Loading...
Armor Storage Yelm_Gopher Report GROVE ROAD PROJECT CITY OF YELM, WASHINGTON MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER SCREENING REPORT Prepared By: Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist and Principal 12 September 2022 360-790-1559 www.envirovector.com 12 September 2022 Glenn Wells Reference: Grove Road Subject: Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening to Satisfy the City of Yelm Permitting Requirements Dear Mr. Wells: At your request, this report has been prepared 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# Address Parcel Number Map Coordinates Area 1 10403 GROVE RD SE 64303400300 Section 29 Township 17 Range 2E 5.77 acres 1 Parcel Total Size 5.77 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 under 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. 1.2 Gopher Screening Dates Mazama pocket gopher screenings occurred on 29 June 2022, 29 July 2022, and 29 August 2022. EnviroVector 1441 West Bay Drive, Suite 301 Olympia, WA 98502 Phone: (360) 790-1559 Email: curtis@envirovector.com www.envirovector.com Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 3 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 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 for sites that contain “more preferred” gopher indicator soils (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 “more preferred” gopher soils. • Data was recorded on datasheets and provided in Appendix F. • 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 two (2) surveyors (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 Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 4 of 28 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 two to three (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. Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 5 of 28 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 Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 6 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Thurston County Geodatabase Soils Three (3) gopher indicator soil types have been identified on the subject property by the Thurston County Geodata Center database (Appendix B & C; Table 2). Two (2) “more preferred” gopher indicator soils are mapped on the majority of the subject property. One (1) “less preferred” gopher indicator soil is mapped on western portion of the property. Table 2. Summary of Soil Soil Unit Gopher Indicator Soils Preference Comments McKenna Gravelly silt loam, 0 to 5% slopes Yes Less preferred Mapped on along the entire western boarder Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 -3% slopes Yes More preferred Mapped on the eastern portion of the subject property Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3-15% slopes Yes More preferred Mapped on southwestern corner of 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 twenty-one (1,120) feet east of the subject property across Grove Road. 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 Mazama pocket gopher screenings. 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. Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 7 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Table 3. Summary of Results Site Visit Date of Visit Gopher Occurrence Observed Comments 1st 29 June 2022 No No mounds characteristic of that created by the Mazama pocket gopher have been identified on the subject property 2nd 29 July 2022 No 3rd 29 August 2022 No 4.2 Mazama Pocket Gopher Habitat Evaluation Although, “more preferred” gopher indicator soils are mapped on the majority of the subject property, no gopher occupancy was identified. Site vegetation primarily consists of grasslands dominated by non- native European grasses and associated non-native forbs (Appendix A, Photos 1-26). Some native grass and forb species also occur on the site (Appendix A, Photos 10 & 11). The easternmost property boundary is lined by non-native black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) trees (Appendix A, Photos 15 & 16). Wetland and stream habitat occurs on the western portion of the subject property (Appendix A, Photos 13 & 14). The wetland and stream are located where “less preferred” gopher indicator soils are mapped. 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) Site Inspection Protocol and Procedures: Mazama Pocket Gopher. The subject property was evaluated for the Mazama pocket gopher. The latest version of USFWS (2018) Site Inspection Protocol and Procedures: Mazama Pocket Gopher was used as the gopher screening protocol. The site evaluation was performed within the prescribed survey window (June 1 through October 31). No mound formations exhibiting characteristics created by the Mazama pocket gopher have been identified on the subject property. The western portion of the property is mapped as “less preferred” gopher indicator soils which contains a wetland and stream. Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 8 of 28 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 Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 9 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol FIGURES Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 10 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Figure 1. Vicinity Map Subject Property Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 11 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Figure 2. Transect Screening lines Transect lines Subject Property Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 12 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX A Photo Documentation Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 13 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 1st Gopher Screening (29 June 2022) Photo 1. Gate entrance at Grove Road on to subject property Photo 2. Powerlines cross SE corner of subject property Photo 3. European grasses cover subject property Photo 4. European grasses cover subject property Photo 5. European grasses cover subject property Photo 6. Mole mound, central, vertical tunnel Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 14 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Photo 7. Overlook of wetland on western boarder of the property Photo 8. Smooth Hawksbeard (Crepis capillaris) Introduced Photo 9. Yellow salsify (Tragopogon dubius) Introduced Photo 10. Miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliate) Native Photo 11. Oatgrass (Danthonia californica) Native Photo 12. Red Sorel (Rumex acetosella) Introduced Photo 13. Edge of wetland Photo 14. Edge of wetland Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 15 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 2nd Gopher Screening (29 July 2022) Photo 15. European grassland Photo 16. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) trees (Introduced) Photo 17. Hard gravely surface under grass Photo 18. Grassland Photo 19. SE corner of subject property Photo 20. SE portion of the subject property Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 16 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol 3rd Gopher screening (29 August 2022) Photo 21. Grove road on eastern boarder of the subject property Photo 22. Area of gate entrance Photo 23. Grassland on gravelly soils Photo 24. Grove road east of Subject Property Photo 25. Mole Mound, central, vertical tunnel Photo 26. Conical shaped mole mound, central, vertical tunnel Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 17 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX B Thurston County Geodatabase Soils Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 18 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Subject Property Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 19 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX C Thurston County Geodatabase Gopher Indicator Soils Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 20 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Subject Property More Preferred Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 21 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX D Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 22 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Mazama pocket gopher ( MPG) mapped occurrence Subject property Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland Mapped in Township: -Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) -Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 23 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol APPENDIX E USFWS Site Inspection Protocol and Procedures: Mazama Pocket Gopher Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 24 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 25 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 26 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 27 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Grove Road 12 September 2022 Page 28 of 28 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol Appendix F Datasheets Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Field Form Site Visit Date: 29 June 2022 1st Site visit Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #:64303400300 Project #: ________________________________________________ Site/Landowner: Grove Road 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: one out of two 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: No Fresh mounds old mounds Tall grass land 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 2 16 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: Notes - Describe, and show on parcel map/aerial if applicable: See Figures in Report 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: 29 July 2022, 2nd Site Visit First Site Visit 29 June 2022 Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #:64303400300 Project #: ________________________________________________ Site/Landowner: Grove Road 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: one out of two 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: No Fresh mounds old mounds Tall grass land 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 10 30 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: Notes - Describe, and show on parcel map/aerial if applicable: See report 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: 29 August 2022 3rd Site Visit Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #:64303400300 Project #: ________________________________________________ Site/Landowner: Grove Road 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: one out of two 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: No Fresh mounds old mounds Tall grass land 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 4 <22 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: Notes - Describe, and show on parcel map/aerial if applicable: See report figures Team reviewed and agreed to data recorded on form? (CIRCLE, and EXPLAIN if “No”) Yes No Reviewed by initials: CW VC _____ _____ Notes: