HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEP2014-00021 GRD2014-00007 Pocket Gopher - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 6/4/2014 1'I� 201 ( Orz-i - woo
RECEIVED
JUN U 4 2014 April 2014
426 W. CEDAR Sl
Mazama Pocket Gopher,
Streaked Horned Lark, and
Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
Habitat Management Plan
Upper Mountain View Pressure Zone
Improvements Project
Prepared for:
City of Shelton
and
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.
Prepared by:
Environmental Science Associates
ESA
Mozomo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
CONTENTS
1.0 APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION...................................................................I
1.1 APPLICANT...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY..............................................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................3
2.1 GENERAL HABITAT CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Reservoir Site.........................................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Water Transmission .Pipeline(West Public Works Drive).......................................................4
2.1.3 Well No. 3 Site.......................................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Water Transmission Main(North Shelton Springs Road)......................................................4
2.2 MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER..................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Regulatory Status..................................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................................4
2.2.3 Reservoir Site.........................................................................................................................5
2.2.4 Water Transmission Pipeline(West Public Works Road).......................................................5
2.2.5 Well No. 3 Site.......................................................................................................................6
2.2.6 Water Transmission Main(North Shelton Springs Road)......................................................6
2.3 STREAKED HORNED LARK....................................................................................................................6
2.4 TAYLOR'S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY.................................................................................................7
3.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY...............................................................................................................9
3.1 PROJECT ELEMENTS..............................................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Reservoirs and Associated Facilities......................................................................................9
3.1.2 Infiltration Basin..................................................................................................................10
3.1.3 Water Pipeline(West Public Works Drive)...........................................................................11
3.1.4 Water Transmission Main(North Shelton Springs Road)....................................................11
3.2 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO POCKET GOPHER HABITAT.....................................................................11
4.0 POCKET GOPHER HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONDITIONS...........................13
4.1 MITIGATION SEQUENCING..................................................................................................................13
4.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................................................................13
5.0 DURATION OF PLAN AND MODIFICATIONS...................................................................15
Apri12014 Page i
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
6.0 COMPLIANCE (SIGNATURE PAGE)....................................................................................17
7.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................19
FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................21
APPENDIXA. PLANT LIST..................................................................................................................22
APPENDIX B.PREVIOUS HMP FOR WATER TRANSMISSION ALIGNMENT........................23
APPENDIXC. SOILS INFORMATION................................................................................................24
Page ii April2014
Mazoma Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Proposed Reservoir Project Site Layout
3 Gopher Mounds within Proposed Reservoir Area
4 Gopher Habitat Impacts and Mitigation
5 Transmission Main
April 2014 Page iii
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed reservoir site (Figure 2) is an undeveloped property owned by Mason County; the
City of Shelton will obtain an easement from the County for the proposed facilities. A new
water pipeline would extend east from the property, under West Public Works Drive and then
south to West Dayton Airport Road. The reservoir site was selected for the following reasons:
• Zoning is favorable to the use of the site for water storage facilities.
• The hydraulic needs of the new pressure zone make this site's elevation and location
ideal.
• The cost and availability of land and/or easements is more favorable than other sites.
• Access to the site for construction, operations, and maintenance is optimal.
• The site is acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration for construction of the
tanks within Sanderson Field airspace.
The Well No. 3 site is in Shelton city limits. It contains existing well structures in a fenced area
surrounded by forested wetland. A new water transmission main would be constructed north
from the vicinity of the well site, along North Shelton Springs Road to Tarragon Road (Figure 5).
ESA biologists visited the reservoir and well sites in January 2014, and revisited the reservoir
site in March 2014 to evaluate habitat conditions for Mazama pocket gopher, streaked horned
lark, and Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, as discussed below.
2.1 General Habitat Conditions
2.1.1 Reservoir Site
The 41.6-acre site where the proposed reservoirs would be located was logged several years
ago. Vegetation across most of the site currently consists of native and nonnative mowed grass
and forb species, scattered patches of low-growing native woody species, and sparse Scot's
broom that has been treated with herbicide. A list of plant species observed onsite is provided
in Appendix A. Surface soils across most of the site appeared rocky. An area in the northern
part of the site consists of compacted gravel (Figure 3).
Surrounding land uses include coniferous forest to the south; airport property dominated by
Scot's broom to the west; Mason County maintenance facilities to the north (primarily bare
ground with gravel stockpiles); and additional conifer forest to the east on the other side of
West Public Works Drive.
April 2014 Page 3
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
2.1.2 Water Transmission Pipeline (West Public Works Drive)
A new water transmission pipeline would run east from the new reservoirs, within a new access
W Public Works Drive and turn south for
Fi ure i West road ( 2 .g ) The pipeline would cross under
approximately 1,200 feet to the intersection with West Dayton Airport Road where it would
join an existing water main. Vegetation along the alignment of the proposed water pipeline
east of West Public Works Drive consists of sparse herbaceous species. Surface soils are
compacted gravel. Coniferous forested is located east of the alignment.
2.1.3 Well No. 3 Site
The Well No. 3 site is already developed with small structures housing well equipment,
surrounded by a security fence. The adjacent area is mowed grass, surrounded by forested
wetland. A gravel trail runs west from the well site, connecting to North Shelton Springs Road
(Figure 5).
2.1.4 Water Transmission Main (North Shelton Springs Road)
A new water transmission main would be constructed along the west side of North Shelton
Springs Road (Figure 5).The main would run approximately 2,500 feet north from an existing
water main west of Well'No. 3 up to Tarragon Road. Work would occur within the road right-of-
way, which consists of mowed grass and paved areas. Adjacent land uses include forest areas
and Shelton High School.
2.2 Mazama Pocket Gopher
2.2.1 Regulatory Status
Mason County regulates the Mazama pocket gopher under the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas code (MCC 8.52.170). The species is also regulated by the City of Shelton
Fish and Wildlife Habitat code (SMC 21.64.300).
The species is listed as threatened by the State of Washington. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) recently listed four subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in Pierce and
Thurston Counties as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (USFWS, 2014).
However, the USFWS found that listing of the pocket gopher subspecies found in Mason County
(Thomomys mazama couchi or the Shelton pocket gopher) is not warranted (USFWS, 2012).
2.2.2 Habitat Requirements
Mazama pocket gopher is a burrowing species typically found in areas with deep, loamy soils
(USFWS, 2012; Stinson 2013). While the species appears to be correlated with prairie soil types,
they do not require prairie soils and may be able to occupy any site with herbaceous vegetation
and well drained sandy loam, loamy sand, or gravelly soils that are not too rocky (Stinson,
2013). All currently known gopher sites in Mason County occur on Carstairs, Grove, or Shelton
soils (USFWS, 2012).
Page 4 April2014
Mazamo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
Mazama pocket gophers prefer herbaceous vegetation, including both native species such as
lupine and camas, as well as non-native species such as hairy cat's ear. The probability of a site
being occupied by gophers increases when there is less than 10 percent woody vegetation
cover (USFWS, 2012; Stinson 2013). Some studies have found that Mazama pocket gophers are
absent from areas with abundant Scot's broom (Stinson, 2013).
2.2.3 Reservoir Site
ESA biologists visited the reservoir site on January 16, 2014, to evaluate whether pocket
gophers were present. We observed what appeared to be gopher mounds scattered across
most of the proposed reservoir site. The local WDFW biologist, Jeff Skriletz, confirmed that the
mounds are Mazama pocket gopher mounds.
The accelerated timeline for this project (discussed in Section 3) did not allow the City of
Shelton to wait until June to complete pocket gopher mound surveys within the typical survey
window. Instead, ESA completed a reconnaissance visit on March 7, 2014 and walked transects
across the entire site to evaluate the overall density of gopher mounds. Transects were located
approximately 50 feet apart and oriented east-west. We made a general count of mounds along
each transect. ESA also made a more detailed evaluation of gopher mounds in the northern
part of the site, where the City plans to locate the reservoirs (Figure 3). Groups of mounds
within this area were mapped using GPS.
Based on counts of mounds along the transects, groups of gopher mounds exist across the
almost the entire parcel. Within the detailed evaluation area where mounds were mapped with
GPS, six groups of mounds were mapped in the northwest corner of the site and one group in
the northeast corner (Figure 3).
Soils on the reservoir site are mapped as Grove gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
(Appendix C). ESA observed surface soils on the reservoir site to be fairly rocky. Portions of the
site contained densely compacted gravel that is likely remnant from past gravel stockpiling
activities, which are still occurring on the adjacent Mason County Public Works yard (Figure 3).
This type of compacted substrate is not suitable for gophers, and no mounds were observed in
these gravel areas.
The reservoir site was logged within the last several years and is currently mowed a few times
each year. Mason County treats the scattered Scot's broom on the site with herbicide.
Vegetation on the site identified in March 2014 was dominated by native and nonnative
herbaceous species (see plant list in Appendix A). These species would provide desirable forage
for pocket gophers. Scattered patches of native woody species such as kinnikinnik were also
present but are not dominant on the site.
2.2.4 Water Transmission Pipeline (West Public Works Road)
In 2012, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC, completed a survey for pocket gopher mounds and
prepared a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the City's Dayton Airport Road water main
April 2014 Page 5
Mozoma Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
expansion project (Appendix B). That survey identified several gopher mounds in the same area
as the currently proposed water pipeline alignment along the east side of West Public Works
Drive (see Figure 2—Gopher Survey Overview and Figure 6—SR 102/Mason County section in
Appendix B). ESA walked the water pipeline alignment along West Public Works Drive on March
7, 2014. No gopher mounds were observed.
2.2.5 Well No. 3 Site
The Well No. 3 site consists of mowed, grassy areas surrounded by forested wetland. The site
appears to have a high groundwater table during winter and early spring and does not provide
suitable habitat for Mazama pocket gopher. No gopher mounds were observed during the
January 2014 site visit.
2.2.6 Water Transmission Main (North Shelton Springs Road)
ESA drove along the proposed water transmission alignment in March 2014 and observed this
part of the road-right-of way to contain a paved pathway; numerous driveways, disturbed
ground and gravel areas; and narrow strips of mowed grass. No pocket gopher mound survey
was completed. It is possible, although unlikely, that mounds are present within the limited
grassy portions of the right-of-way. Key Environmental did identify mounds along North
Shelton Springs Road north of the current proposed project during their 2012 survey (see
Appendix B).
2.3 Streaked Horned Lark
The streaked horned lark is a ground-nesting bird species, federally listed as threatened.
Designated critical habitats are located on the Washington Coast, islands in the Columbia River,
and the Willamette Valley (USFWS, 2013).
Streaked horned larks are birds of wide-open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs
(USFWS, 2004; 2013). The streaked horned lark nests on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites
dominated by grasses and forbs. Nesting occurs in a broad range of habitats, including native
prairies, coastal dunes,fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely-
vegetated edges of grass fields, moderately-to heavily-grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel
shoulders of lightly-traveled roads, and airports. Wintering streaked horned larks use habitats
that are very similar to breeding habitats.
A key attribute of habitat used by larks is generally open (i.e., flat, treeless) landscapes of 300
acres or more, or smaller areas that provide visual access to open areas such as open water or
fields. Some airports have inadvertently created habitat for the species. A breeding population
is documented at Sanderson Field airport, approximately 0.7 miles south of the reservoir site
(WDFW, 2014). Sanderson Field and other non-federal airports were excluded from critical
habitat for the streaked horned lark under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
(USFWS, 2013).
Page 6 April 2014
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
The proposed reservoir site is unlikely to support use by streaked horned larks for the following
reasons: (1) most of the site contains dense herbaceous vegetation, with a lack of large bare
areas; and (2) surrounding forests and slopes block the expansive sight lines needed by this
species. The Well No. 3 site, pipeline alignment, and water main alignment are also adjacent to
forested areas and are subject to frequent disturbance by foot and vehicle traffic, making them
unsuitable for use by streaked horned larks.
2.4 Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly
The Taylor's checkerspot butterfly is associated with open grassland habitats. Historically
abundant in the Puget Sound region, it is now known from only 11 locations in Washington
(none in Mason County) (Schultz et al, 2011; USFWS 2013). The species is federally listed as
endangered. Designated critical habitats are located in Thurston County, Strait of Juan de Fuca,
and Willamette Valley (USFWS, 2013).
Taylor's checkerspot can use a variety of plant species for nectaring and egglaying. One of these
is English plantain, a widespread, nonnative weedy plant used by the butterflies for egglaying
and development of larvae (caterpillars). Locations where the butterfly depends on English
plantain appear to have both widespread and high-density areas of this plant (Grosboll, 2011).
This species seems to have a low ability to disperse and establish new populations. Colonization
of new habitat (or remaining historic habitats) is unlikely because remaining suitable areas are
far apart and fragmented by poor-quality habitats (Grosboll, 2011). The butterflies are in the
adult (flying) stage for only about two weeks of the year. They spend the rest of the year in a
relatively sedentary larval form that is vulnerable to disturbance (USFWS, 2013).
The proposed reservoir site is unlikely to support Taylor's checkerspot for the following
reasons: (1) the lack of documented populations in Mason County; (2)the low ability of the
species to colonize new sites on its own; (3) the low density of English plantain (potential host
plant) and lack of other host plants on the site based on March 2014 observations; and (4)
ongoing site disturbance (mowing and treatment with herbicide). While mowing and herbicide
application are used on some restoration sites, they have to be carefully timed and managed to
avoid disruption of butterfly populations. That is not the purpose of management at this site.
The Well No. 3 site, proposed water transmission main alignment (North Shelton Springs Road),
and proposed water main alignment (West Public Works Road) are unlikely to support Taylor's
checkerspot for similar reasons. These areas are heavily maintained and subject to ongoing
human disturbance that would discourage colonization by the butterfly species.
April 2014 Page 7
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
3.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY
The project includes the following elements:
• Installation of two new welded steel, multi-legged, elevated water tanks or reservoirs
and associated piping and facilities(Figure 2);
• Construction of a new 10-foot-wide, gravel-surface road providing access to the
reservoirs from West Public Works Drive (Figure 2);
• Grading of an infiltration basin on the reservoir site to accommodate stormwater runoff
and emergency overflows from the tanks (Figure 2);
• Installation of approximately 1,200 linear feet of buried, 16-inch-diameter water
pipeline along West Public Works Drive connecting the new reservoirs to an existing
water main in Dayton Airport Road (Figure 2);
• Retrofitting of the existing Well No. 3 to pump water to the new reservoirs (Figure 5);
and
• Installation of approximately 2,500 linear feet of buried, 12-inch-diameter water
transmission main along North Shelton Springs Road, connecting Well No. 3 to the water
supply system (Figure 5).
The project is on an accelerated schedule to meet a promised deadline by the City to provide
water service to the Washington State Patrol Academy. The agreement is to provide water
service by July 2015 and it is not possible to complete construction in less than a year.
The first phase of the project includes all work related to the reservoirs and new water pipeline
along West Public Works Drive. The second phase includes the rest of the project elements. The
first phase of the project will be constructed several months in advance of the second phase,
with construction scheduled to begin in late spring 2014.
3.1 Project Elements
3.1.1 Reservoirs and Associated Facilities
The area around the new reservoirs will be fenced for security purposes (Figure 2). Construction
of the elevated reservoirs will require a relatively substantial foundation system, consisting of
six perimeter supports and a central support as follows:
• The perimeter supports will involve burial of a concrete foundation slab measuring 16
feet by 16 feet. A vertical pier will extend above this slab, which will measure 4 feet by 4
feet in plan where it will protrude above finished grade. A 3-foot-wide concrete grade
beam will connect each column.
April 2014 Page 9
Mozama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
• The central support will involve burial of a concrete slab measuring 18 feet by 18 feet. A
vertical pier will extend above this slab, which will measure 8 feet by 8 feet where it will
protrude above finished grade.
A small building (SCADA shed) will be constructed to house the electronic control equipment
for the reservoir. This building will be a factory-assembled modular type construction, placed
on a 6-foot by 8-foot concrete pad.
Electrical pull boxes would be placed within the reservoir site area, consisting of two 30-inch-
square lids. A transformer pad is also proposed near West Public Works Drive, which will consist
of a 4-foot-square concrete pad.
The proposed access road will be 10 feet wide and surfaced with gravel (Figure 2).
3.1.2 Infiltration Basin
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) will require stormwater improvements
to be made in order to retain drainage within the reservoir site. An infiltration basin is proposed
to store runoff from the reservoir roof area onsite, where it will be provided an opportunity to
enter the groundwater table (Figure 2).
The infiltration basin is designed to have a depth of approximately 1.3 feet when completely
full. A foot of freeboard is provided. The side slopes of the basin are 4H:1V to provide for
maintenance and access. The basin's volume is approximately 8,830 cubic feet with a bottom
area of approximately 5,250 square feet.
Once the basin's storage depth has been reached, an overflow ditch along the new access road
will convey drainage to the east, towards West Public Works Drive (Figure 2). The basin and
ditch will be planted with native prairie grasses.
The infiltration basin was designed using Ecology's WWHM Software. Based on this model, the
basin will rarely experience storm events large enough to cause standing water in the basin. In
any given year, there is essentially a 50% chance that 1 inch of runoff will accumulate in the
basin. The basin would reach its maximum depth of 12 inches in the event of a 100-year storm
(MSA, 2014).
The basin is also intended to store emergency overflows from the water reservoir in the event
that the supply pumps fail to turn-off upon reaching maximum tank capacity. The basin will
provide approximately one hour of response time for City maintenance personnel to reach the
site and shut down the tank valves, stopping the overflow.
In the event that the storage capacity of the pond is exceeded, a drainage ditch is proposed to
convey flows towards West Public Works Drive. The ditch will be approximately 1 foot in depth,
Page 10 April2014
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
and slope gently at less than 1%. Due to space constraints within a utility easement, the ditch
side slopes are proposed to be non-mowable (2H to 1V slopes) and planted with native grasses.
3.1.3 Water Pipeline (West Public Works Drive)
The new water pipeline connecting to the reservoirs (Figure 2) will be 42 inches to 60 inches
deep. At a minimum, the trench width is anticipated to be 40 inches; however, the depth of
construction may require either shoring or layback which would widen the excavation. The
trench will be backfilled and the surface reseeded with native prairie grasses.
