The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHMP Pocket Gopher MEP2003-00007 Sanderson Field, Port, Prison Grounds - SEP Determinations - 1/8/2004 ' DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE _ (WAC-197-11-340) 'jWL% eM ;L� TO gE EPT IN 'PARCEL FILE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Revised habitat management plan- Shelton Pocket Gopher PROPONENT: Port of Shelton 450 West Business Park Road Shelton, WA 98584 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Sanderson Field-Shelton, Washington LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All Port of Shelton property located at Sanderson Field LEAD AGENCY: Port of Shelton An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and Non Project Review form by the lead agency both of which are on file at the Port of Shelton administrative office.. This information is available to the public upon request. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on February 10, 2004. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Bob Robinson POSITION/TITLE: Managing Director, Port of Shelton ADDRESS: 450 West Business Park Road, Shelton, WA 98584 PHONE: (360) 426-1151 DATE: January 23, 2004 SIGNATURE' cc: Dept of Ecology, Squaxin Island Tribe, Dept.of Health, Dept of Fish/Wildlife City of Shelton—Community Development, DNR SEPA Center Mason County- Department of Community Development(Bob Fink) ENVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST WAC 197-11- 60 Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), chapter 43.21 RCW,requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS)must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal,if it can be done)and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is requir d. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly,with the most precise information Imown,or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project lans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer,or if a question does not apply to your proposal,write"do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems,the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply'to all parts of your proposal,even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to det g if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, ever.though questions may be answered"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPR JECT ACTIONS(part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as"proposal," "proposer," and"affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project,if applicable: Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan—Shelton Pocket Gopher 2. Name of applicant: Port of Shelton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Bob Robinson,Managing Director 450 West Business Park Road Shelton, WA 98584 4. Date checklist prepared: January 8,2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: Port of Shelton 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable): The Port of Shelton is expediting the revision of the HMP in conjunction with the requirements of the 2002 Mason County Resource Ordinance. The HMP Document has been completed. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan will be updated and amended to include the HMP. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An optional Non project SEPA checklist has been prepared and attached. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. State agency and Mason County review followed by adoption of the document by the Port of Shelton. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The Port of Shelton has seen an increase in development within the Sanderson Field property area. In 2002 the Port revised the Shelton Comprehensive Plan to include construction and development plans in several areas of the property. Since Sanderson Field contains habitat for the Shelton Pocket Gopher, the Mason County 2002 Resource Ordinance states any development in this area requires a habitat management plan. The Habitat Management Plan is intended to address the issues defined in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, which they have development in conjunction with the WDFW in compliance with GMA 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 2 Sanderson Field properties consist of approximately 800 acres and is developed with an airfield, associated hangars and taxiway and various private industrial business operations, as well as several large tracts of unused, but regularly mowed prairies. In 2002 the Port revised it's Comprehensive Plan to include construction and development plans within several areas of the Sanderson Field property. The primary restoration area addressed in the HMP is directly across U.S. Highway 101, east of the main runway and consists of approximately 50 acres. About one-quarter of this area has been cleared in the past 10 years. NOTE: An optional Non-proiect SEPA Checklist has been prepared and is attached. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site(circle one): Flat,rolling,hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. . . . . . b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? C. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example,clay, sand, gravel, peat,muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,describe. e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e.,dust, automobile, odors,industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,generally describe. 3 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems,the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. C. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal,if any(include quantities,if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. 4 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder,maple, aspen,other evergreen tree: fir, cedar,pine,other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass,milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping,use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk,heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer,bear,elk,beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon,trout,herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy(electric,natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,generally describe. 5 C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts,if any: 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. C. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: 6 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,mid- dle,or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any: 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,if any: 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant,if any: 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 7 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets,not including driveways? If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail, or air transporta- tion? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any: 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example: fire pro- tection,police protection,health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse serv- ice,telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature Date Submitted: 8 SEPA Nonproject Review Form The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The Nonproj ect Review Form (NPRF) is an optional tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a nonproject proposal and to provide information to decision- makers and the public. The NPRF cannot be used as a substitute for the environmental checklist, but may be attached as supplemental analysis. Applicable information in the NPRF can be referenced in the environmental checklist without having to repeat the information. The NPRF is intended to be used concurrently with the development of a nonproject proposal. To achieve maximum effectiveness and efficiency the initial use of the form should begin at the time a nonproject proposal is being contemplated, i.e. upon identification that a plan, policy or rule is likely to be needed or is mandated. The information and analysis in the NPRF should be updated as the proposal is developed. The number of revisions will depend on the complexity of the proposal. If the proposal is minor, one iteration of the NPRF may be sufficient. For more complex proposals, the NPRF should be revised as analysis is completed or key issues resolved. If you are unfamiliar with the form, you should review all of the questions before providing any answers. This will help familiarize you with the questions and should avoid duplication of information. Please note that when a nonproject proposal is first contemplated, it is often premature to respond to some questions in the NPRF. Answers may also change as the proposal is developed and analysis is completed. i NONPROJECT REVIEW FORM DATE: January 8, 2004 COMPLETED BY: Bob Robinson, Managing Director/Port of Shelton PART I - FRAMEWORK 1) Background a) Name of proposal, if any, and brief description. Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan —Shelton Pocket Gopher b) Agency and contact name, address, telephone, fax, email Port of Shelton: Bob Robinson, 450 West Business Park Road, Shelton, WA 98584 Phone: 3 60-42 6-1151/Fax: 42 7-0231 c) Designated responsible official Bob Robinson, Managing Director d) Describe the planning process schedule/timeline Expedited option. Document has been completed e) Location - Describe the jurisdiction or area where the proposal is applicable. (Attach map(s) if appropriate) Port of Shelton —Sanderson Field Properties f) What is the legal authority for the proposal? Port District Land to be developed. Mason County 2002 Resource Ordinance requirements. Port property is within Mason County and the Shelton Urban Growth Area. g) Identify any other future nonproject actions believed necessary to achieve the objectives of this action. Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan amendments to include this Habitat Management Plan. 2) Need and Objectives a) Describe the need for the action. (Whenever possible this should identify the broad or fundamental problem or opportunity that is to be 'addressed, rather than a legislative or other directive.) 2 Needed to facilitate the development of industrial property. The Habitat Management Plan is required by the Mason County Resource Ordinance for land within the Port boundaries that may be developed. b) Describe the objective(s) of the proposal, including any secondary objectives which maybe used to shape or choose among alternatives. This proposal will enable the Port to strategically build infrastructure yet perpetuate the existence of the Shelton Pocket Gopher. c) Identify any assumptions or constraints, including legal mandates, which limit the approach or strategy to be taken in pursuing the objective(s). The Habitat Management Plan is developed to address the elements in the Mason County Resource Ordinance and address areas of habitat in conjunction with future development d) If there is no legislative or other mandate that requires a particular approach, describe what approaches could reasonably achieve the objective(s). Described in Attached Habitat Management Plan. 3) Environmental Overview Describe in broad terms how achieving the objective(s) would direct or encourage physical changes to the environment. Include the type and degree of likely changes such as the likely changes in development and/or infrastructure, or changes to how an area will be managed. The Habitat Management Plan would assure that mitigation occurs, which reduces the overall impact of development. 4) Regulatory Framework a) Describe the existing regulatory/planning framework as it may influence or direct the proposal. The Port of Shelton has seen an increase in development within the Sanderson Field property area. In 2002 the Port revised the Shelton Comprehensive Plan to include construction and development plans in several areas of the property. Since Sanderson Field contains habitat for the Shelton Pocket Gopher, the Mason County 2002 Resource Ordinance states any development in this area requires a habitat management plan. b) Identify any potential impacts from the proposal that have been previously designated as acceptable under the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. The Habitat Management Plan is intended to address the issues defined in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, which they have developed in conjunction with the WDFW in compliance with GMA. 5) Related Documentation 3 a) Briefly describe any existing regulation, policy or plan that is expected to be replaced or amended as a result of the proposal. (Adequate descriptions in section 4.a may be referenced here, rather than repeated.) If necessary the plan will be updated as needed in accordance with Mason County requirements and the development activity that may occur within the project area. b) List any environmental documents (SEPA or NEPA) that have been prepared for items listed in 4.a. or that provide analysis relevant to this proposal. Note: Impacts with previous adequate analysis need not be re-analyzed, but should be adopted or incorporated by reference into the NPRF. Identify the: i) Type of document ii) Lead agency and issue date iii) Where copies can be viewed or obtained iv) The portions of the document applicable to the current proposal and briefly explain relevancy. Summarize the relevant impact assessment or, provide reference to discussion(s) in Part II that includes this information. The Mason County Resource Ordinance was adopted by Mason County in 2002. An Environmental Review was conducted by Mason County prior to adoption of the resource ordinance that the Shelton Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was based on. A copy of this documentation is on file with Mason County. The HMP is intended to address issues defined in the Mason County Ordinance and allow development to occur within the Sanderson Field Project area. List other relevant environmental documents/studies/models which have been identified as necessary to support decision making for this proposal. Relevant plans and studies which the HMP is based, are referenced in the Plan and available for review at the Port of Shelton. 6) Public Involvement (Optional) a) Identify agencies with jurisdiction or expertise, affected tribes, and other known stakeholder groups whose input is likely to be specifically solicited in the development of this proposal. The HMP process was initiated as a result of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Department of Ecology, WSFW, local Tribes were part of the agencies involved in the review process. b) Briefly describe the processes used or expected to be used for soliciting input from those listed. [Examples: ad hoc committees, tribal consultations, interagency meetings, public workshops or hearings, newsletters, etc.] A copy of the HMP will be provided for review by the appropriate governmental agencies and tribes. A public hearing will be held by the Port of Shelton to adopt the finalized plan. 4 PART II—IMPACT ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES 7) Affected Environment Generally describe the existing environmental landscapes or elements (e.g., character and quality of ecosystem, existing trends, infrastructure, service levels, etc.) likely to be affected if the proposal is implemented. Include a description of the existin built and natural environment where future "on the ground" activities would occur that would be influenced by the nonproject proposal. Sanderson Field properties consist of approximately 800 acres and is developed with an airfield, associated hangars and taxiway and various private industrial business operations, as well as several large tracts of unused, but regularly mowed prairies. In 2002 the Port revised it's Comprehensive Plan to include construction and development plans within several areas of the Sanderson Field property. The primary restoration area addressed in the HMP is directly across U.S. Highway 101, east of the main runway and consists of approximately SO acres. About one-quarter of this area has been cleared in the past 10 years. Note: When complete, this section needs to provide information on existing conditions for the elements of the environment discussed in sections 8 and 9. A list of both the built and the natural elements of the environment is found in WAC 197-11-444, and included at the end of this form. 8) Key Issue Assessment List the identified key issues or areas of controversy or concern and include a brief statement of why each is a key issue. For each item listed: a) Identify alternative options or solutions for the objective or concern. Prior to any development it is the intent of the Port to quantify the amount of habitat that will be affected by the project. At that time, the Port will also conduct a pre- construction survey of the immediate area. This will allow the Port to prepare the necessary paperwork and initiate the permitting process with Mason County. If necessary the Port will enhance and permanently protect from the development an area at least the same size as the development area. BMP's will be used during construction. b) Describe the environmental considerations/impacts relevant to each of the alternatives identified in 8.a. Any development activity within the known and potential areas of the pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field will have direct effects upon pocket gophers mainly in the form of habitat loss. However, habitat loss will likely be confined to the immediate footprint of any new building or paved area. Use of BMP's will help minimize the impact of these effects upon pocket gophers and their habitat. 5 c) Describe reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts identified. Efforts will be made to locate new development in areas that have not been identified as active pocket gopher habitat. d) Identify those alternatives to be carried forward for further analysis. Alternatives include quantifying habitat loss and potential pocket gopher population affected, create new habitat, use of BMPs and monitoring habitat use. e) Briefly describe why those alternatives rejected from further consideration were not carried forward. N/A 9) Proposed Nonproject Action or Alternative Actions Describe a range of reasonable alternatives or the preferred alternative that will meet the objective(s). For each alternative, answer the following questions referring again to the list of the elements of the environment in WAC 197-11-444: a) If this alternative were fully implemented (including full build-out development, redevelopment, changes in land use, density of u�es, management practices, etc.), describe where and how it would direct or encourage demand on or changes within elements of the human or built environment, as well as the likely affects on the natural environment. Identify where the change or affect or increased demand constitutes a likely adverse impact, and describe any further or additional adverse impacts that are likely to occur as a result of those changes and affects. As described in the HMP, three of the areas within Sanderson Field that are proposed for development in the next five years (Sections A through C in Figure S) currently have no active pocket gopher mounds. Any development within known and potential areas of pocket gopher habitat will have direct effects on the pocket gopher mainly in the form of habitat loss. Habitat loss will likely be confined to the immediate footprint of any new buildings or paved areas. Other direct effects would be an increase in noise, traffic and surface runoff during construction. Use of BMPs described in the plan will help minimize the impact of these effects upon the habitat. The indirect effects of new development will likely be minimal. b) Identify potential mitigation measures for the adverse impacts identified in 9.a and describe how effective the mitigation is assumed to be, any adverse impacts that could result from the use of the mitigation, and any conflict or concern related to the proposal objectives and/or key issues identified. The Port will make efforts to locate new development in areas that have not been identified as active pocket gopher habitat. When this is not possible, additional mitigation measures will be taken to minimize any direct or indirect effects upon the pocket gopher and their habitat. These measures include quantifying the habitat loss and potential pocket gopher population affected, create new habitat, use of BMPs during construction, documentation of activities with a site specific letter to Mason County and monitoring habitat use. 6 c) Identify unavoidable impacts and those that will be left to be addressed at the project level. By restricting development to within those areas that are not identified as pocket gopher habitat, impacts should be minimal. Any potential conflicts will be addressed during the planning process and through periodic review of the HMP. d) Describe how the proposal objectives will or will not be met if the impacts described in 9.c were to occur. Adoption of the HMP will provide the framework necessary to ensure that development will occur in compliance with the Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan and Mason County Resource Ordinance. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan will also be used as reference. Note: Alternatives may be rejected at any point in the process if: they have no environmental benefit, are not within existing authority, are determined unfeasible, or do not meet the core objectives. PART III—IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 10) Consistency of the proposal with other plans,policies and laws. a) Internal consistency- If there are internal inconsistencies between this proposal and your agency's previously adopted or ongoing plans and regulations, identify any strategies or ideas for resolving these inconsistencies. N/A — The newly developed HMP will be followed. b) External consistency- If there are external inconsistencies between this proposal and adopted or ongoing plans and regulations of adjacent jurisdictions and/or other agencies, identify any strategies or ideas for resolving these inconsistencies. N/A — The newly developed HMP will be followed in conjunction with the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Mason County Comprehensive Plan. 11) Monitoring and Follow-up a) Describe any monitoring that will occur to ensur6 the impacts were as predicted and that mitigation is effective, including responsible party, timing, and method(s) to be used. Monitoring will consist of baseline and post-construction monitoring as outlined in the HMP. The Port intends to implement a monitoring program to measure the success of the mitigation measure using the two above mentioned methods. b) Identify any plans or strategies for updating this proposed action based on deviation from impact projections or other criteria. The Port will periodically review the HMP to determine if any updates are necessary to provide a continuing habitat protect program. 7 a WAC 197-11-444, Elements of the Environment Natural Environment a. Earth Geology, Soils,Topography,Unique physical features, Erosion/enlargement of land area No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP. b. Air Air quality, Odor, Climate No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP c. Water Surface water movement/quantity/quality,Runoff/absorption, Floods No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP d. Plants and animals Habitat for and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife, Unique species, Fish or wildlife migration routes No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP e. Energy and natural resources Amount required/rate of use/efficiency, Source/availability,Nonrenewable resources, Conservation and renewable resources, Scenic resources No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP Built Environment a. Environmental health Noise, Risk of explosion,Releases or potential releases to the environment affecting public health No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP b. Land and shoreline use Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population,Housing, Light and glare, Aesthetics, Agricultural crops No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP c. Transportation Transportation systems, Vehicular traffic,Waterborne,rail, and air traffic, Parking, Movement/circulation of people and goods, Traffic hazards No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP d. Public services and utilities Fire,Police, Schools,Parks and other recreational facilities,Maintenance, Communications, Water/storm water, Sewer/solid waste, Other governmental services or utilities No adverse impacts are expected as a result of the adoption of the HMP 8 I t4 Dina 6t- L Port of Shelton 21 W.Sanderson Way Shelton,WA 98584-Office:(360)426-1151•Fax:(360)427-0231 www.portofsheitan.com June 18,2003 NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE(MDNS) Sanderson Field and Sanderson Industrial Park Improvements TO BE KEPT IN THE at the Port of Shelton Shelton,Washington ARCS!i•• FILE on of Proposal:This MDNS addresses a set of improvement projects phased over the (5)ycars. They have been developed per the approved Comprehensive Plan(approved -5, 2001, revised April 2002). The Port of Shelton has developed a Shelton Pocket found inventory and a Habitat Management Plan. Many of the projects identified are to area established as Shelton Pocket Gopher habitat. Any projects within the habitat ent areas will be mitigated by creating areas of habitat in restoration areas equal to the cried to impervious surfaces or buildings(Figure 9 of the UMP). Actiaft to be taken me-year prior to construction start, the Port will conduct a mound count survey and is site in accordance with the Port's Shelton Pocket Gopher Management Plan. A letter ;s and action will be developed to notify Mason County and State cognizant authorities site conditions and mitigation actions taken it and Lead Agency:Port of Shelton of Proposal: The proposed projects are located within Sanderson Field and the i Field Industrial Park located west of State Highway 101 in areas designated as ndustrial and commercial-mixed use. of Shelton (lead agency for this proposal) has determined that the Project, as 1, does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An ,trial impact statement (131S) is not required under RCW 412WO30(2)(c). This vas made after review of completed environmental checklist find other information on he lead agency, This information is available to the public on request, n of Proposal: Shelton Pocket Gophers were studied during 1992 particularly for teni and road improvements and again this year. The goal of the SPG Habitat ent Plan is to establish a habitat cast Of State Route 101 in the Port's Aviation Safety to continue habitat indicated by the 1992 study to be utilized as habitat or to be useable habitat. This MDNS reports proposed use and implementation of the revised lanagenient Plan,Shelton Pocket Gophers were studied as a responsibility of the Port's !nsivc Plan a,,, Shelton Pocket gophers have been observed in some open areas of i Field. The goal of the study was to establish a Habitat Management Plan, which iFiEL"m POCKET GOPHER HAE1TAT MANAGEMENT PLAN hUte 18,2003 nitigation measures as specified in paragraph 5 of WAC 197-11-350 and Mason Resource Ordinance(section 17.01.110). This MDNS is issued under WAG 197-11- ic lead agency will not act on this proposal for 1S days from the date of this notice 4 >w. Comments must be submitted by 430 PM,July 03,2003,to Responsible Official: nson,Managing Director,Port of Shelton,450 W Business Park Road,Shelton,WA otice and date of issue to the public is the 18"'of,lone 2003. Zson 4e Official and Director elton I s 3 i 2 11-960 Environmental checklist. :NTAL,CHECKLIST i :hecklisr: s ate Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),chapter 43.21C RM,requires all governmental agencies to environmental impacts of aproposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the. :. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you attd the agency identify impacts roposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal,if it can be done)and to help the agency her an CIS is required. i i for applicants: i vironmental:checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, ;partition of an EIS. Artswerthe questions briefly,with the most precise information known,or give the ion you can. ast answer each question accurately and carefully,to the best of your knowledge. In most:cases,you le to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. do not know the answer,or if a question does not apply to your proposal,write"do not know"or"does Complete answers to.the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. uestibns ask about governmental regulations,such as zoning,shoreline,.and landmark designations. p questions if you can. if you have problems,the governmental agencies can assist you. l cklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal,even if you plan to do them over:a period of time or parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its al effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or Lional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. lest ybr nonprolect proposals: to this checklist for nonproject proposals,even though questions may be answered"does not apply." IN rmplele the SUITLE4NENTALsHwr I7OR NONPROJECr ACTIONS(part©). project actions,the references in the checklist to the words"project,""applicant,"and"property or site" id as"proposal,""proposer,'and"affected geographic area,"respectively kCKGRULND i ne of proposed project,if applicable: iderson Field Facility Improvements ne of applicant: I rt of,Shelton tress and phone number of applicant and contact person: at Duncan (369)426-1151 rt oJ:Shelton )W Business Park Rd 1ton,WA 98384 E E { ate.checklist prepared: 7.1une 2003 gency,requesting checklist: Cason County Community Development Department,Planning Division oposed timing or schedule'(including phasing,ifapplicable): 'onsuuction of`project f om Summer2003 to December 2007 o you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity related to or connected with this oposal? If yes,explain. t es. This application includes all planned additions and e,1cpansions through 2007. j znderson Field has a separate airport master plan which will be updated in 2005 and )06 and which may identify additional requirements.Figure 1 shows the location of the oposed improvements. st any environmental information you know about that has been prepared.,or will be prepared,directly fated to this proposal, j 'te Port of Shelton's Comprehensive Plan, the Sanderson Field Airport Master Platt ttt the Port's Swrtnrvater Pollutixm Prevention Plan contain environmental data dating to this proposal. ?you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly Fecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes;explain. a. a any government approvals or permits that will he needed for your proposal,if known. aswt County Gener•allluilding Permits anon County Site Development Permits' le brief,complete description(if,your proposal;including tire proposeduses and the size of the project. d site, There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your aposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to :lude additional specific information on project description.) to proposed action is a multi-year-phased development of additional commercial, dttstrial hangar and aircraft maintenance facilities to support the projected growth family wage employment and general aviation activities.All these structures are proved uses within the existing zoning and are authorized within the Port's mrprehensive Plan and the Sanderson Field Airport Master Plait approved by the VA,and are required to.serve the needs of the public and general aviation activities the airport. The total scope of work proposed on this checklist is: :1) Construction of new Port Business office, 2) Construction of Gateway District improvements(motel,restaurant,etc). 3) Construction ofNeighborhood Commercial District along Hwy 101 and 102. 4) Construction of multiple industrial and business facilities projected to include one 25,000 to 3.5,000 sq.ft. campus, 10 each 10,000 sq.ft. rnanufacturingl warehouse facilities,8 each 5,000 sq,ft.incubator buildings. 2 1 S) Constructions of 6 new 16 plane T-hangars. 6) Replacement of 1 substandard 4-buy T-hangar and one sub-standard 6-bay T- hangar with one new 16-bay T-hangur. 7) Construction of 4 corporate aircraft box hangars. 8) Construction of a 6,000 sq.ft.aircraft maintenance facility. .9) Construction of a 40,000 sq.ft.Fixed Base Operator(FBO)facility, 10)Construction of an Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility(ARFF). 11)Infrast•ucture improvements--water main replacement,roadway widening and replacement, sidewalks, walking paths, signage, utility expansion, and City- Country Sewer-Water Intertie Project. e attached sketeh#1 shows the approximate locations for the above facilities. frk will be accomplished in phases as funding becomes available. i i i i 3 i rie major features ofthe projects are: Commercial projects 1) Port Offices: A new Port Office building with additional rentalllease space will be sited along Hwy 101 with access fiam within the Port. The structure will be 2 or 3 stories with a width ofW and a length of1.20'. The outward appearance will upgraded and nicely landscaped. 2) Gateway District Improvements: Tire primary function of the Gateway District is highway appeal for retail sales and retail set-vices to the general public. Examples are service station, bakeries, paint store, lighting store, eating and drinking establishments, hotellmotel finance, real estate and insurance, personal services, motion picture,amusement and recreation services. 3) Neighborhood Commercial District The primary function of the Neighborhood Commercial District is similar to i the Gateway District but it is less highway oriented. Examples are,electrical contractors, design centers, postal centers, pet supply, farm supply, lumberyard vehicle repair and personal services such as hair salons. Offices i are also allowed in this district. 4) Multiple industrial and business facilities: One 25,000 — 35,000 sq. ft manufacturing campus with upgraded appearance in a wooded site, Ten each .10,000 sq.ft, manufacturing/warehouse buildings. Elgin are located in one complex and the other two east of Extension Roar' Unless leased prior to construction, all will be constructed as a shell with tenant improvements constructed upon lease. Four 5,000 sq.ft manufacturing/warehouse buildings will be located south of W. Henry Trusler Way. Four additional 5,000 sq.ft. buildings will be located south of Business Park Road on a relocated W.Rose Nye Way. Unless leased prior to construction, all will be constructed as a shell with tenant improvements constructed upon lease. Aviation Projects 1) T-Hiutgars: The hangars will be 16prune structures with a width of 50 feet and a length of 340 feet, very.similar to the existing T-hangars at Sanderson Field. The hangars will be a pre:-engineered steel building on a concrete stab foundation. The structures will be an S-5 UBC occupancy,type 21V construction. Each of the sixteen 40-foot wide hangar bays will by accessed by a pair of 20 foot wide rolling;doors. The site planning includes extension of the electrical power and communications systems to the buildings. Existing ductile iron water lines will be e-wended and looped with new fire hydrants to provide fire protection at each new hangar. Each bay will include a waste floor drain that will be connected to a dead- 4 end sump. The sump will be provided both audible and visual alarms to prevent over filling the,sump. Access to the hangar bays will be provided by construction of new taxiways and appropriate apron extensions as required. Roof drainage will be collected and routed to a drywell structure. Surface runoff will be treated by bioswale and discharged into existing storm drainage channels. It is expected that construction of three similar new hangars will occur to the south of the existing T-hangars, 3 T-hangurs will be constructed west of taxiway "A", and that the existing sub-standard:4 bay T-hangar and the ` existing sub-standard 6-buy T-hangar may be replaced 2) Corporate Hangars: There is an increased interest in basing of corporate aircraft at the airport. These aircraft are generally larger than aircraft based in T-hangars and require larger facilities. Corporate aircraft are generally placed in box hangars,ranging in size up to 60'x 60'. It is expected that 4 box hangars will be constructed in the nest ftw years. These structures will pre-engineered metal buildings than will be configured for specific tenants. The box hangars will be located west of taxiway"A"adjacent to planned new T-hangars. 3) Aircraft Maintenance Facility: With the increased number of aircraft that are expected at Sanderson Field, there is a need for an aircraft maintenance facility. The Port's leasing agreements do not permit tenants to perform maintenance except for routine parts change out. This project will construct a 6,000.sq,ft.faciliiy for the performance of intermediate engine repair and airframe work. Tile structure is expected to be pre-engineered metal building on a concrete foundation and slab. The structure will be designed to the UBC requirements for an H-5 occupaney; and will include ADA accessible restrooms. This facility will be located west of taxiway"A" 4) Fixed Base Operator Facility: With the increased air traffic that is expected at Sanderson Field there is a nseedfor a new Fixed Base Operator(FBO)facility. This project will construct a 40,000 sq.ft.facility for FBO functions. The structure is expected to be pre- engineered metal building on a concrete foundation and slab. The structure will be designed as a mixed-use facility, to the UBC requirements far BlfI-5 occupancies,and will include ADA accessible restrooms. 5) Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility(ARFF): This facility consists primarily of a mockup aircraft section that is used to sinutlate rescue of people from a damaged aircraft and for training fircfighters in control of aircraft fires. The facility requires the extension of utilities, construction of pavements around the fire pit area and construction of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. This facility will bedesigned and constructed in accordance with FAA regulations. it. InfrastrttotureUtilitieslPuvements: In conjunctions with construction of the above listed buildings, utilities (power,communications,water,etc)will need to be extended to each building. 5 Stormwater collection and treatment facilities will be provided as required. Existing leaking asbestos cement(AC)domestic water system piping will be replaced. Asphalt taxiways and aprons will be constructed as required to permit movement of airplanes between the facilities and air operations areas. Entrances will be redesigned for signage and vehicle flow nation of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a.person to understand the precise location of your i ;,posed project,including a street address,if any,and section,township,and range,if known. Ifa proposal would cur over a range of area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description,site plan, t i :inity map,and topographic map,if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans requiredby the ency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to s checklist. to Figure 1. i 'TRONMENTAL,ELEMENTS i th General description of the site: Flat on two levels What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percept slope)? 20% (generally less than 2%) [one ridge tune that impacts Gateway District development] What general types ofsoils are found onthe site(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,muak)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils,specify them and note any prime familand.. Gravel,Sand,Glacial Tilt. Are there surface indications or history of unstable sails in the munediate vicinity? If so,describe:. No indications present at the site. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of 81I. E Grading will be accomplished to construct buildings and taxiways. No major fill or j excavation will be required Could erosion occur as a result of eleating,construction,or use? If so,generally describe, No. Erosion as a result of construction would be mitigated using Best Management Practices. The finished site would be landscaped,planted and served by art approved stormwater system, About what percent of the site will he covered with impervious surfacesallerproject construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? Projects generally result in the addition of approximately 50%of impervious surface of each developed site. b Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: 1 F,rosion as a result of construction will be mitigated using Best Management Practices. The finished Jiicility would be part of a contptt x that is served by an approved szorntwater systenn,which will control erosion. r What types of emssions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e.,(lust,automobile,onkin',industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Incidental automobile and construction equipment exhaust will occur during construction. During facility operation, incidental automobile and construction equipment exhaust will occur. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,generally describe. JVo. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any:. Norte Required. i er Surface: I) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site(including year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes„ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type and provide names. If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. One storinwater pond(west of Iltty 101 and Turtle.Lake). 2) Will the:project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described waters? Ifyes,please describe and attach available_plans. Yes. The motel and south end of the Gateway District are approximately 175'front the high water level of the:stormwater pond 3) F'stimate.the amount of till and dredge material that would be placed in or removedfrom surface water or wetlands and indicate.the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate. the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed front surface water or wetlands. 4) Will the .proposal require surface water withdrawals or.diversions? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. I . 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? if so,note location on the site plan. - No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters! If so; describe the type ofwreac and anticipated volume of discharge. No. 7 Ground: 1) Will bmund water be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to ground wafer? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known, Sanderson Field has a domestic water distribution system with two wells and two reservoirs. While each of the projects will extend the water system piping for fire protection and domestic service,it will not exceed limitations [ on the volume of authorized water rights. Portions of the existing water system were constructed in the 19ti0s with asbestos cement pipe. This pipe has some leakage and will be replaced. At some future date, it is e.':pecled that the Port's water supply system will be interconnected with the City of Shelton water system. Stormwater will be infiltrated on site and will serve as a means to recharge groundwater. j 2) Describe waste material that will he discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, Containing the following chemicals...;agricultural;etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems,the number of houses to be served(if applicable);or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to sene. Septic systems currently in use at Sanderson Field will remain in use. Additional septic systems may be required to support future devetopmeent New systems will be designed to comply with Mason County standards. Since Sanderson Field is within the City of Shelton Urban Growth Boundary,it is expected that sanitary sewers maybe extended to the site in the fittere. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and,method of collection and disposal, if any(include gmvrtities,if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water How into otherwaters? Ifso,describe. Stoma water that falls on impervious sutfaces will be collected into the 1 existing Stormwater system or new approved storrnwater systems for treatment and infiltration. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?If so,generally describe. No. Manufacturing and repair areas will be contained, and runoff pretreated. Proposed measures to reduce or contro surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any: The existing stormrvater management system at Sanderson Field will be improved to provide additional infiltration trenches fo'r new structures. i $ j i i 1 1 U Check or circle types ofvegetation found on the site: deciduous tree:alder,maple,aspen,other { evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other _ shrubs _ { _ grass [[ pasture cin r or rain wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush,skunk cabbage, other .—......... -- water lants_.water[it ,celgrass,arilfbil,other other types of vegetation What kind and atuountof vegetation will be reproved or altered? Limited grubbing will be required to provide tariways and construction pails for buildings_ In the case of the Gateway District turd Commercial Neighborhood District some tree clearing will be required, .List.threatened or endangered speciesknown to be on or near the site. None. Proposed landscaping;use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on f the site,if any: i Landscaping will be accomplished with native plants and mineral products to permit visual enhancement while at the same time minimizing maintenairce. rats j Indicate any birds and animals which have been observed on or near tire site or are known to be on or near the site: Hawk Observed Near Site § Heron Observed Near Site ___............................................ ._..__..� ; Eagle Observed New Site Songbirds Observed New Site Seagulls Observed On Site E Crows Observed On Site �_...__._._.................. _. Other Birds None Observed or Known to Be Nearby Deer Known to.Be Nearby Bear None Observed or Known to Be Nearby Elk None Observed or Known to Be Nearby Beaver Y i None Observed or Known to Be Nearby Other Mammals(Coyotes,Foxes) Known to Be Nearby _ 9 BassNone Observed a Known to Be Nearby Salmon None Observed a Known to Be Nearby i Trout None Observed or Known to Be Nearby Herring None Observed or Known to Be Nearby Shellfish None Observed or Known to Be Nearby j OthaFish Ndne Observed a Known to Be Nearby List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The pocket gopher-is known to be distributed mostly in the southern pnrlions of the site. See t#2. I Is the site part of a migration route? if so,explain. ty'o. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: See Port of Shelt©n's Sheltrnt Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Plan. rgy and Natural Resources What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, ail, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project§ energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for hearing,. manufacturing,etc. New electrical service to new facilities will be required for heating and lighting, and natural gas service ntay be used for treating at inost nets facilities: Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,generally describe. No. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? list other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts,if any: This project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code and all other applicable codes and regulations. ronmenfid health fire there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of the and explosion, spill,or hazardous waste, that could occur as a..result of this proposart If so.desadre. The future maintenance facility will require use of solvents, oils and cleaning solutions. These chemicals will be stored in a secure part of the maintenance facility, in compliance with all applicable regulations. Malty facilities in this proposal will not require the rise of chemicals or solvents; those that do will be required by lease agreements to comply with all regulatory requirements concerning all aspects of listed and controlled materials. 1(1 3 1) Describe special emergency services that Wright be required. No special emergency services will be required. Fire protection will be provided by the installation of additional hydrants,and buildings which are required to be sprinkled will have fire sprinkler systems. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,ifany: All potential environmental health hazards will be handled and stored in ! compliance with all applicable regulations. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment,operation,other)? None. 2) What types and lcvels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a longterm basis(for example:: traffic,construction,operation,other)?Indicate what hours noise world come from the site. Normal construction activity from 7:30AM until S:OOPM on Monday through Saturday. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: i Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:30AM until 5:0011M on Monday through Saturday. and Shoreline Use What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties t General Aviation Airport and Industrial Park with nudtiple tenants. Has the site been used for agriculture?If so,describe. No. i Describe any structures on the site.. Several Teruo-owned and Port-owned structures for general aviation, manufacturing and office functions, Will any structures be demolished?If so,what? Yes, one existing substandard 4-bay T-hangar and one heisting substandard)6-bay T- riangar will be demolished and replaced with one new Ib-bay T-hangar;additionally one 11-bay hangar is nearing the end of its service life and will be demolished when so, Greeted. Nhat is the current coning classification of the site? The parcels are within the Shelton Urban Growth Area and are currently,zoned by ! he City of;Shelton as"Airport industrial". This means the proposal is a conforming and use according to Mason County Development Regulations: i i What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The parcels are within the Shelton Urban Growth Area and are currently zoned by the City of,Shelton as"Airport hidustrial". This means the proposal is a conforming land use according to Mason County Development Regulations. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site'! Not Applicable. i Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"area? If so,specify. Portions of Sanderson Field have been identifte d as a nesting area for the pocket gopher. The attached Shelton Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Phan identifies 2003 SPG mound locations No pocket gophers have been sighted in the areas proposed for construction on this application:with the e-xception of the maintenance hangar and the box and.T-hangars and FBO building along Taxiway"A Approximately hmv many people would reside or work in the completed project? I The new maintenance facility would employ approximately 4 people, and the new FBO facility would employ 4 people, above current levels. Commercial,industrial and motehrestaurant facilities could add as many as 350 jobs on the Port of Shelton Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Nolte. � Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: Not Applicable. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,if any: Not Applicable ding Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle,or low- income housing. Norte. I Approximately how many units,if:any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether high,middle,or low- income housing. None. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any: None. tbeticc What is the tallest height of any pmposed structure(s),not including.antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed? The new 16-bay T-hangars will have a maximum height of 16 feet,the new FBO will have a maxnttnn height of 30 feet and the new maintenance facility will have a maximum height of 31)feet. The motel will have a maximum height of 45' I What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? € 12 i Noire. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any; Name. ILt and Glare What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?What time of day would it mainly occur?' j Light fi-on exterior entrance lights,for safety and security,occurring at night. Could light or glare{ion)the finished project be safety hXzard or interfere with views? No,light and glare will be shielded from the runway and taxiway areas. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,if any. Exterior lights would be controlled by photocells or timers. crentinn What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Private pilots use the airport for recreational flying.The Mason Comity Fairgrounds is currently located south of the airport. Hiking and walking of pets are daily Junction of`the public on Port property. Would the proposed project displace arty existing recreational uses? If sir,describe. No,the project would enhance existing recreational opportunities. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,including recreation opportunities to.. be provided by the project or applicant,if any: None Required,the project would enhance existing recreational opportunities. toric and cultural preservation Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for, national,state,or.local preservation registers Mown to be on or next to the site? if so,generally dess`tibe. No. i Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological,scientific,or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. i Norte. i Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,if any: None required iusportation Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed access to the existing street system..Show on site plans,if any. Access to the site is from US Highway 101. Figure 1 provides a layout of eurrent and proposed site and facilities as well as 2 Hwy 101 and 2 Hwy 102 entrances l3 Is sitecurrently served by public transit'?If not,what is the appruximaie distance to the nearest transit stop? yes. How tmmy parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate!? The project would not eliminate any existing paring spaces. The new FllO Facility would provide approximately 30 spaces, and the new maintenance facility would provide approximately 6.spaces. All other projects will have parking as an integral part of the project design. i Will the proposal require any new roads or streets;or improvements to existing roads or streets,not including driveways? H so,generally describe(indicate whether public;or private). Some,existing access roads and associated utilities(water,power,communications, storm drainage)will he extended as required to provide access to the new facilities. The Gateway District project will include realignment to the west of Business—Park Road along Hwy 101. Will the project use:(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail,or air transportation? it so, generally describe. { This project is located in the existing Sanderson Field airport, A portion of project's function is to enhance existing air transportation functions. j I .How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completer!project?If known,indicate when peak volumes would occur. The improved facilities will generate approximately 700 trips per day on US Highwav 101. Approximately half of these additional trips are expected to occur during peak traffic hours. Discussions are to be held to add turning,acceleration and deceleration functions into and out of the Port. No significant traffic impact is projected. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any >. The project's function is to enhance existing air transportation functions. Ac Services Woutd the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:lire protection,police protection,health care,schools,other)?If so,generally describe. No. Fire protection would be improved by the addition of hydrants with this project. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts mi public services,if any. None required. 14 ifies Utilities curtentiv available at the site; Heel city Natural Gas K Water Refuse Service jele —Sarritaty,Sewer linplauningl L— Septic System K _Other to-Sewerj Describe the utilities that an proposed for the project,the utility providing the service,and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity,which might be needed. This profect includes extension of electrical, natural gas, water, fiber-optic, telephone, and storm Sewer systems to serve new facilities. These extensions will usually occur adjacent to roadway and taxiway extensions. 4ATURE answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I underind that the lead ,ing on thear to make its decision. Managing Director Port of Shefton Lind Development Lind Development with Shelton Pocket Gopher Overlay 15 Proposed land Developmen# For 2003/2007 $ ' I THE PORT OF SHELTON TLEGEND D� I Shelton, Washington � � I -MORHOOD COMAB?RCJ44DIS7RICT � UL AND SERVICES BUSINESS) TRUCT 3 STIMG W WELL HOUSES ILD?EXISTING WILL HOUSES TRUCT4 NEW 5,0M sqI BUILDINGS rRUCT 4 NEW 5,000sg/ftBUILDINGS j tRUCT SINGLE CLIENT INDUSTRIAL US MUCT 8 NEW 10,000 sq.ft.BUILDINGS ' IRUCT 3 NEW 10000 sg:1L BUILDINGS I .. RUCTNF.WENTRANCBAND SECTION W/POSSIBLE ROUND- - T 'AYDISTRICT j' I I4 AND SF,RVtCLLS:BUSENBSS) B 'RUCTNBWARFF RUCTNEWOFFICE.BUB.DING j R LISHAND MANGERANGETRUCP ;. I ANDARD R a RucTNEwr$oFAc¢rIr RUCT4NEWBOXHANGBRS ZOM NEW T-HANOERS AINTENANCE FACILITY .. N. IUCT 0 NEWT-HANOBRS :UNWAYBXTENTION DN SAFETY FENCE I FIGURE #1 } i rrr aei, id • _! ►♦i� .+e®�+-�s`�c®'O�®A°+?:�►<�s.♦♦♦♦+® ♦, ,fie♦♦` ,y+�, e��,, e�i♦♦+i! �O�Lp OiO� . vie+♦e� � '�♦��v♦ �� '�'` w STATg O� o S 2 s,a OYp ryL 1889 STATE OF WASH N GTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES R C , CAPITAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT VED P.O. Box 41112 •Olympia, Washington 8504-1112 • (360) 586-6131 �� FAX (360) 586 723 MAR 2 9 ' 0 March 23, 2004 MCCLANlVaNCa Mr. Scott Longnecker Mason County Planning Department P.O. Box 279 Shelton Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Longnecker: Subject: Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Plan for Utilidor Replacement at Washington Corrections Center, Shelton Washington. Enclosed please find a Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Plan for the Utilidor Replacement Project at the Washington Corrections Center in Shelton Washington. To expedite the process, we have elected to send the Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Plan to Mr. Greg Schirato, at Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for his simultaneous review. If you should have any questions,please call Ms. Alana Hess at (360) 753-3972. Sincerely, Nancy L. Winters, Assistant Director Environmental Services NLW:rb Enclosure cc: Greg Schirato, WDFW, w/ enclosures \\Efcp_server\Correspond\2004\Environmental\WCC Gopher Mgmt Plan3 23 04.doc "Working Together for SAFE Communities" recycled paper Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Plan Project Description The project consists of installing replacement steam and condensate return system at the Washington Corrections Center, and also retrofitting the existing Cleaver Brooks boilers with Autoflame controls, and installing new autoflame control software on the existing plant computer. This will allow for full boiler operation via the autoflame system, including burner control, all safeties, and sequencing. The Steam Utilidor system will be installed throughout various locations within the facility grounds. In total, approximately 5,000 lineal feet of new utilidor system will be constructed. The utilidor structure itself is a concrete vault approximately 5 feet high and 4 feet wide. The entire utilidor system will be underground with no surface exposures aside from manholes. Materials to be excavated for this construction of the utilidor are estimated to be around 7,300 cubic yards. Excess fill materials that will be placed back on-site are estimated to be around 5,000 cubic yards. Location of the stockpiled materials is depicted on Attachment A. Management Plan Exhibit I in the attached Survey of Pocket Gophers (Attachment B)provides the location of the two Pocket Gopher mounds identified during the survey conducted by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) on February 24, 2004. Exhibit I also provides the location of the proposed utilidor. As indicated in the Survey of Pocket Gophers, none of the excavation will be within approximately 300 feet the two Pocket Gopher mounds. Overburden materials will be stockpiled on the southern corner of the property as depicted in Attachment A. Thus, the Pocket Gopher population will not be disturbed by this project. Capital Planning and Development Department of Corrections March 23,2004 ATTACHMENT A RESERVOIR#2 .(CON ``� \ \A w Z uj 1 \ Ile- r ,n' RESERVOIR#1 �., &I - GOLDSBOROUGH ' CREEK NEW WATER m SERVICE LINE 1 x (TYPICAL) ' Cam=y P C 7aCKP►� � O�ATFO�I LEGEND UjUj 0 500 1000 V NEW STEAM DISTRIBUTION & CONDENSATE RETURN (UTILITY TRENCH VAULT) SCALE IN FEET — — — -- — — - NEW DOMESTIC WATER PIPING EXHIBIT-1 4 PATH OF FIELD INSPECTION Washington Corrections Center 10 Shelton, WA 4 DORMANT POCKET GOPHER Pocket Gopher Survey MOUND 0 0 February 2004 Economic and Engineering i Services,Inc. W Bellevue Mound Vernon O"a Portland Tri-Cities w ATTACHMENT B Department Df C(orrecta®ins WashIngt(on Corrections Center Technical Report Survey of Pocket Gophers i { { i i I � s i ;.cflnomis>3r.� �rginNering'S r�t+��;��, 1r,`. / '�� Bellevue Mount Vernon Olympia Portland Tri•Cities February 27,2004 Tabte of Contents 1.1 Summary..............................................................................................................................1 2.1 Purpose of Pocket Gopher Survey.......................................................................................1 3.1 Existing Conditions............... ..................................... ... ... ............... ...... ..........1 3.1.1 Characteristics of Pocket Gophers..............................................................................1 3.1.2 Description of WCC Capital Projects.........................................................................1 4.1 Methods Used......................................................................................................................2 4.1.1 Interviews.................................................................................................................2 4.1.2 Literature Review.....................................................................................................3 4.1.3 Site Visit...................................................................................................................3 5.1 Results of Survey.................................................................................................................4 6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................5 Exhibits I Pocket Gopher Survey Technical Report-Survey of Pocket Gophers I Washington Corrections Center DepammtDfConvcb na\2-04.159\Po&etgophffRopmt February 27,2004 Technical Report Washington Corrections Center Survey of Pocket Gophers Date: February 27, 2004 Prepared By: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 1.1 Summary Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) conducted a field survey on February 23, 2004, at the Washington Corrections Center (WCC), Shelton, Washington, to determine if pocket gophers (Thomomys Talpoides Douglas) exist at or around the facility. Exhibit 1 illustrates the areas surveyed including the locations of pocket gopher mounds in association with the steam distribution and condensate return systems and the galvanized piping replacement projects. 2.1 Purpose of Pocket Gopher Survey Pocket gophers are a State candidate species of concern with contributions to the biodiversity of the subsoil ecosystem in open field habitats. Thus, some type of evaluation should occur on projects that may potentially affect their habitat. This document discusses the reason for concern about this particular species and a description of existing conditions at WCC. A field survey was undertaken February 23, 2004, to determine the presence of pocket gophers and how close their habitat is located to capital projects scheduled this year at WCC. 3.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.1 Characteristics of Pocket Gophers Pocket gophers are small, solitary, burrow dwelling mammals. They are herbivorous and feed solely upon grasses, roots, and other plant material. They are non-migratory mammals (GeoEngineers). The typical life span for a pocket gopher is two to three years. Preferred habitat for pocket gophers is prairie land with short, native grasses, and a deep, well-developed soil profile with good drainage and low levels of soil rockiness. Their populations are typically distributed in a disbursed manner. Pocket gophers construct burrow systems by loosening soil and depositing them in fan-shaped mounds. Pocket gophers are active throughout the year, inactive for brief periods in winter and midsummer, and mating usually occurs from March to mid-June. Pocket gophers have several predators including owls, hawks, coyotes, badgers, foxes, skunks, and snakes (Case). 3.1.2 Description of MCC Capital Projects WCC is located approximately five miles northwest of the City of Shelton in Mason County. The total acreage of State owned land is approximately 455 acres, with 125 acres 'technical Report.Survey of docket Gophers 1 Washington corrections center DeperhnentotCocm hom\2-04-159\PodcetgopherReport February 27,2004 developed for correctional facilities (27 acres for sprayfields, 34 acres used for sludge application, 1.5 acre drainfield, with the remainder of the properties consisting of institutional buildings,timberland, and grassed areas). WCC is seeking to complete two capital projects at WCC in 2004: � , replacement of galvanized water piping and the installation of steam distribution and condensate return systems. The locations of these two projects are shown on Exhibit 1. �. The galvanized water piping replacement project will abandon 's the galvanized piping within the domestic water supply system and install new piping that provides' water service to WCC. This project will require disconnecting portions of the existing potable water system inside and outside of the facility and transferring services to new domestic water piping. In addition, the yard hydrants will be disconnected from the potable water piping. Drinking fountains will also be reconnected with new domestic water piping to the existing system. The objective of this project is to install a complete, operable, and functional steam and condensate system which ensures long-term energy savings. The project will require disconnecting existing portions of the steam and condensate lines and installing new high pressure steam and condensate return pipe within a concrete utility trench vault to specified WCC buildings and structures. 4.1 Methods Used The methods used to prepare and accomplish this survey included a literature review on pocket gophers, discussions with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Port of Shelton, and a site visit to the Port of Shelton prior to the walkthrough survey at WCC. 4.1.1 lntervievvs EES conducted two interviews for this project. Mr. Greg Shirato, WDFW, provided guidance on the areas being disturbed by WCC capital projects and directed the primary focus of the walkthrough survey. Mr. Shirato also stated that any additional effort by WCC in relation to pocket gophers would be based upon the findings of the survey. Any future potential protective actions would likely need to include the involvement of Mason County. Mr. Shirato also suggested contacting the Port of Shelton because of their current report on pocket gophers at their facility. EES's second interview was with Mr. Fred Cool of the Port of Shelton. This interview took place prior to the site visit. Mr. Cool discussed brush prairie pocket gopher Technical Report-Survey of pocket Gophers 2 Washington Corrections Center Dep.Mmt tCarzcti \2-04.159T-ketgophaRepat February 27,2004 characteristics, emphasizing that the pocket gopher is a solitary mammal that feeds off grasses in open fields. He also invited EES to look at pocket gopher mounds because he has witnessed them on the Port of Shelton site. 4.1.2 Literature Review EES reviewed excerpted material from a GeoEngineer report (2004) received from the Port of Shelton. EES also reviewed information from numerous websites including: ® Pocket Gophers UC Davis hftv://cecalaveris.ucdavis.edLir)ocket.htm ® SevilletaLTERData htti)://sevilIeta.unm.edu/data/si)ecieis/mamm l/seviIleta/profile/bottas-pocket- -gopher.html ® Abstracts, Annual Meting WCC-95, November 17-19, 1998 Capsaicin, Northern Pocket Gophers and Behavior ■ ENature.com_.Thomomys talpoides htti)://www.enature.cpnv�,yuides/show soecies f .as ?beautv1D=8714&recsFound=l 8&cu ® Colorado Division of Wildlife Education Po ket Gophers http://,.wiidlife.state.co.us/education/marmnmal guide/pocket gophers.asp ■ Ronald M. Case University of Nebraska Managing Pocket Gophers 4.1.3 Site Visit Mr. Bob Bergquist and Mr. Patrick Svoboda of EES met Fred Cool at the Port of Shelton on February 23, 2004. Mr. Cool directed them to actual pocket gopher mounds and explained that an ideal pocket gopher habitat exists within the Port property. Below are two pictures taken on the Port property showing pocket gopher mounds. 4 • {t A' ti Technical Report-3urvey of pocket Gophers 3 Washington Corrections Center DeparbmmtofCmvmowa2.04159V'bdutgophaRepod February 27,2004 EES arrived at WCC for the walkthrough survey and was escorted by Mr. Martin Crosby and Mr. Scott Knapp. Mr. Crosby escorted EES within the facility, and Mr. Knapp escorted EES around the facility perimeter. The survey route consisted of areas scheduled to be disturbed by the steam distribution and condensate return system or the replacement of the galvanized pipe projects. Effort was made for the inspectors to stay 10 to 30 feet apart from each other during the visual inspection to maximize the area being surveyed. Since pocket gophers prefer open fields, those areas were either walked through or visually inspected based upon offender activity at the time. 5.1 Results of Survey EES found two pockets of dormant pocket gopher mounds in the southeast corner within the facility (see Exhibit 1). This location is an open field with lush green grasses and seemingly very wet and porous soil.The location of the dormant pocket gopher mounds is', approximately 300 feet away from the nearest activities associated with the galvanized piping or the new steam distribution and condensate return system No other indications of pocket gophers were observed within the facility or the immediate perimeter outside the facility. Based upon visual inspection, much of the soil seemed less porous than expected. The surface appears hard, compact, and filled with gravel. EES did not take a core of soils in or outside of the facility. Technical Report-Survey of pocket Gophers 4 Washington Corrections Center Depm nm tDfCcnect mull-04-139\Po&elgopha Repot February 27,2004 Visual observations on the outside perimeter indicated flooded areas, timber areas, and open fields. The open fields outside the perimeter had indications of normal gophers, but no indications of pocket gophers were observed. t ..r' P,.... .. .6.. aA+ J� mar+�� a♦ .6 ` 9 6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations • Potential pocket gopher habitat is an open field with vegetation. Most areas within the facility are not ideal habitat based upon the presence of hard,gravel soils. • There is a limited area in the southeast corner of the facility within the perimeter that indicates pocket gopher existence. • The scheduled location of the aforementioned planned capital projects are approximately a minimum 300 feet away from the pocket gopher habitat observed during this field survey. © EES recommends that DOC shares the results of this survey with VVDFW and Mason County to discuss if future actions regarding pocket gophers are necessary. Technical Report.3urvey of pocket Gophers 5 Washington Corrections Center Depam mtofCometiou\2-04-159\Po&etgoOffRepat RESERVOIR#2 09�9-0PO �\ 01 -� •// w z w 0 a. j7RESERVOIR#1 GOLDSBOROUGH µ y 1v v CREEK ZT < _ s � _ NEW WATER , m SERVICE LINE Y (TYPICAL) ,h n � 1 v � 1 ' n i 7 c LEGEND NEW STEAM DISTRIBUTION & 0 500 1000 CONDENSATE RETURN (UTILITY --- TRENCH VAULT) SCALE IN FEET W — -- — — — -- — — NEW DOMESTIC WATER PIPING EXHIBIT-1 PATH OF FIELD INSPECTION Washington Corrections Center Shelton, WA ' DORMANT POCKET GOPHER Pocket Gopher Survey 0 MOUND February 2004 1 Economic and Engineering N Services, W - ~� 8.41.aMwrt Vernon Olympa P-Iftnd Td-Odes W i Habitat Management Plan for the Shelton Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama coucht) TO BE KEPT IN THE in support of PARCEL FI L E Hangar Construction at the Port of Shelton's Sanderson Field �R February 24, 2003 Prepared By: PPLIED E vVIRONMENTAL S +RVICES,INC. 1550 Woodridge Drive SE Port Orchard, WA 98366 Shelton Pocket Gopher HAP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Description The Port of Shelton plans to build three airplane hangars near the eastern end of the main runway at their Sanderson Field property (Figures 1 and 2). The area proposed for development is adjacent to habitat for the Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama couchi) and is therefore considered a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) in Mason County. According to the County's 2002 Resource Ordinance (RO) 17.01.110, any development in this area requires a Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The HMP must consider the impact of the development upon the pocket gopher habitat and propose measures to avoid or mitigate any negative impacts. The Port of Shelton retained Applied Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) to conduct a site review and prepare this HMP for the proposed area of development. 1.2 Project Location Sanderson Field encompasses approximately 65� acres and is located near Shelton in Mason County, Washington in Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Township 20N and Range 4W (Figure 1). The subject area consists of approximately 5 acres in the southwest section of the Port of Shelton's Sanderson Field property(Figure 2). 1.3 Proposed Construction Each of the three hangars will be approximately 17,000 square feet in area (50 feet wide by 340 feet long) and will be constructed in parallel arrangement, with approximately 60 feet between hangars (Figure 3). The entire footprint of Hangar 1 and half the footprint of Hangar 2 (and associated taxiways) will fall within a previously paved or graded and cleared area. The southern half of Hangar 2 and the entire area of Hangar 3 will fall within a previously undeveloped area. The entire construction site is on the southern end of an area intended for long-term development, and adjacent to a large area of potential pocket gopher habitat that could be set aside as an undeveloped area(Figure 3). In November 2002, the Port began initial preparations for construction by removing an existing paved apron between the sites for Hangars 1 and 2. Remaining construction activities for Hangar 1 are estimated to take place over the next 2-3 months. Hangars 2 and 3 will be constructed successively -- one next year and one in 2005. Each will require approximately 2-3 months of active construction. Each hangar will be used to house approximately 16 recreational planes. The Port estimates that each plane will make approximately 1 trip per week, for a total of 16 flights per week per hangar. 2 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HW—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction L4 Permitting Activities In preparation for building the first hangar,the Port prepared and submitted a Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist to the Mason County Department of Community Development in September 2002. No comments were received at that time, so the Port proceeded with initial site preparation. In January 2003, the Port received comments indicating that the proximity of the site to a documented pocket gopher den required a preliminary review by a qualified wildlife biologist to determine whether the area was a FWHCA for the Shelton pocket gopher. AES completed this review for the Port and communicated our fording of nearby pocket gopher habitat to the Port and County staff. The Port recently received comments from county staff indicating that HMP would be required to address the potential impacts of this project to pocket gopher habitat in the area(Longanecker 2003). 3 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HIP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction T�GC"map pwted w o2N3N3 from•q 1 detal.tpo aJ Lot/U<d tpl" `t J OV7 w 12_+09 C�`Kr w 12'•'CB JG,w wG184 123°n?ONY w 4 \we Mc at 46* n 1 t G wrlwa: F f.r4AaL.k." t . ice, i � �• �, = i SANOF ASo ! _ ill■ �^ --! --,a_ 23 4- X t / Jam.+ � � _ �•_. t 'j 1t�` �• ' � 3 - - h r -}- -- � t:a• 6�..ow t. _: •- � w.ixs � r�.wr..T,�a-•oac:x.,um�q.;.x,at�..,..>p,.,w, Figure 1. Proposed Development Area at Sail derson Field,near Shelton, Washington Sections 1,2, 11, 12, 13 and 14,Township 20N and Range 40W (approximate area dircled in red) 4 Applied Environmental ervices, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HW—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction i t . ' Y L, ! are �uscs �USGS Figure 2. Aerial Photo of Proposed Construction Site, Sanderson Field (approximate area circled in red) Source: United States Geologic Survey, 1990 5 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HAP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction P a angar cam- r s Proposed Construction Site t.000 -ro o LOW Few ® Existing Habitat N Potential Habitat Impervious Surface Tree Line — — — Approximate Observation Route Figure 3. Detail of Proposed Construction Site, Sanderson Field 6 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HA IP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction Site for Hangars 2 & 3 Hangar 1 Site Existing Pavement Figure 4. Photo of Proposed Construction Site—Hangars 1,2,and 3 Sanderson Field (February 20,2003) 7 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HAP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction 2.0 Methods 2.1 File and Literature Review AES scientists reviewed the following maps and information to prepare this HMP: • maps and data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) showing the point locations of any pocket gopher dens in the vicinity of Sanderson Field; • past studies of pocket gopher presence/absence and abundance in the area; • current literature on the Western pocket gopher and their use of habitat in Western Washington; • information describing potential methods to encourage pocket gopher use of alternative habitat; and • the Port's building plans for the hangar construction site, as well as the entire Sanderson Field area. 2.2 Site Visit On January 29, 2003, two AES field biologists visited the hangar construction site at Sanderson Field. Together with staff from the Port, AES scientists conducted an informal survey of the site and the surrounding area on foot, looking for signs of pocket gopher mounds and/or areas of suitable pocket gopher habitat (see approximate route of survey on Figure 3). Pocket gopher mounds can be distinguished from mounds of other rodents based upon their fanned shape, loose fine soil and rocks, grass clippings, and the presence of an earthen plug or soil "button" in the burrow opening (Figure 5). Primary forage for pocket gophers consists of roots, bulbs, and tubers, as well as aboveground vegetation. Pocket gophers occupy open prairie habitats, prefer areas with a well- developed soil profile, and seem to avoid areas that are dominated by Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius)(Maser 1998, Steinberg 1995, USFWS 2002). 