The URL can be used to link to this page

RPT - Duetscher Gopher Report (13 October 2022)Final 2 BERRY VALLEY ROAD CITY OF YELM, WASHINGTON MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER SCREENING REPORT Prepared By: Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist and Principal 13 October 2022 360-790-1559 www.envirovector.com 13 October 2022 Chris Carlson Planning Manager Hatton Godat Pantier 3910 Martin Way E, Ste B Olympia, WA 98506 Reference: 15152 Berry Valley Rd SE Subject: Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Dear Mr. Pantier: At your request, EnviroVector has prepared this report to satisfy the City of Yelm requirements for Mazama pocket gopher screenings on the subject property (Table 1; Figure 1). Table 1. Parcels Comprising Subject Property No# Property Address Parcel Number Map Coordinates Area (Acres) 1 15152 Berry Valley Rd SE (Part of the Parcel) 21724131001 Section 24 Township 17N Range 1 E 1.60 2 --- 21724130800 1.12 2 Parcels Total Size acres The permitting jurisdiction is the City of Yelm. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The Mazama pocket gopher is a Federally Threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act and the City of Yelm Code. Mazama pocket gopher screenings were performed by a qualified biologist certified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Appendix E). A Mazama pocket gopher screening is necessary to comply with the City of Yelm Code and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). EnviroVector 1441 West Bay Drive, Suite 301 Olympia, WA 98502 Phone: (360) 790-1559 Email: curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 3 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 1.2 Gopher Screening Dates Mazama pocket gopher screenings occurred on 28 July 2022, 29 August 2022, and 13 October 2022. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Mazama pocket gopher screenings were performed per City of Yelm recommendations for three (3) site visits in compliance with the USFWS (2018) Site Inspection Protocol and Procedures: Mazama Pocket Gopher (Appendix E). The screenings were preformed within the USFWS prescribed survey window (June 1st through October 31st) In compliance with USFWS (2018) Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Checklist: • The study has occurred during the prescribed work window of June 1 to October 31. • A qualified biologist performed the screenings that has been trained and certified by the USFWS. • The entire property was evaluated, not just the project footprint, other than densely forested areas. • The site was visited three (3) times at least thirty (30) days apart for properties containing preferred gopher soils. • Data was recorded on datasheets and provided in Appendix E. • The areas of the property covered under the screening survey is illustrated in Figure 2. • The ground was easily visible. The site evaluation was performed utilizing USFWS recommended protocol for one (1) surveyor (Insert 1). The search pattern had been performed along five (5) meter transects, including brushy and treed areas, examined for any evidence of mounding activity created by the Mazama pocket gopher. Insert 1. Transect Illustrations Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 4 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol The detailed field methodology is in compliance with the USFWS (2018) Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Checklist: 1. The survey crew orients themselves with the layout of the property using aerial maps and strategizes their route for walking through the property. 2. Start GPS to record survey route. 3. Walk the survey transects methodically, slowly walking a straight line and scanning an area approximately 2-3 meters to the left and right as you walk, looking for mounds. Transects should be no more than five (5) meters apart when conducted by a single individual. 4. If the survey is performed by a team, walk together in parallel lines approximately 5 meters apart while you are scanning left to right for mounds. 5. At each mound found, stop and identify it as a MPG or mole mound. If it is a MPG mound, identify it as a singular mound or a group (3 mounds or more) on a data sheet to be submitted to the City 6. Record all positive MPG mounds, likely MPG mounds, and MPG mound groups in a GPS unit that provides a date, time, georeferenced point, and other required information in GPS data instruction for each MPG mound. 7. Photograph all MPG mounds or MPG mound groups. At a minimum, photograph MPG mounds or MPG mound groups representative of MPG detections on site. 8. Photos of mounds should include one that has identifiable landscape features for reference. In order to accurately depict the presence of gopher activity on a specific property, the following series of photos should be submitted to the City: a. At least one up-close photo to depict mound characteristics b. At least one photo depicting groups of mounds as a whole (when groups are encountered). c. At least one photo depicting gopher mounds with recognizable landscape features in the background, at each location where mounds are detected on a property d. Photos can be taken with the GPS unit or a separate, camera, preferably a camera with locational features (latitude, longitude) e. Photo point description or noteworthy landscape or other features to aid in relocation. Additional photos to be considered f. The approximate building footprint location from at least two (2) cardinal directions. g. Landscape photos to depict habitat type and in some cases to indicate why not all portions of a property require gopher screening. 