3.1.4 Water Transmission Main (North Shelton Springs Road)
The new water main along North Shelton Springs Road connects existing Well No. 3 to the
existing water supply network. The pipeline will be laid in a trench approximately 40 inches
wide at depths ranging between five and eight feet. The pipeline will be constructed in existing
paved areas and disturbed road right-of-way with minimal if any construction in potential
gopher habitat areas.
3.2 Unavoidable Impacts to Pocket Gopher Habitat
As discussed in Section 3,the City of Shelton is under an obligation to the Washington State
Patrol to complete the project by June 2015. Because of the time needed for permitting and
construction,this obligation does not allow the City to wait until June for the formal pocket
gopher mound survey in accordance with WDFW protocol.
Therefore, the following assumptions have been used to estimate impacts and facilitate
permitting (Figure 4):
• Assumption 1: The area occupied by permanent, aboveground facilities will result in
impacts to gopher habitat.
• Assumption 2: Compacted gravel substrate does not provide suitable gopher habitat.
Facilities located in this type of substrate are not included in the impact area.
Using these assumptions, the project would result in approximately 0.15 acre of permanent
impact to suitable gopher habitat on the reservoir site (Figure 4). This includes 0.02 acre for the
new access road and 0.13 acre for the new water storage tank, piping, and valves.
Other portions of the reservoir site such as the infiltration basin and ditch would be graded and
then restored by seeding with a native prairie seed mix. Similarly, the water pipeline and water
main alignments would be trenched,the pipes would be buried, and the surface would be
seeded with a native prairie seed mix. These are considered temporary impacts to gopher
habitat because no permanent aboveground facilities would be located in these areas and they
could be used by gophers following restoration.
April 2014 Page 11
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
4.0 POCKET GOPHER HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONDITIONS
4.1 Mitigation Sequencing
WDFW recommends the following mitigation sequence for proposed development projects
with potential impacts to Mazama pocket gophers (WDFW, 2011):
1. Avoid direct impacts to occupied Mazama pocket gopher habitat.
2. If impacts to active gopher mounds are unavoidable, minimize impacts to occupied
Mazama pocket gopher habitat by setting aside a habitat protection area onsite. The
total habitat protection area should include an area equivalent to the total occupied
habitat area multiplied by three.
3. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to Mazama pocket gopher active mounds. Only if the
avoidance or minimization of impacts through an onsite habitat protection area is not
possible, as determined by the permit authority,then offsite mitigation or a
combination of onsite and offsite mitigation may be used. The offsite mitigation ratio
should be calculated at the rate of three acres of suitable gopher habitat permanently
protected for every one acre of occupied gopher habitat that is destroyed.
Permanent impacts to gopher habitat have been minimized by located the proposed reservoirs
and access road at the north end of the site, adjacent to existing developed areas and partially
within compacted gravel that does not provide suitable substrate for gophers (Figures 3 and 4).
The new water pipeline and.water main would be installed in areas that have already been
disturbed by prior utility installation or are paved or topped with a gravel surface.
4.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures
The City of Shelton proposes the following measures to mitigation for the unavoidable impacts
to gopher habitat described in Section 3.2:
1. Mitigation for permanent impacts would be provided by setting aside an area of
protected gopher habitat on the reservoir site (Figure 4). The area of protected habitat
would be provided at a 3:1 ratio to the area of impact. Based on a permanent impact
area of 0.15 acre,the mitigation area would be 0.45 acre.
2. The protected gopher habitat area would be fenced and mowed twice per year to
encourage growth of grasses and reduce growth of woody vegetation.
3. All areas temporarily impacted during construction would be restored by seeding with
native prairie species.
April 2014 Page 13
I
Mozomo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
4. Mitigation measures described in the HMP for the Dayton Airport Road water main
project would be applied to the new water pipeline and water transmission main (see
Appendix B).
Page 14 April2014
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
5.0 DURATION OF PLAN AND MODIFICATIONS
The habitat mitigation plan (HMP) will be enforced in perpetuity.
April 2014 Page 15
Mazamo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
6.0 COMPLIANCE SIGNATURE PAGE)
)
Failure to comply with this Plan is a violation of Mason County and City of Shelton codes and
may be subject to civil or criminal penalty.
Y J p Y
ndowner or gent Signature (Date) Landowner or-Agent Names (Print)
Address
34�404
City,State, ip
City of Shelton Representative (date)
April2014 Page 17
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
7.0 REFERENCES
Grosboll, D.N.Taylor's checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori)oviposition habitat selection and larval
hostplant use in Washington State. Masters Thesis, Evergreen State College,June 2011.
Murray Smith &Associates, Inc. 2014. Project description information for Upper Mountain View
Pressure Zone Improvements Project.
Schultz, C.B. and many others. 2011. Conservation of Prairie-Oak Butterflies in Oregon, Washington,and
British Columbia. Northwest Science 85(2): 366-388.
Stinson, D. W. 2013. Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Washington State Recovery Plan.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.January 2013.Available:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01449/wdfw01449.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Threatened Species Status for the Olympia Pocket Gopher, Roy Prairie Pocket Gopher, Tenino
Pocket Gopher, and Yelm Pocket Gopher,With Special Rule. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 68,
April 9, 2014.
USFWS. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for
the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark; Final
Rule. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 192, October 3, 2013.
USFWS. 2012. Federal Register,Volume 77, Number 238, December 11, 2012. 50 CFR Part 17-
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Four Subspecies of Mazama Pocket
Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule.Available:
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/FWS-R I-ES-2012-0088-0001 f 11 m pg.pdf.
USFWS. 2004. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form,Streaked Horn Lark (Eremophila
olpestris strigata). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR.
WDFW(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011. Priority Habitats and Species
Recommendations: Mazama Pocket Gopher. Revised March 2011. Available:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01175/wdfw01175.pdf.
WDFW(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Priority Habitats and Species mapping.
April 2014 Page 19
Mazamo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
FIGURES
April 2014 Page 21
Ed
• I Sugir.ii;h•ti.d
e.4.,
€ � SilverdYe
r - + Project Area
F-1
.n I/ Un ve ucr vle.
10.
fj
•
•\\\\.•ever
�' a! / tr tYiLL� III
-a• - J'■■ j�' n4 '• r
rives
I.
Q City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
0 1
Major Roads / I I
^ Miles
SOURCE:Mason County,2011;National Geographic,2010;Microsoft Bing,2010(Aerial) Shelton Upper Mountain View.120699
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Mason County, Washington
PROPOSED YARD PROPOSED 400,000-GALLON
PIPING AND ELEVATED WATER STORAGE
j VALVES TAN PROPOSED SERVICE
j CONNECTION TO
AD61TIVE BID ITEM PROPOSED 16-INCH MASON COUNTY
40Q,000-GALLON ELEVATED DIAMETER WATER W
WATER STORAGE TANK MAIN
6' CHAIN LINK FENCE -
20' ACCESS AND c w.
UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED -v4
DETENTION POND
& DITCH
MASON COUNTY PARCEL 0
NO. 42002-10-00020
tun)
'W-all j
j
-I
WA ,
I
0 PROPOSED TIE-IN TO
EXISTING SYSTEM
5 W DAYTON AIRPORT ROAD
ai
100 50 0 100 200
w SCALE IN FEET
— - - - Shelton Upper Mountain View. 120699
Figure 2
Proposed Reservoir Project Site Layout
Mason County, Washington
►'♦-i-i'♦'e•i-/-i�♦� !-l /-i-e-♦-♦-e-♦-♦-♦-♦-i-♦-♦-♦-!'e-♦-e-/-/-♦-i'/-e-♦-♦-i'e -i-♦-♦-e-♦-♦-♦-♦-eq-i�i-♦-i- •+.-
♦!!1♦!!♦♦♦!!!!!!!!!!!!1!♦!!!!!!!!�!!!!1!1♦1♦!11♦11111♦1!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1!!♦1!1♦!♦11111♦!1!♦l1111♦!!1!1♦1♦1♦� -• - �`^' '
i♦ilili♦ieili♦itMili♦i!i♦i♦i!i!i!i!i♦itili♦♦lili♦i♦ililititititi♦ilitilililitititi/.li♦i!i!i!i!i!i!ilililili♦♦♦i - t'
��1♦♦!♦♦!l1���1�1�1�♦!!!!!♦!♦!♦♦�1�1♦1�1�11111♦!!!!!!!�♦�!�!�!�!�l�l���l�l�l�l�l�l��
.'i!i♦itililititititi'lliiililili♦i!i♦it4.#X-XXV,,W,W,itititititititititititi�ilititilili♦i!i!i!i!ililiiiliiilili�� t
!♦1♦♦!♦1♦e ♦♦!♦1♦♦!1♦♦11♦♦♦1♦!♦11!!1♦1!♦!♦♦11♦♦♦11♦1♦♦!♦1♦�
. , _ ��1!l/�wl.!!!ee♦!1!!!�♦♦♦�♦♦1!♦♦♦♦♦11e/l1!♦1♦♦1!♦!♦!♦!♦!!♦♦!1!♦!♦!!!!!1!!!♦!!!♦♦♦♦♦!♦!♦!♦�1e1e1♦!!!♦1♦♦!♦!♦!�►!*•!�♦j♦r K '-
♦!! ♦!♦1!♦1♦♦♦1♦♦1♦�♦! /111l1♦!♦♦!!!!!!!♦!!♦!!!!!!!!!1'
�►�♦�♦�• �1�1�♦�!�!�♦�+♦fie♦♦♦♦♦e!�!�♦�!♦�1�♦��♦��!�l�l��1!!�♦!!!!!!!!!!!1!!♦!!!�!1!1!!�!♦1♦♦♦♦♦1111/1�'
i♦ �!!1♦♦ ♦♦!!1♦♦1!!♦l1i1♦1!♦!!!!1l11♦1!!1♦
.♦� !!♦♦!♦ !!!♦1!!!!e♦♦111!!♦1!!!!!!!!!♦!1 e;
.,!♦�������,�1� • 11�1♦�1�♦�1�lll♦♦!♦♦♦�1 ♦�ilili♦ililili♦�lilili♦i!i t s
40
�♦!1e!♦ .
. ♦1♦♦l111
♦ ♦♦!!!!♦ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!♦
s1♦�i1♦`♦1e!♦♦11 t�!!!♦♦!!!1!♦1!!1!!!!♦!!1!!♦l�11�!!♦♦e♦e1�♦♦♦1♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦!.♦♦.�:
.'��♦♦♦1!1!♦♦ ♦1!♦♦ 1!!�!1♦1♦♦!!e!!♦♦♦e♦11♦♦♦♦11♦!♦♦♦!!♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦!♦1e11♦!1♦♦♦♦ire'"♦.�"�.
>1!!!!♦1! ♦111111! 1111!♦!!1!!!♦1♦♦1!♦1♦♦1!1!♦♦11♦e1♦1♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦.s..a�♦♦�
. • 1 !!!!♦!♦1!!♦!!!1!!♦l1111!!♦♦!!♦1♦♦0111e!!♦!i♦!!♦e!!
b >lili♦ililililiCompacted Gravel/Fill !i♦i!i!i
:�i♦�•i♦JJ;, i;- Areas• �� o
��♦♦♦!♦e♦♦l1e111♦1♦♦!1♦♦1 WWWV!!1♦`♦!'♦♦♦!1♦!1♦♦♦♦1!1!�
o♦♦e♦♦♦♦1!!♦1♦!♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦11♦♦!!♦!1� 77
• • ♦111♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦!1♦♦♦1!1♦e♦♦e111♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦1♦1!♦!♦♦1111!!♦!♦e1!♦!♦♦!♦!� cn
�` ♦ ♦♦1111.!♦eell!!!.♦♦♦♦1♦111♦11♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦!♦♦♦!1♦♦♦♦11♦♦♦♦11
��'i��1i°i♦i1i♦i♦ieiei♦i♦i♦ie♦♦i1i♦i♦ i♦i♦ili�iei♦i!i♦�♦ i� °"
♦1/11♦1♦♦
0 Gopher Mounds(GPS)
Proposed 10-Feet Wide Access Road
- Proposed 16-Inch Water Pipeline
- Water Tank Location
Fence
♦♦!!!11♦
ieililili♦i♦i♦i•
pp1♦1/1De♦♦♦.
♦♦1♦♦!1!j♦♦♦d�.. __
�♦♦11le •
��•� ♦♦i!♦♦.
(dimensions 10 ft east to west,25 feet north to
Additional mounds (not mapped here)
Note: •• _ • on are present across the rest of the site.
October)March 2014 reconnaissance. Mound locations 11i mounds,approx 20 sf,next to what appears
may change during the gopher survey window to be gopher tunnels dug up by a predator
i I
PROPOSED YARD PROPOSED 400,000-GALLON
PIPING AND I ELEVATED WATER STORAGE
VALVES TANK PROPOSED SERVICE OA,
+ CONNECTION TO
AD(�ITIVE BID ITEM IMPACTED "'MASON COUNTY
400,000-GALLON ELEVATED HABITAT AREA
WATER STORAGE TANK 0.02 ACRE
6' CHAIN LINK FENCE =
20' ACCESS AND
IMPACTED HABITAT '` UTILITY EASEMENT
AREA = 0.13 ACRE ,R
PROPOSED DETENTION C
POND & DITCH
POCKET GOPHER n t
SET ASIDE COMPACTED GRAVEL/FILL
AREA = 0.45 ACRE I AREA NOT SUITABLE FOR :K
GOPHER HABITAT 0
I '#
m '
a I I
MASON COUNTY PARCEL (n
NO. 42002- 10-00020 r
Q ------------------------ rn I I
rL
W � I
rL
Shelton Upper Mountain View.120699
Figure 4
Gopher Habitats and Mitigation
Mason County, Washington
Mazama Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
APPENDIX A. PLANT LIST
Page 22 April 2014
Plant Species Observed on the Upper Mountain View Reservoir Site
March, 2014
Common Name Scientific Name Native Nonnative
Colonial bentgrass* Agrostis capillaries X
Common velvetgrass* Holcus lanatus X
Common yarrow Achillea millefolium X
Hairy cat's-ear* Hypochoeris radicata X
Sheep sorrel* Rumex acetosella X
Vetch Vicia sp. X
Speedwell Veronica sp. X
Scot's broom* (sprayed) Cytisusscoparius X
English plantain Plantago lanceolato X
Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgaris X
Lupine Lupinus sp. X
Woodrush* Luzula sp. X
Fescue grass Festuca sp. ?
Kinnikinnik(mowed) Arctostaphylus uva-ursi X
Sedge* Carex sp. X
Salal (mowed) Gaultheria shallon X
Bracken Pteridium aquilinum X
Lichens X
Mosses X
*Dominant species
Mazamo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
APPENDIX B. PREVIOUS HMP FOR WATER TRANSMISSION
ALIGNMENT
April 2014 Page 23
Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and
Habitat Management Plan
For
City of Shelton
Dayton Airport Road
Water Main Expansion Project
Mason County, Washington
Prepared for:
City of Shelton
Attn: Dennis McDonald, Regional Project Manager
525 W Cota St.
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 432-5167
Prepared by:
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC.
Key McMurry
550 Mill Creek Road
Raymond, Washington 98577
(360) 942-3184
KES Project Number 216.01
October 15, 2012
(Revised 11/9/2012)
SIGNATURE PAGE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared by the undersigned.
KeyAfmurry
Ow /Professional Stream an ildlife Biologist
City of Shelton-DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15, 2012, (Revised 11/9/2012)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................1
PROJECT LOCATION,EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS &PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION........1
SOILS,VEGETATION,WDFW PHS,&WDFW HERITAGE DATA FOUND ONSITE...................................................2
STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES AND NATURAL HERITAGE DATA.................................3
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HERITAGE DATA............................................3
METHODS...........................................................................................................................................................3
GOPHERMAPS AND POLYGONS ...........................................................................................................................4
MAZAMAPOCKET GOPHER LIFE HISTORY............................................................................................ 5
STATUS...............................................................................................................................................................5
HABITATREQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................5
MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER SET-ASIDE GUIDELINES............................................................................6
DURATIONOF PLAN&MODIFICATIONS...................................................................................................7
COMPLIANCE....................................................................................................................................................7
QUALIFICATIONS.............................................................................................................................................8
LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................................8
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX A
Figure 1-Vicinity Map
Figure 2-Gopher Survey Overview
Figure 3-Gopher Survey Shelton Springs Road Section 1
Figure 4-Gopher Survey Shelton Springs Road Section 2
Figure 5 -Gopher Survey State Route 101
Figure 6-Gopher Survey State Route 102/Mason County
Figure 7-Gopher Survey Washington State Patrol Complex
Figure 8-Shelton Springs Section NRCS Soil Map
Figure 9-State Route 101 Section NRCS Soil Map
Figure 10-Mason County Section NRCS Soil Map
Figure 11-State Route 102/WSP Section NRCS Soil Map
Figure 12-PHOTOPLATE-1
Figure 13-PHOTOPLATE-2
Figure 14-Krippner Consulting, LLC. 5.64 radius December 16, 2010 Memorandum
Attachments
Figure 1-Single Gopher Mound Example
Figure 2-Low Density Gopher Mound Example
Figure 3-High Density Gopher Mound Example
Linda Krippner's CV
APPENDIX B
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Guidelines (March 2011, October 2012)
City of Shelton—DAW Project ii Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15, 2012. (Revised 11/9/2012)
INTRODUCTION
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC., (KES) was hired by the City of Shelton to survey and write
a Habitat Management Plan(HMP) for the Mazama Pocket Gopher, a threatened species,
pursuant to the Mason County Critical Area Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapters 17.01.110 A,
B(8 Table 1), G(1) and J for the City of Shelton Dayton Airport Road Water Main Expansion
Project located along Shelton Springs Road, State Route 101, W Public Works Drive, State
Route 102/Dayton Airport Road and.around the Washington State Patrol complex(WSP). The
project site is 40 feet wide on the north side of Shelton Springs Road, 40 feet wide on the west
side of SR 101, 40 feet wide on the north side of SR102/Dayton Airport Road,40 feet on the east
side of Public Works Drive, and around the WSP complex was surveyed for the presence of
Mazama Pocket Gophers (Thomomys mazama). The site is located along Shelton Springs Road,
SR 101, SR 102/Dayton Airport Road, Public Works Drive and the WSP Complex in Shelton,
Mason County, Washington (Figure 1). Fieldwork was conducted on October 8, 2012. The entire
2.5 miles of the project was walked and reviewed for Prairie Habitat and Mazama Pocket
Gopher mounds.