2.3 Integration with Comprehensive Sanderson Field HMP This hangar construction project is the first of several development activities the Port is planning at Sanderson Field over the next few years. AES is also conducting a more comprehensive survey of the entire Sanderson Field property to determine which areas currently serve as pocket gopher habitat, how those relate to the Port's plans for development, and to what extent any possible impacts to pocket gopher habitat can be mitigated. Any successful mitigation measures from this smaller-scale HMP will be integrated into the comprehensive HMP for Sanderson Field. 8 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 ♦ �I I/ � I I' I I I a/ / .':�-� '�4• ,�-:.�,� ,�1' �T�{1 r�' '�-.. __."� y �°S.'Ut1� � � ��A.� vim►_ 4 / rp ia fob Ww n 11 } fA• n } .R ALA"". \ 9t►. �;rj1 '...' - �' +. 1;� .rP I g F .Y T 1 1 1 it Shelton Pocket Gopher HAP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction 3.0 Findings 3.1 Presence of Shelton Pocket Gophers It was evident from the site visit that pocket gophers are actively using the mowed prairie habitat in the immediate vicinity of the hangar construction site, as well as throughout a large portion of Sanderson Field (AES 2003). We found active pocket gopher mounds within approximately 50 feet of the site of Hangar 2 and extending out into a large area to the south and west of the site(Figure 3). As we proceeded further south, the numbers of active pocket gopher mounds dropped off dramatically(Area A,Figure 3). While Area A appeared to be similar in vegetation to the existing pocket gopher habitat, the soil was much more compacted and contained a significant amount of standing water during our site visit. Port staff indicated that this area had been graded during runway construction. While this area resembles the nearby primary pocket gopher habitat, the poor soil profile and drainage appear to be preventing pocket gophers from using this area as habitat. 3.2 Potential Effects of Construction Activity Hangar 1 The site preparation work already completed(asphalt removal)had no direct impact upon pocket gopher habitat since the affected area had previously been graded and compacted and therefore could not have served as pocket gopher habitat. Indirect affects also appeared to be minimal, as the areas immediately adjacent to the site showed signs of active use on the date of the site visit. The remaining activity to construct Hangar 1 is also expected to have minimal direct effect upon pocket gopher habitat because the new structure will fall entirely within the footprint of the previously developed area that is not currently pocket gopher habitat. The noise from the equipment and increased foot and vehicle traffic in the immediate vicinity may moderately disturb individual pocket gophers but, with proper care, will not directly affect their habitat. Hangars 2 and 3 Site preparation and construction for Hangars 2 and 3 will have a direct impact upon a pocket gopher habitat. A small portion (approximately 72,000 square feet, or 1.6 acres total) will be removed by this construction. However, by implementing the proposed mitigation measures described below, the Port can mitigate the effect of this habitat removal and avoid long-term impacts to the Shelton pocket gopher population and habitat at Sanderson Field. 3.3 Potential Effects of Hangar Use The long-term use of the new hangars will likely have minimal direct effect upon pocket gopher habitat. Airplane traffic will remain limited to paved areas which are not habitat for pocket gopher. Given the proximity of current pocket gopher habitat to runways and other areas of active use, it appears that close proximity to airplane and vehicle traffic does not disturb pocket gophers. Therefore, it is likely that there will be minimal indirect 10 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HAIP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction effects to pocket gopher or their use of habitat in areas immediately adjacent to the new hangar sites. 3.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures The Port actively enhances existing pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field with regular mowing to keep the Scot's broom from becoming the dominant vegetation. These measures, in addition to use of best management practices (described below) during construction, are sufficient mitigation measures for the minor indirect effects of constructing Hangar 1. For the direct effects of constructing Hangars 2 and 3, AES recommends several additional mitigation measures. Best Management Practices—During Construction of All Hangars - Use temporary fencing around the site. This will keep vehicle and foot traffic to a minimum in existing nearby habitat. - Use temporary runoff controls as necessary. This will keep any excess water and building materials away from existing colonies. - Avoid construction work during early morning and dusk hours (e.g., within 30 minutes of sunrise and sunset). Pocket gophers are reported to be most active during those times (Maser 1998). Additional Mitigation Measures—Prior to Construction of Hangars 2 and 3 - Option A: Use a non-lethal deterrent to relocate pocket gophers away from future construction sites and encourage them to use nearby available habitat. AES recommends using six MolechaserTM units (or a similar commercially available unit) in a phased manner to slowly "push" pocket gophers out of the area proposed for development, and encourage them to move out into the large area of undeveloped primary habitat farther away from the construction site (towards Area A, Figure 3). The MolechaserTm units use 3-5 second bursts of vibration and sound to irritate, but not harm, pocket gophers, causing them to migrate from the affected area. Each MolechaserTm unit affects an area of approximately 13,500 square feet (0.3 acres). As a first step, AES recommends installing a first row of six units in an arc along the south side of Hangar 2(Figure 6). The units could be placed in successive rows to push pocket gophers out of construction areas just prior to their development. AES recommends that this technique be tested over the summer of 2003, prior to construction of Hangars 2 and 3 (see details in Section 3.4, Proposed Monitoring, below). If the MolechaserTM units are not effective in causing pocket gopher movement, the Port can use Option B to encourage pocket gophers to use alternative habitat in the immediate area. 11 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HA IP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction that is dominated by Scot's broom. Annual grains, or other plants that do not develop extensive below-ground root systems, could also be planted to make this buffer strip even less favorable pocket gopher habitat (Knight 2000). Together with other, long-term measures to preserve and enhance pocket gopher habitat south of the development area, this will create a buffer strip of relatively less- favorable pocket gopher habitat surrounding the construction site. AES recommends creating the buffer strip first around the Hangar 1 site,then gradually expanding the buffer strip southward to gradually push the pocket gophers from the area in a non-lethal manner. These options are not mutually exclusive and the Port may elect to use both simultaneously. For example, after the first row of MolechaserTm units are installed and the pocket gophers are pushed out of an area, the Port could discontinue mowing in the area to increase the likelihood that the gophers do not return. However, use of Option B would effectively eliminate small areas of potential pocket gopher habitat — the fringe areas surrounding new construction. For this reason, AES recommend that the Port fully explore the feasibility of Option A before any buffer strips are created. 12 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HMV-Sanderson Field Hangar Construction Previously i Graded& Cleared �f Hangar 1 / Area Future Taxiway fi f tT r, •�,� Previously ft Paved ft _Hangar Pad •� Hangar 2 F+ First row of units - - - ---•---•-•®- -e--•-•- W Hangar 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Second row .... ... .... ......�.-.-.-. -. of units r ® Third row • of units ® or ® =Molechaser unit Notes: All hangars are 50'x 340'(17,000 square feet) Total project area is 360'x 400'(144,000 square feet),including hangar pads Drawing is not to scale Figure 6. Detail of Mitigation Measure for Hangar Construction Sites, Sanderson Field (Option A) 13 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HAfl'—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction Timing will be important when implementing either Option A or B. The Port should closely coordinate the timing of the relocation efforts so that land clearing and construction activities commence as soon as sufficient area has been cleared of pocket gophers. Long-term measure: Investigate feasibility of enhancing potential pocket gopher habitat in Area A. As part of their long-range planning, the Port should consider disking or plowing in Area A to enhance soil structure and increase its infiltration capacity. Enhancing the soil structure in this area would increase available pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field by more than 20 acres. 3.4 Proposed Monitoring AES recommends careful testing and monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures described above. Option A Prior to installation, the Port and AES will survey the area for pocket gophers, using a mound count as an indicator of pocket gopher abundance and a combination of raking and an "open-hole" technique to measure the level of pocket gopher activity. By raking and/or opening and marking active mounds, and then returning after 24 hours to check the number of re-formed and/or re-plugged holes, we can determine the level of pocket gopher activity in the area (Farrell and Archer 1995, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2001). The Port and AES will conduct one such survey prior to installation, and then return to the site one week after installation to conduct a second survey. This will allow us to compare the level of activity before and after the installation of the MolechaserTM units and quantify the effectiveness of the measure. If use of the MolechaserTM units are effective in reducing the density and activity of pocket gophers in the immediate area,the Port and AES will expand use of this technique to eliminate pocket gophers from the rest of the development area. We will use a phased approach, removing half of the original units and positioning them in a second row south of the first row (Figure 6). The effectiveness of the second row of MolechaserTM units will be monitored using the methods described above. As pocket gophers are eliminated from an area, the units will be removed and re-placed farther south, with ongoing monitoring to document its effectiveness. Option B If this Option is chosen, the Port and AES will use similar techniques with a longer interval between surveys (e.g., several months) to determine whether alternative vegetation is effectively deterring pocket gophers from using habitat adjacent to the construction site. 14 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HW—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction 4.0 Conclusions We believe that the long-term, direct effects of the proposed construction — removal of approximately 1.6 acres of pocket gopher habitat— are insignificant given that hundreds of acres of potential habitat are available at Sanderson Field. However, in light of the fact that this area represents one of the few available habitats for the pocket gophers in Western Washington, AES recommends that the Port make every effort to protect the pocket gophers during construction and take measures to maintain and enhance any available habitat at Sanderson Field. AES proposes two different non-lethal methods, either used individually or together, to relocate pocket gophers just prior to construction. Used together with long-term measures to enhance currently unused pocket gopher habitat nearby, we believe these measures will mitigate the negative effects of this small- scale construction project upon pocket gopher habitat in the vicinity of Sanderson Field. Monitoring during the course of the project will determine the success of these measures. In addition, work conducted during this small-scale project can also test approaches that may be suitable for future pocket gopher habitat enhancement at Sanderson Field. 15 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 Shelton Pocket Gopher HMP—Sanderson Field Hangar Construction 5.0 References Cited Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2003. Letter to Scott Duncan Re: Sanderson Field Site Assessment,dated February 4. Farrell and Archer. 1995. Pocket Gopher: Thomomys mazama couchi. Knight, J.E. 2000. Guide to Pocket Gopher Control in Montana. MontGuide Fact Sheet #2000-09 Agriculture. www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt200009.htmi. Longanecker, Scott. 2003. Letter to Port of Shelton Re: Mason County Permit No. COM2002-00183 for a 17,000 s.f. 16 Bay T-hangar, dated January 31. Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: From the Coast to the High Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, Oregon. Ministry of Environment, Lands, &Parks; Resources Inventory Branch. 2001. Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher: Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity, No. 26(Version 2.0). Steinberg,E.K. 1995. A study of genetic differentiation and variation in the Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama) with emphasis on the Fort Lewis population. Final report submitted to the Nature Conservancy. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Candidate and Listing Priority Assessment Form: Western Pocket Gopher. 16 Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2/24/03 STATE o� 4 I � b .l 4 n �H1 cede aov State of Wash ngton DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitj Way N•Olympia,WA 985 1-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207 Main Office Location: atural Resources Building• 1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia, � ----- VED April 5 2004 APR 0 8 2004 Nancy Winters Department of Corrections TO B KEPT IN TH MOGD - PLANNING PO Box41112 EI_ FILE Olympia, WA 98504 PA C Dear Ms. Winters: I am writing concerning the'Washington Corrections Center Survey of Pocket Gophers. It doesn't appear that your work will affect the existing pocket gophers on the site. However, I have two comments on the survey report. 1)The report talks about two dormant mounds. From the picture it appears you are talking about two mound systems. In addition, in the photograph they appear to be recent. Yet, you refer to them as dormant. What is the basis for that call? 2) The report mentions"normal"gophers outside the fence of the facility. If there are gophers present,these too would be pocket gophers as they are the only species in the vicinity. Sincerely Greg Schitato District Wildlife Biologist CC: Scott Longnecker, Mason Co. 4 fo Al Port of Shelton 450 W. Business Park Rd.•Shelton, WA 98584.O ice: (360)426-1151 • Fax: (360)427-0231 www.portofshelton.com • email pos@portofsheiton.com EIVED '^ KU)" SACCD - PLANNIIVC January 20, 2004 Department of Community Development Attn: Bob Fink 411 North 5th Shelton, WA 98584 Subject: Project# 02-06-1 SF— Revised Shelton Pocket Gopher HMP. Dear Bob, Enclosed with this cover letter are copies of the revised Shelton Pocket Gopher HMP revision (2) dated September 25, 2003; SEPA Environmental Checklist and Determination of Nonsignificance WAC-197-11-340(2)for your review and comments. Thank you for your interest in this matter. Sincerely, Fred Cool Project Manager Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Shelton Pocket C.opher L Thomomys mazama couchl) t Sanderson Field helton,Washington (Revision 2) September 25, 2003 • or ort of Shelton September 25,2003 Mason County Planning P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Attention: Bob Fink,Planning Manager Enclosed please find Revision 2 of the Final Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan (HMP)for Shelton Pocket Gophers(Thomomys m ama couchi) located in and around Sanderson Field. On behalf of the port of Shelton, I would like to submit this report for your review. This document represents the culmination of our work to characterize the pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field, and discussions with the Port of Shelton, your staff(Scott Longanecker), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife S f(Greg Schirato) on how best to manage and enhance pocket gopher habitat while meeting the ort's long-term development needs. • We feel confident this HMP will be a useful lool that will help guide the Port's development activities at Sanderson Field over the next several years. Please feel free to contact me with questions. Respectfully submitted, eoEngineers,Inc. Lisa A.Berntsen,PWS 'ncipal APL:LAB:tw.jl ORCM3\3632003\00\Finals\363200300Rev2FinalHMP.doc Attachments File No.3632-003-00 cc: Bob Robinson,Port of Shelton TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION 1 1.3 POCKET GOPHERS 1 1.4 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 1.5 SCOPE 4 2.0 METHODS................................................................................................................................5 2.1 PAPER INVENTORY 5 2.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 5 3.0 RESULTS..................................................................................................................................9 3.1 PAPER INVENTORY 9 3.2 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 12 3.3 POCKET GOPHER DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 12 4.0 DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................15 4.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT 15 4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES 15 4.3 MONITORING 18 4.4 EXAMPLE PROJECT 18 4.5 RESPONSIBILITIES 19 • 4.6 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 19 5.0 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................20 6.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................21 FIGURES Page No. Figure 1 —Vicinity Map of Sanderson Field 3 Figure 2—Sanderson Field and Restoration Area 6 Figure 3—Sampling Areas at Sanderson Field 7 Figure 4A—Example of Active Pocket Gopher Mound 8 Figure 4B—Example of Active Pocket Gopher Mound with Labels 8 Figure 5—Previously Documented Pocket Gopher Habitat at Sanderson Field 10 Figure 6—Proposed Development Areas at Sanderson Field 11 Figure 7—Point Locations of Observed Pocket Gopher Mounds 13 Figure 8—Active Mounds at Site A in Restoration Area 14 Figure 9—Pocket Gopher Habitat and Restoration Area 17 APPENDICES Appendix A—Memo(Study Plan) Appendix B-Guidance for Enhancing and Maintaining New Pocket Gopher Habitat • G e o E n g i n e e r s i File No.3632-003-00/092503 I • COMPREHENSIVE HABITAT MANA :MENT PLAN (HMP)—REVISION 2 FOR SHELTON P CKET GOPHER SANDERSON FIELD, SH LTON, WASHINGTON FO PORT OF HELTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT The Port of Shelton owns and manages Sanderson Field, an area of approximately 800 acres that contains an airfield, associated hangars and iways, and other small industrial operations. In April 2002,the Port revised its Comprehensiv, Plan to include construction and development plans in several areas of the property. Since S derson Field contains habitat for the Shelton pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama couchi), a ca ididate species in the state of Washington, it is considered a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) in Mason County. According to the County's 2002 Resource Ordinance (RO) 17.01.110, any development in this area requires a Habitat Management Plan (H ). The Port elected to conduct a site-wide investigation and develop a comprehensive HMP for Sanderson Field to guide and inform its development activities in the area. 1.2 SITE LOCATION Sanderson Field is located near Shelton in M son County, Washington in Sections 2, 10, 11, . 12, 13, 14, and 15 Township 20N and Range 4 (Figure 1). The local jurisdiction and lead environmental review authority is Mason County. 1.3 POCKET GOPHERS Pocket gophers are small, burrow-dwelling mammals with powerful forelimbs and external, fur-lined pockets used for transporting food. Feeding solely upon grasses, roots, and other plant material,pocket gophers can sometimes be considered a pest in agricultural settings. However,in their native prairie habitats, they contribute significantly to the biodiversity of the subsoil ecosystem(Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gophers 2001). Pocket gophers are'usually solitary creature , with one individual occupying an individual burrow system(Steinberg 1999). The exception is during mating season, which can occur year- round but typically begins on the spring. Femalc pocket gophers reach reproductive maturity at about six months of age;and can produce one to several litters per year of between 3 to 10 young per litter (Maser 1998). The typical life-span of a pocket gopher in its natural environment is approximately two years(Nowak 2003). Preferred habitat for pocket gophers is prairie land with short, native grasses, and a deep, well-developed soil profile with good drainage and low levels of soil rockiness. Their populations typically exhibit a very patchy distribution, due largely to a naturally patchy distribution of the soil and vegetation properties lhat they prefer(USFWS 2002). While there is fairly limited information on pocket gopher dispersal, it is thought that individuals have a home • G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No.3632-003-00/092503 range of approximately 1,600 square feet,with individual forages of over 3,200 feet to search for more favorable habitat conditions(Nowak 2003). Pocket gophers are found throughout western and southern North America. The Western or Mazama pocket gopher is a species of pocket gopher found throughout Washington,Oregon,and northern California(Nowak 2003). The Shelton pocket gopher is one of approximately 15 sub- species of the Western pocket gopher and is found in a relatively small area of Western Washington. Individual species and sub-species of pocket gophers can exhibit substantial variation in their body size and fur color (Maser 1998, Steinberg 1999). The Shelton pocket gopher is small (7 to 11 inches in total length) with a short tail and reddish brown to black fur (USFWS 2002). Populations of the Shelton pocket gopher, as well as four other sub-species of Western pocket gophers in Washington State, have been declining in recent years, due largely to loss and fragmentation of prairie habitat. Throughout the remainder of this document,our use of the term"pocket gophers"will refer to the Shelton pocket gopher sub-species. 1.4 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Mason County requires the following elements to be addressed in a RMP (excerpted from Mason County Resource'Ordinance 72,Section J, evised March 5,2002): 1. A map(s)prepared at an easily readable scale,showing: a. The location of the proposed site; b. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built features; • c. The nature and density of the proposed use or activity; d. Proposed building locations and sizes; e. A legend which includes: i) A complete and accurate legal description and total acreage of the parcel; ii) Title,scale,date,and north arrow; iii) Certification by a qualified biologist £ Existing structures and landscape feature including the name and location of all water bodies. g. Location of listed species and their critical habitat areas. G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 File No.3632-003-00/092503 TOPOI map printed on OZj03l03 from"Fig 1 detaB.tpo"and"Untitled.tpg" 123o10.000'W 123*09.000'W 123a08.000'W WGS84123-07.000'W �+ p i % n 24B- st.`' Z ate/' P o>1Lokcs �..a.sS-:k- s }tr,-ig s*0 z o ' a s � l 51 ,/ �fo14 1 L ♦ . L ® e p — j e •«" - e ogP wrl, a YET ��TwPd LeEue (( +I°.. .a hlod Uk. S ! 6 0 of Romp o z' �--. .,, <: ___ � �• 7 � ;Jt T lslond Lake OtA NrE / I e d { ec a N w I SANI ERS IN T i 11 F ELO ` _ - ' tl BM i62 , g= Z 4 .i .� f' � ip » � !1 Z °1Ula� o w as r . xoq SORK i13 o `��t.✓`. J j ` rc:' 37 o V ' � i_�� ._mil "�� •._>�1 ltl � .