9. Describe and/or quantify what portion and proportion of the property was screened, and record your survey route and any MPG mounds found on either an aerial or parcel map. 10. If MPG mounds are observed on a site, that day’s survey effort should continue until the entire site is screened and all mounds present identified, but additional site visits are not required. 11. In order for the City to accurately review Critical Area Reports field notes shall be incorporated into the gopher screening report. Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 5 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Soils known to be associated with the Mazama pocket gopher are listed in Insert 2. Insert 2. Mazama pocket gopher soils Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 6 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Thurston County Geodatabase Soils Two (2) gopher indicator soil types have been identified on the subject property by the Thurston County Geodata Center database (Appendix B & C; Table 2). One (1) “More preferred” gopher indicator soil has been mapped on the northern and southern portions of the subject property. One (1) “less preferred” gopher indicator soil has been mapped on the central portion of the subject property. Table 2. Summary of Soil Soil Unit Gopher Indicator Soil Preference Comments Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0-3% slopes Yes Less Preferred Mapped on the central portion of the subject property Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0-3% slopes Yes More Preferred Mapped on the northern and southern portions of the subject property 3.2 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database No Mazama pocket gophers have been mapped on the subject property by the WDFW Priority Habitat Species (PHS) database (Appendix D). However, the Mazama pocket gopher has been mapped offsite one thousand one hundred thirty-seven (1,137) feet north of the subject property across roads, parking lots, and buildings. 4.0 FIELD RESULTS 4.1 Mazama Pocket Gopher Site Evaluation No mound formations exhibiting characteristics created by the Mazama pocket gopher have been identified on the subject property during the gopher screenings. Only a few mole mounds were identified on the subject property (Appendix A, Photo 22). Mounds created by the Mazama pocket gopher: 1) are crescent or oddly shaped, 2) contain a plugged tunnel opening that extends diagonally underground from the mound edge, 3) exhibit a fine texture, and are 4) typically in a scattered distribution. Mole mounds have centrally-located tunnel entrances that extend vertically below the surface, blocky texture, an in-line distribution pattern, and have a conical shape. Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 7 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Table 3. Summary of Results Site Visit Date of Visit Gopher Occurrence Observed Comments 1st 28 July 2022 No No mound formations exhibiting characteristics created by the Mazama pocket gopher have been identified on the subject property during the gopher screenings. 2nd 29 August 2022 No 3rd 13 October 2022 No 4.2 Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Evaluation Although gopher indicator soils are mapped over the subject property, including a “More Preferred” gopher indicator soil, the entire southern parcel had been graded out around 2014 when the neighboring Day Care was constructed, based on historical aerial photographs from Google Earth. Soils on the southern parcel now consist of compressed rocks and gravel (Appendix A, Photos 1-49). Disturbance features also can be seen on the northern parcel from aerial photographs. Due to soil disturbance and sparce vegetation dominated by non-native, invasive weeds, negligible gopher habitat occurs on the subject property (Appendix A, Photos 1-49). Vegetation on the subject property is dominated by sparce European grasses and Scotch broom (Appendix A, Photos 1-49). Ornamental trees and hedges occur on the borders of the subject property (Appendix A, Photo 20). Sparce vegetation on compressed rock is likely to discourage future occupancy of the Mazama pocket gopher. 5.0 CONCLUSION This Mazama pocket gopher summary report was prepared to satisfy the City of Yelm Mazama pocket gopher screening requirements and to comply with the USFWS (2018) Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Checklist. The on-site gopher screenings were performed on 28 July 2022, 29 August 2022, and 13 October 2022. No mounds exhibiting characteristics associated with the Mazama pocket gopher were identified on the subject property. Although gopher indicator soils are mapped on the entire subject property, soils are severely disturbed and consist of compressed rock and gravel, providing negligible habitat for the Mazama pocket gopher. Sparce vegetation on compressed rock is likely to discourage future occupancy of the Mazama pocket gopher. Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 8 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol If you have any questions or require further services, you can contact me at (360) 790-1559. Sincerely, Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist and Principal EnviroVector Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 9 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol FIGURES Yelm Hwy SEHwy 510Killion Rd SEYelm Hwy SESubjectPropertyTahoma Blvd SE360-790-1559curtis@envirovector.comwww.envirovector.comFigure 11600'0Scale: 1" = 1600'Vicinity Map23 Sept 2022DeutscherPropertyCity of Yelm © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS Berry Valley Rd SETahoma Blvd SESubject Property 100'0 Scale: 1" = 100' 23 Sept 2022 Figure 2 360-790-1559 curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Roads & Parking (Paved Surface) Gopher Survey Deutscher Property Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 10 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX A Photo Documentation Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 11 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 1st Gopher Screening (28 July 2022) Photo 7. Southwestern corner on Tahoma BLVD road Photo 8. Sparse vegetation on compressed rock Photo 9. Surface consists of rocks and cobbles Photo 10. Paved road servicing day care center building Photo 11. Exposed coubly surface throughout subject property Photo 12. Sparse vegetation on compressed rock Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 12 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 2nd Gopher Screening (29 August 2022) Photo 13. Sparce vegitation over compressed rock Photo 14. Rabits foot clover (Trifolium arvense) Photo 15. Central portion of property, sparce vegetation, rock Photo 16. Loose rocks on the surface Photo 17. Sparsely vegetated on compressed rock and gravel Photo 18. Grass patch growing under rocky,gravelly surface Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 13 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Photo 19. Internal paved road Photo 20. Ornamental trees and hedges on property edges Photo 21. Exposed compressed rock Photo 22. Mole mound, conical shape, central, vertical tunnel Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 14 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 3rd Screening (13 October 2022) Photo 23. Childcare center and parking lot on eastern border Photo 24. Paved road leading to childcare center Photo 25. Grass patch with rocky gravelly surface Photo 26. Ornamental trees planted along eastern border Photo 27. Gravelly sandy soils in some areas Photo 28. Cobble and rocky ground throughout the property Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 15 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Photo 29. Sparsely vegetated area of the southeastern corner Photo 30. Paved internal road connecting to Tahoma BLVD road Photo 40. Large cobbles and Douglas fir saplings Photo 41. Right of way on northern border of the subject property Photo 42. Car junk yard on eastern border of parcel 21724130800 Photo 43. Continued right away on northeastern property border Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 16 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Photo 44. Northeastern corner of the subject property Photo 45. Central portion of parcel 21724130800 Photo 46. Fence dividing eastern border with restaurant parking lot Photo 47 Cobbles southwestern portion of the property Photo 48. Grass clumps from recent mowing Photo 49. Area of young conifers Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 17 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX B Thurston County Geodatabase Soils Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 18 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Subject Property Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15% slopes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 19 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX C Thurston County Geodatabase Gopher Indicator Soils Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 20 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Subject Property Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 21 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX D Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 22 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Subject property Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland Mazama pocket gopher ( MPG) mapped occurrence Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Mazama pocket gopher ( MPG) mapped occurrence Mapped in Township: Little Brown Bat(Myotis lucifugus) Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 23 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX E USFWS Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Checklist Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 24 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 25 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 26 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 27 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 28 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Chris Carlson Berry Valley Road 13 October 2022 Page 29 of 29 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Appendix F Datasheets Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Field Form Site Visit Date: 16 August 2021 1st site visit, date(s) of previous visits:_______ Site Information Parcel #: 21724131001 & 21724130800 Site/Landowner: Allen & Marijke Deutscher Mapped soil types [close-up soil map with site outlined is attached Yes More preferred: Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Less preferred: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Within 600’ of known MPG occurrence? Yes (distance in ft) _Yes____ No____ [Copy that includes date of info. retrieval is attached _Yes__] How were the data collected? (circle the method for each) Transect: Trimble GPS Aerial Mounds: Trimble GPS Aerial What portion of MPG mounds observed were recorded in GPS or drawn on map? None All Most Some N/A Notes: No gopher mounds were observed during our site visit Field team names: (Note who filled out form and others conducting screening) Caylah Lunning & Jessica Whitehead & Curtis Wambach Others onsite (name/affiliation) N/a Site visit # (CIRCLE all that apply) Request mowing to enable screening of all or a portion of the site? 1st 2nd 3rd Unable to screen Yes No N/A Date last mowed:___________ Notes: Do onsite conditions throughout the entire parcel preclude the need for MPG surveys? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) Yes No Dense woody cover (trees/shrubs) that appears to preclude any MPG use Impervious Compacted Graveled Flooded Slope Other_____________ Notes: Describe ground visibility for mound detection: (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) Poor Fair Good Notes: Quantify or describe amount of MPG mounds and approx. # of mounds or groups of mounds (specify whether count is individual mounds or groups) MPG Mounds Indeterminate Mole Mounds 0 0 0 No MPG mounds observed (CIRCLE ) Does woody vegetation onsite match aerial photo? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) Yes No – describe differences and show on parcel map/aerial: What portion of the property was screened? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) All Part - describe and show on parcel map/aerial: Notes Team reviewed and agreed to data recorded on form? (CIRCLE, and EXPLAIN if “No”) Yes No Reviewed by: CL JW CW Notes: Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Field Form Site Visit Date: 28 July 2022 Previous Visit: 16 August 2021 Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #:21724131001 & 21724130800 Project #: Berry Valley Site/Landowner: Allen & Marijke Deutscher How were the data collected? (circle the method for each) Transect: Trimble Garmin Aerial Mounds Trimble Garmin Aerial Notes: ___________________________________________________ Field Team Personnel: (Indicate all staff present, CIRCLE who filled out form) Name: Curtis Wambach Name: Viri Cortez Name: Others onsite (name/affiliation) Site visit # (CIRCLE all that apply) 1st 2nd 3rd Unable to screen Notes: Two out of three screening visits Do onsite conditions preclude the need for further visits? Yes No Dense woody cover that encompasses the entire site (trees/shrubs) that appears to preclude any potential MPG use. Impervious Compacted Graveled Flooded Other ______________ Notes: Describe visibility for mound detection: Poor Fair Good Notes: Request mowing? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE WHERE MOWING IS NEEDED and SHOW ON AERIAL PHOTO Yes No N/A Notes: Mounds observed over the whole site are characteristic of: Quantify or describe amount of each type and approx. # of mounds Group = 3 mounds or more MPG Mounds Likely MPG Mounds Indeterminate Likely Mole Mounds Mole Mounds 0 0 0 0 0 No MPG mounds (circle) MPG mounds in GPS? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) If MPG mounds present, entered in GPS? Yes No N/A Does woody vegetation onsite match aerial photo? Yes No - describe differences and show on parcel map/aerial: What portion(s) of the property was screened? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) All Part - describe and show on parcel map/aerial: Notes - Describe and show on parcel map/aerial if applicable: See Project Figures Team reviewed and agreed to data recorded on form? (CIRCLE, and EXPLAIN if “No”) Yes No Reviewed by initials: CW VC _____ _____ Notes: Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Field Form Site Visit Date: 13 October 2022 Previous Visits: 28 July 2022, 29 August 2022 Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #: 21724131001 & 21724130800 Project #: Berry Valley Site/Landowner: Allen & Marijke Deutscher How were the data collected? (circle the method for each) Transect: Trimble Garmin Aerial Mounds Trimble Garmin Aerial Notes: ___________________________________________________ Field Team Personnel: (Indicate all staff present, CIRCLE who filled out form) Name: Curtis Wambach Name: Viri Cortez Name: Others onsite (name/affiliation) Site visit # (CIRCLE all that apply) 1st 2nd 3rd Unable to screen Notes: Three out of three screening visits Do onsite conditions preclude the need for further visits? Yes No Dense woody cover that encompasses the entire site (trees/shrubs) that appears to preclude any potential MPG use. Impervious Compacted Graveled Flooded Other ______________ Notes: Describe visibility for mound detection: Poor Fair Good Notes: Request mowing? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE WHERE MOWING IS NEEDED and SHOW ON AERIAL PHOTO Yes No N/A Notes: Mounds observed over the whole site are characteristic of: Quantify or describe amount of each type and approx. # of mounds Group = 3 mounds or more MPG Mounds Likely MPG Mounds Indeterminate Likely Mole Mounds Mole Mounds 0 0 0 0 3 No MPG mounds (circle) MPG mounds in GPS? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) If MPG mounds present, entered in GPS? None All Most Some Notes: Yes No N/A Does woody vegetation onsite match aerial photo? Yes No ‐ describe differences and show on parcel map/aerial: What portion(s) of the property was screened? (CIRCLE and DESCRIBE) All Part ‐ describe and show on parcel map/aerial: Majority of the property was gravelly sandy soils with large cobbles. Notes ‐ Describe, and show on parcel map/aerial if applicable: Team reviewed and agreed to data recorded on form? (CIRCLE, and EXPLAIN if “No”) Yes No Reviewed by initials: CW VC _____ _____ Notes: