2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report...2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment...

2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report

Vernal Phosphate Operation, Greater Sage-grouse Support

Simplot Phosphates LLC

Vernal, Utah

March 2, 2016

Prepared for: Simplot Phosphates LLC 9401 North Highway 191 Vernal, UT 84078 Prepared by: HDR, Inc. River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706 Contact: Michael R. Murray, PhD 208-387-7033

emilyberry

New Stamp

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report TABLE OF CONTENTS

hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208) 387-7000

i

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Greater Sage-grouse Distribution and Conservation ............................................. 4 Sage-grouse Work Prior to Work Plan Implementation ............................................................. 6 Work Plan Development ............................................................................................................ 7

2015 Assessment Activities ....................................................................................................... 9

2015 Sage-Grouse Lek Surveys and Monitoring....................................................................... 9 2015 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 9 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 9

Task 1: Develop GPS/GIS Tablet Application for Baseline Data Collection, Review, and Presentation ................................................................................................................ 13

2015 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 13 Task 2: Identify Vernal Mine and Barton Ranch Areas with Ecological Potential to Provide

Sage-grouse Habitat ................................................................................................... 13 2015 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 13 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 13

Task 3: Identify and Map Anthropogenic Features .................................................................. 21 2015 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 21 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 21

Task 4: Collect Vegetation Transect Data and Pellet Transect Data through Stratified Random Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 25

2015 Task Summary ................................................................................................................. 25 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 26

Proposed 2016 Assessment Activities ................................................................................... 31

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 33

Additional Information .............................................................................................................. 33

References ................................................................................................................................. 35

Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Vernal Phosphate Operation Property and Land Status Map ........................................ 3 Figure 3. Spring 2015 Sage-grouse Surveys .............................................................................. 11 Figure 4. Ecological Site and Seasonal Habitat Areas Map ....................................................... 15 Figure 5. Anthropogenic Features Map ...................................................................................... 23 Figure 6. Vegetation Transect Location Map .............................................................................. 27

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report TABLE OF CONTENTS

River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208) 387-7000

hdrinc.com

ii

Tables Table 1. Ecological Sites Possible Within Soil Mapping Unit and Seasonal Habitat Suitability .. 17 Table 2. Reference State Plant Communities for Available Ecological Sites .............................. 20 Table 3. Means (SE) of 2015 Vegetation Measurements at Sample Locations (n = 32) in Winter Habitat on East Mine Property .................................................................................................... 29 Table 4. Proposed General Schedule for 2016 Work Plan Activities .......................................... 31

Appendices Appendix A – 2015 Vegetation Transect Data in Winter Habitat Appendix B – 2015 Transect Photographs Appendix C – 2015 Plant List

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report ACRONYMS

hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208) 387-7000

iii

Acronyms

app mobile-desktop application

BLM Bureau of Land Management DOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining ESA Endangered Species Act GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system HDR HDR, Inc. LAWGs Local Area Working Groups LIDF line-intercept and Daubenmire frame LUPAs land use plan amendments msl mean sea level NOI notice of intent NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service sage-grouse greater sage-grouse SGMAs Sage-Grouse Management Areas Simplot Simplot Phosphate LLC UBMA Unitah Basin Management Area UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources US-191 U.S. Route 191 USFS U.S. Forest Service USU Utah State University USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service work plan Work Plan for Greater Sage-grouse Baseline Habitat Assessment Vernal Mine Vernal Phosphate Operation

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report INTRODUCTION

1

Introduction This report summarizes activities completed in 2015 to assess the population status and habitat conditions for greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus; hereafter sage-grouse) at Simplot Phosphate LLC’s (Simplot) Vernal Phosphate Operation (Vernal Mine) and Barton Ranch properties near Vernal, Utah.

Project Background

The Vernal Mine and Barton Ranch properties are approximately 17,000 acres and are located in Uintah County, Utah, about 12 miles north of Vernal, Utah (see Figure 1). U.S. Route 191 (US-191) bisects the Vernal Mine dividing it into two almost equal halves. The west property (mainly west of US-191) totals 8,807 acres and the east property is 7,148 acres. The Barton Ranch property totals 2,143 acres and located east of the east mine property. The Vernal Mine property is located on privately-owned property, but is bordered entirely by public land. The Ashley National Forest, managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), borders the property boundary to the north and west. Public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) borders the property boundary on the east and south (see Figure 2). The Barton Ranch is also located on privately-owned property and is bordered by public and private lands. The Ashley National Forest borders the property to the west, BLM land borders the property to the south, and private lands border the property to the east and north.

Since mining began at the site in the 1950s, mining activities have primarily been confined to the west property. The mine property was discovered and patented in the 1920s and was first developed in the late 1950s by the San Francisco Chemical Company. The mine was purchased by the Stauffer Chemical Company in 1968. The first notice of intention (NOI) was prepared and submitted to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) in 1977. Chevron Resources purchased the mine in 1981. Chevron submitted an amended NOI in 1983 and a mining and reclamation plan revision in 1984. Chevron upgraded and built the current concentrator, pipeline, and fertilizer plant, allowing the mined phosphate product to be slurried and then piped to Rock Springs, Wyoming. The J.R. Simplot Company and Farmland Industries, Inc. purchased the operations in 1992, forming the SF Phosphates Limited Company through this joint venture. In 2003, J.R. Simplot Company purchased the Farmlands interest and the property became Simplot Phosphates LLC.

Operations at the mine include phosphate mining, placement of tail solids in the tailings dam, construction of overburden storage facilities, and reclamation. In 2015, DOGM approved an amended NOI to expand mining activities on a portion of the east property, located within pinyon-juniper vegetation communities. Simplot operates under DOGM permit No. M/047/007.

ProjectLocation

BartonRanch

WestSide

EastSide

ÃÆ45

ÃÆ121

ÃÆ149

ÃÆ301

£¤191

£¤40

500 N SunshineBench Rd

10020

Redw

ash H

wy

D iam

o ndM

ounta

inHw

y

2500

W

Brush Creek Rd

Dry Fork Canyon Rd

3500

WTa

ylorM

ount a

inRd

Simplot Phosphates, LLCVernal, UT

Do

cum

ent:

Q:\

Sim

plo

t\V

ern

al\m

ap

_do

cs\F

ig_L

etP

ort

.mxd

Map ProductionDate

1/25/2016$Figure 1.

Vicinity Map

SHPO Project #:U-15-HK-0040p(e)

Imagery: 2014 NAIP 1 meter resolutionSource: NRCS/USDA Digital GatewayOther Data Sources: AGRC; USGSInset Imagery: ESRI World Map ServiceSources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

0 3.5 71.75

Miles

IdahoNe

vada

Arizona

WyomingUtah

Color

ado

New

Mexic

o§̈¦70

§̈¦15

§̈¦86

§̈¦80§̈¦84

£¤40Project

Location

Richfield

OgdenSalt Lake City Vernal

Provo

Richfield

7

PrivatePrivate

PrivatePrivate

Private

Private

Bureau ofLand Management

(BLM)

Bureau of LandManagement (BLM)

State

State

AshleyNationalForest

Ashley NationalForest (Private

Inholding)

Red FleetState Park

Big Brush Creek

LittleBrush Creek

Jones Hole Creek

£¤191

WestSide

EastSide


Document: Q:\Simplot\Vernal\map_docs\Fig_LetLand.mxd

Figure 2.Vernal Phosphate Operation Property

and Land Status Map

Data Sources: Simplot, AGRC,NRCS, BLM

Map ProductionDate

1/25/2016$0 7,000 14,000

Feet

LegendLand Ownership

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Private

State

State Parks and Recreation

US Forest Service (USFS)

Perennial Stream

Lake/Pond

Tailings Storage Facility

Simplot Private Surface and Mineral Property

Barton Ranch Property

US Highways

Note: This land ownership map represents both mineral and surface rights.


4

Simplot’s future plans include expanding mining activities into additional areas on the east property, including areas currently identified as sage-grouse habitat. Simplot has a proven track record in environmental excellence and intends to cooperate with state and federal agencies in efforts to help conserve sage-grouse through implementing mitigation, reclamation, and minimization strategies, while increasing regulatory certainty of permitting future mining activities.

Overview of Greater Sage-grouse Distribution and Conservation

The population distribution of the sage-grouse has been reduced to about 56 percent of its original range in western North America (Connelly et al. 2004, Schroeder et al. 2004). In Utah, sage-grouse inhabit less than about 50 percent of their historic range (Beck et al. 2003). Declines in sage-grouse populations have primarily been linked to the loss and degradation of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitat due to many factors, including habitat conversion for agriculture, habitat loss due to invasive weeds, altered fire regimes, predation, pinyon/juniper invasion, and fragmentation from anthropogenic influences (Connelly et al. 2004).

Sage-grouse require large continuous areas of sagebrush habitat as well as substantial understory of grasses and forbs during different times of the year. Important vegetation community characteristics for desirable sage-grouse habitats in Utah (Black 2011) include the following:

Nesting and early brood rearing habitat:

o Canopy cover – 15 to 25 percent sagebrush canopy cover

o Shrub structure – age of sagebrush and growth spread are important criteria

o Shrub height – for productive nesting cover height between 12 and 30 inches area is considered desirable

o Understory– desirable to have healthy understory of perennial grasses and forbs

Late brood rearing habitat:

o Canopy cover – both sagebrush (10 to 25 percent) and perennial grass and forb (at least 15 percent)

o Scrub structure and height – also includes proximity of sagebrush to late brood rearing areas

o Riparian and wet meadow communities and stability – food source

o Forb availably in uplands and wetland areas – food source

Winter habitat:

o Canopy cover – 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover

o Sagebrush height – 10 to 14 inches above snow level

The west property includes areas associated with sage-grouse on Taylor Mountain. The east property is located on Brush Creek Mountain slopes and its plateau, and slopes that extend to


5

the northwest rim of the Diamond Mountain plateau. The east property ranges from 5,900 to 8,100 feet above mean sea level (msl). The upper portions of the east property and adjacent areas north of the property are predominantly sage-brush and mixed mountain shrub communities that provide relatively contiguous sage-grouse habitat. The Barton Ranch is located mainly on the Diamond Mountain plateau. The Diamond Mountain area provides habitat for one of the four largest populations of sage-grouse in Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has identified the Diamond Mountain sage-grouse population as one of the core breeding populations in Utah (UDWR 2009).

Over the course of decades and increasingly in recent years, state and federal agencies, researchers, and land managers have studied and monitored sage-grouse populations and developed and implemented species management and conservation plans. In Utah, UDWR collaborated with Utah State University (USU) to establish Local Area Working Groups (LAWGs). The first LAWG was established in 1996. These LAWGs are composed of private interests, governmental entities, and researchers, and are charged to assess the local nature and scope of the threats to the sage-grouse populations, and to recommend strategies to address those threats (UGSGWG 2013).

Multiple organizations have petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to categorize sage-grouse a threatened or endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In March 2010, USFWS completed a 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). USFWS concluded this species was “warranted, but precluded” for listing as a threatened or endangered species under ESA by higher-priority species efforts. However, USFWS was bound by a court decree to complete a status review for sage-grouse by September 30, 2015. On September 22, 2015 the USFWS announced a “not-warranted” listing determination for greater sage-grouse, meaning the greater sage-grouse will not be listed under the ESA. As posted by the USFWS:

A status review conducted by the Service has found that the greater sage-grouse remains relatively abundant and well-distributed across the species’ 173-million acre range and does not face the risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.

The Service’s decision follows an unprecedented conservation partnership across the western United States that has significantly reduced threats to the greater sage-grouse across 90 percent of the species’ breeding habitat.

The decision by the USFWS was based largely on conservation measures incorporated into federal land use plan amendments (LUPAs). The Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah (UGSGWG 2013) was developed to provide a plan for protecting high-quality habitat, enhance impaired habitat, and restore converted habitat to support a portion of the range-wide population of sage-grouse necessary to eliminate threats to the species and help negate the need for listing of the species under the provisions of the federal ESA. The plan aims to protect, maintain, improve, and enhance sage-grouse populations and habitats within the 11 established


6

Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs), which include the Vernal Mine area in the Uintah Basin Management Area (UBMA).

Sage-grouse Work Prior to Work Plan Implementation

Contracted to Simplot, HDR, Inc. (HDR) conducted sage-grouse lek search surveys, identified and mapped basic habitat areas, reviewed available information on sage-grouse in the Vernal area and beyond, and coordinated with Simplot on potential steps toward mitigation and conservation planning (HDR 2014, 2015a, 2015b).

To map habitat boundaries, HDR reviewed aerial photography and the March 2012 version of the UDWR sage-grouse range map, performed field checks, and coordinated with UDWR. HDR conducted lek search surveys in 2014 and 2015 to identify potential new leks on or near the east property and Barton Ranch lands. HDR prepared lek search survey memorandum reports from the 2014 and 2015 lek search surveys.