� �� - � -`� - 123'10.000'W 123o09.000'W 123'08.000'W WGS84 123.07,000'W' TN a S I MILE 1Sh" 0 Icoo FEET 0 SQO MOD METUIS Pnnted from TOPOI @2001 NatioW Cm Mpbk EiokhV(w topo.ccW Figure 1 Vicinity Map of Sanderson Field (Approximate Port boundary/lease area circled in red) G e o E n g i in e e r s 3 File No.3632-003-00/092503 2. A report which contains: a. A description of the nature, density and intensity of the proposed use or activity in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon identified wildlife habitat; b. An analysis of the effect of the propose use or activity upon fish and wildlife species and their habitats listed in this ordinance; c. A plan which explains how the applicant will avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to fish and/or wildlife habitats created by the proposed use or activity. This explanation must address the management goals, policies and recommendations presented in this ordinance. Monitoring of mitigation shall be required when appropriate or necessary to ensure effectiveness. Mitigation measures within the plan may include, but are not limited to: i) Establishment of buffer areas; ii) Preservation of critically important lants and trees, iii) Limitation of access to habitat area; iv) Seasonal restriction of construction ctivities; v) Clustering of development and preservation of open space; vi) Sign marking habitats or habitat bu er areas; vii) Title notice or plat dedication warning statements; viii) Conservation easements. The approach for maintaining viable populations of species of concern in Mason County(and in much of Washington State) focuses on mainiaining suitable habitat for species, instead of mandating certain numbers of individuals or rates of population growth. Mason County's RO therefore focuses its land management goals around protecting critical habitat features to support viable populations of sensitive species. GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers)was contracted by the Port of Shelton to perform a field survey of the pocket gopher population at Sanderson Field and prepare an HMP that fulfills the above Mason County requirements. This HMP is based upon the Port's current five-year development plan, which provides information on the general areas of Sanderson Field that are intended for development, but not the details of proposed projects. Therefore, this HMP is intended to provide baseline data and proposed mitigation strategies that can be used in site- specific HMPs as development projects are initiated. 1.5 SCOPE The scope of this project included following goals: • Identify areas of relatively high pocket opher density within Sanderson Field, using pocket gopher mounds as an indicator of their abundance; • Generally characterize habitat features (soils and vegetation) in areas of active pocket gopher use; G e o E n g i n e e r s 4 File No.3632-003-00/092503 • Document findings using aerial photogra hs and geographic information systems (GIS) technologies; and • Develop management recommendatiow for maintaining pocket gopher habitat in Sanderson Field, including an evaluatior of a potential habitat restoration area east of Sanderson Field(Figure 2). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 PAPER INVENTORY To prepare for the site characterization, GeoE ingineers conducted a search for pertinent and applicable literature. We obtained and reviewed a following data sources: 1. A topographic map of the site(printed from T DPO 2001); 2. An aerial photograph of the site(downloaded from TerraServer); 3. Maps and data from the US Fish and Wildli e Service (USFWS) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)showing the point locations of any pocket gopher dens in the vicinity of Sanderson Field; 4. Past studies of pocket gopher presence/absence and abundance in the area; 5. Current literature on the Western pocket gopher and their use of habitat in Western Washington,both paper and web-based; 6. Information describing potential methods to encourage pocket gopher use of the potential restoration area;and 7. The Port's building plans for the Sanderson Field area. 2.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION Prior to the field survey, a study plan was prepared and provided to the Port for review (Appendix A). Given the size of the study site d the time available for surveying, we used a mound-count method to estimate the relative abundance of pocket gophers in the study area. This technique does not allow quantification of pocket gophers because mounds do not have a one-to- one relationship with individuals. The literature indicates that an individual burrow system (usually containing a single individual) can con in 100 or more mounds (Teipner et al. 1983, Andelt and Case 2001). However, the mound-count technique does provide information about the spatial distribution of pocket gophers and an indication of the relative size of pocket gopher sub-populations within the property (Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher 2001). Both pieces of information will be useful to the Fort in planning future development activities at Sanderson Field. To conduct the field survey, we divided area into five sections and made every effort to use equal sampling effort among sections (i.e., equal time per unit area) (Figure 3). Within each section, a team of two GeoEngineers biologists surveyed area on foot using a cris-cross pattern The field survey spanned three days: March 7, 12 and 13,2003. G c o E n g i n e e r s $ File No.3632-003-00/092503 M O h N O M M W LLJ re vi 4w Ji °$.ris �E fv i ► s. • 5yjS1w' � � ,4 .. � ft, �. e'77 i. 3Aa w 0 • "x:„,sfl a..i��:,�...pa.� ry,;,.ni y�,�ncar.ra•...,.+s-,,a•e rn.,,,a.::y�. M O N Q� O_ .0 yr O Z Lu LU EL 0-0 Z Z - 4 ^�' 70 cl L IN B yo- *i. og—sr Rix; t,. ay E M 2 a E b S M t�affi.4� M f l" .Y• CC o�§N R iir51✓ems s r S]��N • M1 � N • Y r a o-° M p R {Q a «� W o n,rrn i_:Yti t•a<ve.n r��•.n�a�..n•rs,:en:aar�Y s}:on �a..ua•-a:. As we traversed each section, we marked ar d recorded mounds that exhibited the classic characteristics of pocket gopher mounds: a fan-shape,the presence of a noticeable tunnel or hole at the base of the mound(sometimes filled with a soil plug or button), and the presence of grass clippings(Figure 4A and'4B). . Figur 4A Example of Active Po ket Gopher Mound Hole(no soil plug) Grass clippings Fan-shaped mound Figure 4B Example of Active Pocket pher Mound with Labels • G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No.3632-003-00/092503 In many areas,we foiund a large number of of er,worn down,and less definitive mounds that could not be confirmed as pocket gopher mounds. For consistency,we counted and marked only those that were most active and that we could mos reliably identify as those of pocket gophers. At each of the confirmed, active pocket gop ier mounds along the transects, we took GPS coordinates using a March II unit, noted the gi nerai soil and vegetative characteristics, and recorded the approximate number of active mounds in 0.01-acre area (a circle with radius of approximately 12 feet). We also took digital photographs to record several active mound systems. During the second day of sampling(Maich 12),we used the GPS equipment to map the boundary of the restoration area. 3.0 RES ULTS 3.1 PAPER INVENTORY The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified one point location on their Priority Habitat and Species(PHS)map for the S elton pocket gopher. The 1993 Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan,Exhibit F identified two areas of pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field— one to the north of the inactive runway,and one between the main runway and taxiway. A 1995 open-hole mound-count study identified pocket gopher habitat areas throughout the central portion of Sanderson Field (Farrell and Archer). These areas of previously documented pocket gopher habitat, along with the PHS point locatio (denoted by a star) are overlaid on the aerial photograph of the site in Figure 5. • The Port has identified several areas of planned development over the next five years,most of which are in the northern portion of Sanderson Field(Figure 6). The Port anticipates that these activities will occur in three phases(all areas approximate): • Phase I (2003 — 2005): A 30-acre wooded area adjacent to Highways 101 and 102 (Section A)and a 3-acre area in the southern part of the field near the runway(Section B) are planned for development immediately or in the near future; • Phase II (2006 2008): A 50-acre wooded area along Highway 102 (Section C) is planned for development three to five years out;and • Market-driven: Two larger areas,a 50-a re area adjacent to Highway 101 along the east edge of Sanderson Field (Section D) and a 30-acre area north of the abandoned runway (Section E), will be developed over the next five years based upon market demand for building sites. Another very small area of approximately 0.3 acres on the interior of Sanderson Field (Section F)may also be a site for hangar construction, depending upon market demand. Beyond this five-year time period, the Port ticipates that much of the area to the north of the main runway will be developed,again dependitig upon market demand. • G e o E n g i n e e r s 9 File No.3632-003-00/092503 � M 0 N a O • O � M J r J O A f1Z 10 W W z Q f Z Z W q r U & x L 'may i! .. j � t+, II ir�Y 42 _ t I 7 d o j C+K vp��A HUR d9 7 d PIP �P.2 a� �s`u R .n 4 E�8 0 ♦ o m n a it pq .a µ, e n E ZE >� 8. 4 c C7 M O N ory � O M z J Z 111 M O $ tY Y .yati to O .g� a_z ,P O y� a W CC wtij w cl n $ ! W o a . �. a oft nwu �e wA 09 E 4=� o +}emu E 3$E R b 'G C f7.Y a � C , m a ' N u � s9a 'e g ai eo�g O � S G W gin.•^rn v��m or:,y�.n r�.�s�..M.a�,m�ar.^n:ra.�t n'�:�a ow.+ot••s..- 3.2 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The main Sanderson Field area consists of runways, taxiways, and other developed areas, as well as several large tracts of unused,but regularly mowed,prairies. The primary restoration area is directly across Highway 101, east of the main runway. Approximately one quarter of this 50- acre area is wooded, and the remainder has been cleared within the past 10 years. This area has succeeded to prairie habitat, with relatively tall, unmowcd grass areas, Scotch Broom, and some trees. Conditions were rainy and windy all three days of the site characterization. We found significant standing water in many locations. 3.3 POCKET GOPHER DISTRIBUTION A14D ABUNDANCE We found the highest levels of pocket gopher activity in middle section of Sanderson Field (Figure 7). Characteristics of these high-concentration areas included short grass that was regularly mowed, little to no Scotch Broom, and a well-developed soil profile (i.e., the soil had not been compacted or graded). We typically found approximately 1 to 2 mounds per marked sample site (0.01 acres),or 100-200 mounds peracre; however,in a few instances active mound density exceeded 1,000 per acre. As noted above, however, mounds do not have a one-to-one relationship with individual pocket gophers. For reference,densities of pocket gophers have been reported as high as 300 individuals per acre (Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher 2001); most reported densities fall between 20 and 40 individuals per acre (Teipner et al. 1983, Andelt and Case 2001). There were several habitat patches,in particular near the west end of the runway,between the runway and taxiway, where it appeared that suitable pocket gopher habitat was present but that active pocket gopher densities were rather low. While we did not quantitatively sample for pocket gophers, in these areas we found only a few clusters of visible mounds; this highly clustered pattern with lajrge areas of apparently unused habitat is indicative of low population sizes(Teipner et al. 1983). We found some evidence of some pocket opher activity in the restoration area across Highway 101, in areas where pocket gophers have not previously been documented. The photo in Figure 8 displays an active mound system alor g the northern fenceline of the restoration area (also identified in Figure 7 as Site A). This arez and the other site of active pocket gopher use contained relatively short grasses and were not d minated by Scotch Broom. However, in both the restoration area and other areas throughout Sanderson Field, pocket gopher activity was relatively low where the grass was tall or where Scotch Broom was the dominant vegetation. G e o E n g i n e e r s 12 File No.3632-003-00/092503 M O N O m O i W O U' M 12 of o M O LL W r Z ` dF- '. O Y nrn _ � = F-O 00 ix y, r. all o 8 LU 6EN;9 do E_.F • �,�, ,fi. r K} p �19 1d 3� � r s n f a a p6 .. p o40� let M, op ma CO $� Leo a a e �a a(� � o � �.it'�L� em :.. k O r..y. FE OOO p �O ` i p { 4!g r �a$5 au • o r i 41 IN PMW41M YMo C7 • • Si e: Figure 8 Active Mounds at Site A in Restoration Area(see Figure 7) There were four areas that contained some evidence of past pocket gopher use, but because • any mounds we found were quite old and worn do n,we could not confirm that they were pocket gopher mounds (Figure 7). One area was within Section B of Figure 6,near the site of proposed hangar construction and adjacent to the main taxiway. This area that was surveyed in late January and early February of 2003 and at that time was thought to contain active mounds. However, during the more extensive and thorough field sampling campaign conducted for this HMP, the mounds in this area did not meet the: three criteria we used to define a mound as "active:" a fan-shaped mound, a hole at the base of the mound, and evidence of grass clippings. It is therefore our opinion that this area is not currently being actively used as habitat, but that it should be closely monitored for future use. Another area of potential habitat was in t e large mowed field in the north section of Sanderson Field (Section E of Figure 6), an area that appeared to be primary pocket gopher habitat. This section has been documented as pocket gopher habitat in past surveys (Comprehensive Plan 1993, Farrell and Archer 1995). Two other areas along Highway 101 showed some signs of mounding,but no discrete and readily identifiable pocket gopher mounds. A follow-up survey in these areas during late spring or early summer might reveal increased pocket gopher activity in these areas, as pocket gophers are known to be more active during warmer months(Maser 1998). • G e o E n g i n e e r s 14 File No.3632-003-00/092503 • No pocket gopher activity was observed in and around wooded areas in north section of Sanderson Field(Sections A and C on Figure 6),nor did we find any along the wooded west edge of the property (Section D on Figure 6). In addition, we observed no pocket gopher activity in graded areas immediately adjacent to runway. This is likely due to the fact that Federal Aviation Administration rules require strips of approxima ely 250 feet on either side of the runway and 1000 feet on either end to be compacted and graced. On the day of our field survey,these areas contained significant standing water, which indicates a high level of soil compaction and low infiltration rates— conditions that are generally unfavorable to pocket gophers. These findings generally support those of the most recent survey f the site(Farrell and Archer 1995). 4.0 DISCII SSION 4.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT The three areas within Sanderson Field that are proposed for development in the next five years (Sections A through C in Figure 5)currently contain no active pocket gopher mounds. As shown in Figure 7,three'sites within all proposed areas of development showed some evidence of past mounds (in Sections B, D and E). Since these areas have similar features to areas of active pocket gopher use (e.g., short grasses, limited Scotch Broom), additional surveying prior to development (as described in Section 4.2 below) is recommended to determine whether these areas indeed serve as pocket gopher habitat. Any development activities within known and potential areas of pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field will have direct effects upon pocket gophers mainly in the form of habitat loss. Habitat loss will likely be confined to the imm diate footprint of any new buildings or paved areas. We base this updn our observations of pocket gophers actively using habitat immediately adjacent to roads or buildings. The literature confirms pocket gophers' affinity for recently disturbed areas (Teipner.et al. 1983). Other direct effects would be an increase in noise, traffic, and surface runoff during construction. Use of the best management practices (BMPs) described below will help minimize the impact of these effects upon pocket gophers and their habitat. The indirect effects of new development will likely be minimal. Again, given the proximity of current pocket gopher habitat to runways and other areas of active use,it appears that airplane and vehicle traffic does not disturb pocket gophers. Therefore, it is likely that there will be minimal long-term indirect effects to pocket gopher or their use of habitat in areas immediately adjacent to any new development. 4.2 MITIGATION MgASURES We recommend that the Port make efforts to locate new development in areas that have not been identified as active pocket gopher habitat ( .e.,those labeled as"current habitat" in Figure 7). When this is not possible,we recommend the following mitigation measures to minimize any direct or indirect effects upon pocket gophers and their habitat. • G e o E n g i n e e r s 15 File No.3632-003-00/092503 • i. Quantify habitat loss and potential pocket gopher population affected. Prior to any development, the Port should quantify the amount of habitat that will be affected by the project. At that time,the Port should also conduct a pre-construction survey of the immediate area,using a mound-count technique similar to that used in this study,to get an indication of the size of the pocket gopher population potentially affected. This step will allow the Port to prepare the necessary paperwork and initiate the permitting process with the county. If the site is found to contain no active mounds during the initial survey,the Port should document that the area is not active gopher habitat and request authorization to begin development without further mitigation. If the site does contain active mounds, the Port should proceed with the mitigation measures described below. 2. Create new habitat. The Port should enhance and permanently protect from development an area at least the same size as the develop ent area. Approximately 50 acres is available for use as new habitat in the restoration area across Highway 101 (Figure 9). Most of the restoration area will need to be modified to sA ipport pocket gophers. As soon as possible,the Port should begin enhancing this area by learing any wooded areas, removing Scotch Broom, and disking the soil to create favorable soil conditions. In some cases, simply mowing will keep the Scotch Broom from dominating,but will not negate its nitrogen-fixing capabilities. Several studies have shown that the presence of excess soil nitrogen can negatively affect success of native prairie restoration efforts (Antieau 2003). Details of the habitat enhancement and ongoing maintenance are provided in a guidance sheet, attached as Appendix B. 3. Use BMPs during construction. Wherr appropriate, the Port should consider use of temporary fencing to keep foot and vehicle traffic to a minimum,as well as runoff controls to minimize the surface runoff into nearby habitat areas. In addition,the Port should minimize construction activity near dawn and dusk (or within 30 minutes of sunrise or sunset), times when pocket gophers are known to be most active(Maser 1998). 4. Document activities with site-specificletter HMP. The Port should detail the specifics of the development activity and mitigation measures in a letter to Mason County that references this comprehensive HMP. 5. Monitor habitat use. The Port should implement an ongoing monitoring program to verify that any newly creatl-d habitat is being occupied by pocket gophers at approximately the same density as was found in the original habitat area. Further details of the recommended monitoring program are provided in Section 5.0. G e o E n g i n e e r s 16 File No.3632-003-00/092503 M O h ONi 7 8 �•r z' . � � ib Q Oi 12 cZc CL 0O a V77 f-w (`Uj1 000 ` \a O \ r• Q Z � .AA ffi ��g=m Ea ko m amsw� • m v c 4 i 3 c mm ao�s`3 ' aa�po m=m �9 '! r e SAo X. '41 a_ m 0 C i� y� o 55 _ N kt t a � p 0®p � jp pa ®CAS N y� ■ @ b O 1 a ,�•+ � � � `� �III � m R�� A NO m m o= pia H 0.� y N a c cna c � 03mv o _ mp a bA _. �>q O � OiaW 'E C USpC O W t90d ZS�iwW9 w3191q Wc�+Ntlrrl Ow N^p]Oi]�W�tOPStmbf�vK�B�'Y.9 wrtl mNwDwe�Y6 4.3 MONITORING For any newly created habitat, the Port should document the amount of habitat involved and remove it from the "bank" of available restoration habitat. The Port should then implement a long-term monitoring program to measure the success of the mitigation measure. We recommend that the Port implement the following monitoring activities for all pocket gopher habitat mitigation activities. • Baseline monitoring: Prior to construction,the Port should conduct mound-count surveys (as described in Section 2.2) in both the area to be developed (affected area) and the newly created habitat (mitigation area). The objective of baseline monitoring is to document the approximate size and level of activity of the pocket gopher population in the affected and mitigation areas. • Post-construction monitoring: Again using mound-count surveys,the Port should survey the mitigation area twice per year for at least two years following construction. The objective of post-construction monitoring is to determine whether the new habitat areas are supporting a pocket gopher population of similar size to the population in the affected area prior to construction. We also recommend that the Port establish a"reference area"of approximately 5 acres within existing pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field. The reference area should be one that is not intended for development within the foreseeable future and that can be surveyed for pocket gophers during each post-construction monitoring event. Data on pocket gopher population size from the reference area can then be compared with data from the mitigation areas to control for environmental or climatic factors(i.e.,those other than habitat quality)that may influence gopher population size. 4.4 EXAMPLE PROJECT As an example of the above mitigation and monitoring strategy, assume the Port planned to construct an office building and parking lot with a total combined size of 55,000 square feet (approximately 1.3 acres) in the northern area of the center of Sanderson Field. Prior to construction, the Port would examine the development area for any signs of active pocket gopher use. If pocket gophers were found to be present, the Port would conduct baseline monitoring within both the affected area and the planned mitigation area. For purposes of this example, assume the Port observed an average of two active mounds per 0.01 acre (or 200 mounds per acre)within the affected area and no active pocket gopher use within the planned mitigation area. Following this baseline survey, the Port would prepare the necessary building permits and a letter HMP that documents the nature of the proposed development,the affected habitat area and pocket gopher population size, and mitigation measures. This information would be submitted to the county for review. The Port would then select an appropriate habitat enhancement area of at least 1.3 acres within the restoration area across Highway 101 (Figure 9). The Port should i G e o E n g i n e e r s 18 File No.3632-003-00/092503 enhance the habitat in this area with more frequent mowing, removal of Scotch Broom, and re- seeding with native grasses. Pending county approval,the Port would proceed with development, using the BMPs described above. Following development, the Port would ini ' to post-construction monitoring activities and maintain records on the number of mounds recorded in both the mitigation area and the reference area. The habitat enhancement project would be considered a success if, at the end of one year, the Port observed an average of two mounds per 0 01 acre in the new area. 4.5 RESPONSIBILITIES This plan is intended to provide the baseline data and information that fulfills many of the required HMP elements for future development activities at Sanderson Field. In preparing this HMP, the Port has carefully considered its long-term development plans and the impacts they might have on the pocket gopher population in the area. However,the details of each project are not known at this time. It is therefore anticipated that the Port will document the details of each project(e.g., the square footage, type, and nature of each construction activity) in a site-specific letter HMP that references this master HMP. Th letter will also include baseline survey results and the nature of any impacts to pocket gophers or their habitats. As part of this process, the Port anticipates that Mason County will use both this comprehensive HMP and the site-specific letters to review the project application and, when appropriate, provide the Port the necessary authorimfion to proceed. With County approval of this HMP, each site-specific letter HMP could then be more streamlined and focused upon the specific impacts associated with each project. In this way,the Port can provide the county with timely and accurate information on the status and impact of each project without re-creating the type of baseline information this HMP provides. 4.6 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In areas where new habitat is some distance from old habitat, the Port should ensure that corridors between habitat patches exist. For example,a culvert under Highway 101 could be used to provide a safe dispersal route to the main restoration area (Figure 9). While an underpass would be preferable to a culvert,research indicates that small mammals regularly use culverts of between 1.3 and 3.6 feet in diameter to cross busy roads(Payne and Bryant 1994, Singleton and Lehmkuhl, 2000). We therefore recommend a culvert of at least 3 feet in diameter with an open bottom to encourage its use by pocket gophers. The restoration area is less than 100 feet from an active pocket gopher site within the main Sanderson Field area, a dispersal distance well within pocket gophers' range. In one study documenting movement patterns of several speciess of the Thomomys genus,individuals moved an average of 780 feet at a time and one individtal covered more than 2,500 feet during one monitoring session (Teipner et al. 1983). Othei literature indicates maximum pocket gopher dispersals of over 3,200 feet at a time in searcl of more optimal habitat (Nowak 2003). In general, dispersion is highly variable among individuals depending upon their age and sex, and i G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No.3632-003-00/092503 the most successful dispersion occurs when pocket gophers move from areas of relatively high to relatively low density(Steinberg 1999). In some areas that support relatively large n bers of pocket gophers, the Port may want to supplement mound-counts with live trapping to get better idea of population size. If the Port pursues this option, they would need to obtain the necessary capture permits from WDFW prior to trapping. The Port may also wish to use this p rmit to transport the gophers to the restoration habitat area across Highway 101,if permission to trap the pocket gopher is obtained. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The approach for maintaining viable populations of species of concern in Washington State focuses on maintaining viable habitat for species, iot necessarily upon the numbers of individuals themselves. Mason County's Resource Ordinance adopts this same approach and centers its land management goals around protecting critical habitat features to support viable populations of sensitive species. The Port of Shelton has a responsibility to consider the impacts of its development activities upon the habitat of the Shelton pocket gopher. With the above-described approach to evaluating the impacts of each new project and implementing the appropriate habitat restoration projects,the Port will maintain a viable and thriving pocket I,op her population while meeting its needs for economic development, Respectfully submitted, eoEngineers,Inc. L sa A.Berntsen,PWS cipal APL:LAB:tw ORCH\3\3632003\00\Finals\363200300Rev2FinWHMP.doe Attachments G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 Ol File No.3632-003-00/092503 6.0 REFERENCES Andelt,W.F.and R.M.Case. 2001. Managing Pocket Gophers. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet No. 6. 15. Antiacu,C. 2003. Biology, ecology, and management of invasive plants. Presentation at the Society for Ecological Restoration and Society of Wetland Scientists Joint Conference, Portland,Oregon. Farrell and Archer. 1995. Pocket Gopher: Thomomys mazama couchi. Maser,C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest. From the Coast to the High Cascades. Oregon State University Press,Corvalis,Oregon. Ministry of Environment,Lands,&Parks;Resources Inventory Branch. 2001. Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher: Standardsfor Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity,No. 26(Version .0). Nowak,W. 2003. Walker's Mammals of the Word Online. http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walker/ro entia.geomyidae.thomomys.html Payne,N.F.and F.C. Bryant. 1994. Techniques fir wildlife habitat management of uplands. McGraw-Hill,Inc.,New York. Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan. 2001 (updated April 2002). Exhibit F. Shelton Pocket . Gopher Protection Plan (1993 study). Pullman Plant Materials Center(a division of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Undated. Conservation Plant Afaterialsfor the Conservation Reserve Program: Native Grasses. htto://www.w u.edu/pmc nrcs/cn2/clplst.htrn Singleton,P.H. and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2000. Assessing wildlife habitat connectivity in the Interstate 90 Snoqualmie Pass Corridor, Washington. US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. PNW-98-0513-CC. Steinberg,E.K. 1995. A study of genetic dii feren 'ation and variation in the Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)with emphasis on the Fort Lewis population. Final report submitted to the Nature Conservancy. Steinberg,E.K. 1999.Diversification of Genes,P pulations, and Species: Evolutionary Genetics of Real and Virtual Pocket Gophers(Thomomys). PhD Dissertation,University of Washington. Teipner,C.L.,E.O.Garton,and L.Nelson,Jr. 1983. Pocket Gophers in Forest Ecosystems. US Department of Agrigulture Forest Service General Technical Report INT-154. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Candidate and Listing Priority Assessment Form: Western Pocket Gopher. • G e o E n g i n e e r s 21 File No.3632-003-00/092503 • APPENDIX A MEMO (STUDY PLAN) • G e o E n g i n c c r s File No. 3632-003-00/092503 s Applied Environmental Services, Inc. Memo To: Scott Duncan,Port of Shelton From Lisa Bemtsen and Amy Lawrence,AES Environmental Scientists Date: January 10,2003 Re: Study Plan for Pocket Gopher Site Characterization As a key step in preparing a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Shelton Pocket Gopher near Sanderson Field,Applied Environmental Services(AES)will conduct a site characterization of the approximately 750-acre study area. This memo provides the details of our study plan for your review and consideration,and includes: • a description of our goals for the site characterization; • our proposed field sampling methods;and • our proposed data analysis techniques. • We hope to conduct this site characterization in early to mid-February and would appreciate any comments on this proposed plan by January 31,2003. We prepared this study plan based upon consultation with several agency officials(Ted Thomas, USFWS, 12/30/02; Derek Stinson, WA FWS 1/6/03), review of other pocket gopher research, and procedures described in the Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher, Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No.26(April 2001). Purpose The goals of the site characterization are to: • determine areas of relatively high pocket gopher abundance in the study area;and • identify habitat variables(vegetation,soils,topography)that are associated with areas of high pocket gopher abundance. Field Sampling Methods Procedure Given the size of the study area and the resources available,we propose to use direct observation of pocket gopher mounds as an indicator of pocket gopher abundance. This type of survey will yield qualitative information about the presence and relative abundance of pocket gophers and will satisfy the goals of this site characterization. However, this survey will not allow us to quantify the absolute size of the Sanderson Field pocket gopher population because pocket gopher mounds cannot be reliably used to measure the number of individuals present(i.e.,more than one • • pocket gopher may use the same mound,or one pocket gopher may construct multiple mounds). A much more labor-intensive mark recapture study would be required to measure size of the pocket gopher population around Sanderson Field. We propose a 2-day field effort to characterize th study area. To ensure complete coverage of the study area, we will divide the area into five d screte sections (Figure 1). Most sections are bordered by large roads or runways, which serve as barriers to pocket gopher dispersal. To ensure a consistent level of effort across the surve V area,we will survey each section for a pre- determined duration of approximately 1 hour for eN cry 50 acres(Table 1). Areas that are heavily wooded(and therefore unlikely pocket gopher habitat)will require less time to survey. Table 1. Duration of Pocket Gopher'Survey per Section of Study Area Approxim Area Approximate Section (Acres) Duration of Survey ours) 1 100 2 2 100 2 3 250 5 4 225 4.5 5 75 1.5 • We will survey Sections'l,2,and 3 on the first day and Sections 4 and 5 on the second. In each of the five sections,we will traverse the area in a standard pattern as a team of two.We will deviate from the pre-detemvned pattern to more closely survey areas of relatively high mound density. We will also use information from previous studies to direct our attention to areas of known pocket gopher habitat. For each area of relatively high pocket gopher abundance(e.g.,3-5 mounds in close proximity to one another),we will collect the following information: • the number of mounds per unit area; • a general description of mounds(average height and width, shape, and soil compaction or"freshness"of mound); • geographic coordinates(using a March 2 PS unit); a digital image; a list of vegetation present(and in particular identifying species as native or non-native species); • the general soil type;and r any other relevant notes (e.g., proxit rity to road, runway, or other development). • If there are a large number of areas with high gopher abundance, we will randomly select a subset of these areas to survey. Equipment Our proposed field sampling methods will require he following equipment: -Maps -Tape measure -Gloves -Field guide to mammals -Hand trowel -Binoculars -Probe(rebar) -Wire flagging -Field book with data forms and pens -Indel ble ink marker(for flagging) Data Analysis All of the information cdllected during the site ch terization will be used to prepare a HMP for pocket gophers that satisfies Mason County requirements. Specifically,we will analyze the data to identify general relationships between pocket gopher abundance and habitat properties (primarily soil type and vegetation). We will also compare pocket gopher abundance and distribution in areas of known habitats with ab ce and distribution patterns in the secondary habitat areas (Section 5 on Figure 1). This will involve comparing the known versus desired habitat areas in terns of vegetation and soil properties. In addition, we will display on a map areas that currently have high pocket gopher abundance. • • APPENDIX B GUIDANCE FOR ENHANCING AND MAINTAINING NEW POCKET GOPHER HABITAT G e o E n g i n c c r s File No.3632-003-OO/092503 GUIDANCE FOR ENHANCING AND MAINTAINING NEW POCKET GOPHER HABITAT ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1. Remove all Scotch broom and other shrubs or trees, preferably using manual techniques that remove the entire root system. 2. Use a harrow to scarify or till the soil surface to a depth of several inches. 3. Re-seed the area with native grasses, such as Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) or Slender wheatgrass (Agropyron rrachycaulum), both of which are relatively easy to establish (Pullman Plant Materials Center). These grasses are available year-round from Sunmark Seeds in a "prairie mix" with several other native grass seeds (1-888-214-7333, or www.sunmarkseeds.com). 4. If enhancement is conducted in the dry summer months, provide additional water as necessary until grasses are re-established. ONGOING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 1. Mow the area at least once per year during the growing season. If possible, mow twice per year: once in the spring(May) and once in late summer(August). Mow to a height of no less than 4 inches. 2. Monitor the area for Scotch broom re-growth and hand pull any young plants. Try to remove entire root system, as any roots left in the ground may re-sprout. Weeding will be easiest and most effective when the soil is wet. 3. Document all maintenance activities with records of the date, type of activity, and recommended future maintenance(more weeding,more watering,etc.). G e o E n g i n e e r s B-1 File No. 3632-003-00/092503 ae �pyoN-STATFo� MASON COUNTY If. DEPARTM NT OF COMMUNITY O A O �N __ DE E T LOPMENT Z 0 z N Y °y Plan ing Division 1864 P O Box 27 , )Shelton, pWA 98584 MA 6�1�14&VIRONMENTAL PERMIT September 16, 2003 PORT OF SHELTON450 . BUSINESS LTON WA 98584 ROAD SHIE .TO BE KEPT IN THE PARCEL A.L Parcel No.: 420020062000 Issued: 9/16/2003 Case No.: MEP2003-00007 Proiect Description: Construction of three each, 50' by 340' aircraft -Hangars. One building set, nearest existing hangars set for construction 2003 (han jar#1), the second for 2003 for grading and 2004 for construction (hangar#2), 3nd the third set for 2005 or 2006 (hangar#3). The #1 hangar to be constructed ias been identified as being near Shelton Pocket Gopher populations and habita , hangars #2 and #3 sites have been identified as being within Shelton Pocket Gopher habitat and populations. The applicant submitted a Habitat Management Plan for the proposed development to outline potential impacts and proposed mitigation to limit impacts to Shelton Pocket Gopher habitat and populations. .r The following critical areas are present on this property: Long-Term Commercial Forest tic anagement Areas Ch. 17.10.060; Ch. 17.01.110; Mineral Resource Lands Frequently Flooded Areas Ch. 17.01.066; Ch. 17.01.090; Inholding Lands Landslide Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.062; Ch. 17.01.100; Wetlands Seismic Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.070; Ch. 17.01.102; CriticaLAquiarlRecharge Erosion Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.080; Ch. 17.01.104. This permit,with conditions, is granted pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01 MCC.) Nothing in tf is permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project. This permit may be rescinded if the permitee fails to complete the project as proposed or fail to comply with the standards of this ordinance. ---------------- Date Mason Environmental Permit 9/16/2003 Case No.: MEP2003-00007 Conditions: 1.) The applicant acknowledges that the project will be completed as proposed, so that the project will be consistent with all applicable standards of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. 2.) Project activities shall be consistent with the Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Shelton Pocket Gopher dated May 16,2003, as prepared by Geo Engineers, and as revised/updated, (subject to County review and approval). 3.) Mitigation for direct Shelton Pocket Gopher habitat impacts shall be mitigated through the enhancement and creation of new habitat per the Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Shelton Pocket Gopher,dated May 16,2003 and as revised or updated (subject to County review and approval). 4.) Project activities shall avoid direct Shelton Pocket Gopher habitat impacts whenever possible. 5.) Based upon WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife recommendations,the use of mole chasers as mitigation to clear individual animals from construction sites is optional and at the Port of Shelton's discretion. 6.) Mitigation monitoring and reporting is required to establish baseline conditions and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures, including habitat creation and other measures proposed in the habitat management p an. At minimum, annual monitoring reports shall be furnished to the County to track the effectiveness of mitigation measures. 7.) Best Management Practices (BMPs)shall be imp emented as outlined on page 16, item 3. of the Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Shelton Pocket Gopher, dated May 16, 2003. Builders and contractors hir d by the Port of Shelton need to be informed of these BMPs so that they can be implemented appropriately. 9/16/2003 3 of 3 MEP2003-00007 Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Shelton Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mJ azama c-oucht)at Sanderson Field Shelton,Washington May 16, 2003 For Port of Shelton Geoj Engineers May 16, 2003 Mason County Planning P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Attention: Bob Fink,Planning Manager Enclosed please find the final Revised Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Shelton Pocket Gophers (Thomomys mazama couchi) located in and around Sanderson Field. On behalf of the Port of Shelton,I would like to submit this report for your review. The Port of Shelton has a responsibility to consider the impacts of its development activities upon the habitat of the Shelton pocket gopher. Towards this end, my staff and I have been working with the Port since December 2002 to conduct a thorough survey of the Port's property and to jointly develop this HMP. This document provides current baseline information on the distribution and relative abundance of the Shelton pocket gopher and outlines the general mitigation activities the Port has planned for anyj development in active habitat areas. We believe the approaches described in the HMP for evaluating the impacts of each new project and implementing the appropriate habitat set-aside will allow the Port to maintain a viable and thriving pocket gopher population while meeting�its needs for economic development. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. ja Lisa A. Bemtsen,PWS 'Principal APL:LAB:tw ORCH\3\3632003\00\Fi nal\363200300RevFinalHMP.Doc Applied Environmental Services 1550 Woodridge Dr.SE Port Orchard,WA 98366 Telephone(360)769-8400 Fax(360)769.8700 www,geoengineers.com TABLE OF �ONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION 1 1.3 POCKET GOPHERS 1 1.4 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 1.5 SCOPE 4 2.0 METHODS.................................................................................................................................5 2.1 PAPER INVENTORY 5 2.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 5 3.0 RESULTS..................................................................................................................................9 3.1 PAPER INVENTORY 9 3.2 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 12 3.3 POCKET GOPHER DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 12 4.0 DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................15 4.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT 15 4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES 15 4.3 MONITORING 18 4.4 EXAMPLE PROJECT 18 4.5 RESPONSIBILITIES 19 4.6 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 19 5.0 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................20 6.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................21 FIGURES Page No. Figure 1 —Vicinity Map of Sanderson Field 3 Figure 2—Sanderson Field and Alternative Habitat 6 Figure 3—Sampling Areas at Sanderson Field 7 Figure 4A— Example of Active Pocket Gopher Mound 8 Figure 4B—Example of Active Pocket Gopher Mound with Labels 8 Figure 5—Previously Documented Pocket Gopher Habitat at Sanderson Field 10 Figure 6—Proposed Development Areas at Sanderson Field 11 Figure 7—Point Locations of Observed Pocket Gopher Mounds 13 Figure 8—Active Mounds at Site A in Alternative Habitat 14 Figure 9—Pocket Gopher Habitat Set-Aside and Restoration Areas 17 APPENDICES Appendix A—Memo G e o E n g i n e e r s i File No.3 6 3 2-003-00/0 5 1 603 REVISED COMPREHENSIVE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP) FOR SHELTON POCKET GOPHER SANDERSON FIELD, SHELTON, WASHINGTON FOR PORT OF SHELTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT The Port of Shelton owns and manages Sanderson Field, an area of approximately 800 acres that contains an airfield, associated hangars and taxiways, and other small industrial operations. In April 2002, the Port revised its Comprehensive Plan to include construction and development plans in several areas of the property. Since Sanderson Field contains habitat for the Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama couchi), a candidate species in the state of Washington, it is considered a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) in Mason County. According to the County's 2002 Resource Ordinance (RO) 17.01.110, any development in this area requires a Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Port elected to conduct a site-wide investigation and develop a comprehensive HMP for Sanderson Field to guide and inform its development activities in the area. . i 1.2 SITE LOCATION Sanderson Field is located near Shelton in Mason County, Washington in Sections 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Township 20N and Range 4W (Figure 1). The local jurisdiction and lead environmental review authority is Mason County. 1.3 POCKET GOPHERS Pocket gophers are small, burrow-dwelling inammals with powerful forelimbs and external, fur-lined pockets used for transporting food. Feeding solely upon grasses, roots, and other plant material,pocket gophers can sometimes be considered a pest in agricultural settings. However, in their native prairie habitats, they contribute significantly to the biodiversity of the subsoil ecosystem(Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gophers 2001). Pocket gophers are usually solitary creatures, with one individual occupying an individual burrow system (Steinberg 1999). The exception is during mating season, which can occur year- round but typically begins on the spring. Female pocket gophers reach reproductive maturity at about six months of age and can produce one to several litters per year of between 3 to 10 young per litter (Maser 1998). The typical life-span of a pocket gopher in its natural environment is approximately two years (Nowak 2003). Preferred habitat for pocket gophers is prairie land with short, native grasses, and a deep, well-developed soil profile with good drainage and low levels of soil rockiness. Their populations typically exhibit a very patchy distribution, due largely to a naturally patchy distribution of the soil and vegetation properties that they prefer (USFWS 2002). While there is fairly limited information on pocket gopher dispersal, it is thought that individuals have a home G e o E n g i n e e r s l File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 range of approximately 1,600 square feet, with individual forages of over 3,200 feet to search for more favorable habitat conditions(Nowak 2003). Pocket gophers are found throughout western and southern North America. The Western or Mazama pocket gopher is a species of pocket gopher found throughout Washington, Oregon, and northern California (Nowak 2003). The Shelton pocket gopher is one of approximately 15 sub- species of the Western pocket gopher and is found in a relatively small area of Western Washington. Individual species and sub-species of pocket gophers can exhibit substantial variation in their body size and fur color (Maser 1998, Steinberg 1999). The Shelton pocket gopher is small (7 to 11 inches in total length) with a short tail and reddish brown to black fur (USFWS 2002). Populations of the Shelton pocket gopher, as well as four other sub-species of Western pocket gophers in Washington State, have been declining in recent years, due largely to loss and fragmentation of prairie habitat. Throughout the remainder of this document, our use of the term"pocket gophers"will refer to the Shelton pocket gopher sub-species. 1.4 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Mason County requires the following elements to be addressed in a HMP (excerpted from Mason County Resource Ordinance 72, Section J,Revised March 5,2002): 1. A map(s)prepared at an easily readable scale, showing: a. The location of the proposed site; b. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built features; c. The nature and density of the proposed use or activity; d. Proposed building locations and sizes; e. A legend which includes: i) A complete and accurate legal description and total acreage of the parcel; ii) Title, scale, date,and north arrow; iii) Certification by a qualified biologist. f. Existing structures and landscape features including the name and location of all water bodies. g. Location of listed species and their critical habitat areas. G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 File No.3 63 2-00 3-00/0 5 1 603 TOPOI map printed on 02/03/03 from"Fg 1 detail.tpo"and"Untitled.tpg" 123110.000'W 123*09.000'W 123"08.000'W WGS84 123°07.000'W Ji z < ;r�e� f adLoke° c 24B 2 Ewe � e � : � W♦ �� °i. J R i it `}sir Sir—� a i T ♦ ♦� J�i. f/ 1 + � � � s�4i *♦e E qua N .'.:� `�� R. !I. its {i 01 p t i" i ♦ 9. + C '�" 'r f IN Z 2 00 .� w.ws �• `p7 yc Laka —mot �N 2s` W. [ales 6 b �q4 ♦� o _ o ,., ``' { 7 •Islands SAW ER ON F EL J- a j1p a t.• 7/ �� Z 000r �;v �"'•"M (�WeN�/ / Z 00 iR 777 a k 9 k xfas'Riwr. + O x' Mem PN4 M M a 1 '�" �i8 � r r 1 ,� � � x j ♦ 123°10.000'W 123°09.000'W 123*08.000'W WGS84123007.000'W V18Ye �pOp FEET 0 TWOMFiEBS Priniedfrom TOPOI CM01 Hdb,.I HokhV(—rDp..,4 Figu e 1 Vicinity Map of anderson Field (Approximate Port boundary/lease area circled in red) G e o E n g i n e e r s 3 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 2. A report which contains: a. A description of the nature, density and intensity of the proposed use or activity in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon identified wildlife habitat; b. An analysis of the effect of the proposed use or activity upon fish and wildlife species and their habitats listed in this ordinance; c. A plan which explains how the applicant will avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to fish and/or wildlife habitats created by the proposed use or activity. This explanation must address the management goals, policies and recommendations presented in this ordinance. Monitoring of mitigation shall be required when appropriate or necessary to ensure effectiveness. Mitigation measures within the plan may include, but are not limited to: i) Establishment of buffer areas; ii) Preservation of critically important plants and trees; iii) Limitation of access to habitat area; iv) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; v) Clustering of development and preservation of open space; vi) Sign marking habitats or habitat buffer areas; vii) Title notice or plat dedication warning statements; viii) Conservation easements. The approach for maintaining viable populations of species of concern in Mason County(and in much of Washington State) focuses on maintaining suitable habitat for species, instead of mandating certain numbers of individuals or rates of population growth. Mason County's RO therefore focuses its land management goals around protecting critical habitat features to support viable populations of sensitive species. GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) was contracted by the Port of Shelton to perform a field survey of the pocket gopher population at Sanderson Field and prepare an HMP that fulfills the above Mason County requirements. This HMP is based upon the Port's current five-year development plan, which provides information on the general areas of Sanderson Field that are intended for development, but not the details of proposed projects. Therefore, this HMP is intended to provide baseline data and proposed mitigation strategies that can be used in site- specific HMPs as development projects are initiated. 1.5 SCOPE The scope of this project included following goals: • Identify areas of relatively high pocket gopher density within Sanderson Field, using pocket gopher mounds as an indicator of their abundance; • Generally characterize habitat features (soils and vegetation) in areas of active pocket gopher use; G e o E n g i n e e r s 4 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 • Document findings using aerial photographs and geographic information systems (GIS) technologies; and • Develop management recommendations for maintaining pocket gopher habitat in Sanderson Field, including an evaluation of an alternative habitat site east of Sanderson Field(Figure 2). 