The KES survey found the listed species (Mazama Pocket Gopher) within the entire project area,
except where there were existing paved or graveled roads. This report describes existing site
conditions for the site where Mazama Pocket Gophers were found. This report identifies specific
locations of active Mazama pocket gopher mounds, discusses habitat and soil requirements of the
species, and proposes a Habitat Management Plan, including conservation and mitigation
measures to be implemented for the project.
Identified active Mazama pocket gopher mounds locations were GPS'd by KES on October 8,
2012, following the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Mazama pocket
gopher surveying guidelines (Appendix B; Figure 2-Figure 7). The GPS unit that is used by
KES is a Garmin 62st.
PROJECT LOCATION.EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS&PROPOSED PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The property subject to this survey involves numerous Mason County parcel numbers, an
actively maintained road right-of-away, Washington State Department of Transportation Road
right-of-away, public works property, and the WSP Complex and is located in portions of
Sections 1, 2, 3,4, 9, 11 & 12, Township 20 North, Range 4 West, W.M. (Figure 1). The
project area is accessed from Shelton Springs Road, SR 101, SR 102/Dayton Airport Road,
Public Works Drive and the WSP Complex in Shelton, Washington.
There were priority habitats or species (PHS) mapped within the project area site prior to KES's
performing the Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey on October 8, 2012. Both Mazama Pocket
Th Gophers
p ( omomys mazama concha) and the Streaked Horned Lark(Eremophala alpestns
strigata) had been documented at the Shelton Airport. WDFW and KES have found gophers on
several properties in the Shelton and Shelton Airport area. Prior to KES surveying along Shelton
Springs Road, SR 102/Dayton Airport Road, Public Works Drive and around the WSP Complex
neither Mazama Pocket Gopher or the Streaked Horned Lark had been mapped.
The total project site is approximately 2.5 miles long and 40 feet wide or approximately 528,000
square feet (12.12 acres). The project area site is currently heavily developed and frequently
maintained as it is an active road right-of-away. 1
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
The project area is surrounded by roads, single family residences, businesses, an airport and
timberland. The City of Shelton is proposing to install a new water main from Tarragon Road,
along Shelton Springs Road, SR 101, SR 102/Dayton Airport Road, Public Works Drive and
through the WSP complex(Figure 1-Fgure 8). The Mazama Pocket Gopher set-aside that would
normally be required is 836,352 square feet (19.2 acres). There is no required set-aside required
for this project, as the gophers will only be temporarily disturbed and a new prairie vegetation
mix will be required to be replanted over the area of disturbance. Also the WDFW guidance on
set-asides is not applicable to linear projects that are only being temporarily disturbed and not
being built on or covered with gravel, asphalt or concrete.
Soils, Vegetation, WDFW PHS, & WDFW Heritage Data Found Onsite
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Mason County Soil
Survey(1960 and the current survey), they both show that the soils to occur along Shelton
Spring Road, SR 101' SR 102/Dayton Airport Road, Public Works Drive and around the WSP
are Grove gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes and Carstairs gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (Figure 8-11). The Grove soil series is a prairie soil, where Mazama Pocket Gophers are
frequently found. The Carstairs soils are not typically prairie soils, but gophers have frequently
been found to occur in this soil series. The Grove series consists of somewhat excessively
drained, reddish-brown gravelly soils. It occupies the large glacial outwash plains. The Grove
soils have developed from Vashon glacial drift, modified considerably by inclusions of local
basaltic rock and mixed material from the Olympic Mountain glaciers. The rainfall ranges from
60 to 100 inches a year. The vegetation is coniferous forest, with an understory dominated by the
lower growing mosses, kinnikinnick, and snowberry, and these mixed with huckleberry, salal,
and Oregon-grape. The Carstairs series consists of very dark, excessively drained soils. They
occupy the nearly treeless outwash plains in the southwestern part of the county. In position and
parent material, they are similar to the Grove soils. Carstairs soils have developed from basic
parent material and under rainfall that ranges front 60 to 90 inches a year. The native vegetation
consists of grass, kinnikinnick, ferns, moss, and low shrubs. Although the soil is surrounded by
dense forests, it has no overstory, except for a few lodgepole pines, Douglas-firs, and clumps of
Oregon-oak. At the Mason County Public Works property where the new proposed water tank
will be located, the soil is Shelton gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes. The grove soil
series is listed as a Prairie soil for WDFW, City of Shelton and Mason County. Mazama Pocket
Gophers have frequently been found to occur in both Carstairs and Shelton gravelly sandy loam
soils.
The general vegetation occurring along the project area included; a variety of grasses and
landscaping plants, colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris-FAC), Scotch broom(Cystisus
scoparius-FACU), Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii-FACU), kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos
uva- r '-FACU queen Anne' lace D s carota-FACU moss, common dandelion
u sa s aucu ss o
q
(Taraxacum officinale-FACU), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa-FACU), evergreen huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum-NI),hazelnut (Corylus cornuta-FACU), salal(Gaultheria shallon-FACU),
Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus-FACU), ribbed plantain(Plantago lanceolata-FAC),
Indian plum(Oemleria cerasiformis-FACU), Pacific ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus-FACW),
tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea,-FAC), western St. John's wort (Hypericum formosum-FAC),
sword fern (Polystichum munitum-FACU), curly dock(Rumex crispus-FAC), bracken fern
(Pteridium aquilinum-FACU), white clover (Trifolium repens-FAC), Evergreen blackberry
2
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 45,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
(Rubus lacinatus-FACU), sheep sorrel(Rumex acetosella-FACU), snowberry(Symphoricarpos
albus-FACU), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa-FACU), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii-
FACW), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana-FAC), Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca-FACW), pine
(Pines monticola-UPL), red fescue (Festuca rubra-FACU), meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis-
FACU), red clover (Trifolium prartense-FACU), and yarrow (Achillea millefolium-FACU).
There were a couple of little oaks (Quercus garryana-UPL) near Boardwalk Road.
State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species and Natural Heritage Data
The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species(PHS) mapping was reviewed in
conjunction with this assessment. The PHS mapping source did identify Mazama pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama) and Streaked Horned Lark,(Eremophila alpestris strigata) to occur on and
near the Shelton Airport. However, the PHS mapping source did not identify priority habitats and
species in the vicinity of the project site, except near the airport. The priority habitats and species
found within the project vicinity are: Oregon white oaks (Quercus garryana), Streaked Horned
Lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) and the Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama).
The State of Washington Deparhnent of Fish and Wildlife Heritage Data
The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Heritage Data was also
reviewed as part of the assessment for the project site. The Heritage Data did identify Mazama
pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama)to occur in the area, but no other Heritage species within the
subject site. The Heritage Data also found the Mazama pocket gophers and Streaked Horned
Lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata)to occupy areas on and near the Shelton Airport.
METHODS
The guidelines established by WDFW in July 2009, March of 2011 and October 2012 for review
of management plans developed for pocket gophers are listed in Appendix B and were strictly
followed while performing the survey. YES also followed WDFW guidelines in creating the
Mazama pocket gopher map and polygons.
The project site was visited by YES on October 8, 2012. The entire 2.5 miles and 40 foot wide
project area was walked and reviewed.
KES reviewed the entire 2.5 miles and 40 foot wide or approximately 528,000 square feet (12.12
acres)project area for evidence of Mazama Pocket Gophers and mounds, and found evidence or
occupancy of Mazama Pocket Gophers. At the beginning of the October 8, 2012 site visit, KES
opened three mounds in separate areas of the subject parcel to expose pocket gopher tunnels.
This is a field practice commonly used in addition to visual mound identification to determine if
Mazama Pocket Gophers are actually present. Mazama Pocket Gophers will usually return to the
newly opened mound and plug the tunnel. At the end of site visit, KES checked the open tunnels
to see if they had been plugged. All three of the tunnel systems had been plugged. This affirmed
KES findings that Mazama Pocket Gophers are currently occupying parts of the project area.
3
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
KES identified approximately 1261 gopher mounds throughout the project area. Applying
WDFW guidelines, the 1261 mounds were drawn with 5.64 meter radius circles around them and
the polygons resulting in totaled 278,784 square feet(6.4 acres) (Figure 2-Figure 7). When you
multiply this area by 3, according to WDFW standards, the approximate required set-aside under
WDFW guidelines is 836 352 square feet 19.2 acres). Since the new water main will only cause
g q ( ) Y
a temporary disturbance to the Mazama Pocket Gophers, the 3:1 mitigation set-aside area is not
being required. WDFW is requiring that the new water main area and any area disturbed by the
construction shall be replanted with a prairie vegetation mix. The prairie mix shall be made up
of. 20% perennial ryegrass, 15% annual ryegrass, 10% blue wildrye, 10% orchard grass, 10%
bentgrass, 15% crimson clover, 10% white clover, and 10% red clover. This seed mix includes a
variety of drought-tolerant perennials and annuals that peak in growth at different times during
the year. Annuals in the seed mix are expected to reseed themselves.
Gopher Maps and Polygons
KES GPS'd all active gopher mounds found within the project area following WDFW GPS
survey guidelines. Mounds that were flattened, very weathered (with exposed rocks), and with
vegetation growing out of them were not counted. Since the project area is a highly maintained
road right-of-away and is heavily disturbed some mounds were difficult to determine. KES
carefully reviewed the surrounding areas and if obvious gophers were found, these disturbed
mounds were counted. KES subsequently produced the Mazama Pocket Gopher mound map and
polygons following WDFW guidelines.
KES identified approximately 1261 gopher mounds throughout the project area. Applying
WDFW guidelines, the 1261 mounds were drawn with 5.64 meter radius circles around them and
the polygons resulting in totaled 278,784 square feet (6.4 acres) (Figure 2-Figure 7). When you
multiply this area by 3, according to WDFW standards, the approximate required set-aside under
WDFW guidelines is 836,352 square feet (19.2 acres). This is not the final required set-aside
area; this is just showing that WDFW recommendations were followed. The WDFW guidance is
not set-up for large linear projects and the 3:1 mitigation ratio does not apply to this project.
The current 5.64 meter radius method for calculating set-aside areas is not consistent with what
is depicted on the map graphic of Attachment B-Figure 2 (WDFW 2011) and is not connected
directly with average home range size, as with the calculation of occupied habitat. In addition, it
is not practical to apply in the field when the size of the set-aside area is greater than the total
area of the project site or parcel. Mitigation ratios, such as the 3:1 ratio currently used for
calculating set-aside areas for the Mazama Pocket Gopher, are sometimes used for mitigating
impacts to specialized habitats such as wetlands. Usually these mitigation ratios are justified after
collecting much empirical evidence that these particular habitats can be difficult to re-create.
However, using this rationale for protecting Mazama Pocket Gopher habitat does not appear to
be justified given the wide range of foods and habitats used by this species (Stinson, 2005) and
this species' propensity to invade disturbed sites such as clear cuts and trees nurseries. As stated
by Witmer et al(1996) when conducting studies to analyze the proposed protection status of
Mazama Pocket Gopher. On March 4, 2011, Michelle Tirhi with WDFW testified under oath,
that the 3:1 ratio was strictly a policy call and had no science to back it up.
4
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012. (Revised 11/9/2012)
MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER LIFE HISTORY
Status
The Mazama Pocket Gopher was listed as a Washington State threatened species pursuant to
Washington Administrative Codes (WAC) 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix I) as of March
2006. In addition, the Mazama Pocket Gophers are a Federal Candidate Species for listing under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The current status of the Mazama Pocket Gopher is being
questioned at this time and whether they should be a state threatened species.
Habitat Requirements
The Mazama Pocket Gopher is a regional endemic found only in western Washington, western
Oregon, and northern California. The Mazama Pocket Gopher generally occupies south Puget
Sound prairie landscapes. Most gopher populations are restricted to grassland on remnant and
former prairie sites. The Mazama Pocket Gophers generally feeds on prairie fortis and grasses;
however, they are not constrained to native vegetation and will eat many introduced grasses and
weedy forbs. Soil type appears to affect gopher distribution because they are absent from most
prairies with particularly rocky soils. Mazama Pocket Gophers prefer prairie or grassland habitat
with typically loamy soils. Recently, gophers have been found in non-prairie habitat such as
clear-cuts, Capital Forest, forested areas with a dense shrub understory, old Christmas tree farms,
road side ditches, road side gravel, and heavily disturbed areas. In general, Mazama Pocket
Gophers require prairie type soils such as: Nisqually 73, 74 and Spanaway 110, 111, and 112,
with over 90 percent loam. The subject parcel soils are mapped by the NRCS and Mason County
as Grove, Carstairs, and Shelton gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes. Again recently we
have been finding the gophers in a wide range of soils, not just your typical prairie soils. We are
also finding gophers in large numbers.
Mazama pocket gopher populations are affected by habitat loss due to plant succession,
agriculture, and development, which together has eliminated most of the prairie vegetation and
habitat. We have found that the gophers are adapting to other vegetation besides prairie
vegetation and that they are able to do quite well with Scotch broom, except where it is very
dense. The gophers co-exist very nicely with grazing, and haying practices. In fact some of the
highest densities of gophers found have been where grazing and haying occur. Gophers seem to
love disturbed soils.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project area was found to contain a relatively large population of Mazama Pocket Gophers.
The existing Mazama Pocket Gopher habitat found onsite would be rated as fair-good due to the
number of mounds observed, the soil type and vegetation, even though the site is frequently
mowed and maintained. The soil type found to occur predominately along the project area was
grove soil series which is listed as a Prairie soil for WDFW, City of Shelton and Mason County.
The other soils found to occur in the project area were Carstairs and Shelton gravelly sandy
loam. These are not typical prairie soils but Mazama Pocket Gophers have frequently been found
to occur in both Carstairs and Shelton gravelly sandy loam soils. The existing vegetation does
contain some of the dominant preferred food sources for pocket gophers, but very little.
5
City of Shelton-DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15, 2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
Based upon KES survey, the proposed water main will only have a temporary disturbance for the
Mazama Pocket Gopher. The City of Shelton has agreed plant a prairie vegetation mix over the
area of disturbance. This prairie mix does contain the dominant food source for the gophers and
will provide them a lot more nutrition than the vegetation that currently exists. This seed mix
includes a variety of drought-tolerant perennials and annuals that peak in growth at different
times during the year. Annuals in the seed mix are expected to reseed themselves. The city has
agreed to notify the landowners to keep the project area mowed at least twice a year In addition
to the prairie vegetation planting, and mowing [the city agrees to notify affected landowners to
hand remove any Scotch broom that may start to grow in the project area."
It is KES's professional opinion that the proposed water main starting from Tarragon Road as it
P P P P g g
intersects Shelton Prairie Road, and running along SR 101, SR 102/Dayton Airport Road, Public
Works Drive and connecting to the WSP Complex should be allowed to be constructed. All
mitigation for the temporary impacts can occur within the project area. This area will follow
WDFW's guidelines for a set-aside including mowing, Scotch broom removal, signage, etc. The
project area will not be fenced as this is not applicable for a linear type project. On June 24, 2011
KES's mound survey technique was verified by WDFW Wildlife Biologist, Tammy Schmidt and
verified again by WDFW Wildlife Biologist Jeff Skilritz on October 20, 2012.
The city and county have the ultimate decision when it comes to reasonable use of a property,
with WDFW serving as an advisory role only.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Set-aside Guidelines
Consistent with WDFW guidelines (Appendix B), KES proposes that the Mazama Pocket
Gopher disturbed project area be planted with a prairie vegetation mix, and the project area
recommended to be mowed twice a year. This seed mix includes a variety of drought-tolerant
perennials and annuals that peak in growth at different times during the year. Annuals in the seed
mix are expected to reseed themselves. In addition, all Scotch broom will be removed b hand
P Y
prior to onsite construction activity. The project area will remain intact and maintained
r i
according to these guidelines as long as Mazama Pocket Gophers inhabit the project site. In
addition to the above, the applicant proposes to have the set-aside periodically monitored by a
qualified WDFW approved wildlife biologist. If it is shown that gophers no longer inhabit the
project area after five consecutive years, and approved by WDFW than the project area would be
released and able to be developed and the maintenance activities would no longer be required.
6
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
- I
Duration of Plan and Modifications
1. The project site will be monitored for three years, to assure that gophers have not been
displaced. If it is found that gophers have been displaced or not found in the numbers
prior to project, and offsite set-aside area will be proposed.
2. The monitoring plan will be funded by the City of Shelton.
3. This HMP and the water main planting plan will be attached to the deed and title of the
properties, so it will be properly maintained if the property was to change ownership.
Consistent with WDFW guidelines (Appendix.B), KES proposes that the project area be
replanted with a prairie vegetation mix, and recommend the project area be mowed twice
a year. This seed mix includes a variety of drought-tolerant perennials and annuals that
peak in growth at different times during the year. Annuals in the seed mix are expected to
reseed themselves. In addition, all Scotch broom will be recommended to be removed by
hand prior to onsite construction activity and will be recommended to be removed by
hand for as long as the water main remains activity. The planted prairie vegetation will
remain intact and maintained according to these guidelines as long as Mazama Pocket
Gophers inhabit the project area.
4. The City and the approved WDFW Biologist will notify the local jurisdiction of any
proposed land use activities.
In addition to the above, the applicant proposes to have the water main project area
periodically monitored by a qualified WDFW approved wildlife biologist for gopher
activity and verification that the prairie vegetation is growing properly.
Compliance
Failure to comply with this Plan is a violation of Mason County Codes and may be subject to
civil or criminal penalty.