HDR completed a technical memorandum that summarizes applicable, available information on sage-grouse in the UBMA, along with select reports and plans from other areas in the state and throughout the range of the species (HDR 2015a). To develop the summary memorandum, HDR reviewed available information on sage-grouse in the UBMA and other areas that includes information on habitat assessment methods, movement patterns and habitat use, assessment tools/models, anthropogenic influences, planning documents, and habitat reclamation. Focal documents considered include the following:

Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah (UGSGWG 2013)

Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan (UDWR 2009)

Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse populations and Their Habitat (Connelly, et al. 2000) and Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations (Connelly et al. 2003)

Several study reports describing typical methods employed by USU to assess habitat in the Uintah Basin and throughout the state

Brigham Young University study on Diamond Mountain sage-grouse (Kaze 2013)

Assessment Models including:

o The Nature Conservancy Sage Grouse Conservation Forecasting Methodology as described in the Barrick Nevada Sage-grouse Bank Enabling Agreement (DOI 2015)

o Nevada State of Nevada 2014 Habitat Quantification Tool (NNHP and SETT 2014)

o BLM’s Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2010, Stiver et al. 2015)


7

Work Plan Development

In June 2015, HDR completed the Work Plan for Greater Sage-grouse Baseline Habitat Assessment (work plan) to assess sage-grouse habitat. The work plan was developed from the summary memorandum, the results of completed lek surveys and habitat mapping (which included coordination with UDWR), potential future activities (mining, reclamation, and mitigation), coordination with USU extension specialists, and with input from sage-grouse expert Todd Black, who is a project team advisor. The work plan was submitted to DOGM and DOGM provided it to the UDWR in summer 2015 for review and input. HDR revised the work plan in consideration of agency feedback and coordinated with UDWR to begin implementing the work plan in later summery/early fall 2015. This 2015 report, presented herein, is consistent with the revised work plan.

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report 2015 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

9

2015 Assessment Activities This section discusses activities completed in 2015 prior to the approval of the work plan and activities completed under each respective task of the revised work plan. Some activities initially proposed for 2015 in the work plan were not conducted in 2015 because coordination to approve proposed methods associated with these tasks was not completed in time. These activities will be included in the revised work plan and proposed to be conducted in 2016. The revised work plan includes changes to the schedule and task descriptions that are consistent with this report.

2015 Sage-Grouse Lek Surveys and Monitoring

2015 Summary Prior to the approval of the work plan, HDR biologists conducted lek search surveys in and around the east mine property, the Barton Ranch, and immediately adjacent areas. Although this work was conducted prior to formally developing the work plan, it is included here because it is pertinent to the baseline assessment.

In accordance with UDWR Standardized Survey and Monitoring Protocol provided in the Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan (UDWR 2009), and based on coordination with UDWR biologist, Brian Maxfield, HDR biologists conducted lek search surveys for the east mine property in 2014 (HDR 2014) and again in 2015 (HDR 2015b). The 2015 survey area also included suitable areas immediately adjacent and contiguous with the east property boundary and the Barton Ranch, but did not include an extended buffer area because UDWR and others have surveyed these areas adequately. They conducted the 2015 surveys on March 18 and 19, April 7 and 8, and April 22 and April 23. They did not conduct formal sage-grouse counts at any leks because UDWR is already coordinating lek counts within the region.

HDR biologists did not conduct any additional formal sage-grouse surveys or monitoring in 2015, though during vegetation surveys in September and October, they documented incidental sage-grouse observations.

Results and Discussion The 2015 surveys did not identify any new independent leks. Sage-grouse were observed during each lek search survey, but all observations appeared to be associated with known leks. Several sage-grouse were observed at or within the vicinity of the Brush Creek Mountain Lek that is located near the northwest corner of the east property (see Figure 3). During each of the surveys, sage-grouse were observed both at the immediate location of this lek and within the east mine property boundaries. The number of sage-grouse observed in this vicinity ranged from 10 to 24. On two different mornings, 4 to 6 male sage-grouse were observed strutting at different locations within the east property, but were not observed at these same locations on other days. All strutting behavior was observed within 0.22 miles of the mapped Brush Creek Mountain Lek location. All of these sage-grouse observed in this vicinity appear to be associated with the Brush Creek Mountain Lek. No other sage-grouse were observed within the east mine property.


10

Other sage-grouse were observed north of the northeastern portion of the east property and within the Barton Ranch. Strutting was not observed in these areas. Sage-grouse observed within the western vicinity of the Barton Ranch appear to be associated with the Chicken Springs Lek. Similarly, sage-grouse observed near the Cuttoff Lek on the Barton Ranch appear to be associated with this known lek.

HDR biologists have completed lek search surveys for two consecutive seasons for the east property and one season for the Barton Ranch. Based on survey results, there are no new leks within the surveyed areas at this time. Areas within both the east property and the Barton Ranch that are mapped as nesting/early brood-rearing (breeding) and are within the vicinity known of leks appear to be supporting sage-grouse during the courtship/breeding season.

During vegetation surveys in September and October, HDR biologists encountered sage-grouse several times on the Barton Ranch, but observed none within the mine property. As noted under Task 4, sage-grouse pellets and feathers were observed at several different locations within the Barton Ranch, but sage-grouse were not observed within the east mine property during fall surveys. All of these observations within the Barton Ranch occurred on or just below the plateau area associate with Diamond Mountain. These observations preliminarily indicate that at least portions of the Barton Ranch supports sage-grouse during the late brood-rearing to fall transitional seasons. Conversely, the east mine property might not typically support sage-grouse during late summer or fall, but this inference is based on limited observations.

&*

&*

&*

&*

&*&*

&*&*

&*&*

&*&*

&*

&*

&*

&*

&*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

£¤191

BrushCreekMountain

ChickenSprings

Cutoff


Document: Q:\Simplot\Vernal\map_docs\Fig_ledgland.mxd

Map ProductionDate

1/25/2016

$

Legend

&*Greater Sage-grouseObservations (Spring 2015)

Sage-grouse Habitat (Winter 2015)Nesting/Brood-rearing

Winter

#* Sage-grouse Lek (Known)


East Side Property

Imagery: 2014 1 meter resolution NAIPSource: NRCS/USDA Digital GatewayOther Data Sources: Simplot, AGRC,US Fish & Wildlife, BLM, FEMA,US Forest Service; NRCS

0 3,000 6,000

Feet

Figure 3.Spring 2015 Sage-grouse Surveys


13

Task 1: Develop GPS/GIS Tablet Application for Baseline Data Collection, Review, and Presentation

2015 Summary HDR established a geographic information systems (GIS) database and customized mobile-desktop application (app) that is integrated with a mapping-grade (sub-meter) global positioning system (GPS) and GIS, camera, and data forms. The app is based on an iOS platform (Apple, Inc.) and uses ESRI’s ArcGIS server technology and is designed to work in a disconnected environment without the need for 4G/LTE cellular data connection. Photos, sample locations, data forms, notes, and spatial data collected (points, lines, polygons) can be automatically named and integrated. Data is stored on the device (iPad) throughout the work day. Once field personnel return to the office, an initial quality control check is performed using tools integrated into the application. After passing this first level of quality control, the data is uploaded directly to a database server. This data is made available via a secured website to perform further review, coordinate with other field teams, generate reports, export data, and track progress. The app was instrumental in completing desktop and field activities under subsequent tasks. The data collected and methods employed in association with these activities are described under each respective task.

Task 2: Identify Vernal Mine and Barton Ranch Areas with Ecological Potential to Provide Sage-grouse Habitat

2015 Summary HDR reviewed Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) ecological site descriptions, vegetation data, reference plant community information, habitat mapping, aerial photography, and information pertaining to mining activities to establish ecological site potential. Ecological site potential, the potential vegetation community, and the production of plant material are determined by the soil type, climate, topography, and functional condition of an area.

Results and Discussion Higher elevation areas with relatively low slope percentages generally have ecological sites and associated plant communities capable of supporting nesting and brood-rearing habitat (see Figure 4). These areas consist of taller and denser sagebrush species that provide increased concealment for nesting hens as well as flat open spaces used during breeding. The lower elevation areas, including ridgelines and canyon slopes, support low growing sagebrush species and are generally classified as winter habitat. Table 1 presents a list of ecological sites that can occur within each soil mapping unit and a determination of seasonal habitat suitability for each ecological site. Table 2 provides a general description of reference state plant communities for available ecological sites. Additional information on reference state plant communities, including typical species composition, is provided in the NRCS soil survey report for the area.

£¤191

109

238

46

109

49

109

48

24673

238

182

182

46

246

238

109109

47246

246236

24658

246

4728075 186 9747

1094

28575 4 48 76

462 170

1949

169

2 4

184

2

19

184

169

752

46

184

18673 186

53

49

2 184

75

2

285

75

237

184

22

49

2

184186

48

261

168

168

184

184

18649

47

46

280

237

237256

246

238

261

256256

46

238

256

238256

75

46246

238

238

46

238

256

54

56

56

237

285285

58

58

58

285

70

23658

236237

73

237

58236236236 236

236236236

236

237

236



Map ProductionDate

1/15/2016

$

LegendSage-grouse Habitat

Nesting/Brood-rearing

Winter


East Side Property


0 3,000 6,000

Feet

Figure 4.Ecological Site and Seasonal Habitat Areas Map

NRCS Soil Map Unit109 - Honlu very cobbly sandy loam, 8to 15 percent slopes

168 - Paradox loam, 1 to 3 percentslopes



182 - Pits-Dumps complex

184 - Polychrome-Paradox association,8 to 40 percent slopes

186 - Reepo-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to25 percent slopes

19 - Begay sandy loam, 2 to 15 percentslopes

2 - Abracon loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

236 - Tridell very cobbly loam, 4 to 25percent slopes

237 - Tridell-Ironco association, 15 to 50percent slopes

238 - Tridell-Rock outcrop association,25 to 50 percent slopes

246 - Tyzut very channery silt loam, 8 to25 percent slopes

256 - Walknolls extremely channerysandy loam, 4 to 25 percent slopes

261 - Walknolls-Bullpen-Walknollsassociation, 2 to 25 percent slopes

280 - Yarts fine sandy loam, 2 to 4percent slopes

285 - Water

4 - Arches-Mespun-Rock outcropcomplex, 4 to 40 percent slopes

46 - Clapper very cobbly loam, 4 to 25percent slopes

47 - Clapper very cobbly loam, 25 to 50percent slopes

48 - Clapper very cobbly loam-Badland-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 50 percentslopes

49 - Clapper-Abracon complex, 3 to 25percent slopes

53 - Cliff sandy loam, 2 to 4 percentslopes

54 - Clyl-Pinerid association, 8 to 40percent slopes

56 - Cortyzack-Diagulch complex, 3 to25 percent slopes

58 - Cortyzack-Flynncove association, 3to 25 percent slopes

70 - Emlin loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes

73 - Foxpoint-Rock outcrop association,50 to 80 percent slopes

75 - Gerst loam, 4 to 40 percent slopes

76 - Gerst-Bullpen complex, 2 to 40percent slopes

97 - Hanksville silty clay loam, moist, 25to 50 percent slopes


17

Table 1. Ecological Sites Possible Within Soil Mapping Unit and Seasonal Habitat Suitability

Soil Map Unit

Map Unit Name Ecological Site Habitat Type


46 Clapper very cobbly loam, 4 to 25 percent slopes

R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)

Nesting/Brood-rearing, Winter

R034XY205UT - Semidesert Gravelly Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush)

R034XY104UT - Desert Clay (Shadscale)



Unsuitable R034XY104UT - Desert Clay (Shadscale)

R034XY227UT - Semidesert Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush)

48 Clapper very cobbly loam-Badland-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 50 percent slopes

R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon) Unsuitable


49 Clapper-Abracon complex, 3 to 25 percent slopes R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)

Unsuitable R034XY212UT - Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush)

58 Cortyzack-Flynncove association, 3 to 25 percent slopes

R047XC430UT - Mountain Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush)


R047XC456UT - Mountain Stony Loam (Antelope Bitterbrush)

R047XC460UT - Mountain Stony Loam (Browse)

R047XC332UT - Upland Stony Loam (Black Sagebrush)

R048AY008UT - Wet Fresh Meadow (Willow-Sedge)

70 Emlin loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes

R047XC310UT - Upland Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush)





75 Gerst loam, 4 to 40 percent slopes R034XY233UT - Semidesert Shallow Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)


109 Honlu very cobbly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes R034XY212UT - Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Winter

236 Tridell very cobbly loam, 4 to 25 percent slopes R047XC332UT - Upland Stony Loam (Black Sagebrush) Nesting/Brood-

rearing, Winter R047XC320UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush)


18


Soil Map Unit


237 Tridell-Ironco association, 15 to 50 percent slopes


Winter, Nesting/Brood-rearing

R047XC336UT - Upland Stony Loam (Bonneville Big Sagebrush)


R047XC320UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush)

R047XC446UT - Mountain Shallow Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush)

East Property

2 Abracon loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

R034XY212UT - Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush)

Unsuitable R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)




Unsuitable R034XY104UT - Desert Clay (Shadscale)


48 Clapper very cobbly loam-Badland-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 50 percent slopes

R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon) Unsuitable


49 Clapper-Abracon complex, 3 to 25 percent slopes R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)


58 Cortyzack-Flynncove association, 3 to 25 percent slopes

R047XC430UT - Mountain Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush)






73 Foxpoint-Rock outcrop association, 50 to 80 percent slopes R047XC474UT - Mountain Very Steep Stony Loam (Browse) Unsuitable

184

Polychrome-Paradox association, 8 to 40 percent slopes R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)

Unsuitable


R034XY205UT - Semidesert Gravelly Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush)