2.0 METHODS 2.1 PAPER INVENTORY To prepare for the site characterization, GeoEngineers conducted a search for pertinent and applicable literature. We obtained and reviewed the following data sources: 1. A topographic map of the site(printed from TOPO 2001); 2. An aerial photograph of the site(downloaded from TerraServer); 3. Maps and data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) showing the point locations of any pocket gopher dens in the vicinity of Sanderson Field; 4. Past studies of pocket gopher presence/absence and abundance in the area; 5. Current literature on the Western pocket gopher and their use of habitat in Western Washington,both paper and web-based; 6. Information describing potential methods to encourage pocket gopher use of alternative habitat; and p 7. The Port's building plans for the Sanderson Field area. 2.2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION Prior to the field survey, a study plan was prepared and provided to the Port for review (Appendix A). Given the size of the study site and the time available for surveying, we used a mound-count method to estimate the relative abundance of pocket gophers in the study area. This technique does not allow quantification of pocket gophers because mounds do not have a one-to- one relationship with individuals. The literature indicates that an individual burrow system (usually containing a single individual) can contain 100 or more mounds (Teipner et al. 1983, Andelt and Case 2001). However, the mound-count technique does provide information about the spatial distribution of pocket gophers and an indication of the relative size of pocket gopher sub-populations within the property (Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher 2001). Both pieces of information will be useful to the Port in planning future development activities at Sanderson Field. To conduct the field survey, we divided area into five sections and made every effort to use equal sampling effort among sections (i.e., equal time per unit area) (Figure 3). Within each section, a team of two GeoEngineers biologists surveyed area on foot using a cris-cross pattern The field survey spanned three days: March 7, 12,and 13, 2003. G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No.3 63 2-00 3-00/0 5 1 603 M O b h O O — O V y WW z$ w t r / IX LLJ ix cl LL �W [tt�ii ir ) J Q E g`'u $ E¢ r199FIH r c 1 a [7 6�c y 0. �n y bi 7to g EJ O t",'n Yll 1i/S9��ftm N I M O h O DQ _ O LL W s (Q W M LLjL z 0 it COD got m E ` ❑ �. � 3� E9 u a„ f e5�l�C tv v � Nx a e C v R M 0 S0.K^•il iil tq,l Fwmylel{ WC*+M€9❑m5.{Z�_^r�9`F'��'9 e75 i] GN'C14!vi0 � As we traversed each section, we marked and recorded mounds that exhibited the classic characteristics of pocket gopher mounds: a fan-shape, the presence of a noticeable tunnel or hole at the base of the mound (sometimes filled with a soil plug or button), and the presence of grass clippings (Figure 4A and 413). Figure 4A Example of Active Pocket Gopher Mound Hole(no soil plug) Grass clippings �r Fan-shaped mound Figure 4B Example of Active Pocket Gopher Mound with Labels G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 In many areas, we found a large number of older, worn down, and less definitive mounds that could not be confirmed as pocket gopher mounds. For consistency, we counted and marked only those that were most active and that'we could most reliably identify as those of pocket gophers. At each of the confirmed, active pocket gopher mounds along the transects, we took GPS coordinates using a March II unit, noted the general soil and vegetative characteristics, and recorded the approximate number of active mounds in 0.01-acre area (a circle with radius of approximately 12 feet). We also took digital photographs to record several active mound systems. During the second day of sampling(March 12), we used the GPS equipment to map the boundary of the alternative habitat area. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 PAPER INVENTORY The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified one point location on their Priority Habitat and Species(PHS)map for the Shelton pocket gopher. The 1993 Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan,Exhibit F identified two areas of pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field— one to the north of the inactive runway, and one between the main runway and taxiway. A 1995 open-hole mound-count study identified pocket gopher habitat areas throughout the central portion of Sanderson Field (Farrell and Archer). These areas of previously documented pocket gopher habitat, along with the PHS point location (denoted by a star) are overlaid on the aerial photograph of the site in Figure 5. The Port has identified several areas of planned development over the next five years, most of which are in the northern portion of Sanderson Field (Figure 6). The Port anticipates that these activities will occur in three phases(all areas approximate): • Phase I (2003 — 2005): A 30-acre wooded area adjacent to Highways 101 and 102 (Section A)and a 3-acre area in the southern part of the field near the runway(Section B) are planned for development immediately or in the near future; • Phase H (2006 — 2008): A 50-acre wooded area along Highway 102 (Section C) is planned for development three to five years out; and • Market-driven: Two larger areas,a 50-acre area adjacent to Highway 101 along the east edge of Sanderson Field (Section D) and a 30-acre area north of the abandoned runway (Section E), will be developed over the next five years based upon market demand for building sites. Another very small area of approximately 0.3 acres on the interior of Sanderson Field (Section F) may also be a site for hangar construction, depending upon market demand. Beyond this five-year time period, the Port anticipates that much of the area to the north of the main runway will be developed,again depending upon market demand. G e o E n g i n e e r s 9 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 i M O O O O L W W O YLL IL w w Z° a w a C i - Z2 °= 7 7 Cl n O f L a r� 8 me a.y -jm a 30 s a o >Ir 4 f -, ♦ W= IL o , r k Yw EJ 8 v la P x, 9q E.n 5 van 9 y A q» i-Y�aL A p rgl C7 a 2 H - W LL O a z 4n o v d P - w ... av iuo o w LL a r= 5 49 E s 2 Egg . ga-� • e m 4t W gBg9a' N 16� aio6 Pi. E . m litg 0 �y+e 9_eva r+��+.e r.n�.a�um:mz�as�r'vu:•m owrew pan � 3.2 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The main Sanderson Field area consists of runways, taxiways, and other developed areas, as well as several large tracts of unused, but regularly mowed, prairies. The primary alternative habitat area is directly across Highway 101, east of the main runway. Approximately one quarter of this 50-acre area is wooded, and the remainder has been cleared within the past 10 years. This area has succeeded to prairie habitat, with relatively tall, unmowed grass areas, Scotch Broom, and some trees. Conditions were rainy and windy all three days of the site characterization. We found significant standing water in many locations. 3.3 POCKET GOPHER DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE We found the highest levels of pocket gopher activity in middle section of Sanderson Field (Figure 7). Characteristics of these high-concentration areas included short grass that was regularly mowed, little to no Scotch Broom, and a well-developed soil profile (i.e., the soil had not been compacted or graded). We typically found approximately 1 to 2 mounds per marked sample site (0.01 acres), or 100-200 mounds per acre; however, in a few instances active mound density exceeded 1,000 per acre. As noted above, however, mounds do not have a one-to-one relationship with individual pocket gophers. For reference, densities of pocket gophers have been reported as high as 300 individuals per acre (Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher 2001); most reported densities fall between 20 and 40 individuals per acre (Teipner et al. 1983, Andelt and Case 2001). There were several habitat patches, in particular near the west end of the runway, between the runway and taxiway, where it appeared that suitable pocket gopher habitat was present but that active pocket gopher densities were rather low. While we did not quantitatively sample for pocket gophers, in these areas we found only a few clusters of visible mounds; this highly clustered pattern with large areas of apparently unused habitat is indicative of low population sizes(Teipner et al. 1983). We found some evidence of some pocket gopher activity in the alternative habitat area across Highway 101, in areas where pocket gophers have not previously been documented. The photo in Figure 8 displays an active mound system along the northern fenceline of the alternative habitat area (also identified in Figure 7 as Site A). This area and the other site of active pocket gopher use contained relatively short grasses and were not dominated by Scotch Broom. However, in both the alternative habitat area and other areas throughout Sanderson Field, pocket gopher activity was relatively low where the grass was tall or where Scotch Broom was the dominant vegetation. G e o E n g i n e e r s 12 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 M O m O O �, M W ca LL r- P a W IX 0 o= W � I. p p S w Q x a \ f 0 LL p �n u: Ch p Ca Taa fl a g+ r a 3 $ 2 U o t ( 1-d O v V* ! \ EIB a t _ V IL E�gas g ¢g t B V E C n�aze r�i33rt.G M i ru a= �R� �o g�a G: a.�m ? sz a.n �.2 v aE U`a �a g4 �17=9 0. 0 AIDC t�11 7J199(.+wytryG Ca+±ca[Itt7it31d3titT<h94 T��`ti El T•tci CN'�Y+tl W� � Figure 8 Active Mounds at Site A in Alternative Habitat Area(see Figure 7) There were four areas that contained some evidence of past pocket gopher use, but because any mounds we found were quite old and worn down,we could not confirm that they were pocket gopher mounds (Figure 7). One area was within Section B of Figure 6, near the site of proposed hangar construction and adjacent to the main taxiway. This area that was surveyed in late January and early February of 2003 and at that time was thought to contain active mounds. However, during the more extensive and thorough field sampling campaign conducted for this HMP, the mounds in this area did not meet the three criteria we used to define a mound as "active:" a fan-shaped mound, a hole at the base of the mound, and evidence of grass clippings. It is therefore our opinion that this area is not currently being actively used as habitat, but that it should be closely monitored for future use. Another area of potential habitat was in the large mowed field in the north section of Sanderson Field (Section E of Figure 6), an area that appeared to be primary pocket gopher habitat. This section has been documented as pocket gopher habitat in past surveys (Comprehensive Plan 1993, Farrell and Archer 1995). Two other areas along Highway 101 showed some signs of mounding, but no discrete and readily identifiable pocket gopher mounds. A follow-up survey in these areas during late spring or early summer might reveal increased pocket gopher activity in these areas, as pocket gophers are known to be more active during warmer months (Maser 1998). G e o E n g i n e e r s 14 File No.3632-003-00/051603 No pocket gopher activity was observed in and around wooded areas in north section of Sanderson Field(Sections A and C on Figure 6), nor did we find any along the wooded west edge of the property (Section D on Figure 6). In addition, we observed no pocket gopher activity in graded areas immediately adjacent to runway. This is likely due to the fact that Federal Aviation Administration rules require strips of approximately 250 feet on either side of the runway and 1000 feet on either end to be compacted and graded. On the day of our field survey, these areas contained significant standing water, which indicates a high level of soil compaction and low infiltration rates — conditions that are generally unfavorable to pocket gophers. These findings generally support those of the most recent survey of the site(Farrell and Archer 1995). 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT The three areas within Sanderson Field that are proposed for development in the next five years (Sections A through C in Figure 5) currently contain no active pocket gopher mounds. As shown in Figure 7, three sites within all proposed areas of development showed some evidence of past mounds (in Sections B, D and E). Since these areas have similar features to areas of active pocket gopher use (e.g., short grasses, limited Scotch Broom), additional surveying prior to development (as described in Section 4.2 below) is recommended to determine whether these areas indeed serve as pocket gopher habitat. Any development activities within known and potential areas of pocket gopher habitat at Sanderson Field will have direct effects upon pocket gophers mainly in the form of habitat loss. Habitat loss will likely be confined to the immediate footprint of any new buildings or paved areas. We base this upon our observations of pocket gophers actively using habitat immediately adjacent to roads or buildings. The literature confirms pocket gophers' affinity for recently i disturbed areas (Teipner et al. 1983). Other direct effects would be an increase in noise, traffic, and surface runoff during construction. Use of the best management practices (BMPs) described below will help minimize the impact of these effects upon pocket gophers and their habitat. The indirect effects of new development will likely be minimal. Again, given the proximity of current pocket gopher habitat to runways and other areas of active use, it appears that airplane . Y and vehicle traffic does not disturb pocket gophers. Therefore, it is likely that there will be minimal long-term indirect effects to pocket gopher or their use of habitat in areas immediately adjacent to any new development. 4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES We recommend that the Port make efforts to locate new development in areas that have not been identified as active pocket gopher habitat (i.e., those labeled as "current habitat" in Figure 7). When this is not possible, we recommend the following mitigation measures to minimize any direct or indirect effects upon pocket gophers and their habitat. G e o E n g i n e e r s 15 File No.3 6 3 2-003-00/0 5 1 603 1. Quantify habitat loss and potential pocket gopher population affected. Approximately one year prior to any development, the Port should quantify the amount of habitat that will be affected by the project. At that time, the Port should also conduct a pre-construction survey of the immediate area,using a mound-count technique similar to that used in this study,to get an indication of the size of the pocket gopher population potentially affected. This step will allow the Port to prepare the necessary paperwork and initiate the permitting process with the county. If the site is found to contain no active mounds during the initial survey, the Port should document that the area is not active gopher habitat and request authorization to begin development without further mitigation. If the site does contain active mounds, the Port should proceed with the mitigation measures described below. In either case, a second p mound-count survey should be conducted within one month of project initiation to either confirm the absence of or verify the approximate abundance of pocket gophers at the site. 2. Set aside or create replacement habitat. The Port should set aside and permanently protect from development an area at least the same size as the development area. Ample potential habitat set-aside area is available surrounding the runway (and beyond the graded portions), and in the alternative habitat area (Figure 9) — a total area of approximately 200 acres (240 acres total less the approximately 40 acre area of the runway and compacted edge). Much of the alternative habitat area and several areas between the runway and taxiway will need to be modified to support pocket gophers. As soon as possible, the Port should begin clearing any wooded areas, removing Scotch Broom, and disking the soil to create favorable soil conditions. The Port may also wish to re-seed the area with native grasses, such as Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) or Slender wheatgrass (Agropyron trachycaulum), both of which are relatively easy to establish(Pullman Plant Materials Center). These grasses are available year-round from Sunmark Seeds in a "prairie mix" with several other native grass seeds(1-888-214-7333,or www.sunmarkseeds.com). In some cases, simply mowing will keep the Scotch Broom from dominating, but will not negate its nitrogen-fixing capabilities. Several studies have shown that the presence of excess soil nitrogen can negatively affect success of native prairie restoration efforts(Antieau 2003). The Port may wish to conduct the habitat restoration activities in the main Sanderson Field area first, where existing active pocket gopher colonies are nearby and would likely inhabit the restored areas quickly. Over the longer term and in a phased manner,the Port could begin the modifications in the 50-acre alternative habitat area. For example, the Port could clear, disk, and re-seed 10 acres of the alternative habitat area per year, so that the entire area is available for habitat set-aside at the end of five years. 3. Use BMPs during construction. Where appropriate, the Port should consider use of temporary fencing to keep foot and vehicle traffic to a minimum, as well as runoff controls to minimize the surface runoff into nearby habitat areas. In addition, the Port should minimize construction activity near dawn and dusk (or within 30 minutes of sunrise or sunset), times when pocket gophers are known to be most active (Maser 1998). G e o E n g i n e e r s 16 File No.3 63 2-00 3-00/05 1 603 4. Document activities with site-specific letter HMP. The Port should detail the specifics of the development activity and mitigation measures in a letter to Mason County that references this comprehensive HMP. z G e o E n g i n e e r s 17 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 M O ey[y O � w O M t _ a m 0w Ci at 0 0 LL p ra va m p I.- m n c Pi .� �' ,a'� w �o 2 z❑❑ ..`..�++ iL a O * w a �Er n " _ 4�ea E 8$0 y at E Y•� �i I�d �, F A E s r, E Ey5 E—.EE " c 4aaa.H a e w, z s M � � q L� C� 0 6 c CE ou 0 :.B{t►n'/:1'9A F"�+��En Cs,c+�pl r9umSucicS^m 9'F+ti�"s❑3��1 [W xi L!WG N C7 The Port may also wish to explore the use of an additional, experimental method to flush pocket gophers out of development sites that contain active pocket gopher populations. Use of several in-soil, non-lethal deterrents (e.g., the commercially available MolechaseJm units) could be a viable means of encouraging pocket gophers to disperse away from construction sites and towards newly created or set-aside habitat areas. We recommend the Port carefully test the effectiveness of this method prior to using it on a regular or widespread basis. 4.3 MONITORING For any set-aside or newly created habitat, the Port should document the amount of habitat involved and remove it from the available "bank" of habitat set-aside. The Port should then implement a long-term monitoring plan to measure the success of the mitigation measure. We recommend a mound-count survey be conducted once every other month for six months following set-aside, with two surveys per year thereafter. Using mounds as indicators, the Port should expect a pocket gopher population in the new habitat area that is approximately equal in size to that of the population in the original habitat area. 4.4 EXAMPLE PROJECT As an example of the above mitigation and monitoring strategy, assume the Port planned to construct an office building and parking lot with a total combined size of 55,000 square feet (approximately 1.3 acres) in the northern area of the center of Sanderson Field. Approximately one year prior to construction (preferably in spring or summer), the Port would examine the development area for any signs of active pocket gopher use. If pocket gophers were found to be present, the Port would conduct a mound-count survey to indicate the approximate size and level of activity of the pocket gopher population. For purposes of this example, assume the Port observed an average of two active mounds per 0.01 acre(or 200 mounds per acre)at the site. Following this pre-construction survey, the Port would prepare the necessary building permits and a letter HMP that documents the nature of the proposed development, the affected habitat area and pocket gopher population size, and mitigation measures. This information would be submitted to the county for review. The Port would then select an appropriate set-aside area of at least 1.3 acres. For this example, an area of that size could be set-aside west of the runway, in an area that currently supports relatively few pocket gophers but appears to contain the habitat features necessary for pocket gophers. The Port might wish to enhance the habitat in this area with more frequent mowing,removal of Scotch Broom,and re-seeding with native grasses. Approximately one month prior to construction, the Port should conduct a second pocket gopher survey to confirm the presence and approximate density of pocket gophers in the area. If the non-lethal deterrent method described above proves successful, the Port should begin flushing pocket gophers out of the area. Pending county approval, the Port would proceed with development,using the BMPs described above. G e o E n g i n e e r s 18 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 Following development, the Port would initiate monitoring activities and maintain records on the number of mounds recorded in the new habitat area. The habitat set-aside project would be considered a success if, at the end of one year, the Port observed an average of two mounds per 0.01 acre in the new area. 4.5 RESPONSIBILITIES This plan is intended to provide the baseline data and information that fulfills many of the required HMP elements for future development activities at Sanderson Field. In preparing this HMP, the Port has carefully considered its long-term development plans and the impacts they might have on the pocket gopher population in the area. However, the details of each project are not known at this time. It is therefore anticipated that the Port will document the details of each project(e.g., the square footage, type, and nature of each construction activity) in a site-specific letter HMP that references this master HMP. The letter will also include pre-construction survey results and the nature of any impacts to pocket gophers or their habitats. As part of this process, the Port anticipates that Mason County will use both this comprehensive HMP and the site-specific letters to review the project application and, when appropriate, provide the Port the necessary authorization to proceed. With County approval of this HMP, each site-specific letter HMP could then be more streamlined and focused upon the specific impacts associated with each project. In this way, the Port can provide the county with . T timely and accurate information on the status and impact of each project without re-creating the type of baseline information this HMP provides. 4.6 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In areas where new habitat is some distance from old habitat, the Port should ensure that corridors between habitat patches exist. For example, a culvert under Highway 101 could be used to provide a safe dispersal route to the main alternative habitat area (Figure 9). While an underpass would be preferable to a culvert, research indicates that small mammals regularly use culverts of between 1.3 and 3.6 feet in diameter to cross busy roads (Payne and Bryant 1994, _ 4 Singleton and Lehmkuhl, 2000). We therefore recommend a culvert of at least 3 feet in diameter with an open bottom to encourage its use by pocket gophers. The alternative habitat area is less than 100 feet from an active pocket gopher site within the main Sanderson Field area, a dispersal distance well within pocket gophers' range. In one study documenting movement patterns of several species of the Thomomys genus, individuals moved an average of 780 feet at a time and one individual covered more than 2,500 feet during one monitoring session (Teipner et al. 1983). Other literature indicates maximum pocket gopher dispersals of over 3,200 feet at a time in search of more optimal habitat (Nowak 2003). In general, dispersion is highly variable among individuals depending upon their age and sex, and the most successful dispersion occurs when pocket gophers move from areas of relatively high to relatively low density (Steinberg 1999). G e o E n g i n e e r s 19 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 In some areas that support relatively large numbers of pocket gophers, the Port may want to supplement mound-counts with live trapping to get better idea of population size. If the Port ` pursues this option, they would need to obtain the necessary capture permits from WDFW prior to trapping. The Port may also wish to use this permit to transport the gophers to the alternative habitat area across Highway 101, if permission to trap the pocket gopher is obtained. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The approach for maintaining viable populations of species of concern in Washington State focuses on maintaining viable habitat for species, not necessarily upon the numbers of individuals themselves. Mason County's Resource Ordinance adopts this same approach and centers its land management goals around protecting critical habitat features to support viable populations of sensitive species. The Port of Shelton has a responsibility to consider the impacts of its development activities upon the habitat of the Shelton pocket gopher. With the above-described approach to evaluating the impacts of each new project and implementing the appropriate habitat set-asides, the Port will maintain a viable and thriving pocket gopher population while meeting its needs for economic development. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. 6 Lisa A. Berntsen,PWS Principal APL:LAB:tw ORCH\3\3632003\00\Final\363200300RevFinalHMP.Doc Attachments G e o E n g i n e e r s 20 File No.3632-003-00/051603 6.0 REFERENCES Andelt,W.F.and R.M. Case. 2001. Managing Pocket Gophers. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet No. 6.515. Antiaeu, C. 2003. Biology, ecology, and management of invasive plants. Presentation at the Society for Ecological Restoration and Society of Wetland Scientists Joint Conference, Portland, Oregon. Farrell and Archer. 1995. Pocket Gopher: Thomomys mazama couchi. Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: From the Coast to the High Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, Oregon. Ministry of Environment,Lands, &Parks; Resources Inventory Branch. 2001. Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher: Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity, No. 26(Version 2.0). Nowak, W. 2003. Walker's Mammals of the World Online. http://www.press.j hu.edu/books/walker/rodentia.geomyidae.thomomys.html Payne,N.F. and F.C. Bryant. 1994. Techniques for wildlife habitat management of uplands. McGraw-Hill,Inc.,New York. Port of Shelton Comprehensive Plan. 2001 (updated April 2002). Exhibit F: Shelton Pocket Gopher Protection Plan (1993 study). Pullman Plant Materials Center(a division of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Undated. Conservation Plant Materials for the Conservation Reserve Program: Native Grasses. htip://www.wsu.edWpmc nres/crp/crplst.htm Singleton,P.H. and J.F.Lehmkuhl. 2000. Assessing wildlife habitat connectivity in the Interstate 90 Snoqualmie Pass Corridor, Washington. US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. PNW-98-0513-CC. Steinberg,E.K. 1995. A study of genetic differentiation and variation in the Mazama pocket gopher(ThomomXs mazama)with emphasis on the Fort Lewis population. Final report submitted to the Nature Conservancy. Steinberg, E.K. 1999.Diversification of Genes, Populations, and Species: Evolutionary Genetics of Real and Virtual Pocket Gophers (Thomomys). PhD Dissertation,University of Washington. Teipner, C.L.,E.O. Garton, and L.Nelson,Jr. 1983. Pocket Gophers in Forest Ecosystems. US Department of Agrigulture Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-154. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Candidate and Listing Priority Assessment Form: Western Pocket Gopher. G e o E n g i n e e r s 21 File No.3 63 2-003-00/05 1 603 i APPENDIX A MEMO ' G c o E n g i n e e r s Fife No.3 63 2-003-00/0 5 1 603 r F J 1 a Applied Environmental Services, Inc. Memo To: Scott Duncan,Port of Shelton From: Lisa Berntsen and Amy Lawrence,AES Environmental Scientists Date: January 10,2003 Re: Study Plan for Pocket Gopher Site Characterization As a key step in preparing a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Shelton Pocket Gopher near Sanderson Field,Applied Environmental Services(AES)will conduct a site characterization of the approximately 750-acre study area. This memo provides the details of our study plan for your review and consideration,and includes: • a description of our goals for the site characterization; • our proposed field sampling methods;and • our proposed data analysis techniques. 1 We hope to conduct this site characterization in early to mid-February and would appreciate any comments on this proposed plan by January 31,2003. We prepared this study plan based upon consultation with several agency officials (Ted Thomas, USFWS, 12/30/02; Derek Stinson, WA FWS 1/6103), review of other pocket gopher research, ' and procedures described in the Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket Gopher, Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 26(April 2001). j Purpose The goals of the site characterization are to: i • determine areas of relatively high pocket gopher abundance in the study area;and • identify habitat variables (vegetation, soils, topography)that are associated with areas of high pocket gopher abundance. Field Sampling Methods Procedure Given the size of the study area and the resources available, we propose to use direct observation of pocket gopher mounds as an indicator of pocket gopher abundance. This type of survey will yield qualitative information about the presence and relative abundance of pocket gophers and will satisfy the goals of this site characterization. However, this survey will not allow us to quantify the absolute size of the Sanderson Field pocket gopher population because pocket gopher mounds cannot be reliably used to measure the number of individuals present(i.e.,more than one pocket gopher may use the same mound, or one pocket gopher may construct multiple mounds). A much more labor-intensive mark-recapture study would be required to measure size of the pocket gopher population around Sanderson Field. We propose a 2-day field effort to characterize the study area. To ensure complete coverage of the study area, we will divide the area into five discrete sections (Figure 1). Most sections are bordered by large roads or runways, which serve as barriers to pocket gopher dispersal. To ensure a consistent level of effort across the survey area, we will survey each section for a pre- determined duration of approximately 1 hour for every 50 acres(Table 1). Areas that are heavily wooded(and therefore unlikely pocket gopher habitat)will require less time to survey. Table 1. Duration of Pocket Gopher Survey per Section of Study Area Approximate Area Approximate 1 Section (Acres) Duration of Survey (Hours) k 1 100 2 it 2 100 2 3 250 5 1 4 225 4.5 5 75 1.5 ` 1 : We will survey Sections 1,2,and 3 on the first day and Sections 4 and 5 on the second. In each of the five sections,we will traverse the area in a standard pattern as a team of two. We ` will deviate from the pre-determined pattern to more closely survey areas of relatively high mound density. We will also use information from previous studies to direct our attention to areas of known pocket gopher habitat. For each area of relatively high pocket gopher abundance(e.g., 3-5 mounds in close proximity to one another),we will collect the following information: • the number of mounds per unit area; . F • a general description of mounds (average height and width, shape, and soil compaction s or"freshness"of mound); • geographic coordinates(using a March 2 GPS unit); • a digital image; • a list of vegetation present(and in particular identifying species as native or non-native species); P • the general soil type;and • any other relevant notes (e.g., proximity to road, runway, or other development). i If there are a large number of areas with high gopher abundance, we will randomly t select a subset of these areas to survey. TF4uipment Our proposed field sampling methods will require the following equipment: -Maps -Tape measure -Gloves -Field guide to mammals -Hand trowel -Binoculars -Probe(rebar) -Wire flagging -Field book with data forms and pens -Indelible ink marker(for flagging) Data Analysis All of the information collected during the site characterization will be used to prepare a HMP for pocket gophers that satisfies Mason County requirements. Specifically,we will analyze the data to identify general relationships between pocket gopher abundance and habitat properties (primarily soil type and vegetation). We will also compare pocket gopher abundance and LL distribution in areas of known habitats with abundance and distribution patterns in the secondary habitat areas (Section 5 on Figure 1). This will involve comparing the known versus desired habitat areas in terms of vegetation and soil properties. In addition, we will display on a map areas that currently have high pocket gopher abundance. n � u � ° 1 1 � t � - r • r u 1 i tLETTER INITIATION OF MONITORING PROGRAM FOR iSHELTON POCKET GOPHER PORT OF SHELTON ' SANDERSON FIELD SITE ' JULY 6, 2004 FOR PORT OF SHELTON GEOENGINEERS File No.3632-003-01 July 6, 2004 GEOENGINEERS ' Mason County Planning P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 Attention: Bob Fink, Planning Manager Subject: Letter Initiation of Monitoring Program for Shelton Pocket Gopher Port of Shelton ' Sanderson Field Site File No. 3632-003-01 INTRODUCTION The Port of Shelton (the Port) owns and manages Sanderson Field, an area of approximately 800 acres that contains an airfield, associated hangars and taxiways, and other small industrial operations. Sanderson Field contains habitat for the Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama couchi), a candidate species in the state of Washington. In 2003, the Port retained GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) to conduct a site-wide investigation and develop a comprehensive Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Shelton pocket gopher population at Sanderson Field. The HMP provides an approach for maintaining a viable population of pocket gophers by evaluating impacts for each new development project and implementing appropriate mitigation activities. The HMP was submitted to Mason County in September 2003 and approved in October 2003. The purpose of this letter is to document that the Port has initiated their long-term monitoring program as described in Section 4.3 of the HMP. Specifically, the Port recently completed two activities (1) established a long-term "reference area" that will be used as an indicator of pocket gopher activity at Sanderson Field for comparison against future newly created habitat areas; and (2) began the initial habitat restoration in the 50-acre restoration area across Highway 101. This habitat restoration was undertaken to offset a loss of 1.5 acres of "potential habitat" with the construction of Hangars 2 and 3 near the main runway, an activity that has already been approved by the County. The Port is not at this time proposing any new development that would trigger additional mitigation activities. ' METHODS A GeoEngineers biologist visited the Sanderson Field site on April 21, 2004 to survey the newly established reference area and the initial restoration area for signs of pocket gopher activity. Monitoring ' was performed in accordance with the procedures described in the HMP and is described in detail in the attached field report. Earth science+TecbnolopyWpp- / ' Mason County Planning July 6, 2004 Page 2 FINDING The newly established habitat restoration area is located within a 50-acre parcel across Highway 101 from the main Sanderson Field area(Attachment A—Photo 1, Photo 2, and Figure 1). The Port began habitat restoration in early spring 2004 strip by clearing and m wing the Scot's Broom within a 30-foot wide strip along the eastern fence line. All vegetation was mowed to a height of approximately 4 inches, as specified in the HMP. During our initial site visit GeoE gineers did not observe any active mounds that showed all three indicators of active pocket gopher use a fan-shaped mound with fresh dirt, an entry hole, and grass clippings near the entrance. However, there were several large mounds that could be indicative of past use by pocket gophers. The vegetatioi and soil conditions in this area are suitable for ' future use by pocket gophers and it appears that mow ng will be sufficient to maintain such habitat conditions. The selected reference area (Attachment A —Photo 3, Photo 4, and Figure 1) is appropriate for use as a gauge of pocket gopher activity at Sanderson Field. The area has vegetation and habitat conditions that are representative of those in the larger Sanderson Fie d area. In addition, it is a well-defined area surrounded by roads and runways, it is of sufficient si (approximately 4.7 acres), and it will not be ' developed or altered by the Port in the foreseeable future. In this area, GeoEngineers noted several active mounds. The mounds were concentrated in the southern portion of the area, along the slope adjacent to the runway. The maximum mound density recorded in this area was 4 mounds/0.01 acre sample unit. ' CONCLUSION The Port has successfully initiated its long-term pocket gopher monitoring program in accordance with its approved HMP. The selected reference area is appropriate for gauging pocket gopher densities for comparison against any newly created habitat areas. The initial restoration efforts across Highway 101 ' appear to be creating suitable pocket gopher habitat. Continued regular monitoring will offer further information on whether and to what extent pocket goph rs are using the area. If there are no signs of ' active use,then additional restoration activities may be w anted. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3632-003-01 ' Mason County Planning July 6,2004 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to present this letter. If you have questions or wish to discuss this letter, ' please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Amy P.Lawrence Environmental Scientist C' ' Lisa A. Berntsen,PWS Principal ' APL:WSW:jl ORCH:\3\3632003\01\Finals\363200301 L.doe Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Enclosures: Attachment A—Field Report and Photographs rcc: Fred Cool Port of Shelton 450 West Business Park Road Shelton,Washington 98584 ' G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3632-003-01 iMenu GEOENGINEERS ' ATTACHMENT A ' FIELD REPORT AND PHOTOGRAPHS File Number: GEOENGINEERS_ FIELD R PORT 3632-001-01 ' Project: Date: 1550 WOODRIDGE DRIVE SE Port of Shelton—Pocket Gophe Monitoring 4/21/04 PORT ORCHARD,WA 98366 Owner. Time of Arrival: Report Number: (360)769-8400 9:30 Port of Shelton Prepared by: Location: Time of Departure: Page: ' Amy Lawrence Shelton,Washington 11:45 Purpose of visit: Weather: Travel Time: Permit Number. Initiate monitoring Partly sunny,recent rain 2.25 hrs(RT) Upon arrival to the site I assessed personal safety hazards: ® Yes or ❑Referred to Site Safety Plan ai id Safety Tailgate if applicable Safety Hazards Were Addressed by:® Staying Alert to Construction and Equipment Hazards ❑Other(describe) ' This report summarizes the initial field visit at the Port of Shelto 's Sanderson Fieldproperty. The ose of the visit P PmP was to initiate the monitoring program as for the candidate species,the Shelton pocket gopher, in accordance with the ' approved HMP for this species. Specifically,the visit was conducted to (1)establish a long-term"reference area"that will be used as an indicator of pocket gopher activity at Sanderson Field for comparison against newly established habitat areas; and(2)to establish the first restoration area in exchange for construction of two new hangars near the main runway. I arrived at the Port of Shelton administrative offices at approximately 9:30 and met briefly with Fred Cool. He introduced me to Terra Norris. Terra and I reviewed the site maps and she showed me the areas the Port had selected for ' the habitat reference area and the first restoration area(Figure 1). 1 agreed that the selected reference area was appropriate because it had vegetation and habitat conditions that were represe tative of those in the larger Sanderson Field area. In addition,it is a well-defined area surrounded by roads and runways, it is of sufficient size(approximately 4.7 acres), and it will not be developed or altered by the Port in the foreseeable future. I also agreed that the restoration area was ' appropriate. Its location just across the highway from the existing well-used habitat area near the airstrip will facilitate gopher migration to the new habitat area. It is also of sufficient size(approximately 1.5 acres)to compensate for the new hangar construction. The selected reference area and new restora ion meet the requirements of the HMP. ' I also discussed with Terra the general approach for monitoring and any new restoration that will need to be done as the Port plans for additional development. She indicated that there were no plans for development in the near future. We ' agreed that it made sense to try and coordinate any baseline monitoring events for future development with the necessary follow-up visits for this initial restoration area(every six month p r the HMP). Terra will let me know as soon as the Port begins plans for any new development. ' I then conducted the initial monitoring of both the new restoratio area and the reference area. All monitoring was performed in accordance with the procedures described in the H ' Restoration Area(Photos 1 and 2) This area is 1.5 acres that are being aside in exchange for"potential habitat"lost in construction of two hangars within the main Sanderson Field property. As described in the HMP,the Port ultimately plans to restore and manage the entire 50- ' ❑ THIS FIELD REPORT IS PRELIMINARY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE DATE A preliminary report is provided solely as evidence that field observation was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may ry ' from and shall take precedence over those indicated in at preliminary report. :HIS FIELD REPORT IS FINAL REVIEWED BY DATE A final report is an instrument of professional service. Any conclusions drawn from this report should be discussed with and evaluated by the professional involved. ' This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to our services only. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specification throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the work of others. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety of others on this project. DISCLAIMER:Any electronic form,facsimile or hard py of the original document(email,text,table, and/or figure),if provided,and any ' attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngine Lrs,Inc.and will serve as the official document of record. Attachments: Distribution: 1 File No: 3632-003-01 1 Page 2 1 acre area(the"Restoration Area") across Highway 101 as habitat for the pocket gopher. The restoration will be implemented as phased mitigation to compensate for new development as it occurs. I walked the length of the first 1.5-acre restoration area with Terra looking for signs of active pocket gophers. We 1 observed several areas along the eastern fence line that appeared to contain old mounds. We did not observe any active mounds that showed all three indicators of active pocket gopher use: a fan-shaped mound with fresh dirt, an entry hole, and grass clippings near the entrance. However, the area does show evidence of past activity and the potential for future 1 use by pocket gophers. Other observations included: • The area had been fairly recently mowed. The Scotch Broom was under control and the maximum height of all vegetation was approximately 4 to 6 inches. 1 • The existing culvert(approx. 18 inches in diameter) could possibly be used to facilitate pocket gopher migration into the larger restoration area. However, a larger culvert may increase the likelihood of it being used by gophers. If possible, an opening in the chain link fence could be created to allow more ready access into the Restoration Area. I recommended that, at a minimum,this area be mowed as needed to maintain the current height of vegetation. If possible,I recommended that the Scotch Broom be hand-pulled,the soil disked, and a native seed mix added to the soil. All of these activities are described further in the HMP. 1 Reference Area(Photos 3 and 4) I monitored this area on my own. I noted several mounds that app ared to be active. The mounds were concentrated in 1 the southern portion of the area, along the slope adjacent to the runway. However,I could not find a distinct entry hole at any of the mounds. Despite this,the mounds showed the classic fan shape and appeared very recent, so I recorded them in the GPS unit as active mounds (Figure 1). The maximum mound density recorded in this area was 4 mounds/0.01 acre sample unit. I completed the monitoring and left the Sanderson Field property at approximately 11:30 am. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' File No: 3632-003-01 Page 3 407 , Photo 1. Initital restoration area-30-foot strip along western portion of parcel. dye,t"� � " p�n��#�.'� �..t �,f' �� err 3' .�p��j '�'��•�' ' Photo 2. Culvert under Highway 101 lea ing into restoration area. File No: 1112-003-01 Pa e 4 f Photo 3. Reference area in southwestern porti n of Sanderson Field,looking east towards main hang r area. ' a'l iSiSe � c �i s f 4vr 1i ►# i * �t �•r' � v� 1. � K:'4u'#+ �^P`'¢' � 1 y� } �s ... � of '��{ ; d' n i C s c Photo 4. Active mounds i reference area. gp; t File Number: GEOENGINEERS FIELD REPORT 3632-003-01 Project: Date: 1550 WOODRIDGE DRIVE SE Port of Shelton—Pocket Gopher I Aonitoring 10/28/04 PORT ORCHARD,WA 98366 Owner. Time of Arrival: Report Number. (360)769-8400 Port of Shelton 11:45 AM Prepared by: Location: Time of Departure: Page: Amy Lawrence Shelton,Washington 1:30 PM 1 of 4 Purpose of visit: Weather: Travel Time: Permit Number: Monitoring Mostly cloudy,recent rain 2.25 hrs(RT) Upon arrival to the site I assessed personal safety hazards: ® Yes or 0 Referred to Site Safety Plan and Safety Tailgate if applicable Safety Hazards Were Addressed by:® Staying Alert to Construction and Equipment Hazards O Other(d scribe) This report summarizes the six-month monitoring field visit at the ort of Shelton's Sanderson Field property. The purpose of the visit was to continue the monitoring program as for the candidate species,the Shelton pocket gopher,in accordance with the approved Habitat Management Plan(HMP)for this species. Specifically,the visit was conducted to (1)monitor the conditions of the"reference area"that is being utilized as an indicator of pocket gopher activity at Sanderson Field for comparison against newly established habitatarea;and(2)to monitor the first restoration area,which was established in exchange for construction of two new hangars ncar the main runway. Two GeoEngineers biologists(Joe Callaghan and Shawn Mahugh)arrived at the Port of Shelton administrative offices at approximately 11:45 am and met briefly with Fred Cool. Mr.Cool traveled to both the reference area and the restoration area with the biological team to allow access to the monitoring sites. This report summarizes the six-month monitoring event as required in the HMP. All monitoring was performed in accordance with the procedures described in the HMP. Reference Area(Photos 1 and 2) The reference area,located within the limits of the airfield,was accessed from a runway to the north. The reference area runs roughly east and west to the north of an active runway. Several mounds were identified in the reference area. One of the easternmost mounds was identified to be active and the mound had the classic fan shape. Other mounds to the west also had the characteristic fan shape and associated entry holes,bu appeared to be dormant. The mounds were concentrated in the southern portion of the area,along the slope ad acent to the runway. All mounds in the reference area were recorded in the GPS unit and overlayed on the site map(Figure 1). The maximum mound density recorded in this area was 5 mounds/0.01 acre sample unit. Restoration Area(Photos 3,4 and 5) This 1.5 acre area has been set aside in exchange for"potential habitat"lost in construction of two hangars within the main Sanderson Field property. As described in the HMP,the Pori ultimately plans to restore and manage the entire 50- acre area(the"Restoration Area")across Highway 101 as habitat r the pocket gopher. The restoration will be implemented as phased mitigation to compensate for new development as it occurs. Prior to the site visit,the soils of the restoration area had been turned to loosen the soils and create suitable gopher habitat. GeoEngineers biologists walked the length of the 1.5-acre restoration area looking for signs of active pocket gophers. We observed several areas along the eastern fence line that appeared to contain old mounds. We did not observe any active THIS FIELD REPORT IS PRELIMINARY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE DATE A preliminary report is provided solely as evidence that field observation was perfo Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may very from and shall take precedence over those indicated in a preliminary report. THIS FIELD REPORT IS FINAL REVIEWED BY DATE A final report is an instrument of professional service. Any conclusions drawn from thisreport should be discussed with and evaluated by the professional involved. This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to our services only. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specification throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the work of others. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety of others on this project. D lscLAIMER:Any electronic f orm,facsimile or h and copy of the original d ocument(email,text,table,and/or figure),if provided,a nd any attachments are only a copy of the original document.The original document is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official document of record. Attachments: Figure 1 —Site Map Distribution: File No: 3632-003-01 Page 2 mounds that possessed all three indicators of active pocket gopher use: a fan-shaped mound with fresh dirt,an entry hole, and grass clippings near the entrance. However,the area does show evidence of past gopher activity and the potential for future use by pocket gophers. As we moved northeast across the site,several additional mounds ere observed. Four distinct areas of mounds were identified along the drainage that runs east through the site. Several of the mounds appeared to be active. Fresh dirt was contained in several mounds,but the mounds did not appear to be an-shaped. Several of the mounds were identified to have a nearby entry hole,yet none of the entrances contained grasrs clippings. These mounds were not positively identified as pocket gopher mounds. These mounds were,however,identified in the field and mapped on the GPS unit for reference. Monitoring was completed and the biologists left the Sanderson Fi Id property at approximately 1:30 pm. 11•• j ' a _ e A��#�' � �r 4 Photo 1. Active Mounds in th Reference Area. File No: 3632-003-01 Page 3 441 Photo 2. Reference Area at San Jerson Airfield. xY "^ f b �, '��y `� '� ��• "��'l' `� d��!�S '' � k.h��.'t�a-. Photo 3. Active Mounds in the Mitigation Area. V+� { File No: 3632-003-01 Page 4 mm 14 Photo 4. Culvert under Highway 101 between Sande son Airfield and the Mitigation Area. rt � ^ Photo 5. Initial Mitigation Area Facing Southwest,with the Drainage in the Foreground Office:Port Orchard Path:S:\GIS_projects\3\3632003\01\GIS\Figuret mxd Map Revised:DJS:TCK November 16,2004 ^ty};s+. ,rp{ ✓f';{-} i"` "'^'t'+h"s.�• »o "n ..` 'f f1 ,}. 1?€,!' ,T ":r ,q '.:;,. ,. :,2 Cr Q O' OZ `G (D (D CD Cn .�.w:: 0 1< O 2 Y pO 7 pj O C (C] O (A (D CD _� 5N 0 v y cc O Cn k �G O _6 O 's,"d s z j O (D CD 0 � Oh 3 IS O O :.. O \ O W y O O_ m m o CD � 0 =< 0 v �a r N m w � 3pCD r " CD m t :" t " m -oen CL ay -, -p �CD x? max,, .,. x rn m O a Cl e jx O m 0 J m c fir. =r D > O O ` � o (D R } IE . m 0o ;. o O N ' N CL ` t O Q w : NO CD 71 � a TI CDCD CD ` . * Iwo M my 3 W CD $ . _ 1 O O n. U)''O X, a1 CD CL 0 CD m CL ,y N cn 1G Vl O O CDO to (D u O � � � O (D (D tD � _N N Q 0 y O O N z v O O O CL0(D l�D 7CL O' O C n ±{t .< w O O O (D 2. k O C EF (Da { v(p (D �• F.. �6 t \/ CDa , v v a D Q CDO ciin s. Ln } ❑ © CD m * (D (Q CD �a Z CD n O v °O p , (D O r CD(D D C v COm > = rn c7 ,+ti N C D CD cn t� Co m OD 0 o Zz Z y aCL