2013-02-12_PERMIT FILE - M2013007 ‎(16)‎

• Permit No: M2013007
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 2/12/2013
• Doc Name: New 112c Application
• From: Rocky Mountain Aggregate and Construction, LLC
• To: DRMS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Structural Parameter
. .. RCP Recommendations for GUSG Habitat
Breeding Habitat
Summer -Fall
Habitat
Winter Habitat
Arid
Mesic
Arid
Mesic
Arid Mesic
Sagebrush Cover ( %)
15 -25
10 -20
5 -15
5 -20
30 -40 -
Non -Sage Cover ( %)
5 -15
5 -15
5 -15
5 -15
- -
Total Shrub Cover ( %)
20-40
15 -35
10 -30
10 -35
- -
Sagebrush Height (in)
10 -20
12 -20
8 -16
10 -20
16 -22 -
Grass Cover ( %)
10 -30
20 -40
10 -25
10 -35
- -
Forb Cover ( %)
5 -15
20 -40
5 -15
15 -35
- -
Grass Height (in)
4 -6
4 -6
4 -6
4 -6
- -
Forb Height (in)
2 -4
2 -6
1 -4
2 -6
- -
;BIO-Logic
1 I1C
Natural Resource Consultants
Based on qualitative observations made on January 30, 2013, with about 8 inches of snow cover, and
analysis of photos and observations made by Greg Lewicki in 2012 without snow cover, the vegetation
within GuSG potential habitat 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 18 -14 inches in height. Herbaceous vegetation is scant, probably less than 10% cover
with considerable amounts of bare ground. Perennial grasses mostly occur only underneath sagebrush
canopies where they are protected from grazing by livestock and big game.
The RCP's Appendix H establishes vegetation structural habitat guidelines for GuSG (see Table 1 below).
Guidelines are established for sagebrush and total shrub cover and height, and grass and forb cover and
height. Guidelines differ for three defined seasonal habitats, with GuSG habitat requirements differing
depending on season. In general, the Site is quite deficient in herbaceous vegetation for all seasonal
habitats except winter habitat. As such, GuSG habitat on the Site is potentially suitable for GUSG only as
winter habitat, and provides little 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 in any areas.
Table 1. GuSG Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) Structural Habitat Guidelines.
Conclusions
The Sims Mesa area and the Site are not occupied by GuSG, so the proposed gravel mining operation
would have no disturbance effect on GuSG as long as the area remains unoccupied. The Site itself has
relatively poor habitat for GuSG, with vegetation structural characteristics currently meeting RCP
guidelines only for winter habitat. The quality and quantity of breeding and summer -fall brood - rearing
habitat is considered to be a much more important conservation issue for GuSG rangewide than quality or
quantity of winter habitat. As a result, the temporary loss of GuSG winter habitat at the Site from gravel
mining operations does not represent a significant threat to GuSG.
3