Landowner Signature (Date) Landowner Name (Print)
1� 'L 1 2 1 /09/ 012 Key McMurry-KES
ge ignature(Date) Agent Name (Print)
550 Mill Creek Road
Address
Raymond, WA 98577
City, State, Zip
7
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
QUALIFICATIONS
KES Owner/Professional Stream and Wildlife Biologist Key McMurry conducted field work on
October 8, 2012. Ms. McMurry is a WDFW-approved Mazama Pocket Gopher consultant. Key
worked as an Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) for WDFW for 7 t/2 years and covered Thurston,
Grays Harbor, and Pacific Counties. Ms. McMurry worked closely with the WDFW wildlife
program and was instrumental in developing the interim guidelines for review of sites that
contain Mazama pocket gophers. She has also assisted in several Mazama pocket gopher
trapping and relocation efforts. KES has performed over 70 Prairie Recons and Mazama Pocket
Gopher HMP's. Key was certified by WDFW staff in July of 2008, to perform Mazama pocket
gopher surveys, and continues to consult with WDFW on Mazama pocket gopher issues. KES's
gopher surveys and maps were verified by Jeff Skriletz with WDFW on October 20, 2012. Key
McMurry has over 24 years of experience in the biological field.
LIMITATIONS
KES personnel have based the above conclusions on standardized scientific methods and best
professional judgment. Local, state, and federal regulatory agencies may or may not agree with
the findings presented in this report. The services described in this report were performed
consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices. There are no
other warranties, expressed or implied. The services performed,were consistent with our
agreement with our client. This report is prepared solely for the use of our client and may not be
used or relied upon by a third party for any purpose. Any such use or reliance will be at such
party's risk. The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions
existing when services were performed. Key Environmental Solutions, LLC., (KES) is not
responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices,-or regulations
after the date of this report. KES does not warrant the accuracy of supplemental information
incorporated in this report that was supplied by others.
8
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,L.L.C.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15, 2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
REFERENCES
Burton, D. H., and H.C. Black. 1978. Feeding Habits of Mazama Pocket Gophers in South
Central Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management,42:383-390.
Campbell, B. 2004. Restoring Rare Native Habitats in the Willamette Valley. A Landowner's
Guide to Restoring Oak Woodlands, Wetlands, Prairies and Bottomland Hardwood and
Riparian Forests. See Chapter 5.
<http://southsoundprairies.org/documentsALandownerguide.pdf>
Center for Biological Diversity. 2003. Mazama Pocket Gopher. Available at: http://www.sw-
center.org/swcbd/species/mazama/. Site accessed October 2009
Ecological Land Services, November 29, 2007. Written by Key McMurry for Dennis Rattie.
Tarragon Company, Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance.
ESA Adolfson, October 2008. Blomberg Industrial Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Management
Plan. Prepared for Kenosha Leasing Program, Inc.
Geotechnical Testing Laboratory. 2008 Subsurface Soils Investigation: Blomberg Industrial
Park, 93'd Avenue SW and Blomberg Street SW, Tumwater, Washington. Prepared for Todd
Hansen, Inc. January 17, 2008. Olympia, Washington.
Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Standford,
California.
Key Environmental Solutions, July_8, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for Soon Rhee site,
Written for Dae and Rae Soon Rhee.
Key Environmental Solutions, July 8, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for Knowlton site,
Written for Carol Knowlton.
Key Environmental Solutions, August 10, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for the Baker Site in Rochester. Written for Donna Baker
Key Environmental Solutions, August 25, 2009.Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for the Wildaire
Water System site, Written for Wildaire Water System District.
Key Environmental Solutions, August 26, 2009. 93rd & Lathrop Industrial Drive Intersection
Improvement Project, Thurston County Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon. Written for Thurston
County Department of Public Works.
Key Environmental Solutions, October 3, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for NW
Helicopters, Written for Brian Reynolds.
Key Environmental Solutions, October 22, 2009. Thurston County Ordinance 14260 Prairie
Habitat Conservation, and Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon and No Occupancy
Determination. Written for Daniel Kuney and Flamingo Links.
9
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
Key Environmental Solutions, October 28, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for the Berry
site, Written for Brad and Liz Berry
Key Environmental Solutions, November 3, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for Thurston
County Public Works, Mullen, Vail and Meridian sites, Written for Thurston County Public
Works.
Key Environmental Solutions, December 10, 2009. Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for the Fletcher Site in Rochester. Written for Dollene and Roger Fletcher.
Key Environmental Solutions, May 1, 2010. Revised January 18, 2011. Mazama Pocket Gopher
Survey and Habitat Management Plan for the Kenosha Project. Written for Puget Western
Inc.
Key Environmental Solutions, June 9, 2010, Revised January 4, 2011, Mazama Pocket Gopher
Survey and Habitat Management Plan for Comcast. Written for Comcast.
Key Environmental Solutions, June 28, 2010,Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for Belmont Enterprises. Written for Jack Belmont
Key Environmental Solutions, September 1, 2010. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for McCulloch
site, Written for Jean Carr with Shea, Jewell and Carr.
Key Environmental Solutions, September 10, 2010. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for Edmark
site, Written for Chris and William Edmark.
Key Environmental Solutions, November 21, 2010. Mazama Pocket Gopher Recon for Sterling
Breen Crushing site, Written for Rosie and Sterling Breen.
Key Environmental Solutions, June 2, 2011. Prairie Ordinance 14260 and Mazama Pocket
Gopher Recon for Thurston County Rainer Drop Box Site, Written for Thurston County
Public Works.
Key Environmental Solutions, June 5, 2011. Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for 18005 Seco Lane SW, Written for Alan and Kathy Stromseth.
Key Environmental Solutions, July 3, 2011, Prairie Ordinance 14260 and Mazama Pocket
Gopher Recon for Ocasio, Written for Georgina Ocasio.
Key Environmental Solutions, August 11, 2011, Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for Tumwater School District 70r" Avenue SW Property, Written for the
Tumwater School District.
Key Environmental Solutions, August 24, 2011. Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for Rabe Mud Run Road Property, Written for Todd and Roxanna Rabe.
10
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
Key Environmental Solutions, August 24, 2011. Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat
Management Plan for Wat Prachum Raingsey Buddist Assn, Written for Wat Prachum
Raingesy Buddist Assn.
Krippner Consulting, LLC. 5.64 radius December 16, 2010 Memorandum
Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, 2001. Inventory Methods for Moles and Pocket
Gopher. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 26.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey, Version 4, December
12, 2006. Mason County, Washington. Accessed on October 15, 2012 at
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
The Nature Conservancy and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006.
Proceedings of the first Mazama Pocket Gopher Workshop and Preliminary report on
Needed Conservation Actions (2006-2010)
The Nature Conservancy and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Mazama
Pocket Gopher Workshop. March 2007. The Nature Conservancy and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Mazama Pocket Gopher Workshop. February
2009.
The Nature Conservancy and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Mazama
Pocket Gopher Workshop. March 2007. The Nature Conservancy and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Mazama Pocket Gopher Workshop. November
2011.
Pringle, R.F. 1990. Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Thurston County, Washington.
Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc. 2008. Traffic Impact Analysis: Blomberg Industrial Park. Prepared for
Todd A. Hansen, Inc. Thurston County, Washington.
Stinson, Derek W. 2005. Washington State Status Report for the Mazama Pocket Gopher,
Streaked Horned Lark, and Taylor's Checkerspot. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia. 129+xii pp.
<http://wdfw.wa.gov/whn/diversty/soc/status/prairie/index.htm>
Thurston County, Washington. 2003. Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance, Title 17
Chapter 17.15.200 (Definitions Critical areas, categories and terms).
Thurston County, Washington. 2003. Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance, Title 17
Chapter 17.15.700(Purpose).
Thurston County, Washington. 2003. Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance, Title 1
Chapter 17.15.705(Important habitats and species of Thurston County).
11
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LLC.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15, 2012. (Revised 11/9/2012)
Thurston County, Washington. 2003. Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance, Title 17
Chapter 17.1 S.740 (Listing or delisting of important habitats and species).
Thurston County, Washington. 2009, 2010. Thurston County Ordinance 14260, Prairie and Oak
Woodlands Conservation Ordinance.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). August 2007,Interim Guidelines for
Review of sites that contain Mazama Pocket Gophers, RCW 36.70A, WAC 365-190-080(5)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), July 2009, Priority Habitats and Species
Management Recommendations:Mazama Pocket Gopher
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Living with Wildlife Series: Pocket
Gophers <http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlrn/living/gophers.htm>
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008a. Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher
Habitat Management Guidelines for Future Development of Abston 93'd Avenue Project.
Parcel numbers 12721210100; 1272120300; and 12421240300
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008c.Blomberg Industrial Park
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Plan: DRAFT. Dated July 1, 2008
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitat and Species List,
WDFW Database. Accessed October, 2012.
Witmer, G.W., R.D. Sayler, & m.J. Pipas. 1996. Biology and habitat use of the Mazama Pocket
Gopher(Thomomys mazama) in the Puget Sound area, Washington. Northwest Science
70:93-98.
12
City of Shelton—DAW Project Key Environmental Solutions,LL.C.
Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Survey and Management Plan October 15,2012.(Revised 11/9/2012)
APPENDIX A
PORTIONS OF SEC. 1 , 2, 3, 4, 9, 11 & 12, T. 20 N., R. 4 W., W.M.
a
o
o �
I o
l �
VKE
MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
SR 102
AIRPORT RD.)
TURTLE
LAKE
PORT OF
SHELTON
WASHINGTON
STATE PATROL
O s
O
0
D A
Key Environmental Solutions
550 Mill Creek Road VICINITY MAP
Exhibit prepared by: 4 4 Raymond,Washington 98577 DAYTON AIRPORT RD Figure 1
ay: mwri.c n• ,i�a es.� � ,� (360)562-5763 Cell Date: November 6th, 201 2
360)942-3184 Office CITY OF SHELTON
Jerome W.Morrissette&Associates Inc.,P.S. (
www.keyenvironmentalsolution5.com
T
i
t
Legend Map by
Project area
Gopher habitat(6.4 acres)
N
Feet W__.. E October 22,2012
0 1,250 2,500 5,000
S
Sources:KES-Gopher mound survey data,October 2012
Copyright 02012 Esri,DeLorme,NAVTE
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 2 Gopher Survey Overview
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
IL
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
I
J_ I
fi f
vA
.i.
� .s
M
IA
I
f
,y I.
Ma 4
c� tt �yI
s ►"
«. ACM r,.
MUL
F
map hV
Feet
j
I
Legend
Project area
Surveyed gopher mounds _.L�. ..
Gopher habitat �_
Consa�nnq,ttY
1 350 700 1,400 y z .
• opher mound survey data,October 2012
I'na r•..urt.sy l .: r;,.. ;., h sra . � j.
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 3 Shelton Spring Road Section 1
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
„►,.� Raymond, WA 98577 P Y
`'tk Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
kev@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
i
l
r_ G
F E1
ip
dr le'
MIN
ask
` Of
S
lot
. i
Map W#
i Feet
Legend � I
Project area
Surveyed gopher mounds ` � •��_ �
Gopher habitat �.
Consulting;uc
1 350W
•11 W+E 22,
Ung- so, S-04 mound survey data,October 2012
.44
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 4 Shelton Spring Road Section 2
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
i
f
r
1
,'1 i
l
OIL jW
or
i
i.
r
r.
i
{.
Legend "' ;'
•-
Surveyed gopher mounds19Ilp
jr.
Gopher haUllat ��R���p���� R�
'> jibFeet
�If010f1Q��
1 350 100 1,400
W+E
i
� � M
Sources: •1 • • surveydata, •• 2012 �P.C• IrtPSyn tf,Y�,- t',+tG 75• .r� " I•
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 5 State Route 101 Section
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
I
3
t
,> I
K r I
I
i
IA
SW
i
,.r,t:WX,� _
I
Legend I �
I
Project area
� t
�' Surveyed gopher mounds . ` ,
I �t
77,
MapMap bv
bV
� CO(15U!C1n�,ter
Feepow 47
i
1 1 11 11
sources: • • • survey data,October 2012I r1A. urt-cy n r dd wl r:r�s•4i ,nf�a.:ratl
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 6 SR 102/Mason County Section
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
•,� n n
IL
1
IL �*
)IW
, 1
a
Legend -
Proted area ,
Surveyed gopher mounds
Gopher habitat
�Y
y i
1 1 11 11
-Gopher • d survey data,October112
ITtfl. urt ;; n .I,b .:' �11 '�:dr:rssn`tt.ari?er�ti, n
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 7 Washington State Patrol Section
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@kevenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
I
t
A
NZ
•.. . 1 ice( r, ,,r+a, , f d r ? �'' _i` 7V
4 �4fJI _ r, �• `fir- •o'. .` I`
1-64
'•.�.
Mason County, Washington (WA645) j
Spatial Data Version 2, Jun 16, 2009
Tabular Data Version 6, Jun 29, 2012
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of
Symbol AOI AOI
Ca Carstairs gravelly 2.5 34.6%
loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
Gh Grove gravelly sandy 4.7 64.5%
loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
Mg Mukilteo peat, 0 to 2 0.1 1.0%
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 7.3 100.00/0
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 8 Shelton Springs NRCS Soil Map
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey & HMP
-- Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
t
r im 4 4&";
rrI! ','
� R � � Yh _.'f. 1� .�• •
Ilk. 41
VI
I
e•L t •' P
A '
t
f
t
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Spatial Data Version 2, Jun 16, 2009
Tabular Data Version 6, Jun 29, 2012
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of
Symbol AOI AOI
Ca Carstairs gravelly loam, 2.5 50.1%
0 to 5 percent slopes
Gh Grove gravelly sandy 1.1 22.5%
loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
Gk Grove gravelly sandy 1.3 27.3%
loam, 5 to 15 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 4.9 100.00/0
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 9 SR 101 Section NRCS Soil Map
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
A Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey Raymond, WA 98577 P Y & HMP
�. � Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
14
Ap
I
.�_ r Jayy. •�.����.��► : � �N•!sr` f�:K � �>t�w'Is ' 't.�y!1�'�,.
oft,r
r '•�..� �r. 1 J,.Jy/.y' �•'` + ` byr+r � �1 p, '� I Wr, T d
A I s. +Vk-
i l J
FW
v
i *v jY 11r f ++�f►.e.►wst. a ! + ice',
!f1 mM-,,�+�rl.m► s� .r i.�..., _ �_ �._ ••
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Spatial Data Version 2, Jun 16, 2009
Tabular Data Version 6, Jun 29, 2012
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of
Symbol AOI AOI
Gh Grove gravelly sandy 4.3 44.3%
loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
Sf Shelton gravelly sandy 5.4 55.7%
loam, 5 to 15 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.00/0
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 10 Mason County NRCS Soil Map
a 550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey & HMP
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
k
�•.'!�k� + Y f .� �r� �i ��•�. •, - wow. .'J� �` f •t •�
JYIN
t ;
.�- •-�. .� t 1i1 .a y,�`,. i! ,.♦ ..R, * ` 1 �. / f +�*�.'+
R •
.. :
.ttA ♦�, .�St `s tt�.
v �"1 �� ! � �.! � ;�`!. 7ti�*� f• eft. 1° al.r ��' C.
4 S t1e ! !
j 1 � yk•' s � ��;��1! '• 1� M.. �,t � �l�i' "�'
ram►c �►1..arSris+irwrl�aaur - - .. ..+ `.
ram• + '
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Spatial Data Version 2, Jun 16, 2009
Tabular Data Version 6, Jun 29, 2012
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of
Symbol AOI AOI
Gh Grove gravelly sandy 4.3 44.3%
loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
Sf Shelton gravelly sandy 5.4 55.7%
loam, 5 to 15 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.00/0
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 10 Mason County NRCS Soil Map
A 550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
^" I, Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey & HMP
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
--�,...
k -
ire''-
IL
11
t ~
e,
•,a i� � , r
i ar
a i
. .
v
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Spatial Data Version 2, Jun 16, 2009
Tabular Data Version 6, Jun 29, 2012
1
Mason County, Washington (WA645)
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of
Symbol AOI AOI
Gh Grove gravelly sandy 20.0 100.0%
loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 20.0 100.00/0
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 11 SR 102/WSP NRCS Soil Map
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey & HMP
i Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
I
77,
, 35
° c
1,
:�G it if a t�'i;l A. .•
Looking west along Shelton Springs Road okin west alon Shelton S rings Road.
of OW
d K i
y� t„
''F'k�i , •�+b=,�..b� ++,, Y t.l Zwrri ��' .+ p,
*'•' y . I �tA � J'�%�= h.�'`�jM *'"ram .�` ���f�"�t'�4 d� '.�'t �`i4`
t.
4'
Lookin west along Shelton S rin s Road Go her mounds alon Shelton S rings Road
t7
lwi
� a r
L A a"• •
t ddd_
y.. b
Looking north along SR 101 Gopher mounds at the corner of SR 101 & Shelton
Springs Road
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 12 Photoplate 1
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
iWU Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Raymond, WA 98577 P Y
Office: 360-942-3184 Mason County,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
� :w
%r a r.
yam,,re, �• e�, t, �
I oz,;
»'•. �„ t *.ram +.°
ti
Loo S R I O I Go)hers along SR 101
ST
7 Y j
�- .. f� �,.y r.' ��rr iIl'Fd�)1yti• �uii+'x,5`�`'t+ S,,'tY 7 �
.._'izr_• ,,.:._ a. a•, `seer '.
Looking west along SR 102/Dayton Airport Road Go hers alon SR 102/Dayton Airport Road
h
1
'1
1 t
,.a 7 1•. T'
Looking east at WSP Complex Gophers at proposed tank site, on county property
Key Environmental Solutions, LLC Figure 13 Photoplate 2
550 Mill Creek Road City of Shelton-DAW
A Raymond, WA 98577 Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey
Mason Count
Office: 360-942-3184 Y,
Cell: 360-562-5763 Shelton, Washington
key@keyenvironmentalsolutions.com Sec. 1-4, 9, 11, 12 Township 20 N, Range 4 W
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 16, 2010
To: Heather Burgess, Eisenhower& Carlson, PLLC
From: Linda Krippner, Krippner Consulting, LLC
RE: Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations for the Mazama Pocket Gopher:
An Error in Instructions for Calculating occupied Gopher Habitat
Krippner Consulting, LLC has prepared this memorandum for Eisenhower&Carlson, PLLC to describe an
error found in the Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations for the Mazama Pocket
Gopher published in July 2009 by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The Mazama pocket gopher is currently listed by Washington State as a threatened species.This listing
was based mainly on the results of the 2005 State Status Report for this species (Stinson, 2005). WDFW
has prepared management recommendations for protection of Mazama pocket gophers (WDFW, 2009).
These management recommendations are used by local jurisdictions to guide their decisions in critical
areas management and permitting.
The Mazama pocket gopher management recommendations are site-specific and are based upon the
results of gopher mound surveys conducted by WDFW biologists and/or consultant biologists trained in
the survey protocol. Once the mound survey is completed,the total area of occupied gopher habitat on
a site is estimated by buffering each of the surveyed mounds by a 10-meter radius buffer.This 10-meter
radius buffer is derived from the literature that reports an average home range size of 108 square
meters for male gophers and 97 square meters for female gophers(Witmer et al. 1996). According to
the management recommendations, this could be thought of as a 10 x 10 meter square, or circle of 100
square meters in size (WDFW 2009).
This is where the error has occurred.A 10 x 10 meter square is not the same size as a circle that has a
radius of 10 meters, as the instructions for calculating occupied gopher habitat indicate. Since the area
of a circle is A= pi (3.14) * radius(r) squared, a circle with a radius of 10 meters is approximately 314
square meters in size rather than 100 square meters in size.A circle that is 100 square meters in size
would have a radius of approximately 5.64 meters. Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between these
differently sized circles.
This error in the length of the radius buffer overestimates the area of occupied gopher habitat in all
cases. How much a particular site is affected by this error depends upon the degree of overlap between
the circles.The less the circles overlap,the greater the difference between habitat estimated using 10-
PO Box 17621 • Seattle, WA 98127 • Tel. 206-954-0901
lnda@krippnerconsulting.com
Mazama Pocket Gopher Management Recommendations:
Radius Length Error
meter radius buffers and habitat estimated using 5.64-meter radius buffers. This is because the
overlapping areas are dissolved before the total habitat area is calculated. For example, in Figure 2,the
surveyed mounds are widely spaced with few habitat circles overlapping. In this case, the habitat area
increases three-fold by using a 10-meter radius buffer(or 314 square meter circle) as compared with the
5.64-meter radius buffer(or 100 square meter circle). In Figure 3,the surveyed mounds are more closely
spaced, more areas are dissolved into one habitat area, and the increase is closer to two-fold.
The set-aside area is calculated by multiplying the occupied gopher habitat area by three to account for
species reproduction and dispersal and buffering from development on the development site (WDFW
2009).
Summary
An error was found in the Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations for the Mazama
Pocket Gopher published in July 2009 by WDFW.The radius used to buffer surveyed gopher mounds
should be 5.64 meters rather than 10 meters.The current use of a 10-meter buffer to calculate occupied
gopher habitat overestimates this area approximately two to three-fold in all cases.
References:
Stinson, D. W. 2005. Washington State Status Report for the Mazama Pocket Gopher,Streaked Horned
Lark, and Taylor's Checkerspot. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 129+xii pp.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).2009. PHS Management Recommendations:
Mazama Pocket Gopher.http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm. Published in July 2009, revised
date December 2009.
Witmer, G. W., R. D.Sayler and M.J. Pipas. 1996. Biology and Habitat Use of the Mazama Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys mazoma)in the Puget Sound Area, Washington. Northwest Science,Vol. 70. No. 2: 93-98.
Attachments:
Figure 1.Single Gopher Mound Example
Figure 2. Low Density Gopher Mound Example
Figure 3. High Density Gopher Mound Example
Krippner Consulting, LLC 2
Figure 1 .
Single Gopher Mound Example
L
Meters
0 2.5 5 1
Area of Circle = 3.14 (pi) * radius (r) squared
For radius = 10 meters, Area = 314 square meters
For radius = 5.64 meters, Area = 100 square meters
Legend
gopher mound
5.64-meter radius buffer "ItInDate: December 12, 2010 10-meter radius buffer P
Prepared by: Linda Krippner
Figure 2.
Low Density Gopher Mound Example
--- O O
O �
0
O
(��
O
Area calculations, with overlapping radii dissolved:
5.64-meter radius buffer areas - 0.5 acre (Set-aside - 1.5 acres)
10-meter radius buffer areas - 1.5 acres (Set-aside - 4.5 acres)
Number of gopher mounds - 20
O
Legend N
W�E
Sample parcel 111s
Meters • gopher mound
0 20 40 80 5.64-meter radius buffer w
10-meter radius buffer
Date: December 12,2010
Sources: Sample parcel data from Hawaii County, September 2010. `Cdhsiiltin LLC
Gopher mounds fictionally placed for demonstration purposes only. g
Prepared by: Linda Krippner
Figure 3.
High Density Gopher Mound Example
O • �
•' O
Area calculations, with overlapping radii dissolved:
5.64-meter radius buffer areas - 0.4 acre (Set-aside - 1.2 acres)
10-meter radius buffer areas - 1.0 acres (Set-aside - 3.0 acres)
Number of gopher mounds - 20
Legend N
U�E
CSample parcel s
Meters • gopher mound
0 20 40 80 5.64-meter radius buffer
10-meter radius buffer'
Date: December 12, 2010Wbln
■�
Sources: Sample parcel data from Hawaii County, September 2010. r
�
Gopher mounds fictionally placed for demonstration purposes only.
Prepared by: Linda Krippner
In ,
Linda Krippner
Wildlife & Wetlands Ecologist
• Clear communications; strong technical skills; concise reports.
• Innovative responses to changing conditions.
• Individualized care given to every client and project.
Offering Permitting, Restoration and Habitat Management Services:
• Site Analysis, Planning and • Mitigation Design and
Restoration Design Monitoring
• Environmental Permitting • Environmental Impact
• Habitat Management Plans Assessment
Serving Local Governments, Developers and Tribes, including:
• Pierce County Public Works • Trillium Corporation
and Utilities • Lakewood Construction
• City of Bellevue • CH2M HILL
• Seattle Public Utilities • Hoh Indian Tribe
Highlighted Achievements
• Twelve years as consulting ecologist, overseeing a multitude of successful
mitigation projects, habitat restorations and permitting processes.
• Certified as a Professional Wetland Scientist by Society of Wetland Scientists.
• Created new methods of habitat assessment to fit City of Redmonds' needs
for habitat management and planning.
• Negotiated wetland mitigation solutions with federal and state permit
agencies when conditions changed at King County's Brightwater wastewater
treatment site.
• Authored best available science papers on wildlife, wetlands, and stream
buffers for regulatory updates in several jurisdictions in Washington State.
• Provided expert witness services for wildlife and habitat mitigation proposed
at residential development sites in Thurston County and the City of Blaine.
• Coordinated efforts between private and public stakeholder interests to
conserve state threatened Mazama pocket gopher in South Puget Sound.
• Complete list of professional publications and presentations available upon
request.
Education
Certificate Program, Wetland Science and Management, University of Washington, 1997
Master of Science in Wildlife Science, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 1994
Bachelor of Arts in Biology and Environmental Studies, Augustana College, 1988
PO Box 17621 • Seattle, WA 98127 • Tel. 206-954-0901
linda@krippnerconsulting.com
In ,
Mazama Pocket ]
Gopher Projects
P
Blomberg Industrial Park, Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat Management
Plan, Thurston County, Washington.
Tumwater Boulevard Improvements, Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Survey Report,
City of Tumwater, Washington.
LOTT Feasibility Report on Habitat Management for Mazama Pocket Gopher,Thurston
County Washington.
Mason County Racetrack, Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey and Habitat Management Plan
(in preparation), Mason County, Washington.
PO Box 17621 • Seattle, WA 98127 • Tel. 206-9S4-0901
linda@krippnerconsulting.com
APPENDIX B
WDFW Mazama Pocket Gopher Guidelines March 2011
The Washington Department of Fish and wildlife(WDFW)is providing these management
recommendations to inform local government permit reviewers,applicants,consultants, and
.landowners.working.on.projects with,potential impacts to.Mazama.pod<et gopher,a state-listed
threatened species.These recommendations are not regulatory,but are based on best available science
for avoiding,minimizing,and mitigating impacts to gophers and their habitat,which is primarily located
in South Puget Sound.WDFW recommends the following mitigation sequence for reviewing and
conditioning proposed development projects with potential Impacts to Mazama pocket gophers:
1. Avold direct Impacts to occupied Mazama pocket gopher habitat.
a. Determine the potential for gopher occupancy.A list of soil types known to be inhabited
by Mazama pocket gopher in Mason,Pierce,Thurston and Lewis Counties is attached
(Attachment 1).A generalized map of these soil types in Thurston and Pierce Counties is
posted online, along with these management recommendations,at
http://wdfw.wo.gov/conservation/phs/mgmt_recommendations/.WDFW also
maintains information on gopher locations based on survey and research information,
which Is updated frequently.Applicants can request current data on known locations of
Mazama pocket gopher from WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species program
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/maps_data/), or by calling 360-942-2543.
WDFW also provides gopher location data directly to local jurisdictions.
b. Because mapped gopher data is incomplete,WDFW recommends that the local permit
authority require a Mazama pocket gopher mound survey for all projects proposed on
sites with soils listed in Attachment 1.We recommend that a qualified professional who
has received training from WDFW in Mazama pocket gopher survey protocols conduct
the mound survey between the months of June and October.Surveys conducted outside
that time period may not be accurate as to the presence of gophers,and applicants
should be encouraged to plan ahead for their projects In order to complete a survey
between June and October.A list of consultants who have received the training is
available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/mgmt_recommendatTons/.
Information on identifying gopher mounds,including differences from mole mounds,
can be found at http;//wdfw,wa.gov/1Iving/gophers,htm1.
c. If a survey shows occupied gopher habitat on a proposed project site,require the
applicant to design/re-design the project to avoid impacts to the occupied area.WDFW
defines occupied gopher habitat as Mazama pocket gopher mounds found wholly or
partially within the boundaries of the parcel(s)to be developed,buffered by a 5.64-m .
radial buffer, and with overlapping radii dissolved.To account for the estimated location
Habitat Management Recommendations: Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
of the burrow system(based on surface mounds)occupied by the pocket gopher and
biological needs for dispersal and reproduction,the occupied area should be multiplied
by a factor of three(3)this area is considered the habitat protection areal.(Consultants
trained in the survey protocol are familiar with these mapping criteria.)See Attachment
2.All development should be located outside the gopher habitat protection area or
areas.The permit authority may want to include mounds located off site In the
assessment of areas that will be directly impacted by infrastructure improvements
required by the development(e.g.,right-of-way improvements).
d. If relocating the project completely outside of existing,occupied gopher habitat Is not
possible without impacting reasonable use of the property,go to Step 2-minimize
riipacts-A determinatiorrof reasonable rise is'af�Fie disc efiori of tie local permit
authority, but it is assumed that legal definitions of reasonable use within the context of
the property's zoning/land use designation will be followed. WDFW recommends that
the full mitigation sequence described here,including a consideration of offsite
mitigation opportunities,be employed before Issuing a reasonable use exception.
e. If a survey has been completed for a site,a record of this survey should be maintained
by the local permit authority,even If the development project does not move forward
and even if no pocket gophers were found on the site.Requiring the survey to be
recorded is the best way to notify future landowners that occupied gopher habitat has
been found on their site.We recommend that a new survey be required if more than
one year has passed between an initial survey and the Issuance of preliminary plat
approval or site plan approval.If mitigation is not implemented at the preliminary
approval stage of the project, a new survey should be required when 5 or more years .
pass between preliminary approval and beginning of earth-moving work. Depending on
available resources,WDFW may provide comment on the survey to the local jurisdiction
and/or may be available to work with a consultant who is new to the survey protocol to
fulfill survey requirements. WDFW will add the survey results to our mapped gopher
data if the permit authority or consultant provides the results as a GIS shapefile or hard
copy map,along with basic information including parcel number,surveyor and
landowner name,date of survey,and number of mounds found(if any). By receiving this
data,WDFW will be able to provide it to future landowners and jurisdictions planning or
reviewing projects on the same or adjacent sites.Data should be submitted to WDFW
Biological Data Management, Gretchen.Blatz@dfw.wa.gov.
Methodology to determine gopher habitat is based on best available science,including peer-reviewed literature
and the best professional judgment of WDFW species experts.WDFW derived the 100 sq m habitat buffer depicted
as a circle with a 5.64-m radius from data on home range,Witmer et al(1996)reported a mean home range of 169
sq m for males(range 73-143),and 97 sq m for females(range 47-151).Witmer reports that these figures are
somewhat smaller than reported In the literature for other nomomys,perhaps due to the limited duration of his
study(Feb-April).Anderson and MacMahon(1981)reported that in the similar Northern pocket gopher,adults
typically made only small shifts(10.15 ni)in the their home range over the course of the year.A multiplication
factor(x3)accounts for uncertainty about the exact location of the burrow system relative to surface mounds as
well as species reproduction and dispersal needs and buffering from development impacts,and Is WDFW's
recommendation based on the best professional judgment of our species and habitat experts.See Attachment 4
for literature citations and other resources.
Habitat Management Recommendations:Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
f. WDFW can assist landowners with projects that do not require local permits,but whose
property is likely to contain Mazama pocket gopher habitat.The permit authority is
encouraged to refer such landowners to WDFW for guidance and stewardship advice.
Information on living with pocket gophers can also be found at
http://wdfw.wa.govAlving/gophers.btml. Malicious harm to state threatened species is
prohibited2.
2. If impacts to some active gopher mounds can't be avoided'minimize impacts to occupied
Mazama Pocket eophgf hgbllat.
al, ^esigriate=as-�hab!tat-ptOtec4io4 area-onslte4he-atea{s}�t-contains-the�hlghest
gopher mound density,plus additional area(s)to make up for occupied habitat that will
be destroyed by development.Maximizing width to length ratio such that large,
contiguous patch(es)are provided and long,narrow corridors are avoided are most
appropriate as habitat protection areas. Multiple habitat protection areas may be
appropriate on some parcels or necessary to allow development.Corridors may be
appropriate to maintain connectivity with adjacent sites that also have known gopher
populations.
b. The total habitat protection area should include an area equivalent to the total occupied
habitat area multiplied by three(3)(as calculated above).Attachment 2 shows a habitat
protection area shaped to incorporate the concentrated population of gopher use
onsite while also achieving the amount of buffer or protection area necessary to afford
long-term benefits of habitat use.The habitat protection area should include habitat
suitable for gophers. Restoration may be needed to achieve suitable habitat.See
subsection(f),below.
c. Record the location of the habitat protection area on the face of the plat,short plat,or
site plan.The habitat protection area may be designated as a separate tract.
d. Access to the habitat protection area should be restricted.Perimeter fencing should be
Installed if necessary to reduce human impacts and pet predation on gophers.
informational signage should be installed at the habitat protection area perimeter
stating M Mazama pocket gopher habitat area:No enter and explaining that the habitat
protection area contains habitat sensitive to disturbance of a state-threatened species.
e. A habitat management plan(HMP)detailing the location and long-term management of
the habitat protection area should be required as a condition of project approval,and
recorded to run with the title.A recommended habitat management plan template is
'RCW 77.15.130 defines the unlawful taking of protected fish or wildlife as when a person hunts,fishes,possesses
or maliciously kills protected fish and wildlife,or maliciously destroys the eggs or nests of protected fish or wildlife,
and the taking has not been authorized by rule of the commission;or the person violates any rule of the
commission regarding the taking,harming,harassment,possession or transport of protected fish and wildlife.
Unlawful taking of protected fish or wildlife is a misdemeanor.WAC 232-12-297 classifies state threatened and
sensitive species as subcategories of protected wildlife.
Habitat Management Recommendations:Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
attached (Attachment 3).We request that the permit authority provide WDFW an
opportunity to review the HMP by sending the Department a copy during the project
review period(however,WDFW will not maintain HMP records and we may not have
resources to provide timely comment on all submitted HMPs).
f. The HMP should include Invasive vegetation control and restoration.WDFW
recommends removing all Scotch Broom(Cytissus scoparlus) using above ground hand
techniques(e.g. no significant movement of earth or large machinery).Twice annually;
the habitat protection area should be mowed to control Scotch Broom and enhance
herbaceous plant growth. (Information on Scotch Broom control may be found at
http://www.southsoundprairies.org/scotchbr6om.htm.Restoration of native plants
hould occdrfalloaving isive/S ic-K roorirremoval 4pl RfingphA hoa1
incorporate herbaceous species and minimizes the number of trees proposed for
planting in the tree tracts. Examples of beneficial herbaceous plants include legumes,
broadleaf forbs,and grasses such as broadleaf lupine(Lupinus latifollus),clover
(Trifolium sp.)nodding onion(Allium cemuum)common yarrow(Achillea millefolium),
field chickweed(Cerastium arvense)showy fleabane(Erigeron speclosus)coast
strawberry(Fragaria chiloensis)and blue wildrye(Elymus glaucus).Possible deciduous
trees to plant include Oregon white oak(Quercus garryana),big leaf maple(Ater
macrophylium)or dogwood(Gornus sp).
g. Avoid using herbicides and pesticides in the habitat protection area(s).
h. WDFW encourages the permit authority to require the applicant to submit annual
compliance reports to the local jurisdiction for a period of three to five years after the
HMP is approved.Such reports should provide basic information on how the conditions
of the HMP are being implemented.WDFW recognizes that the ability to track
compliance information Is dependent on available local resources.
3. Mitieate unavoidable impacts to Mazama pocket gopher active mounds.
a. Only if the avoidance or minimization of impacts through an onsite habitat protection
area is not possible,as determined by the permit authority,then offsite mitigation Ora
combination of onsite and offsite mitigation may be used.A combination of onsite and
offsite mitigation is preferred where there is the potential to retain some onsite habitat
protection,even if that habitat protection is less than the amount recommended here.
b. The offsite mitigation ratio should be calculated at the rate of three acres of suitable
gopher habitat permanently protected for every one acre of occupied gopher habitat(as
defined above)that is destroyed.Permanent protection may come in the form of a
permanent conservation easement implemented by another property owner with
gopher habitat.The offsite habitat protection area should be one contiguous patch in
single ownership,and use of the site for permanent habitat mitigation should be an
allowable use by the local land use permitting authority.The site should contain suitably
drained prairie soils of a type and quality equivalent to the gopher habitat on the
development site,and be free of impervious surfaces or structures within the habitat
protection area.WDFW biologists may be available to review off site proposals for
suitability as gopher habitat.
Habitat Management Recommendations:Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
c. A habitat management plan as described in Step 2,above,should be Implemented for
the mitigation site.The HMP should also specify that the site is being used as off site
mitigation for a development site,and may not be used as mitigation for other
development activities.
WDFW Key Contacts:
Area Habitat Biologists
HMP review,general project assistance
Tlinrstanouritq: e;36U (12 279 E ir►ail=Aitiy IversoriDdfVu we7god-
Pierce County:Tel.360-895-3965 E-mail Gina.Piazza@dfw.wa.gov
Mason County:Tel.360-249-4628 x 249 E-mail Gloria.Rogers@dfw.wa.gov
Lewis County:Tel.360-785-0472 E-mail Scott.Brummer@dfw.wa.gov
District Wildlife Biologist
Consultant training for surveys
Tel.253-813-8906 E-mail Michelle.Tirhi@dfw.wa.gov
PHS Data
For applicant data requests
Tel,360-902-2543 E-mail phsproducts@dfw.wa.gov
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/maps data/
Biological Data Management
To submit gopher survey results
Tel.360-902-2484 Email Gretchen.Blatz@dfw.wa.gov
Attachments
1.Soils list
2.Mazama pocket habitat protection example
3.Habitat Management Plan template
4.Resource list
5.March 2011 amendments
Habitat Management Recommendations: Mazama Pocket Gopher
i
Revised March 2011
Attachment 1
Soil types where Maxama pocket gophers are most commonly found
Cagey loamy sand
Everett very gravelly sandy loam,0-3%
Everett very gravelly sandy loam,3-15%
Indianola loamy sand,0-3%
Indianola loamy sand,3-15%
Nisqually loamy fine sand,0-3%
Nisrgttaily gamy fhi sa'nti,-3=fiS46
Spana gravelly loam
5panaway gravelly sandy loam,0-3%
Spanaway gravelly sandy loam,3-15%
5panaway stony sandy loam,0-3%
5panaway stony sandy loam,3-15%
5panaway-Nisqually complex
Go online to http:!/wdfw.wa.Qoy/conservation%phs/mRmt recommendations/to see a generalized map
of soils associated with pocket gopher habitat In Thurston and Pierce Counties,Local records may be
more accurate.
Habitat Management Recommendations:Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
Attachment 2
SAMPLE MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER SET-ASIDE DESIGN,BASED ON SURVEY RES LTS
r"
7
17
s'
' Qgf�lAoupd Suvey-
. uer+s�rt
Ocas+r GMw7rai�t-'4N Uw.i�ic-0AA�u
wh'wi�reYn b.a•s1li..f
(�RtR:.fleCa[
Attachment 3
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE:
MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER
WDFW Mazama pocket gopher management recommendations can be found online at
httv/lwdfw wa aovlconservotion/nhs/mgmt recommendations/.
Applicant Subject Property
NAME AND ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER,ADDRESS,JURISDICTION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Parcel size,location,and current use including any improvements.
2. Mazama pocket gopher status and use of subject property.If other wildlife species of
concern are also found on or near the property,their status and use should also be
described.A single HMP can be used to cover multi-species and habitat management issues.
PROPOSED ACTIVITY
Describe the proposed activity including a discussion of proposed structures,roads,right-of-ways and
their location on the subject parcel. Include a timeline for proposal activities and whether or not this
proposal is part of a long-term plan for continued development of the property.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONDITIONS
- ITE
1. Describe habitat preservation actions that will be taken on site. include size and shape of
any preserved area(set-aside)and how this area relates to the existing pocket gopher
mound distribution on the parcel.
2. Describe actions that will be taken to maintain and enhance the habitat preservation area
on the parcel. This may Include but is not limited to;mowing,invasive species control,
reestablishment of native plant species associated with gopher habitat.
3. Describe protection and education actions that will be taken on the preservation site and
the property as a whole. This may include fencing,educational signs,etc.
OFF-SITE
1. Describe any mitigation actions that will betaken on parcels other than the parcel where
the project is proposed.
2. Include a description of the parcel(s)their location(s).
3. Discuss how these parcels will be acquired and how managed as was done for the ON-SITE
parcel.
DURATION OF PLAN and MODIFICATIONS
I. Describe how long the plan will be enforced,how often the plan will be reviewed,and what
conditions lead to this review.
2. Describe how the plan will be funded and who or what organization(s)will be responsible
for ensuring the plan is carried out and the site maintained.
3. Describe how responsibility for maintaining this plan will be transferred if ownership
changes.
estr'Ili�hviw-theplan`witi-be'revii?wed�aiid�odi#ied's#�oi�ld��na�se=on=this=par-eel+s= ' `
proposed to change. This could Include changes in how other natural resources on the
parcel are managed in addition to additional or change In development.
5. Describe who will notify the local jurisdiction of any new proposed land use activities.
COMPLIANCE
Failure to comply with this Plan is a violation of[JURISDICTION]codes and may be subject to civil or
criminal penalty.
Landowner or (Date) Landowner or Agent Names(Print)
Agent Signature
Address
City,State,Zip
[JURISDICTION)Representative(Date)
For review and comment purposes,a copyof this plan may be sent to:
WDFW-Habitat Program
Attention:Region 6 Area Habitat Blologist
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia,WA 98501-2091
Habitat Management Recommendations:Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
Attachment 4
Resources for further information about
Mazama pocket gopher species and habitat
Andersen D.C.and J.A.MacMahon.1981,Population dynamics and bioenergetics of a fossorial
herbivore,Thomomys talpoides(Rodentia:Geomyldae),in a spruce-fir sere.Ecological Monographs
51:179-202,
Campbell,B.2004.Restoring Rare Native Habitats in the Willamette Valley.A Landowner's Guide to
Reston ng�ak-Woodlands,-Vtiletlarrcf�P'ralries�nd�otteimfan d�l-lardwood�nd�tipafiia rrForests�ee-==-
Chapter 5.http://www.southsoundprairies.org/documents/Landownerguide.pdf
Stinson,D.W.2005.Washington State Status Report for the Mazama Pocket Gopher,Streaked Horned
Lark,and Taylor's Chedkerspot.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia.129+xii pp.
http:tlwdfw.wa.gov/publications/oub.php?id=00390
WDFW Living with Wildlife Series:Pocket Gophers httQ1Lwdfw.wa.ggy/livina/soi3hers.html
Witmer,G.W.,R.D.Sayler,and M.J.Pipas,1996.Biology and habitat use of the Mazama pocket gopher
"umomys mazama)In the Puget Sound area,Washington.Northwest Science 70:93-98.
Attachment 5
Amendments to Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Management Recommendations
In March 2011,the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife revised the July 2009 Mazama Pocket
Gopher Habitat Management Recommendations as follows:
1. Section 1c was amended to correct the radial buffer used to depict the 100 sq m gopher mound.
The correct radial buffer distance is 5.64 m.The map In Attachment 2 was also replaced to
reflect the change.
2. The term"active"was removed to describe gopher mounds from section 1e_Gopher mound
-.-: ivityvai�es throughout-`t�e�rear aitid=�"refo ay-be. . . . .. : . "
occupied In another.
3. Section 2 was amended to replace the term"set-aside"with"habitat protection area."The
habitat protection area is not a true set-aside because It may have other uses consistent with
gopher occupancy.
4. Internet links and contact Information were updated throughout.
Habitat Management Recommendations;Mazama Pocket Gopher
Revised March 2011
U�artMen:cr
FISH and
B7LDLIFE
MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER MOUND SURVEY PROTOCOL
UPDATED 2012)
A pocket gopher mound is defined and differentiated from the mounds of other species by its shape,
soil quality,and mound layout design. Pocket gopher mounds are irregularly shaped,arranged in
disorderly fashion or clusters (as compared to straight line arrangement),having the tunnel
opening on the margin of the mound (as compared to the center of the mound). Soil that is expelled
in the process of burrowing will be finely sifted (as compared to clumpy). Gopher mounds have a
generally flattened surface as compared to the cone or dome-shaped mound of moles. A thin probe
or hand shovel may be used to determine the location of the tunnel opening with minimal
disturbance to the mound. Excavating tunnels should be avoided.
The probability of detecting pocket gophers changes seasonally; although the exact probability
difference is unknown. For this reason, distributional mound surveys should be conducted by
trained and experienced observers between 1 June and 31 October,the period of time in which
pocket gophers are more actively mounding.
Surveys should not be conducted in heavily forested stands or areas containing standing water all
or part of the year.Significant ground/vegetation disturbance (harrowing,mowing vegetation less
than 6",vehicular activity,etc.) can inhibit the surveyor's ability to conduct an accurate survey and
should be avoided completely or,at minimum,within 60 days prior to a site survey. Conversely,
excessive vegetation height can obscure gopher mounds,also inhibiting the ability to conduct an
accurate survey. Surveyors may request to postpone a survey in the event that an accurate survey
cannot be conducted at the time and may also request the site be mowed (no lower than 6") no less
than 30 days prior to a revisit. Earth moving activities,such as grading and tilling,should be
avoided completely and may result in a delay of up to a one year before an accurate survey can be
conducted.
Surveys are conducted within a property boundary using transects to maintain direction and
prevent over-counting. The standard distance between transects is 10 meters; however,the
distance between transects may be greater or less than 10 meters based on the ability of the
observer to detect mounds,which is influenced by the density and height of vegetation. The
surveyor should serpentine along transects while recording all positively identifiable gopher
mounds whether wholly or partially within the boundaries of the parcel. Mounds in physical
contact with one another may be counted as a single mound. Small,exploratory feeder mounds
(usually smaller than a human fist) should not be counted as these areas are often backfilled and
might only be used sporadically.
The surveyor should record the location'of each mound regardless if mounds are off-transect or on-
transect using GPS in UTMs, NAD 83/Zone 10N datum. GPS units with sub-meter accuracy or
averaging capability are preferred. For parcels greater than 10 acres with extensive and dense
mounding,i.e.hundreds of mounds per transect; only record the locations of mounds directly on
transect. In this situation,transects should be no greater than 5 m apart. GIS mapping software is
used to display mound point locations and to calculate Occupied Area and Habitat Protection Area.
Calculations by step:
1. Create occupied area polygon(s)by buffering the mound points by 5.64 m and
dissolve the overlap.
2. Determine area (either mz or acres)within the polygon(s). This is the Occupied
Area.
3. AVOID development in the Occupied Area if possible.
4. MINIMIZE development in the Occupied Area if avoidance is not possible.
5. MITIGATE for development taking place in the Occupied Area(steps 6-8).
6. Multiply the Occupied Area that is impacted due to development by a factor of 3.
This is the required Habitat Protection Area.
7. Create a polygon of size that reflects the required acreage for protection.
8. Manipulate the Habitat Protection Area polygon so that the entire Habitat
Protection Area is located within the subject parcel AND the Habitat Protection Area
encompasses all or the majority of the Occupied Area.
Until further notice,private consultants conducting field surveys for Mazama pocket gophers
should call the appropriate WDFW District Biologist to request a survey validation site visit
immediately after concluding the field survey and mapping process,but before writing an HMP or
Report of Findings. Be prepared to provide the date of survey,a map delineating surveyed area and
all gopher mounds detected, if any(without buffers applied),the parcel number(s),and a valid site
address and/or driving directions to the District Biologist at the time of the request. Validation
ensures survey consistency among consultants until they have experience conducting accurate
surveys in variable soil and vegetation conditions. WDFW has up to 30 days to conduct a
validation site visit,including reporting the biologist's assessment.
A Report of Findings (non-detection) or a Habitat Management Plan (detection) should be drafted
and submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction. WDFW requests that the jurisdiction forward the
results to WDFW staff for review or consultation. In addition,WDFW Statewide Species Database
Manager requests the following survey information: parcel number,date of survey,surveyor and
affiliation,parcel address,landowner/project name,and a mapped delineation of the Occupied Area
as a GIS shapefile. Data can be sent electronically to Gretchen.BlatzPdfw.wa.gov.
One survey conducted during the appropriate survey window (1 June thru 31 October) is
considered sufficient for establishing the presence of gophers. Survey results are appropriate for
land use planning for one (1) year following completion of the survey OR the duration of the
development permit,excluding extensions (whichever is longer); after which time,a new survey
should be conducted to account for the possibility of temporal and spatial changes in the use area.
Mozomo Pocket Gopher HMP—City of Shelton UMV Pressure Zone
APPENDIX C. SOILS INFORMATION
Page 24 April 2014
Soil Map—Mason County,Washington 3
a �
A
487800 487900 488000 488100 488200 488300 488400 488500 4886W 488700 488800 488900 48M 489100 489200 489300 489400
47'15 35"N 47"15 35"N
17
101 �
Gh
on
Dayton .. R.
JL
OF
8 $
47*14 57'N a - I�
N � 47°14 57 N ,
487800 487900 488000 488100 488200 488300 488400 488500 488600 488700 488800 488900 489000 489100 489200 489300 489400
3
Map Sole:1:8,190 if printed on A landscape(11"d 8.5)sheeL a
m
M
N elers
Feet
0 100 200 400 600 �
A0 350 700 1400 2100
Map projection:Web Mercator Caner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 1ON WGS84
U_SD� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/27/2014
�i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
Soil Map—Mason County,Washington
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) � Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your A01 were mapped at 1:31,700.
0 Area of Interest(A01) 6 Stony Spot
Soils Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Very Stony Spot
0 Soil Map Unit Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Wet Spot misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
.v Soil Map Unit Lines placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
Soil Map Unit Points Other soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
�
.� Special Line Features
Special Point Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
V Blowout water Features measurements.
Streams and Canals
Borrow Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Clay Spot Transportation Web Soil Survey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
f.44 Rails Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
Closed Depression Interstate Highways Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
ram/
Gravel Pito US Routes projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Gravelly Spot distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
Major Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate
Landfill Local Roads calculations of distance or area are required.
Lava Flow Background This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s)listed below.
Marsh or swamp ■ Aerial Photography
Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington
r + Mine or Quarry Survey Area Data: Version 8,Dec 10,2013
0 Miscellaneous Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000
0 Perennial Water or larger.
1:01 Rock Outcrop Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
+ Saline Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
. . Sandy Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting
Severely Eroded Spot of map unit boundaries may be evident.
9 Sinkhole
?4 Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/27/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
Soil Map—Mason County,Washington
Map Unit Legend
Mason County,Washington(WA645)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Ca Carstairs gravelly loam,0 to 5 0.3 0.1%
percent slopes
Gh Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 208.4 89.0%
5 percent slopes
Gk Grove gravelly sandy loam,5 to 0.9 0.4%
15 percent slopes
Gm Grove gravelly sandy loam, 15 7.5 3.2%
to 30 percent slopes
Sf Shelton gravelly sandy loam,5 17.1 7.3%
to 15 percent slopes
W Water 0.0 0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 234.3 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/27/2014
+i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Washing"'on PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES MANAGEMENT
Deparinzent or RECOMMENDATIONS:
FISH and
\ , p ULDLIH
MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is providing these management
recommendations to inform local government permit reviewers, applicants, consultants, and
landowners working on projects with potential impacts to Mazama pocket gopher, a state-listed
threatened species.These recommendations are part of a series of Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
management recommendations issued by WDFW.These recommendations are not regulatory, but are
based on best available science for avoiding, minimizing,and mitigating impacts to gophers and their
habitat, which is primarily located in South Puget Sound.WDFW recommends the following mitigation
sequence for reviewing and conditioning proposed development projects with potential impacts to
Mazama pocket gophers:
1. Avoid direct impacts to occupied Mazama pocket gopher habitat.
a. Determine the potential for gopher occupancy. A list of soil types known to be inhabited
by Mazama pocket gopher in Mason, Pierce,Thurston, and Lewis Counties is attached
(Attachment 1).A generalized map of these soil types in Thurston and Pierce Counties is
posted online,along with these management recommendations,at
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm.WDFW also maintains information on
gopher locations based on survey and research information,which is updated
frequently.Applicants can request current data on known locations of Mazama pocket
gopher from WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species program
(http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm), or by calling 360-902-2543. WDFW also
provides gopher location data directly to local jurisdictions.
b. Because mapped gopher data is incomplete,WDFW recommends that the local permit
authority require a Mazama pocket gopher mound survey for all projects proposed on
sites with soils listed in Attachment 1. We recommend that a qualified professional who
has received training from WDFW in Mazama pocket gopher survey protocols conduct
the mound survey between the months of June and October. Surveys conducted outside
that time period may not be accurate as to the presence of gophers, and applicants
should be encouraged to plan ahead for their projects in order to complete a survey
between June and October.A list of consultants who have received the training is
available online at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm. Information on
identifying gopher mounds, including differences from mole mounds, can be found at
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wim/living/gophers.htm#status.
c. If a survey shows occupied gopher habitat on a proposed project site, require the
applicant to design/re-design the roject to avoid impacts
ppproject pacts to the occupied area.WDFW
defines occupied gopher habitat as active Mazama pocket gopher mounds found wholly
or partially within the boundaries of the parcel(s)to be developed, buffered by a 10-m
PHS Management Recommendations: Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
1
(7/28/2010) Michael MacSems-gophers Page 1
From: "Rogers, Gloria S (DFW)" <Gloria.Rogers@dfw.wa.gov>
To: "Michael MacSems" <Mms@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 7/28/2010 9:58 AM
Subject: gophers
Attachments: mazama_pocket_gopher_phs_mgmt_recs_1209[1].pdf
Michael,
Mazama Pocket Gopher(sp.Thomomys mazama) is also known as Western
Pocket Gopher.
A subspecies, T. m. couchi, is found on grassland at a few localities
near Shelton in Mason County, including the airport. I cannot find
documentation that this subspecies is referred to as Shelton but I'm
assuming it is.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/gophers.htm This is a link to WDFW's
"Living with Wildlife". It has great info about the critter. I've also
attached the management recommendations. In section 1(e), there are
some suggestions for permitting agencies.
Also, I've heard, but have not verified, someone has a cat out on site
removing stumps.
Gloria Rogers
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano, WA 98563
360-249-1293
radial buffer,with overlapping radii dissolved, and multiplied by a factor of three (3).
This accounts for estimated burrow systems occupied by the pocket gopher and
biological needs for dispersal.'(Consultants trained in the survey protocol are familiar
with these mapping criteria.)See Attachment 2.All development should be located
outside the gopher habitat area or areas.The permit authority may want to include
active mounds located off site in areas that will be directly impacted by infrastructure
improvements required by the development (e.g., right-of-way improvements).
d. If relocating the project completely outside of existing, occupied gopher habitat is not
possible without impacting reasonable use of the property,go to Step 2-minimize
impacts. A determination of reasonable use is at the discretion of the local permit
authority, but it is assumed that legal definitions of reasonable use within the context of
the property's zoning/land use designation will be followed. WDFW recommends that
the full mitigation sequence described here, including a consideration of offsite
mitigation opportunities, be employed before issuing a reasonable use exception.
e. If a survey has been completed for a site,a record of this survey should be maintained
by the local permit authority,even if the development project does not move forward
and even if no pocket gophers were found on the site. Requiring the survey to be
recorded is the best way to notify future landowners that occupied gopher habitat has
been found on their site. We recommend that a new survey be required if more than
one year has passed between an initial survey and the issuance of preliminary plat
approval or site plan approval. If mitigation is not implemented at the preliminary
approval stage of the project,a new survey should be required when 5 or more years
pass between preliminary approval and beginning of earth-moving work. Depending on
available resources,WDFW staff may provide comment on the survey to the local
jurisdiction and/or may be available to work with a consultant who is new to the survey
protocol to fulfill survey requirements.WDFW will add the survey results to our mapped
gopher data if the permit authority or consultant provides the results as a GIS shapefile
or hard copy map,along with basic information including parcel number,surveyor and
landowner name, date of survey, and number of mounds found (if any). By receiving this
data, WDFW will be able to provide it to future landowners and jurisdictions planning or
reviewing projects on the same or adjacent sites. Data should be submitted to WDFW
Biological Data Management,Gretchen.Blatz@dfw.wa.gov.
'Methodology to determine gopher habitat is based on best available science, including peer-reviewed literature
and the best professional judgment of WDFW species experts.The 10 m buffer distance was derived from data on
home range.Witmer et al (1996)reported a mean home range of 108 sq m for males,97 for females(ranged up to
151). This could be thought of as a 1OX10 m square,or circle of 100 sq m size;in reality likely an irregular shape.
Anderson and MacMahon(1981)also reported that in the similar Northern pocket gopher,adults typically made
only small shifts(10-15 m)in the their home range over the course of the year.A multiplication factor accounts for
species reproduction and dispersal needs and buffering from development impacts,and is WDFW's
recommendation based on the best professional judgment of our species and habitat experts. See Attachment 4
for literature citations and other resources.
PHS Management Recommendations: Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
2
f. WDFW can assist landowners with projects that do not require local permits, but whose
property is likely to contain Mazama pocket gopher habitat.The permit authority is
encouraged to refer such landowners to WDFW for guidance and stewardship advice.
Information on living with pocket gophers can also be found at
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/goi)hers.htm#mazama. Malicious harm to state
threatened species is prohibited.2
2. If impacts to some active gopher mounds can't be avoided minimize impacts to occupied
Mazama pocket gopher habitat.
a. Designate as a set-aside area includes the highest active gopher mound density,plus
additional area(s)to make up for occupied habitat that will be destroyed by
development. Large,contiguous patch(es)that maximize width to length ratio such that
long, narrow corridors are avoided are most appropriate for the gopher set-aside.
Multiple set-asides may be appropriate on some parcels. Corridors may be appropriate
to maintain connectivity with adjacent sites that also have known gopher populations.
b. The total set-aside area should include an area equivalent to the total occupied habitat
area (as calculated above).Attachment 2 shows a set-aside area shaped to incorporate
the concentrated population of gopher use onsite while also achieving the amount of
buffer or protection area necessary to afford long-term benefits of habitat use.The set-
aside area should include habitat suitable for gophers. Restoration may be needed to
achieve suitable habitat. See subsection (f), below.
c. Record the location of the set-aside area on the face of the plat, short plat, or site plan.
The set-aside may be designated as a separate tract.
d. Access to the set-aside should be restricted. Perimeter fencing should be installed if
necessary to reduce human impacts and pet predation on gophers. Informational
signage should be installed at the set-aside perimeter stating"Mazama pocket gopher
habitat area: No entry" and explaining that the set-aside contains habitat sensitive to
disturbance of a state-threatened species.
e. A habitat management plan (HMP) detailing the location and long-term management of
the set-aside area should be required as a condition of project approval, and recorded
to run with the title. A recommended habitat management plan template is attached
(Attachment 3).We request that the permit authority provide WDFW an opportunity to
review the HMP by sending the Department a copy during the project review period
(however, WDFW will not maintain HMP records and we may not have resources to
provide timely comment on all submitted HMPs).
2 RCW 77.15.130 defines the unlawful taking of protected fish or wildlife as when a person hunts,fishes, possesses
or maliciously kills protected fish and wildlife,or maliciously destroys the eggs or nests of protected fish or wildlife,
and the taking has not been authorized by rule of the commission;or the person violates any rule of the
commission regarding the taking, harming, harassment,possession or transport of protected fish and wildlife.
Unlawful taking of protected fish or wildlife is a misdemeanor.WAC 232-12-297 classifies state threatened and
sensitive species as subcategories of protected wildlife.
PHS Management Recommendations: Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
3
f. The HMP should include invasive vegetation control and restoration.WDFW
recommends removing all Scotch Broom (Cytissus scoparius) using above ground hand
techniques (e.g. no significant movement of earth or large machinery).Twice annually,
the habitat protection area should be mowed to control Scotch Broom and enhance
herbaceous plant growth. (Information on Scotch Broom control may be found at
http://www.southsoundprairies.org/scotchbroom.htm. Restoration of native plants
should occur following invasive/Scotch Broom removal. A planting plan should
incorporate herbaceous species and minimizes the number of trees proposed for
planting in the tree tracts. Examples of beneficial herbaceous plants include legumes,
broadleaf forbs,and grasses such as broadleaf lupine(Cupinus latifolius), clover
(Trifolium sp.) nodding onion (Allium cernuum)common yarrow (Achilleo millefolium),
field chickweed (Cerastium arvense)showy fleabane (Erigeron speciosus) coast
strawberry(Frogoria chiloensis) and blue wildrye(Elymus glaucus). Possible deciduous
trees to plant include Oregon white oak(Quercus garryono), big leaf maple(Acer
macrophyllum)or dogwood (Cornus sp).
g. Avoid using herbicides and pesticides in the set-aside area(s).
h. WDFW encourages the permit authority to require the applicant to submit annual
compliance reports to the local jurisdiction for a period of three to five years after the
HMP is approved.Such reports should provide basic information on how the conditions
of the HMP are being implemented.WDFW recognizes that the ability to track
compliance information is dependent on available local resources.
3. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to Mazama pocket gopher active mounds.
a. Only if the avoidance or minimization of impacts through an onsite set-aside is not
possible, as determined by the permit authority,then offsite mitigation or a
combination of onsite and offsite mitigation may be used. A combination of onsite and
offsite mitigation is preferred where there is the potential to retain some onsite set-
aside, even if that set-aside is less than the amount recommended here.
b. The offsite mitigation ratio should be calculated at the rate of three acres of suitable
gopher habitat permanently protected for every one acre of occupied gopher habitat(as
defined above)that is destroyed. Permanent protection may come in the form of a
permanent conservation easement implemented by another property owner with
gopher habitat.The offsite set-aside should be one contiguous patch in single
ownership, and use of the site for permanent habitat mitigation should be an allowable
use by the local land use permitting authority.The site should contain suitably drained
prairie soils of a type and quality equivalent to the gopher habitat on the development
site, and be free of impervious surfaces or structures within the set-aside area.WDFW
biologists may be available to review off site proposals for suitability as gopher habitat.
c. A habitat management plan as described in Step 2, above,should be implemented for
the mitigation site.The HMP should also specify that the site is being used as off site
PHS Management Recommendations: Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
4
mitigation for another development site, and may not be used as mitigation for other
development activities.
WDFW Key Contacts
Area Habitat Biologists
HMP review,general project assistance
Thurston County: Tel. 360-902-2579 E-mail Jason.Kunz@dfw.wa.gov
Pierce County: Tel. 360-895-3965 E-mail Gina.Piazza@dfw.wa.gov
Mason County: Tel.360-249-1293 E-mail Gloria.Rogers(a)dfw.wa.gov
Lewis County: Tel. 360-785-0472 E-mail Scott.Brummer@dfw.wa.gov
District Wildlife Biologist
Consultant training for surveys
Tel. 253-813-8906 E-mail Michelle.TirhiPdfw.wa.gov
PHS Data
For applicant data requests
Tel. 360-902-2543 Web httP://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm
Biological Data Management
To submit gopher survey results
Tel. 360-902-2484 E-mail Gretchen.Blatz(o)dfw.wa.gov
Attachments
1. Soils list
2. Mazama pocket set-aside example
3. Habitat Management Plan template
4. Resource list
PHS Management Recommendations:Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
5
Attachment 1
Soil types where Mazama pocket gophers are most commonly found
20 Cagey loamy sand
Carstairs gravelly loam,0-5% (Mason County)
32 Everett very gravelly sandy loam,0-3%
33 Everett very gravelly sandy loam,3-15%
46 Indianola loamy sand,0-3%
47 Indianola loamy sand,3-15%
73 Nisqually loamy fine sand,0-3%
74 Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3-15%
109 Spana gravelly loam
110 Spanaway gravelly sandy loam,0-3%
111 Spanaway gravelly sandy loam,3-15%
112 Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0-3%
113 Spanaway stony sandy loam,3-15%
114 Spanaway-Nisqually complex
Go online to http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm to see a generalized map of these soils in
Thurston and Pierce Counties (does not include Mason County). Local records may be more accurate.
**Note:This page updated December 2009 to odd Carstairs soil type.**
PHS Management Recommendations: Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
6
Attachment 2
SAMPLE MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER SET-ASIDE DESIGN, BASED ON SURVEY RESULTS
y r
`.
' Sat .,.
'a
p 1j r
Gopher Mound Survey
O Gapher Mounds 511 S12
BUMM 3y6tem 110 Meta Buffer 1 Acre
0 cupled Gaprer HaDMat 3 Acru
Deg:q latex Set-A6lae area:3ACre6
I Parcel of lmuea o zr .a m iris k
l i l 1:2.240
Attachment 3
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TEMPLATE:
MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER
WDFW Mazama pocket gopher management recommendations can be found online at
httl)://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/Phsrecs.htm.
Applicant Subiect Property
NAME AND ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER,ADDRESS,JURISDICTION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Parcel size, location, and current use including any improvements.
2. Mazama pocket gopher status and use of subject property. If other wildlife species of
concern are also found on or near the property,their status and use should also be
described.A single HMP can be used to cover multi-species and habitat management issues.
PROPOSED ACTIVITY
Describe the proposed activity including a discussion of proposed structures, roads, right-of-ways and
their location on the subject parcel. Include a timeline for proposal activities and whether or not this
proposal is part of a long-term plan for continued development of the property.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONDITIONS
ON-SITE
1. Describe and habitat preservation actions that will be taken on site. Include size and shape
of any preserved area (set-aside) and how this area relates to the existing pocket gopher
mound distribution on the parcel.
2. Describe actions that will be taken to maintain and enhance the habitat preservation area
on the parcel. This may include but is not limited to; mowing, invasive species control,
reestablishment of native plant species associated with gopher habitat.
3. Describe protection and education actions that will be taken on the preservation site and
the property as a whole. This may include fencing, educational signs, etc.
OFF-SITE
1. Describe any mitigation actions that will be taken on parcels other than the parcel where
the project is proposed.
2. Include a description of the parcel(s)their location(s).
3. Discuss how these parcels will be acquired and how managed as was done for the ON-SITE
parcel.
DURATION OF PLAN and MODIFICATIONS
1. Describe how long the plan will be enforced, how often the plan will be reviewed, and what
conditions lead to this review.
2. Describe how the plan will be funded and who or what organization(s)will be responsible
for ensuring the plan is carried out and the site maintained.
3. Describe how responsibility for maintaining this plan will be transferred if ownership
changes.
4. Describe how the plan will be reviewed and modified should land use on the parcel is
proposed to change. This could include changes in how other natural resources on the
parcel are managed in addition to additional or change in development.
5. Describe who will notify the local jurisdiction of any new proposed land use activities.
COMPLIANCE
Failure to comply with this Plan is a violation of[JURISDICTION] codes and may be subject to civil or
criminal penalty.
Landowner or (Date) Landowner or Agent Names (Print)
Agent Signature
Address
City,State,Zip
[JURISDICTION] Representative (Date)
For review and comment purposes, a copy of this plan may be sent to:
WDFW-Habitat Program
Attention: Region 6 Area Habitat Biologist
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
PHS Management Recommendations:Mazama pocket gopher
July 2009
9
Attachment 4
Resources for further information about
Mazama pocket gopher species and habitat
Andersen, D.C.and J.A. MacMahon. 1981. Population dynamics and bioenergetics of a fossorial
herbivore,Thomomys talpoides (Rodentia:Geomyidae), in a spruce-fir sere. Ecological Monographs
51:179-202.
Campbell, B. 2004. Restoring Rare Native Habitats in the Willamette Valley.A Landowner's Guide to
Restoring Oak Woodlands,Wetlands, Prairies and Bottomland Hardwood and Riparian Forests.See
Chapter 5. http://www.southsoundprairies.org/documents/Landownerguide.pdf
Stinson, D.W. 2005.Washington State Status Report for the Mazama Pocket Gopher,Streaked Horned
Lark, and Taylor's Checkerspot. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 129+xii pp.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/``diversty/soc/status/prairie/index.htm
WDFW Living with Wildlife Series: Pocket Gophers http•//wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/gophers.htm
Witmer,G.W., R. D. Sayler,and M.J. Pipas. 1996. Biology and habitat use of the Mazama pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama) in the Puget Sound area,Washington. Northwest Science 70:93-98.
. t
/ y�oWe'� �uF�P�v lvov(C.S Ca(q cS� �✓ -!i'dwl5loc.
PE Consultants LLC
PE Consultants LLC
4333 30'h Avenue SE
Lacey,WA 98503
(360)790-1559 Business email: curtis@peconsultants.net
(360)438-1985(FAX/Phone) Web www.peconsultants.net
26 December 2006
Mr. Steve Chamberlain, P.E., President
SCA Consulting Group
4200 Sixth Avenue SE, Suite 301
Lacey, WA 98503
RE: Mazama pocket gopher, State Priority, and Federally-listed Species Site Evaluation
Dear Mr. Chamberlain:
At your request, PE Consultants LLC has evaluated the 25-acre Dayton Airport Business
Park subject property for the presence of the Mazama (Western) Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys Mazama), its habitat and other State priority Species. This study has been
completed in accordance with Mason County Municipal Code Chapter 17.01.110 to
evaluate the presence of the particular important habitat or species, and the likelihood that
the particular important habitat or species will maintain or reproduce over the long-term.
The uses and activities associated with development may be restricted on a property that
,lies within an important habitat or within 600 feet of a mapped point location of an important
species. Because the Mazama pocket gopher and its habitat have been documented by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to occur in the vicinity, a site evaluation has
been performed to address possible impacts to this species and its habitat and to provide
viable conservation measures to protect this species into the future, if it applies to this.
project.
The Mason County Code defines habitats to be protected under Mason County Municipal
Code 17.01.110—Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, as habitats of sensitive
species identified by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW)
`Priority Habitats and Species' (PHS) database. The Mazama pocket gopher is listed as a
State Threatened Species by the WDFW PHS database, as well as a Federal Candidate
Species for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
1 ,
Mr. Steve Chamberlain
20 March 07
Page 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
No Mazama pocket gopher, other State priority species, or Federally-listed species have
been identified to occur on the subject property. However, juveniles radiate out from their
natal burrows searching for territory, making it is possible for the species to enter the site if
habitat were,available. Fragmented patches of marginal pocket gopher habitat occur
throughout the area in the form of pastureland, lawns, and cleared areas. No impacts to
significant pocket gopher habitat are expected to occur as a result of this project that would
jeopardize the continued survival of this species. The site consists of a contiguous canopy
of Scot's broom, which is not considered Mazama pocket gopher habitat. In fact, we
typically do not find pocket gophers in areas of continuous Scot's broom. No impacts to the
Mazama pocket gopher or other State Priority Species are expected as a result of the
proposed project.
If you have any questions, you can contact me at 360-790-1559.
Sincerely,
Curtis Wambach, M.S.
Senior Biologist and Principal
Pacific Environmental Consultants LLC
4333 30'h Avenue SE
Lacey, WA 98503
26 December 2006 PE Consultants LLC
r 1
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
SITE EVALUATION REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Project Location. The Dayton Airport Business Park subject property (Parcel #
420022400000) is located at W State Highway Route 102, Mason County, Washington
Section 2, Township 20 North, and Range 4 West, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1).
Gopher Biology. The Mazama Pocket Gopher is a small burrowing mammal that eats roots,
tubers, bulbs and some surface vegetation. Feeding occurs primarily underground.
However, the pocket gopher also feeds above ground on forbs and grasses during the
evening and nighttime or during dimly-lit overcast days. When feeding above ground, the
pocket gopher bends down grasses to collect the seeds. An area of intensely foraged
grasses and forbs near their mound structures is an indicator of pocket gopher high use.
Gopher Habitat. The Mazama pocket gopher prefers prairie habitat. Historically, the Native
Americans maintained prairie habitat in western Washington through burning the shrubs
and trees off the land. Native Americans harvested camas and other crops, which grew
abundantly in western Washington prairies. Since burning the fields became a thing of the
past, forests and farms replaced much of the prairie ecosystem. Currently, only scattered
remnants of this once human-maintained ecosystem remain in western Washington. Many
of these areas are zoned for high-density development by local cities and counties. One of
few high quality habitats for the Mazama pocket gopher is at the Shelton Airport. The
Airport is a source of gopher dispersion near the subject property.
Gopher Mounds. The Mazama pocket gopher produces characteristically crescent-shaped
mounds of soil above the ground. Typically, mounds have a plug of soil closing the burrow
entrance at the center portion of the,crescent-shaped mound. Mounds are commonly found
in lines marking the underground route of the burrow system. In contrast, moles produce
larger conical-shaped mounds that appear more randomly distributed in the landscape. The
pocket gopher burrow system is located just below the surface. However, brooding
chambers and food caches are located as deep as 6 feet below the surface.
Mound Identification. Because moles often create mounds interspersed with gopher
mounds, species-specific mound identification is an essential component of the study.
Moles and pocket gophers live their lives almost completely under ground. Their tunneling
activity results in mounds of dirt being excavated and left on the surface. Fortunately, mole
and pocket gopher mounds can be identified in the field by easily observable
characteristics. Basically, moles create round or conical-shaped mounds in contrast to the
Crescent or kidney shaped mound of the pocket gopher. Another key difference is that only
moles create surface runs, pocket gophers don't. The entrance to the mole tunnel system
is in the center of the conical-shaped mound, while the entrance for the pocket gopher
tunnel is beneath a plug located on the inner side of the crescent-shaped mound.
Gopher Dispersion. Although, home ranges are very small, juvenile pocket gophers
sometimes wander up to 1,000 feet or more in search of territory. After several generations
of these short-lived rodents, dispersion could extend a mile or more from the original natal
territory. While searching for territory,juvenile pocket gophers may create individual or
scattered mounds in poor habitats while probing for new territory or foraging areas.
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 1
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Z
G
N
0
r
} Ile
sQ
W
K
U
Q
W
z
a
i
^--- —W STATE ROUTE,102 NWY
W BUSINESS PARK RD r jd
ke
04 1
y o a° 1
G %,cNTQO 9 F E NORTH�KEDR -
3` WSANDERSONµ.AY i
J J
s
c � W
a: ZQ HF�T o�� SRO 3
�O w f—
O
C
O
$r
0 1907ft
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
20 March 2007 www.Deconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 2
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Individual wandering pocket gophers may create `explorer mounds' outside of the primary
mound complexes through the dispersal of juveniles or less commonly, adults searching for
new foraging opportunities. The separation distance for suitable habitat is a compromise
between the sedentary habits of these mammals and the search for new territory as
juveniles strike out on their own. Two occupied mound complexes separated by less than a
few kilometers of suitable habitat could represent two independent territories. Because of
these wandering individual juvenile gophers searching for territory, there may be explorer
mounds between two mound complexes or in areas of unlikely gopher habitat, such as in
wetlands, forests, or in cemented glacial till.
2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE l
The approximately 25-acre subject property consists of a contiguous canopy of the non-
native shrub Scot' broom (Appendix A). Topography is relatively flat. A narrow tree line
occurs at the frontage of the property. The property is undeveloped and unused. No prairie
habitat, preferred by the Mazama pocket gopher, occurs on the subject property.
3.0 MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER MOUND IDENTIFICATION
This section describes the Mazama pocket gopher biology, including feeding habits,
tunnels, dispersion, range, density, and population dynamics.
3.1 Mound Identification
Gopher mounds can be distinguished from mole mounds by their shape and observable
characteristics (Table 1; see photo of mounds in Appendix A). Pocket gopher mounds are
generally crescent or kidney-shaped and made of finely sifted and cloddy soil (Illustration 1
& 3). Pocket gopher mounds are often built in a line, whereas moles leave more randomly
placed mounds. Moles form conical or volcano-shaped mounds that are often made up of
larger clods of soil in contract to the finely sifted pocket gopher mound (Illustration 1 & 2).
The mole mounds are pushed up from the deep tunnels and may be 2 to 24 inches (5 to 60
cm) tall. The entrance to the pocket gopher tunnel extends generally 5 to 10 inches of the
surface to the main tunnel that extends laterally in both directions.
20 March 2007 www.oeconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 3
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Mole Mound Pocket Gopher Mound
Side View
Courtesy of the inirersity of California, Oasis
Mole Mound Pocket Gopher Mound
fir+,"`- r:�'.'1`":��� •.•�.'
�'► Top Views s
Illustration 1. Aerial and side view of pocket gopher verses mole mounds
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 4
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Table 1. Pocket gopher o her verses mole mound.
Mound Feature Pocket Gopher Mole
Runways Surface tunnels, 1 to 4 inches below the Tunnels are 3.8 to 4.4 cm in diameter, 10-15
surface,connect with deeper runways cm below the ground,nest 90 cm in depth.
located 3 to 12 inches below the surface;
but-may be as deep as 40 inches.
Subterranean hunting paths are about 1.25
to 1.5 inches 3.2 to 3.8 cm in diameter.
Dimension of Excavated materials are piled in roughly Mounds of soil are about 10-inch or greater
Mounds circular mounds that are 6 to 24 inches in diameter.
diameter and 2 to 8 inches high.
Shape of Mounds circular or conical-shaped mounds Crescent-or kidney-shaped
Aerial view Mounds are round when viewed from Mounds are crescent-or kidney-shaped when
above. viewed from above.
Soil Plug Soil plug is in the middle of mound and Soil plug is in the middle of the V shape or off
may not be distinct. to the side of the mound and may leave a
visible depression. 1-3-inch soil plug.
Raised ridge Tunnels are often just beneath the surface, No tunnels are visible from above ground.
leaving a raised ridge.
Distribution Scattered Mounds are found in a line
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 5
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Conical-shaped mole mound
Ir
�1
k •
•
-
w �
ti
Illustration 2. Moles push dirt through vertical tunnels 2 to 24 inches to surface of ground.
Pocket gopher mound
Plug on side
�-••
' �-rig-}�,r'a�.�'= .• .. � - - - /♦
Pocket gopher mound with plug on side and
Plug diagonal entrance leading to tunnel system Mole mound with plug in
vrlL"o ,�� p, center
Plug in center and
NNW typically not visible
Illustration 3. Pocket gopher verses mole mounds.
20 March 2007 www�econsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 6
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
4.0 METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
4.1 Background Review
Prior to the site reconnaissance, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database had been reviewed to assess background
information on Mazama pocket gopher occurrence near the subject property (Appendix B).
Site Investigation. Background information on possible critical areas was reviewed prior to
field investigations and included the following:
• The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) report. (Appendix B)
• Anchor Environmental, LLC. 2003. Habitat Protection Plan for Streaked Horned Larks,
Western (Mazama) Pocket Gophers, and Oregon Vesper Sparrows at the Olympia
Regional Airport. Prepared for the Port of Olympia.
• Knutsen, C. J. 2003. The Thomonys mazama pocket Gopher in Washington Prairies: a
Contemporary View for Management. A Thesis: Essay of distinction submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for a degree Master of Environmental Studies the Evergreen
State College.
• Mason County Area Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1973)
• Mason County Geodata Center Available on the Internet
http://www.geodata.org/on line.html
• Mason County Municipal Code Chapter 16.32.
• PE Consultants LLC Mazama Pocket Gopher Information.
http://www.peconsultants.net/gopher.htm
• PE Consultants LLC. 20 December 2006. Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Protection
Plan. Heritage Place.
• PE Consultants LLC. 20 December 2006. Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Protection
Plan. Bradbury Estates.
• PE Consultants LLC. 16 March 2005. Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Protection Plan.
Tumwater Highlands.
• PE Consultants LLC. 6 December 2005. Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Protection
Plan. Tumwater Commerce.
4.2 Field Investigation
General Gopher Mound Survey.
A visual inspection of mounds was performed to identify characteristics that would
distinguish a pocket gopher mound from that created by a mole or other small burrowing
mammal. Initially, the site was evaluated to gain an overall visual perspective to identify
and characterize potential gopher habitat and possible mound formation.
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 7
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
The gopher mound survey has been performed using the knowledge and experience gained
form over two years of research on the Mazama pocket gopher conducted during the
preparation of similar pocket gopher Habitat Protection Plans on adjacent properties.
Transects of 100-feet were walked across the property in the east-west direction.
Observations were made of the surrounding landscape and habitat characteristics.
4.3 Wildlife Reconnaissance Methodology
including the Mazama pocket
An Inventory of wildlife occurrence on the subject property, nclu I g p
gopher, was compiled through the field survey and through a review of background
information obtained from USFWS, WDFW, and the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Natural Heritage Program. Information concerning amphibian and reptile species
was based on Brown et al. (1995), Kozloff (1978), Leonard et al. (1993), Nussbaum et al.
(1983), and Olson et al. (1997). Bird species information was based on Acorn and Baron
(1997), Hunn (1982), Johnsgard (1990), and Kozloff(1978). Information concerning birds'
nests, nesting cavities, woodpecker feeding stations, animal tracks, scats, and other wildlife
indicators was based on Harrison (1979) and Murie (1974). Background information about
mammals was based on Forey and Fitzsimons (1987), King County (1987), and Whitaker
(1996).
5.0 RESULTS
Background Information
No State priority species have been identified by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife Property Habitats and Species (PHS) database as occurring on the subject
property.
Reconnaissance Results
No evidence of the Mazama pocket gopher has been identified on the subject property. Mole
mounds are identified on the site by their"conical" shape, compared to gopher mounds that
are "crescent shaped". A few mole mounds were found on the property. Since juvenile
pocket gophers migrate some distance in search of new territory, future wanderings onto
the site are possible.
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 8
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
5.2 Analysis of Gopher Habitat
No significant Mazama pocket gopher habitat occurs on the subject property important to
the continued survival of this species. No prairie habitat, preferred by the Mazama pocket
gopher, occurs on the subject property or in the immediate vicinity. The site consists of a
contiguous Scot's broom canopy, which is not considered Mazama pocket gopher habitat.
It is our experience that Mazama pocket gophers are not found in areas of dense Scot's
broom. Fragmented patches of marginal pocket gopher habitat occur throughout the area
in the form of pastureland and lawns. Some pocket gopher habitat is located at the Shelton
airport south of the subject property.
Ve_petation. The vegetation on the property consists of a contiguous canopy of Scot's
broom (Appendix A).
Soils. Soils on most of the site generally consist of a very gravelly sandy loam to a sandy
gravelly loam. Soils were excessively gravelly in some areas. The Mazama pocket gopher
prefers soft malleable soils conducive for burrowing activities.
5.4 General Wildlife Observations
Wildlife observations and potential occurrence on the subject property is summarized in
Table 3. No Federal or State listed species or their habitats were identified on the subject
property. Wildlife species observed on the subject property were common urban and
suburban adapted species typical of human altered landscapes. It is possible that a greater
number of species generally occur on the subject property than were observed during the
site reconnaissance as the result of seasonal habitation, migratory stopovers, nocturnal
habits, or a species allusive nature.
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 9
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Table 3. Observed Wildlife Occurrence on the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name I Status Habitat Observation Comments
BIRDS
Black Capped poecile atricapilla None Urban/ Yes Observed in trees
Chickadee Suburban
American Robin Turdus migratorius None Urban/ Yes Observed on site
Suburban
American Crow brac Corvu r nchos None Urban/Suburban Yes Observed on site
Dark-E ed Junco Junco emalis None I Suburban Yes Observed on site
MAMMALS
Mole Sca anus s . None I Lawn&Kass Yes Observed mounds
AMPHIBIANS
None
REPTILES
Western Garter Thamnophis None Variable Yes Observed on site
Snake ordinoides
EX:Extirpated SE:State Endangered None:No listing status
FE: Federal Endangered ST:State Threatened None*:This species has no state
FT: Federal Threatened SC:State Candidate listing status, but it is classified
FSC: Federal Species of Concern SS:State Sensitive as protected wildlife.
FC: Federal Candidate SM:State Monitor EX:Extirpated
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 10
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
7.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
This section describes the proposed project and possible impacts to the environment and
listed species. Short-term development impacts, direct construction impacts, long-term
operational impacts, and species impacts will be addressed in this section.
7.1 Description
The project site consists of an approximately 25-acre subdivision into 5-acre lots. The total
number of lots will consist of 5 lots.
7.2 Development Impacts
No impacts to the Mazama Pocket Gopher is expected to occur as part of this project
because no pocket gophers are likely to occur on the subject property based on the March
2007 site reconnaissance. No evidence of Mazama pocket gopher presence was observed
on the subject property during the study. It is conceivable that small, fragmented patches of
marginal pocket gopher habitat occur in areas of thin Scot's broom. No impacts to
significant pocket gopher habitat are expected to occur as a result of this project that would
jeopardize the continued survival of this species. No impacts to Federally-listed or Priority
species are likely because no evidence of these species occur on the subject property.
9.0 CONCLUSION
No evidence that the Mazama pocket gopher, other State priority species, or Federally-
listed species occur on the subject property. Fragmented patches of marginal pocket
gopher habitat occur throughout the area in the form of pastureland, cleared areas, and
lawns. No impacts to significant pocket gopher habitat are expected to occur as a result of
this project that would jeopardize the continued survival of this species.
20 March 2007 www.peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 11
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
10.0 REFERENCES
Baker, R. J., R. D. Bradley, and L. R. McAliley, Jr. 2003. Pocket gophers. Pp. 276-287 in
G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman (eds.). Wild Mammals of North
America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. (2nd ed.) Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 1,232 pp.
Baron, N. and J. Acorn. 1997. Birds of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Lone Pine Publishing,
Renton, Washington.
Brown, H. A., R. M. Storm, W. P. Leonard. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon,
Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.
Chase, J. D., W. E. Howard, and J. T. Roseberry. 1982. Pocket gophers. Pp. 239-255 in J.
A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 1147 pp.
Corkran C. C. and C. Thorns. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British
Columbia: A Field Identification Guide, Lone Pine Publishing; Renton, Washington.
Dalquest, W. W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Publications,
Museum of Natural History 2:1-444.
Forey, P. and C. Fitzsimons. 1987. An Instant Guide to Mammals, Random House
Publishing.
Harrison, H. H. 1979. A Field Guide to Western Birds'Nests of 520 Species Found
Breeding in the United States West of the Mississippi River, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of
Washington Press, 730 pp.
Hunn, E. S.. 1982. Birding in Seattle and King County, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle,
Washington.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, & Falcons of North America: Biology and Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Keith, J. O., R. M. Hansen, and A. L. Ward. 1959. Effect of 2,4-D on abundance and foods
of pocket gophers. Journal of Wildlife Management 23:137-145.
King County. 1987. Wildlife Habitat Profile, King County Open Space Program, Parks,
Planning, and Resources Department.
Kozloff, E.N. 1978. Plants and Animals of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Guide to the
Natural History of Western Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, University of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
20 March 2007 www.Peconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 12
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Larsen, E. M., and J. T. Morgan. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats: Oregon white Mazama pocket gopher. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia. 37pp.
Laycock, W. A., and B. Z. Richardson. 1975. Long-term effects of pocket gopher control on
vegetation and soils of a subalpine grassland. Journal of Range Management 28:458-
462.
Leonard, W. P. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society,
Seattle, Washington.
Murie, O. J. 1974. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Pacific Northwest, University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Olson, D. H., W. P. Leonard, and R. B. Bury. 1997. Sampling Amphibians in Lentic
Habitats: Methods and Approaches for the.Pacific Northwest, Society for Northwestern
Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, Washington.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae)
density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82
Steinberg, E. K. 1995. A study of genetic differentiation and variation in the Mazama
pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama) with emphasis on Fort Lewis populations. Final
Report Submitted to Fort Lewis and The Nature Conservancy. Department of Zoology,
University of Washington, Seattle. 51 pp.
Steinberg, E. K. 1996a. Population studies and management of the threatened Mazma
pocket gopher: a regional perspective. Final Report, Contract#WAFO-092795, The
Nature Conservancy. 50 pp.
Steinberg, E. K. 1996b. Ecology, phylogeography, and conservation of the Mazama pocket
gopher: summary of 1996 research results. Investigators Annual Report to the National
Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington. 2 pp.
Steinberg, E. K. 1999. Diversification of genes, populations, and species: evolutionary
genetics of real and virtual pocket gophers (Thomomys). Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Washington, Seattle. 157 pp.
Steinberg, E. and D. Heller. 1997. Using DNA and rocks to interpret the taxonomy and
patchy distribution of pocket gophers in western Washington prairies. Pp. 43-51 in Dunn
and Ewing (1997).
Verts, B. J. and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California. 668 pp.
Verts, B. J. and L. N. Carraway. 2000. Thomomys mazama. Mammalian Species 641:1-7.
20 March 2007 www.aeconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 13
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and
Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Species of Concern: State
Candidate Species, Olympia, Washington.
Whitaker, J. O. 1996. National Audubon SocietyField.Guide to North American Mammals,
,
Random House Publishing, New York.
Witmer, G. W. and M. J. Pipas. 1999. Field evaluation of radiotransmitters for northern
pocket gophers. Prairie Naturalist 31:9-20.
Witmer, G. W., R. D. Sayler, and M. J. Pipas. 1996. Biology and habitat use of the
Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama) in the Puget Sound area, Washington.
Northwest Science 70:93-98.
20 March 2007 www.aeconsultants.net PE Consultants LLC
Page 14
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
20 March 07 PE Consultants LLC
Appendix
Dayton Airport Road Business Park Mazama Pocket Gopher Reconnaissance
Off-site near Airport •,, , �;'�"
s
.a
S
s
Y.b :\3_ _° S.
Typical Fresh Gopher Mound Off-site photo Typical Mole mound
1
. r
Contiguous Canopy of Scot's Broom
20 March 07 PE Consultants LLC
Appendix
AirportDayton her Reconnaissance
..
p.
y
Contiguous Canopy of S.cot's Broom
1 March 07 PE Consultants LLC
Appendix