Loading...
9904 Prairie Gopher Survey1047 Summit Avenue · Raymond, Washington 98577 · (360) 562-5763 Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. November 2, 2022 City of Yelm Community Development Attn: Sara Williams, Associate Planner 106 2nd St SE Yelm, WA 98597 Re: Peterson Brothers’s LLC. Rhoton-Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon and ESA No Effect Letter, Thurston County Parcels #22719240203 and 22719240201. Located off Rhoton NW Road, Yelm, Washington, Section 19 Township 17 Range 02 E, and in accordance with the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance Title 24.03 (Definitions), Interim Prairie Ordinance 14542, WDFW Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitats Oregon White Oak Woodlands and WDFW Habitat Management Recommendations for the Mazama Pocket Gophers, following the 2018 USFWS Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol, Thurston County’s 2022 survey protocol, and the City of Yelm Code; Title 14 environmental. Dear Ms. William, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. (KES) has completed a Prairie Habitat Area Recon on the above referenced parcel is located off Rhoton Road NW, Yelm, Thurston County, Washington. Fieldwork was conducted on September 27, 2022 and October 28, 2022. Project Description and Findings The parcels reviewed are a total of approximately 3.24 acres are located in the eastern portion of the in the City of Yelm. The parcels are currently undeveloped. The parcel is surrounded by single-family residence to the west and south, Rhoton Road NW to the east, a concrete plant to the north and an RV/boat storage facility to the south. The parcel was reviewed for prairie habitat and Mazama Pocket Gophers for the construction of industrial buildings. When the parcel is developed with industrial buildings there will be not any “Take” of any state or federally listed species. There will be “No Effect” on prairie habitat, Mazama Pocket Gophers or any other critical areas or buffer impacted. KES reviewed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority Habitat Species (PHS) lists and maps and no listed species were found to occur onsite. Adjacent areas were also looked at for any critical areas or listed species, and none were found to occur. Peterson Brothers LLC. Rhoton Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. No Effect Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon November 2, 2022 2 The project area was required to be reviewed due to the presence of prairie soils (See Table below). KES reviewed the Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils (NRCS) maps and verified that prairie soils did not exist in the project area. Soil Types Prairie Soil Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Yes Mapped prairie soils do not necessarily mean that the area is a prairie –vegetation, landuse, development, and historical land practices may have changed the soil conditions. Current site conditions may or may not accurately reflect mapped soils. Conversely, prairies may be found in areas where the soils are not mapped as prairie soils. Federal ESA Species, Habitats and No Effect There are no Federal ESA species or habitats that exist within the parcel. There will be “No Effect” and/or “No Take” from the proposed project. According to the 1990 aerial the parcels were developed with a single-family residence. KES has performed two site visits as required. KES determined that parcel does not meet the definition of prairie from USFWS. There have been Mazama Pocket Gophers found in the area. Vegetation on the parcel consists of: Common Name Sc. Name Status Canadian thistle Cirsium arvense FACU common dandelion Taraxacum officinale FACU cottonwood Populus balsamifera FAC cut-leaf blackberry Rubus laciniatus FACU hairy cat's ear Hypochaeris radicata FACU Himalayan blackberry Rubus armenicus FACU Juniper haircap moss- dense Polytrichum juniperinum FACU oat grass Avena sativa NI orchard grass Dactylis glomerata FACU plantain Plantago lanceolata FAC Reeds canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius FACu Based on physical, environmental, and biological conditions on and near the project site, KES has determined that no further site visits are necessary and that this project, will not result in take of the federally listed Mazama pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama ssp.). There were no Mazama Pocket Gopher mounds, or any other prairie species observed. No oaks were found to occur onsite. Peterson Brothers LLC. Rhoton Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. No Effect Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon November 2, 2022 3 It is KES’s professional opinion that the parcels located off Rhoton, near Yelm, has no endangered prairie species, and when the parcel is developed with industrial buildings there will not be any impact to any prairie species or any other critical areas and should be permitted. Looking east across the parcels. Looking south across the parcels. Looking west across the parcels. Looking south across the parcels. Looking northwest across parcels. Looking southwest across parcels. Peterson Brothers LLC. Rhoton Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. No Effect Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon November 2, 2022 4 Professional Standard of Care: Please be advised that KES personnel has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the performance of this environmental evaluation. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessments together with wetland delineations, mitigation plans, classifications, ratings, streamtyping, riparian planting plans, ordinary high-water line determinations, fish removal and other critical area analysis should be reviewed and approved by the agency with permitting authority and potentially other agencies with regulatory authority prior to extensive site design or development. No warranties are expressed or implied by this assessment until approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agency. The findings expressed in this report are based on field investigations, best available data, best available science, and our professional judgement. The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices. The services performed were consistent with our agreement with our client. 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. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate this project and please contact us if you have any questions regarding this information, our findings, conclusions, or recommendations at (360) 562-5763. Sincerely, Key McMurry Owner/Professional Stream and Wildlife Biologist, SPWS The information included on this map has been compiled by Thurston County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Additional elements may be present in reality that are not represented on the map. Ortho-photos and other data may not align. The boundaries depicted by these datasets are approximate. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. ALL DATA IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND ‘WITH ALL FAULTS’. Thurston County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. In no event shall Thurston County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits, real or anticipated, resulting from the use, misuse or reliance of the information contained on this map. If any portion of this map or disclaimer is missing or altered, Thurston County removes itself from all responsibility from the map and the data contained within. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained in this map. Authorized for 3rd Party reproduction for personal use only. Soils 2,684Scale 1: 0 11/5/2022 Note: Legend 100 200 Feet Published: Map Created Using GeoData Public Website Hydric Soils Soils (USDA) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 30 to 50% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 30 to 50% slopes Baumgard loam, 10 to 40% slopes Baumgard loam, 40 to 65% slopes Baumgard-Pheeney Comples, 40 to 65% slopes Baumgard-Pheeney complex, 10 to 40% slopes Baumgard-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 65% slopes Bellingham silty clay loam Boisfort silt loam, 20 to 40% slopes Boisfort silt loam, 5 to 20% slopes Bunker gravelly silt loam, 30 to 65% slopes Bunker gravelly silt loam, 5 to 30% slopes Bunker-Boisfort complex, 40 to 65% slopes Cagey loamy sand Cathcart gravelly loam, 15 to 35% slopes 2022©Thurston County Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #: _________________________________________________ Project #: ________________________________________________ Site/Landowner: __________________________________________ 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: Name: Name: Others onsite (name/affiliation) Site visit # (CIRCLE all that apply) 1st 2nd Unable to screen Notes: 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: 2022 Thurston County Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Field Form Site Visit Date: ______________ September 27, 2022 22719240203 & 22719240201 983.01 Peterson Brothers, LLC. Key McMurry, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. 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 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: Team reviewed and agreed to data recorded on form? (CIRCLE, and EXPLAIN if “No”) Yes No Reviewed by initials: _____ _____ _____ _____ Notes: MPG Mounds Likely MPG Mounds Indeterminate Likely Mole Mounds Mole Mounds KM 0 0 0 0 0 Parcel Number:CAO prairie criteria met?Yes or No Property Owner:Mima mounds present? Yes or No Surveyor(s):Oaks (Quercus garryana ) present? Yes or No Date: Mature: Composition of Vegetation:Sapling: Seedling: X Target species Class* (circle) Apocynum androsaemifolium 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lupinus albicaulis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Balsamorhiza deltoidea Present / Absent Lupinus lepidus var. lepidus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Bistorta bistortoides Present / Absent Lupinus polyphyllus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Brodiaea coronaria 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Micranthes integrifolia (Saxifraga i.)Present / Absent Camassia leichtlinii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Micranthes oregana (Saxifraga o.)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Camassia quamash Present / Absent Microseris laciniata Present / Absent Carex densa Present / Absent Perideridia gairdneri 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Carex feta 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Plagiobothrys figuratus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Carex inops ssp. inops 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Plectritis congesta Present / Absent Carex tumulicola 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Polemonium carneum Present / Absent Carex unilateralis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Potentilla gracillis Present / Absent Castilleja hispida 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Ranunculus alismifolius 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Castilleja levisecta Present / Absent Ranunculus occidentalis Present / Absent Danthonia californica 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Ranunculus orthorhynchus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Delphinium menziesii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Sericocarpus rigidus Present / Absent Delphinium nuttallii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Sidalcea malviflora var. virgata Present / Absent Deschampsia cespitosa 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Silene scouleri Present / Absent Deschampsia danthonioides 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Sisyrinchium idahoense 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Dodecatheon hendersonii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Solidago missouriensis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Downingia yina 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Solidago simplex (S. spathulata)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Erigeron speciosus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Toxicoscordion venenosum var. venenosum (Zigadenus venenosus)1 2 3 4 5 N/A 2022 Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Prairie Screening Data Sheet 227192240203 & 22719240201 Peterson Brothers, LLC. Key McMurry, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. September 27, 2022 Eriophyllum lanatum Cover: ___ m2 N/A Trifolium willdenowii (T. tridentatum)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Eryngium petiolatum Present / Absent Triteleia grandiflora 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Festuca roemeri (F. idahoensis)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Triteleia hyacinthina 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Fragaria virginiana Cover: ___ m2 N/A Veratrum californicum 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Fritillaria affinis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Veratrum viride 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Hieracium scouleri 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Viola adunca 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Hosackia pinnata (Lotus pinnatus)Present / Absent Viola praemorsa var. nuttallii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Koeleria macrantha (K. cristata)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Leptosiphon bicolor (Linanthus b.)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lomatium bradshawii Present / Absent Lomatium nudicaule 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lomatium triternatum 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lomatium utriculatum Present / Absent Species Notes 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 Non-CAO vegetation notes: *Species Count Class: 1 = < 25 2 = 25 -49 3 = 50 -74 4 = 75 -100 5 = >100 Prairie Plant Manual: https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/ planning/planningdocuments/cao- prairie-plant-manual-4.23.2018.pdf Cirsium arvense Taraxacum officinale Populus balsamifera Rubus laciniatus Hypochaeris radicata Rubus armenicus Polytrichum juniperinum Avena sativa Dactylis glomerata Plantago lanceolata Phalaris arundinacea Cytisus scoparius September 27, 2022 Site Name and Parcel # Parcel #: _________________________________________________ Project #: ________________________________________________ Site/Landowner: __________________________________________ 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: Name: Name: Others onsite (name/affiliation) Site visit # (CIRCLE all that apply) 1st 2nd Unable to screen Notes: 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: 2022 Thurston County Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Field Form Site Visit Date: ________October 28, 2022______ 22719240203 & 22719240201 983.01 Peterson Brothers, LLC. Key McMurry, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. 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 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: Team reviewed and agreed to data recorded on form? (CIRCLE, and EXPLAIN if “No”) Yes No Reviewed by initials: _____ _____ _____ _____ Notes: MPG Mounds Likely MPG Mounds Indeterminate Likely Mole Mounds Mole Mounds KM 0 0 0 0 0 Parcel Number:CAO prairie criteria met?Yes or No Property Owner:Mima mounds present? Yes or No Surveyor(s):Oaks (Quercus garryana ) present? Yes or No Date: Mature: Composition of Vegetation:Sapling: Seedling: X Target species Class* (circle) Apocynum androsaemifolium 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lupinus albicaulis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Balsamorhiza deltoidea Present / Absent Lupinus lepidus var. lepidus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Bistorta bistortoides Present / Absent Lupinus polyphyllus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Brodiaea coronaria 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Micranthes integrifolia (Saxifraga i.)Present / Absent Camassia leichtlinii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Micranthes oregana (Saxifraga o.)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Camassia quamash Present / Absent Microseris laciniata Present / Absent Carex densa Present / Absent Perideridia gairdneri 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Carex feta 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Plagiobothrys figuratus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Carex inops ssp. inops 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Plectritis congesta Present / Absent Carex tumulicola 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Polemonium carneum Present / Absent Carex unilateralis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Potentilla gracillis Present / Absent Castilleja hispida 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Ranunculus alismifolius 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Castilleja levisecta Present / Absent Ranunculus occidentalis Present / Absent Danthonia californica 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Ranunculus orthorhynchus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Delphinium menziesii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Sericocarpus rigidus Present / Absent Delphinium nuttallii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Sidalcea malviflora var. virgata Present / Absent Deschampsia cespitosa 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Silene scouleri Present / Absent Deschampsia danthonioides 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Sisyrinchium idahoense 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Dodecatheon hendersonii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Solidago missouriensis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Downingia yina 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Solidago simplex (S. spathulata)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Erigeron speciosus 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Toxicoscordion venenosum var. venenosum (Zigadenus venenosus)1 2 3 4 5 N/A 2022 Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Prairie Screening Data Sheet 227192240203 & 22719240201 Peterson Brothers, LLC. Key McMurry, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. October 28, 2022 Eriophyllum lanatum Cover: ___ m2 N/A Trifolium willdenowii (T. tridentatum)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Eryngium petiolatum Present / Absent Triteleia grandiflora 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Festuca roemeri (F. idahoensis)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Triteleia hyacinthina 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Fragaria virginiana Cover: ___ m2 N/A Veratrum californicum 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Fritillaria affinis 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Veratrum viride 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Hieracium scouleri 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Viola adunca 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Hosackia pinnata (Lotus pinnatus)Present / Absent Viola praemorsa var. nuttallii 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Koeleria macrantha (K. cristata)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Leptosiphon bicolor (Linanthus b.)1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lomatium bradshawii Present / Absent Lomatium nudicaule 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lomatium triternatum 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Lomatium utriculatum Present / Absent Species Notes 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 Non-CAO vegetation notes: *Species Count Class: 1 = < 25 2 = 25 -49 3 = 50 -74 4 = 75 -100 5 = >100 Prairie Plant Manual: https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/ planning/planningdocuments/cao- prairie-plant-manual-4.23.2018.pdf Cirsium arvense Taraxacum officinale Populus balsamifera Rubus laciniatus Hypochaeris radicata Rubus armenicus Polytrichum juniperinum Avena sativa Dactylis glomerata Plantago lanceolata Phalaris arundinacea Cytisus scoparius October 28, 2022