa is bordered on the east and west by unsuitable GuSG habitat in private ownership, with land uses of irrigated agriculture and residential development. The level of human activity that has existed in these areas for many years makes the Moonlight Mesa sagebrush stand less suitable for GuSG occupation, and more vulnerable to disturbance and other threats associated with human occupancy such as presence of dogs and increased density of ravens and other medium-sized predators. Although there are no recent records of GuSG presence on Moonlight Mesa, and while the habitat value is reduced by the factors described above, it is still possible that Moonlight Mesa can be occupied by GuSG at least occasionally, and such occupancy would be more likely in winter than in other seasons because of differences in seasonal habitat suitability. 3.3 Potential Impacts of the Project to GuSG The gravel pit would be developed in up to 5 phases, with no more than 21 acres mined or in some form of disturbance at a time, with most ofthe mining activity in GuSG suitable habitat. An additional area of about 2 to 5 acres of GuSG suitable habitat may be cleared for roads and other infrastructure. Therefore, direct loss of existing GuSG habitat from conversion would total up to about 25 acres at any one time, with previously mined areas revegetated and reclaimed. The State-approved revegetation plan specifies a seed mix requirement that includes sagebrush in addition to forbs, grasses, and other shrubs. Establishment of pre-mine vegetation total cover is expected within 2 to 3 years after initial regrading and seeding. Establishment of sagebrush stand characteristics meeting pre-mine GuSG habitat guidelines (see Table 1) will take longer, because of slow reestablishment and growth of sagebrush. Over the life of the project, up to about 110 acres of GuSG habitat would be directly converted to non-habitat, and would not return to pre-mine GuSG habitat quality until successful reclamation. Disturbance by human presence, vehicles, machinery, and noise will occur at the Site during spring through fall. In winter (approximately November 15 through March 1) the pit would normally not be operated, and no human activity would occur on the mesa other than occasional visits for maintenance or security. At times a gravel contract may require mining at the Site during winter, but this is expected to be very infrequent. Little data are available on disturbance thresholds for GuSG. A number of studies ofthe closely related greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) have shown that industrial development similar to the proposed gravel mine may impact sage-grouse by displacing birds from the area, reducing sage-grouse lek attendance, reducing nesting activity or nest success rates, and occasionally causing direct mortality by collisions with vehicles and other accidents Knick and Connelly 2011, FWS 2012, Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005). In general, birds are most sensitive while attending leks, and later while nesting, with disturbance threshold distances generally less for non-breeding birds at other seasons. While it is unclear if GuSG permanently occupy the Sims Mesa OH, a few GuSG may still be resident or the OH may occasionally be occupied by transient birds, now or in the future. As a consequence, the potential exists for GuSG to be disturbed during the operational life of the project, expected to be years. Considering a disturbance buffer or 0.6 miles around the permit area (as recommended by the Rangewide Conservation Plan), we assume that the area of suitable GuSG habitat adversely affected by the project includes all ofthe 200-acre 7

8 sagebrush patch on Moonlight Mesa, including 169 acres inside the permit area and the additional acres on adjacent BLM land (Figure 3). While it is possible that project operation could result in direct mortality to GuSG, the chances are low given the nature of the mining operation and the presumed near-absence of GuSG on Moonlight Mesa, especially once mining operations begin. Mitigation measures are proposed below to avoid and minimize any direct mortality. The most important potential impact ofthe proposed mining operation is the loss of 200 acres of GuSG suitable habitat for up to 100 years of mining operation, plus revegetation time to restore sagebrush stands to RCP guidelines. Some of this habitat may remain usable by GuSG in winter when mining operations will usually cease, but from spring through fall it should be assumed that the entire GuSG suitable habitat on Moonlight Mesa is not suitable for GuSG. 4.0 MITIGATION ACTIONS For this plan, mitigation is defined as all actions that eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels, potential impacts to GuSG or their Occupied Habitat, to meet the goals of the Montrose County proposed 1041 regulations. An appropriate hierarchy of mitigation strategies, accepted for example by FWS in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gunnison Basin (FWS 2012), is (in order of priority) to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensate off-site. While mitigation is sometimes defined more narrowly as only off-site compensation, for this plan we consider all actions in the hierarchy as mitigation. We considered avoidance measures including mining at other sites and reducing the size of the mining area, but the project is not viable for the Operator under those scenarios. The feasible mitigation strategies outlined below include minimization, restoration, and off-site compensation. 4.1 On-Site Mitigation To minimize impacts at the Site and immediately adjacent GuSG suitable habitat, the following will be implemented: 1. A speed limit of 20 mph will be maintained for all vehicles within the mesa portion of the permit area. 2. Any new fences constructed on the mesa portion ofthe permit area wiil meet design standards recommended by CPW to minimize collision hazard to GuSG. The Operator will minimize the height and extent of overhead electric lines or any other structures that could provide a GuSG collision hazard or raptor perch site. 3. No dogs or other pets will be allowed off-leash in the mesa portion ofthe permit area. 4. Currently no GuSG leks are known within 0.6 miles of the permit area. If a CPWrecognized GuSG lek is discovered or becomes established within 0.6 miles ofthe permit area, a seasonal and timing limitation will be in effect for the mining operation, as recommended in the GuSG Rangewide Conservation Plan, to avoid disturbance to breeding grouse. During the period of March 1 through June 30, no mining activity including mining, hauling, processing, batch plant operation, or similar mechanized 8

9 operations will occur between midnight and AM within 0.6 miles of a lek recognized as active by CPW. 5. No more than 21 acres of mine-related area will be disturbed at any one time on Moonlight Mesa. 6. The Operator will minimize operations on Moonlight Mesa in the winter months (November 15 through March 1), to reduce disturbance to GuSG in winter to the extent feasible. To restore impacted GuSG habitat at the Site, the following will be implemented: 7. All disturbed areas will be recontoured and revegetated per State of Colorado permit requirements. A seed mix that includes sagebrush, recommended by CPW and FWS (shown in Appendix B) will be used to revegetate all disturbed areas. 4.2 Off-Site Mitigation The on-site measures listed above address potential disturbance impacts to GuSG and restoration of GuSG habitat after mining is complete. However, off-site compensatory mitigation is required to address the loss of 200 acres of suitable GuSG habitat at and near the Site for the period of mining operations. Off-site mitigation compensates for resource impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources at a different location. To be effective, off-site mitigation should be beyond the impact area ofthe project, should be in a geographic area that is relevant to the impacted resource, and should be of at least equal value to the impacted resource (FWS 2012). To meet these goals, a number of different mitigation actions were discussed with biologists from CPW and BLM. It has been agreed that the off-site mitigation actions should preserve or enhance existing GuSG habitat on nearby Sims Mesa, within the Sims Mesa OH (Figure 4). A number of GuSG habitat issues exist on Sims Mesa including encroachment of pinyon pine and juniper into sagebrush stands, deficient herbaceous vegetation in sagebrush stands, paucity of wet meadows for brood-rearing habitat, and a significant amount of private lands with potential for land uses that conflict with GuSG conservation. Specific projects are not identified in this plan, because it takes time to properly develop and plan effective habitat preservation and improvement projects. Projects would be on private land and/or federal land administered by BLM, requiring permissions and administrative processes that take time to develop. However, the off-site mitigation will include the following: 1. Habitat improvement projects will be designed to improve GuSG habitat per Rangewide Conservation Plan standards or other standards accepted by CPW. Projects may include pinyon-juniper removal, sagebrush treatments, herbaceous vegetation enhancement, improved livestock grazing management, water developments to improve wet meadows, or other actions. 2. Habitat preservation projects will provide perpetual legal protection on private lands, such as conservation easements or similar deed restrictions. The legal protection will provide for the preservation of GuSG habitat to a standard acceptable to CPW. 9

10 3. For habitat improvement projects defined in Action 1 above, a 2:1 mitigation ratio will be used, requiring 2 acres of enhanced habitat for each impacted acre. This ratio is required because these actions improve existing habitat but would not create new habitat, and habitat improvements are often temporary and beneficial effects decline overtime. For habitat preservation projects defined in Action 2 above, a 1:1 ratio will be used, because the action would permanently protect GuSG habitat on land with no current protections. 4. CPW will approve all projects to ensure that the projects benefit GuSG and their habitat. 5. Projects will be completed on the following schedule: At least 100 acres will be completed during the 12 months following issuance of Montrose County approval of the gravel pit. At least 100 additional acres will be completed during each subsequent 12- month period, so that all off-site mitigation is complete within 4 years of Montrose County approval. 6. The Operator is responsible for project selection, design, and implementation, with CPW oversight and approval. The Operator will obtain approvals by BLM and private landowners, as necessary. 7. The Operator is responsible for funding off-site mitigation projects. CPW recognizes and agrees that some valuable projects may be very costly, and CPW will encourage and assist the Operator to seek matching fund opportunities with the goal of maximizing the value of projects to GuSG and their habitat. 5.0 REFERENCES Boyle, S., and D. Reeder Colorado Sagebrush: A Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and CE. Braun Guidelines to Manage Sage grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gunnison Sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus Gunnison Basin Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Gunnison Sage-grouse: Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, Docket No. FWS-R6-ES Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Gunnison Sage-grouse: Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, Docket No. FWS-R6-ES Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 10

11 Knick, ST., and J.W. Connelly, editors Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation of Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley. Montrose County, Board of County Commissioners Montrose County 1041 Regulations, Proposed, September 23,

12 APPENDIX A: MAP FIGURES

13 Uncompahgre Gravel Pit Mitigation Plan Data Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Legend G u S G Habitat Status Occupied Potential Figure 1 Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat (OH) Areas! -. I Vacant/Unknown A 1:1,200, I Miles BIO-Logic, Inc. 125 Colorado Avenue, Suite B Montrose, CO (970)

14 Data Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife 1:70, ] Miles Legend Permit Area GuSG Habitat Status : Occupied i Potential Vacant/Unknown \1 B l o c k o f G u S G Suitable Habitat, Sims Mesa Uncompahgre Gravel Pit Mitigation Plan Figure 2 Sims Mesa OH BIO-Logic, Inc. 125 Colorado Avenue, Suite B Montrose, CO (970)

15 Legend Uncompahgre Gravel Pit Mitigation Plan Q Permit Area Figure 3 GuSG Suitable Habitat Gunnison Sage-grouse Suitable BLM Habitat In Project Area Vicinity A 1:16, I Miles BIO-Logic, Inc. 125 Colorado Avenue, Suite B Iviontrose, CO (970)

16 ; Legend ~J Contiguous GuSG Habitat, Sims Mesa : BLM Uncompahgre Gravel Pit Mitigation Plan Figure 4 Area of Off-Site Habitat Mitigation A BIO-Logic, Inc C o l o r a d o Avenue, Suite B Montrose, CO (970) i Miles

17 APPENDIX B: REVEGETATION SEED MIX Species Sulfur Flower Buckwheat Daisy Fleabane Galleta (floret) Small Burnet Indian Ricegrass Winterfat Shadscale Scarlet Globemallow Bottlebrush Rabbitbrush Big Sagebrush Total Lbs Pure Live Seed per acre lbs pure live seed per acre (drilled rate)

18

19 Draft for Internal Review: , 8 AM 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN For this plan, mitigation is defined as all actions that eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels, potential impacts to GuSG or their suitable habitat. An appropriate hierarchy of mitigation strategies, accepted for example by BLM and FWS in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2012), is (in order of priority) to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensate off-site. While some organizations, including FWS, define mitigation more narrowly as only off-site compensation, we include all actions in the hierarchy as mitigation. We considered avoidance measures including mining at other sites and reducing the size of the mining area, but the project is not viable for this operator under those scenarios. The feasible mitigation strategies outlined below include minimization, restoration, and off-site compensation. 3.1 On-Site Mitigation To minimize impacts on site, the following will be implemented: 1. Speed limit of 20 mph for all vehicles within the mesa portion of the permit area. 2. All fences to be grouse-friendly. Minimize the height and extent of overhead electric lines or any other structures that could provide a collision hazard or raptor perch site. 3. No dogs allowed off-leash 4. The only known lek in the Sims Mesa OH, currently unoccupied, is about 1.9 miles west of the permit area boundary, on Sims Mesa. If that lek becomes active, the project would not be likely to affect GuSG at or near the lek. However, if a GuSG lek becomes established and recognized by CPW within 0.6 miles of the permit area, a seasonal and timing limitation will be in effect for the mining operation. No mining activity including mining, hauling, processing, and batch plant operation will occur between midnight and 11:00 AM within 0.6 miles of the active lek, during the time period March 1 through June 30. This is to minimize disturbance to birds at the lek, and nesting activity following breeding. 5. No more than 21 acres of mine-related area will be disturbed at any one time on Moonlight Mesa. 6. The operator will make every attempt to limit operations in the winter months, by reducing or eliminating mining activity, To restore impacted GuSG at the site, the following will be implemented: 7. All disturbed areas will be recontoured and revegetated per State of Colorado regulations. The seed mix recommended by CPW and FWS will be used as shown in Appendix C. The seed mix includes sagebrush. 3.2 Off-Site Mitigation

20 The on-site measures listed above will not fully mitigate project impacts to GuSG. Approximately 170 acres of suitable GuSG habitat will be directly removed by mining activity over the life of the project, and approximately 130 acres of additional suitable GuSG habitat (see Figure x) is within Vz mile of the development area on Moonlight Mesa, on adjacent BLM land to the south and west. Not all of this habitat will be affected at one time because of the phased mining, and some habitat will be in a state of restoration and recovery after mining while other phases are being mined. However, because of potential disturbance effects to GuSG, we conservatively assume for purposes of this plan that all of the GuSG habitat within the permit area, and all GuSG habitat within mile of the permit area, will be adversely impacted while the project is in operation, and until post-mining restoration is complete. Off-site mitigation compensates for resource impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources at a different location. To be effective, off-site mitigation should be beyond the impact area of the project, should be in a geographic area that is relevant to the impacted resource, and should be of at least equal value to the impacted resource. To meet these, goals, the pit operator and its team of consultants has worked collaboratively with CPW and BLM biologists to explore a number of potential off-site mitigation scenarios. The primary mitigation action described below is the preferred, and consists of GuSG habitat restoration at nearby Sims Mesa. Other secondary mitigation actions, outlined in the subsequent section, may be substituted in whole or in part for the primary action, with CPW approval; these are actions that seem less feasible at this time, but if they become more feasible in the near future they may represent other opportunities that could provide significant benefit to GuSG. Secondary mitigation actions, if implemented, would not require additional cost to the pit operator. Primary Off-Site Mitigation Action The objective is to improve deteriorating GuSG habitat on nearby Sims Mesa by vegetation treatments. One of the threats to GuSG habitat on Sims Mesa is encroachment by pinyon pines and junipers, which is prevalent on most of the edges of the sagebrush expanse on both BLM and private lands. The treatments would be approximately 2 to 4 miles from the mine pennit area, far enough to be out of the project impact area but close enough to be geographically relevant to the impact area. Determining the value of impacted and off-site restored resources for mitigation purposes is impotent to ensure that the mitigation is accurate. However, the habitat valuation process is difficult and must contain some subjective judgment. In Gunnison County, the Gunnison Sage Grouse Strategic Committee has developed a Habitat Prioritization Tool to predict GuSG habitat value in the Gunnison Basin. The tool uses computer modeling of fine-scale habitat features and extensive GuSG location data to calculate a numerical habitat score; areas with scores of 15 or greater are considered Tier 1 habitat and areas with scores of 14 or lower are considered Tier 2 habitat. The Gunnison County Planning Department has proposed changes to the County Land Use Code to apply the model to land-use planning decisions, with more stringent habitat protection requirements for Tier 1 than for Tier 2 habitats. While Gunnison County has not developed specific mitigation criteria based on the Habitat Prioritization Tool, the Gunnison Sage-grouse Gunnison Basin Candidate Conservation Agreement (BLM 2012) also refers to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 habitats defined by the Tool, and specifies that when off-site mitigation is applied it should be at a 1:1 ratio for mitigating impacts to Tier 1 GuSG habitat.

21 Iviontrose County does not have a similar tool; if the Gunnison County tool was applied to this project, the impacted habitat at Moonlight Mesa would likely rate as Tier 2. Based on this, the appropriate off-site mitigation ratio for this project is 1:1, and 300 acres of GuSG habitat on Sims Mesa will receive habitat improvements to mitigate impacts to 300 acres on Moonlight Mesa. Additional concerns with off-site mitigation are time lags for restoration effectiveness, and chances of success of restoration effort. If significant time lags occur between implementation of a restoration project and when habitat effectiveness is achieved, it is appropriate to calculate a discount rate and a corresponding increase in the mitigation acres to account for the period or reduced habitat effectiveness. In this case, with pinyon-juniper removal, no significant time lag would occur and no time lag discount is needed. If the change of success of the mitigation project is less than 100% (for example, planting vegetation that may be only partially successful, or only succeed on part of the mitigation site), a similar discount rate is appropriate. With pinyon-juniper removal, chance of success can be considered 100% and no success rate discount is needed. Secondary Off-Site Mitigation Actions While the pit operator and CPW agree that the Primary Action is the current priority, several other mitigation options have been considered. If one or more of these other options become more feasible and would provide more benefit to GuSG than the Primary Action, then with CPW approval one or more of the actions could be substituted for all or part of the Primary Action. The operator's cost commitment would not be affected by substitution of any Secondary Actions. The Secondary Actions would require additional funding from other sources, as well as resolution of legal issues or private landowner consents, but in the event that any of these become feasible it is prudent to retain the options. Possible Secondary Actions, all on Sims Mesa, include: 1. Other vegetation treatments such as sagebrush or herbaceous vegetation alteration. 2. Water developments or other landscape projects to increase wet meadows for broodrearing habitat. 3. Acquisition of private land in fee title by a government agency, or acquisition of a conservation easement or other deed restriction on private land sufficient to protect GuSG habitat. 4. Acquisition of livestock grazing rights on public land, to improve GuSG habitat. Cost and Schedule Commitment To ensure that the adequate mitigation is completed, the pit operator commits to the following: 1. Rocky Mountain Aggregate will provide a total of $30, for the Primary action or Secondary Actions on Sims Mesa. There will be two commitments: $15, during the first calendar year of receiving county approval, and an additional $15, during the subsequent calendar year. Action implementation will be the responsibility of the pit operator, and implementation of the Actions will be implemented in the year of the financial commitments described above, subject to agency approvals and due diligence.

22 2. "CPW will approve all Mitigation Actions, to ensure benefit to GuSG. 3. Projects may be completed on BLM or private land. Projects on private land will require landowner consent and appropriate written agreements. Projects on BLM land will require BLM authority and approval. Ken Holsinger, BLM biologist, has agreed that such projects on BLM are worthwhile and he supports them in concept. Projects on BLM land will require BLM environmental review, which BLM may provide in-kind, and t4erms and conditions may be required to ensure compliance with BLM regulations.