19


Soil Map Unit


236 Tridell very cobbly loam, 4 to 25 percent slopes R047XC332UT - Upland Stony Loam (Black Sagebrush) Winter,

Nesting/Brood-rearing R047XC320UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush)

237 Tridell-Ironco association, 15 to 50 percent slopes







238 Tridell-Rock outcrop association, 25 to 50 percent slopes

R047XC335UT - Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper)

Unsuitable R034XY247UT - Semidesert Stony Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)


246 Tyzut very channery silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes

R047XC320UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) Winter, Nesting/Brood-rearing

R047XC326UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper)


256 Walknolls extremely channery sandy loam, 4 to 25 percent slopes

R034XY233UT - Semidesert Shallow Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)

Winter R034XY227UT - Semidesert Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush)


R034XY131UT - Desert Shaly Shallow Loam (Spiny Greasebush)

261 Walknolls-Bullpen-Walknolls association, 2 to 25 percent slopes

R034XY233UT - Semidesert Shallow Loam (Utah Juniper-Pinyon)

Unsuitable


R034XY225UT - Semidesert Shallow Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush)


R034XY240UT - Semidesert Silt Loam (Winterfat)


20

Table 2. Reference State Plant Communities for Available Ecological Sites

Ecological Site General Description

R047XC310UT - Upland Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush) The general view of this area is mountain big sagebrush and needle and thread. The composition by air-dry weight is approximately 60 percent grasses, 10 percent forbs, and 30 percent shrubs.

R047XC320UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) The general view of this area is black sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass. The composition by air-dry weight of the potential natural plant community is 60 percent perennial grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 35 percent shrubs.

R047XC326UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) The general view of this area is pinyon pine and Utah juniper. The understory composition by air-dry weight is approximately 60 percent grasses and grasslike plants, 10 percent forbs, 15 percent shrubs, and 15 percent trees.

R047XC332UT - Upland Stony Loam (Black Sagebrush) The general view of the site is black sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass. The composition by air-dry weight of the potential plant community is approximately 60 percent perennial grasses, 15 percent forbs, and 25 percent shrubs.

R047XC335UT - Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) The general view of this site is pinyon pine and Utah juniper. The composition of the potential natural plant community by air-dry weight is approximately 25 percent trees, 30 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 30 percent shrubs.


The general view of this site is pinyon pine and Utah juniper. The composition of the potential natural plant community by air-dry weight is approximately 25 percent trees, 30 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 30 percent shrubs.

R047XC430UT - Mountain Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush) The dominant aspect of the plant community is mountain big sagebrush and grass. The composition by air-dry weight of the potential plant community is 55 percent perennial grasses, 20 percent forbs, and 25 percent shrubs.


The dominant aspect of the plant community is bluebunch wheatgrass and mountain big sagebrush. The composition by air-dry weight is approximately 50 percent perennial grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 45 percent shrubs.

R047XC456UT - Mountain Stony Loam (Antelope Bitterbrush) The general view of this site is antelope bitterbrush and mountain big sagebrush. The composition by air-dry weight of the potential plant community is approximately 40 percent perennial grasses, 10 percent forbs, and 50 percent shrubs.

R047XC460UT - Mountain Stony Loam (Browse) The general view of this site is birch leaf mountain mahogany and Utah serviceberry. The composition by air-dry weight is approximately 30 percent perennial grasses, 10 percent forbs, and 60 percent shrubs.

R047XC474UT - Mountain Very Steep Stony Loam (Browse) The general view of this site is birchleaf mountain mahogany and serviceberry. The composition by air-dry weight is approximately 35 percent perennial grasses, 10 percent forbs, and 55 percent shrubs.

R048AY008UT - Wet Fresh Meadow (Willow-Sedge) The general view of this site is sedges and willows. The natural plant community is composed of approximately 75 percent perennial grasses and grasslike plants, 10 percent forbs, and 15 percent shrubs.


21

Task 3: Identify and Map Anthropogenic Features

2015 Summary HDR reviewed aerial imagery and other available data to identify and map man-made features and significant disturbances in or between seasonal habitats on the east mine property and the Barton Ranch. Based on field observations, and viewing digitized data in the mobile app during surveys, HDR edited some anthropogenic features.

Results and Discussion The anthropogenic features in the southern half of the east mine property are primarily unpaved access roads to reclaimed exploratory drilling pads and the associated disturbance areas from drilling locations (see Figure 5). The northern half of the east mine property has minimal anthropogenic features including one communications tower, unpaved roads, and fences. Unpaved roads and fences are the most common and prominent anthropogenic features on the Barton Ranch property. The Barton Ranch property has several structures related to agricultural production and a single communications tower with a small building.

[[

[ [[ [

[

[

[

[[

[

[ [ [

[[

[

[[

[

[[[[

[[

[[[[[[[[

[[

[[

[[

[[

[[

[[

[[

[[

[

[[

[[

[[

[

[[[[[

[[[

[

[[[[

[[

[[

[[[

[

[[

[[

[

[ [

[[

[[

[

[[

[[

[

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[

[[

[

[[

[[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[[

[

[

[[

[[

[[

[[

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [[

[

[[

[

B

B

B

B

XY

Ë

Ë

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B B

B

B

B

B

#

#

B

B

BB

×Ö

B

×Ö

XY

B

B

BB

BBB

B

B

B B

Ë

B

Ë

£¤191



Map ProductionDate

1/25/2016

$

LegendAnthropogenic FeatureXY Communications Tower

# Livestock Corrals

×Ö Ranch Building

B Reclaimed Drill Pad

Ë Water Trough

[ [ Fence

Existing Road


East Side Property


Figure 5.Anthropogenic Features Map

0 3,000 6,000

Feet


25

Task 4: Collect Vegetation Transect Data and Pellet Transect Data through Stratified Random Sampling

2015 Task Summary HDR biologists stratified assessment areas (east mine property and Barton Ranch) by seasonal habitat and ecological site to generate random sample locations using ArcGIS, v.10.3 (ESRI). Sampling sites were located at least 20 meters from any roads, other infrastructure, or ecological site boundaries in an effort to avoid disturbance effects or edge effects. Initially, they employed a 30-meter buffer area, but dropped that approach because it completely excluded large portions of the assessment areas. They also located sampling sites randomly within 200 meters of minor roads to facilitate reasonable access.

HDR biologists conducted surveys in September and October of 2015. They surveyed a small number of sample locations within summer (late brood-rearing) habitat within both the east mine property and the Barton Ranch because September was considered too late in the season to adequately assess summer habitat. They conducted these surveys to preliminarily assess habitat conditions and variability to aid planning future surveys. HDR biologists primarily sampled winter habitat within the east mine property in 2015. Within winter habitat, they sampled sagebrush height and sagebrush cover to help evaluate the potential wintertime habitat availability and its characteristics within the east mine property. In addition to surveying sample locations, they reviewed seasonal habitat boundaries and collected data through the mobile app to make boundary modifications where needed.

As described in the work plan, HDR biologists sampled vegetation by employing line-intercept and Daubenmire frame techniques (LIDF), based on Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations (Connelly et al., 2003). At each sample location, HDR biologists employed the following procedures:

1. Anchored a straightened tape 50 meters from each sample location with a random bearing to establish a 50-meter transect.

2. Completed all of the required metadata information in the mobile app for each transect (i.e., home range name, land cover type, seasonal habitat type, etc.).

3. Took one photo of the transect from the start point and another from the transect endpoint. Recorded GPS locations for transect start and endpoints.

4. Used the line intercept technique (Canfield 1941) to obtain estimates of percent cover for sagebrush, other shrubs, and combined shrubs by measuring the intercept of shrub crowns (by species) along one side of the tape.

5. For understory composition and to estimate shrub height and shape, placed a 20x50 centimeter PVC quadrat every 5.0 meters (Daubenmire 1959). Recorded two measurements for sagebrush height; one entailed measuring the tallest live part of the shrub, including the seed head, and the other sagebrush height measurement excluded the seed head (if present). Understory was not sampled within winter habitat.


26

i. Within each quadrat, made an ocular estimate of percent for each species of perennial grasses, annual grasses, perennial forbs, and annual forbs. Estimated cover as one of 6 classes:

1 = 0-5% 2 = >5-25% 3 = >25-50% 4 = >50-75% 5 = >75-95% 6 = >95-100%

ii. Recorded shrub height of the nearest sagebrush plant (or other shrub species if no

sagebrush is present) that is overhanging the Daubenmire frame. Recorded the shape of this sagebrush plant (S = spreading or C = columnar).

iii. Recorded the maximum “natural” height of the tallest perennial grass and perennial forb overhanging the Daubenmire frame.

6. Recorded additional observations along each transect such as whether sage-grouse pellets or feathers are observed and other general wildlife observations.

Results and Discussion Given that surveys conducted within summer habitat in 2015 are considered preliminary and insufficient for statistical analysis, results for these surveys were not analyzed quantitatively. Nevertheless, preliminary findings generally indicate that areas mapped as summer habitat at both the east mine property and the Barton Ranch are generally comprised of vegetation characteristics that would seemingly fit within the criteria described in the Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their Habitat (Connelly et al. 2000). Some portions of summer habitat areas are dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), while portions also include serviceberry (Amelanchoer utahensis), birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) as dominant shrubs. Although there are some annual exotic grasses, desirable perennial grasses and forbs appear to be relatively abundant. Appendix C provides a list of plant species recorded during fall surveys.

Based on current habitat mapping, the east mine property contains 892.3 acres of nesting/brood-rearing (breeding to summer) habitat (see Figure 6). However, most grasses and forbs within summer habitat on the east mine property appeared to be quite dried out. These areas may be too dry to provide desirable sage-grouse habitat during early fall months and possibly during late summer months. HDR biologists did not survey any mesic sites in 2015, but there are a few small mesic sites within the property, near the boundary, and larger mesic sites above the property. HDR biologists did not observe any sage-grouse pellets or feathers within summer habitat on the east mine property; nevertheless, it is important to remember that these observations are based on limited surveys. Future vegetation surveys that are well-timed and include an adequate sample size would help to better evaluate habitat suitability for summer use.

kjkj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kjkj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kjkj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kjkj

kjkj

kj

kj

kj

kjkj

kjkj

157-S-58

219-W-236

180-S-70

288-W-246299-W-246242-W-237

84-W-246

94-W-246

88-W-24696-W-246

33-W-237

41-W-237

86-W-246

304-W-246

306-W-246

78-W-246

79-W-24690-W-246

89-W-246

87-W-45

93-W-24695-W-246

70-W-246

81-W-246

295-W-246

97-W-246

231-W-236

47-W-237

2-W-23653-W-236

47-W-236

212-W-236

69-W-246167-S-58

233-W-236 189-S-70

£¤191



Map ProductionDate

1/25/2016

$

Legendkj 2015 Vegetation Transect Location

Sage-grouse Habitat (Winter 2015)Nesting/Brood-rearing

Winter


East Side Property


0 3,000 6,000

Feet

Figure 6.Vegetation Transect Location Map


29

Based on current habitat mapping, the Barton Ranch contains 1,377.5 acres of nesting/brood-rearing habitat. Summer habitat within the Barton Ranch appeared similar to that of the east mine property, but grasses and forbs generally appeared to be lusher and some portions appeared to have a notably higher percentage of sagebrush cover. HDR biologists observed some sage-grouse pellets and feathers at a few different locations within the Barton Ranch. The Barton Ranch also contains 178.9 acres of winter habitat.

HDR biologists employed transects at 32 sample locations within winter habitat on the east mine property. Figure 6 is a map showing 2015 transect sample locations and seasonal habitats. Based on current habitat mapping, the east mine property contains 1,750.8 acres of winter habitat. The land cover type was black sagebrush/native perennial at 26 of the sample locations and black sagebrush/annual exotic at 6 of the sample locations. Table 3 presents the means of sagebrush cover, sagebrush height, and height of other shrubs for all 32 samples combined. Appendix A provides transect data for each sample location and Appendix B provides transect photos.

Table 3. Means (SE) of 2015 Vegetation Measurements at Sample Locations (n = 32) in Winter Habitat on East Mine Property

Sage-brush

Canopy Cover

Sage-brush Height Other Shrub

Height Excluding Seed Head

Including Seed Head

Mean 17.8% 15.5 cm 24.7 cm 2.4 cm

Standard Error Estimate ±0.7% ±0.8% ±1.0% ±0.4%

cm = centimeters

Connelly et al. (2000) developed habitat criteria or indicators required by sage-grouse for specific seasonal needs (breeding, summer, and wintering) and identified general suitable characteristics for winter habitat as having 10 to 30 percent average sagebrush canopy cover exposed above snow with average sagebrush height of 25 to 35 centimeters exposed above snow. 2015 survey results for winter habitat represent maximum sagebrush availability since these surveys were completed in the fall when the site was free of snow. Under these conditions, winter habitat on the east mine property is within the habitat guidelines for average sagebrush canopy, but falls below guidelines for sagebrush height for measurements excluding seed heads. At increasing snow levels, site conditions would diverge further from habitat guidelines.

While general habitat criteria were recommended, Connelly et al. (2000) recognized that there may be a need to adjust height and cover requirements, but any such adjustments should be reasonable and ecologically defensible. Any regional adjustments should be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data and sage-grouse management zones (Stiver et al. 2015). Sage-grouse rely exclusively on sagebrush for both forage and shelter during the winter. Habitat selection factors include snow depth, elevation, aspect, the amount of sagebrush above the snow level. Sage-grouse often prefer south or southwest facing aspects and may be found on windswept ridges, draws, or other locations with sagebrush available above the snow (Black 2011). Wintertime seasonal use and movement patterns of sage-grouse populations in the vicinity of the Vernal mine have not been studied extensively, but sage-


30

grouse seem to tend to stay in mountain sagebrush communities, above winter habitat on the east mine property, unless or until snow levels push sage-grouse to lower elevations, where they have been documented in sagebrush flats that are located well below the mine property (UDWR 2015). Winter habitat on the east mine property includes some south to southwest facing aspects and windswept ridgelines. Even though sagebrush is typically low growing and sparse at these locations, they might provide patches of exposed sagebrush when other areas are covered by snow. However, the extent of sage-grouse use of these areas or any others on the east mine property during the winter is currently unknown (UDWR 2015).

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report PROPOSED 2016 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

31

Proposed 2016 Assessment Activities This section summarizes anticipated 2016 activities. A large component of proposed work for 2016 entails collecting vegetation data, with LIDF techniques described in the work plan, within nesting/brood-rearing habitat on both the east mine property and the Barton Ranch, during appropriate seasonal survey windows for breeding and summer habitat. HDR will also coordinate and collaborate with UDWR to support studies to monitor seasonal movements of sage-grouse fastened GPS transmitters that are associated with nearby leks. Sage-grouse are known to use some areas within the west mine property. Other areas on the west side, such as reclaimed areas and tree-removal areas, may also provide sage-grouse habitat now or in the future. HDR will map and assess sage-grouse habitat and potential habitat on the west side property in 2016. Table 4 summarizes planned 2016 work plan activities.

Table 4. Proposed General Schedule for 2016 Work Plan Activities

Task Timeline

Task Timeline

Task 1: Update Database and Work Plan (review 2015 results with agency feedback; coordinate status of state mitigation planning and evaluate potentially applicable modeling; review lek count data; review data on west side property applicable to sage-grouse, update work plan for 2016)

Winter/spring 2016

Task 2: Further Identify and Map Anthropogenic Features (west mine property only)

Spring 2016

Task 3: Further Assess Ecological Site Potential to Characterize Seasonal Habitat Areas (west mine property)

Winter/spring 2016

Task 4: Collect Additional Habitat Data (LIDR vegetation transects on east mine property and Barton Ranch nesting and summer habitats; habitat mapping and limited vegetation transects on west mine property)

Spring/summer 2016

Task 5: Conduct Sage-grouse Surveys and Monitoring (support UDWR radio collar studies)

Periodically throughout 2016

Task 6: Analyze Data and Prepare 2016 Baseline Monitoring Report Fall/winter 2016

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report SUMMARY

33

Summary In 2015, HDR reviewed and compiled applicable information on sage-grouse to help develop a work plan to assess baseline habitat conditions, and provided that work plan to DOGM (and subsequently UDWR) in summer 2015 for review and input. HDR coordinated with UDWR to begin implementing the work plan in 2015. The timing of coordinating the work plan did not allow for vegetation sampling in nesting and summer habitat to take place during appropriate seasonal survey windows, so HDR conducted only preliminary surveys in these areas in 2015. HDR biologists collected vegetation data at 32 sample locations within winter habitat on the east mine property. The results of these surveys suggest that winter habitat on the east mine property does not meet general habitat guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000), but exposed slopes and other areas may still provide sage-grouse habitat. The extent of sage-grouse use of winter habitat on the east mine property is currently unknown.

UDWR and others monitor sage-grouse populations in the Vernal area, including within the vicinity of the Vernal Mine. With support from the U.S. Forest Service, in 2016 UDWR plans to fasten GPS transmitters to sage-grouse at leks near the east mine property and the Barton Ranch.

Proposed 2016 work plan activities include collecting habitat data on the east mine property, Barton Ranch, and west mine property. HDR will collect vegetation data within nesting/brood-rearing habitat on both the east mine property and the Barton Ranch to help establish baseline habitat characteristics. HDR will coordinate with UDWR and others to obtain updated information on the status of mitigation planning to implement the 2013 Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah (UGSGWG 2013). HDR will review available data and conduct select assessment activities on the west mine property in order to help develop an accounting on sage-grouse habitat for entire mine. Mining may provide long-term benefits to sage-grouse in areas where formerly forested (juniper) areas are reclaimed as sage-brush communities (or areas reclaimed as grasslands that eventually transitions to sage-brush communities). Accordingly, the effects of past, current, and future mining activities would be incorporated into the conservation and mitigation plan for the mine.

Additional Information

The following supporting information is included in the appendices to this report:

Appendix A – 2015 Vegetation Transect Data in Winter Habitat Appendix B – 2015 Transect Photographs Appendix C – 2015 Plant List

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report REFERENCES

35

References Black, T.A. Sage Grouse Habitat in Utah. A Guide for Land Owners and Mangers. 2011. Utah

Community-Based Conservation Program. Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5230.

Beck, J.L., D.L. Mitchell, and B. D. Maxfield. 2003. Changes in the distribution and status of sage-grouse in Utah. Western North America Naturalist 63: 203-214.

Canfield, R. H. 1941. Application of the line-interception method in sampling range vegetation. Journal of Forestry 39:388–394.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985.

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-grouse Habitats and Populations. Station Bulletin 80. University of Idaho College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, Moscow, Idaho, USA.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Daubenmire, R.F. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64.

DOI (Department of the Interior), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Barrick Gold of North America. March 25, 2015

HDR. 2014. 2014 Greater Sage-Grouse Surveys. Vernal Phosphate Operations Expansion. May 2014.

HDR. 2015a. Summary on Greater-Sage Grouse Information Review. Technical Memorandum to Simplot. June 2, 2015.

HDR 2015b. 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Search Surveys. Technical Memorandum to Simplot. June 2, 2015.

Kaze, Joshua Taft, "Habitat Selection by Two K-Selected Species: An Application to Bison and Sage Grouse" (2013). All Theses and Dissertations. Paper 4284. Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah.

NNHP and SETT (Nevada Natural Heritage Program and the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team). 2014. Nevada Habitat Quantification Tool Scientific Methods Document v1.0. Prepared by Environmental Incentives, LLC and EcoMetrix Solutions Group, LLC.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W.Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, and M. A. Hilliard. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. The Condor 106:363-376.

Simplot Phosphates LLC | 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report REFERENCES

36

Stiver, S.J., E.T Rinkes, and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished Report. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado.

UDWR (Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources). 2009. Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication 09-17, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

UDWR 2015. Personal communication between Brian Maxfield (UDWR), Mike Perkins (HDR), and Todd Black. October 2015.

UGSGWG (Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Working Group). 2013. 2013 Conservation Plan for Greater Sage grouse in Utah. February 14, 2013. Internet website: http://wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/sage-grouse/pdf/greater_sage_grouse_plan.pdf

A 2015 Vegetation Transect Data in Winter Habitat

Transect ID Date Evaluators Land Cover TypeEcological

Site IDSeasonal

Habitat TypeAverage Sagebrush

Percent Cover

Average Sagebrush Height with

Inflorescence (cm)

Averave Sagebrush Height without

Inflorescence (cm)

Sage-grouse Pellets Present

288-W-246 9/29/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 21 26 26 No299-W-246 9/29/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 24 34 20 No242-W-237 9/29/2015 MP MM Black Sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 16 22 22 No84-W-246 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 18 24 15 No94-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 10 24 11 No88-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 16 23 14 No96-W-246 9/30/2015 MM MP Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 17 24 14 No33-W-237 9/30/2015 MM MP Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 13 13 8 No41-W-237 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 13 14 8 No86-W-246 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 16 23 13 No304-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 21 27 16 No306-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 24 37 25 No78-W-246 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 18 31 17 No79-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 17 28 15 No90-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 21 24 13 No89-W-246 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 21 26 17 No87-W-45 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrus/NP 320/332 Winter 18 29 20 No93-W-246 10/1/2015 MM MP Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 20 19 11 No95-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 23 30 14 No70-W-246 10/1/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 24 29 17 No81-W-246 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 23 25 16 No295-W-246 10/1/2015 MM MP Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 14 37 24 No97-W-246 9/30/2015 MP MM Black sagebrush/EA 320/332 Winter 25 30 20 No231-W-236 10/19/2015 MP TB Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 20 18 18 No47-W-237 10/19/2015 MP TB Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 15 23 15 No2-W-236 10/19/2015 MP TB Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 16 24 13 No53-W-236 10/13/2015 MP TB Black sagebrush/NP 320/232 Winter 16 26 17 No233-W-236 10/13/2015 MP TB Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 19 21 10 No219-W-236 10/13/2015 TB MP Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 11 19 6 No47-W-236 10/13/2015 TB MP Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 14 22 14 No212-W-236 10/13/2015 MP TB Black sagebrush/NP 320/232 Winter 14 14 14 No69-W-246 10/1/2015 MM MP Black sagebrush/NP 320/332 Winter 13 24 12 NoMP = Mike Perkins, MM = Matt Modlin, TB = Todd Black, NP = native perennial grass, EA = exotic annual grass

.

B 2015 Transect Photographs

2015 Transect Photos

i

2015 Transect Photos Photo 1. Transect 94-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................... 1 Photo 2. Transect 69-W-15, looking at potential winter habitat. ................................................................. 1 Photo 3. Transect 47-W-236, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................... 1 Photo 4. Transect 219-W-236, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 1 Photo 5. Transect 233-W-236, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 1 Photo 6. Transect 299-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 1 Photo 7. Transect 79-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................... 2 Photo 8. Transect 295-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 2 Photo 9. Transect 306-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 2 Photo 10. Transect 212-W-236, looking at potential winter habitat. ........................................................... 2 Photo 11. Transect 53-W-236, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 2 Photo 12. Transect 70-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 2 Photo 13. Transect 90-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 3 Photo 14. Transect 304-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ........................................................... 3 Photo 15. Transect 93-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 3 Photo 16. Transect 84-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 3 Photo 17. Transect 88-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 3 Photo 18. Transect 95-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 3 Photo 19. Transect 81-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 4 Photo 20. Transect 87-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 4 Photo 21. Transect 41-W-237, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 4 Photo 22. Transect 33-W-237, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 4 Photo 23. Transect 96-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 4 Photo 24. Transect 86-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 4 Photo 25. Transect 78-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 5 Photo 26. Transect 97-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 5 Photo 27. Transect 89-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ............................................................. 5 Photo 28. Transect 288-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat. ........................................................... 5 Photo 29. Transect 242-W-237, looking at potential winter habitat. ........................................................... 5 Photo 30. Transect 157-S-58, looking at potential nesting/brood rearing habitat. ..................................... 5 Photo 31. Transect 5-S-999, looking at potential nesting/brood rearing habitat. ....................................... 6 Photo 32. Transect 180-S-70, looking at potential nesting/brood rearing habitat. ..................................... 6 Photo 33. Transect 189-S-70, looking at potential nesting/brood rearing habitat. ..................................... 6 Photo 34. Transect 167-S-58, looking at potential nesting/brood rearing habitat. ..................................... 6


1

Photo 1. Transect 94-W-246, looking at potential winter habitat.







2








3








4








5






Photo 30. Transect 157-S-58, looking at potential nesting/brood rearing habitat.


6





C 2015 Plant List

Scientific Name Common NameForb Classification

SHRUBSDwarf sagebrushArtemisia nova Black sagebrush N/ATall sagebrushArtemisia tridentata tridentata Basin big sagebrush N/AArtemisia tridentata vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush N/ASubshrub sagebrushArtemisia frigida Fringed sagewort N/AOther shrubsAmelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry N/AAmelanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry N/AJuniperus osteosperma Utah juniper N/APrunus virginiana Chokecherry N/APurshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush N/ARibes aureum Golden currant N/ASymphoricarpos albus Common snowberry N/ASymphoricarpos occidentalis Western snowberry N/AEriogonum microthecum Slender buckwheat N/AGutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed N/AKrascheninnikovia lanata Winterfat N/AFORBSAnnuals/Occasionally BiennialsAbutilon theophrasti Velvetleaf N/AAlyssum desertorum Desert alyssum InvasiveAmbrosia artemisiifolia Annual ragweed N/AArtemisia annua Sweet sagewort N/AThlaspi arvense Pennycress InvasivePerennials/Ocassionally BiennialsAntennaria spp. Pussytoes OtherEriogonum spp. Buckwheat OtherPetradoria pumila Rock goldenrod N/ASenecio spp. Ragwort OtherSolidago spp. Goldenrod Preferred GRASSESAnnualsBromus tectorum Cheatgrass N/APerennialsAgropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass N/A

Vegetation species list and sage-grouse preferred forbs based on BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework classifications. Other forbs may be palatable at the cotyledon or bud stage. N/A = not applicable, spp. = multiple species in a given genus.

Scientific Name Common NameForb Classification

GRASSESPerennialsArrhenatherum elatius Tall oatgrass N/AElymus elymoides Squirreltail N/APascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass N/APoa fendleriana Muttongrass N/APoa secunda Sandberg bluegrass N/APseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass N/A

2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report...2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Report...2015 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment...